[James Tanner]

Hi All,

"Everyones ears are different" - I hear (no pun intended) this all the time and I thought it might make a great topic for discussion.

Lets say 3 of us go to listen to an unamplified trio with a set of drums, a saxophone and a piano. We then go to each persons home and listen to a CD of that very same recording on each of our own audio systems. Would there be a consensus among the 3 of us as to which system sounded the closest to the original live recording we just heard?

Is it not really more a matter of 'we all have different preferences' rather than 'everyones ears are different'?

james

[Brown]

It would be easier to determine using the live performannce as a reference. If one to use the CD as the reference it would be then be subjective to the listeners preference. IMO preferences will come into play more when live unamplified music is used as the reference.
    Every time we have conducted this we ALL were so disappointed in the reproduction it hurts, nothing like the real deal.
 As far as the ears being different probably falls into th equation. How much ? Not qualified to answer that.

[Sasha]

I think the question is if 3 buddies have been exposed to the sound of live, unamplified and unprocessed acoustic instruments sufficiently in their lives for their brains to establish reference and be able to recognize such sound. If this is the case then without any question there would be consensus among the 3 what system sounds closest to live event.
If on the other hand they had their brains wired based on reproduced sound with very little exposure to live sound then inevitably there would be disagreements.
They will base their judgment on specific colorations and distortions they find pleasing.
Take wine for example, how many people, especially in North America, have appreciation for wines, and can differentiate wines with low margin of error based on grape, area, etc.
How can a person that never tasted east coast ocean water say if bottled salted ionized water tastes like that ocean?

[zybar]

James,

I think there are a couple of factors here:

1.  People have different levels of experience and different reference points.  Even if each person heard the same thing (see point 2), I don't think they would always describe what they heard in the same way.  

2.  I believe (I am certainly no expert on this topic) that we do hear differently.  Some people hear "better" than others in general.  Most of us lose our ability to hear higher frequencies as we get older or if we damage our ears.  I don't believe these differences are extremely large, but they are significant enough for us to hear the same music and process it differently.

When you add up the physical aspects of hearing things differently, with people's personal experiences and preferences, we get into a situation where there is very varied comments and opinions.

At least that's what I think.   aa

BTW, this is a great topic for discussion and it might get more views and posts if it was over in Audio Central instead of the Bryston Circle.

George

[James Tanner]

OK lets try this. Given that we all have different experiences with listening to music or better or worst hearing abilities as stated above.

The same 3 guys stand in front of a household FAN and we stick a piece of cardboard through that fan while it's rotating? The cardboard gets shredded and we record the sound onto a CD.

We then take that CD and play it on 3 different audio systems. Would not the system that was the 'most accurate' reproduce that shedding sound of cardboard through a fan more accurately and everyone would agree?  Even if our hearing mechanisms were different regarding frequency response etc. the reproduced sound would be relevant to our own specific hearing acuity's. So in other words the more accurate system would be more accurate to each of us?

james

[zybar]

OK lets try this. Given that we all have different experiences with listening to music as stated above.

The same 3 guys stand in front of a household FAN and we stick a piece of cardboard through that fan while it's rotating? The cardboard gets shredded and we record the sound onto a CD.

We then take that CD and play it on 3 different audio systems. Would not the system that was the 'most accurate' reproduce that shedding sound of cardboard through a fan more accurately and everyone would agree?  Even if our hearing mechanisms were different regarding frequency response etc. the reproduced sound would be relevant to our own specific hearing acuity's. So in other words the more accurate system would be more accurate to each of us?

james

James,

I would hope that the most accurate system would be apparent to all people, but my experience has shown that not to be the case.  You have lots of experience, what are your observations?

George

[arthurs]

Mitch Albom's ears are different....

[Sasha]

OK lets try this. Given that we all have different experiences with listening to music or better or worst hearing abilities as stated above.

The same 3 guys stand in front of a household FAN and we stick a piece of cardboard through that fan while it's rotating? The cardboard gets shredded and we record the sound onto a CD.

We then take that CD and play it on 3 different audio systems. Would not the system that was the 'most accurate' reproduce that shedding sound of cardboard through a fan more accurately and everyone would agree?  Even if our hearing mechanisms were different regarding frequency response etc. the reproduced sound would be relevant to our own specific hearing acuity's. So in other words the more accurate system would be more accurate to each of us?

james

Very good example, we are dealing here with sound were mentioned HF hearing differences play no role.
Taking into the consideration the experience of 3 guys as described previously, absolutely yes, there will be agreement on the most accurate system.
Example, I listened to live performance of a large choir supported by a few acoustic instruments, which was at the same time recorded with a pair of mics, digitized at 24/192.
I took that raw recording and played on few systems, so whatever mics picked up was there.
It was very easy to hear shortcoming of each system in reference to live performance , and those shortcomings were universally agreeable.
On the other hand those that did not witness this specific live performance and/or had limited exposure to live sound were of opinions that somewhat differed.
There is no question about it, just consider how many people are convinced there is no difference between redbook and 320kbps compressed files, not to mention higher resolutions, unfortunately majority of consumers fall into that camp.

[niels]

All of my systems have fooled my cats to think there are birds in the speakers, people are not fooled so easily. Unfortunately I cant afford a system that might fool me.

[laserman]

James,

Great topic!

Like others have stated, we all have our own unique hearing signature based on the physical construction of our ears and real life experience/attacks on our inner ear.  We then establish individual preferences due to those two factors.  This together with the frequency response emitted from speakers and room environment interaction will create different conclusions by the participants involved in providing listening comparison impressions.

How big the differences are depends…on all the above in degrees.  I personally like to have other folks, whom I have gotten to know and recognize their preferences, with me when I perform an in-depth evaluation of a new piece of equipment.  We have all added to each other’s overall assessment of the listening experience.

So, what may be one person’s accurate system may be another’s way to bright system and another’s dull system.

I wonder what Lester William Polsfuss (aka Less Paul) would comment about this.  Afterall, he became not only a legendary guitar player but also a master recording enigeer.  He learned how to get just the right sound using different rooms and bed mattresses in a house to produce various acoustic voicings.  He started doing this in the late 40’s and then went on to pioneer many of the technological advances being used in studios today.

[TONEPUB]

I think it is a little bit of both....

If everyone went and got their ears critically measured, I'd bet we all have a db or two
difference at various points.  So if my hearing has a 1/2 db boost at 10k and yours has
a 1/2 db dip there, the speaker I think is a little bright would probably sound a little different,
etc, etc.

Also, throwing accuracy out the window, most people usually have a preference of the
way they like their system to sound.  Even if your system is bright or whatever if that's your
preference, it's ok.

One of my staff members was hearing my system for the first time and he said,
"your system is way too musical"  I like to hear every single wart in the recording
and peel the paint off the walls with detail...

But, once you know what someone else likes, it's a lot easier to make a suggestion
to what they should check out for their system.  That's what makes reviewing such an
iffy process.  If I knew exactly what you liked, it's easy to suggest more for you to listen
to.

Kind of like when you order a CD on Amazon and they make suggestions based on that....

Definitely a great post!

[James Tanner]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the input. I realize I am speaking in hypothetical’s here because no speaker or system is perfect and I will exaggerate to make a point but...

Let’s assume that your hearing is dead flat at 10K as you suggest above and mine is 3dB down at 10K.
We both listen to a live singer in a room and record her voice. Then we listen to that voice recording on a playback audio system that is also dead flat at 10K. 

Would we not both agree (even though our hearing is different) that the dead flat audio system was in fact more accurate?  Conversely if the audio system had a 3dB dip at 10K then it would sound dull to both of use because it would be down 3dB from our personal reference point based on the live voice experience?  Down 3dB for you because your hearing is dead flat at 10K and down 3dB for me as well (for me a total of 6dB from flat because my hearing is already down 3dB at 10K)?

[Russell Dawkins]

Let's not forget the fairly-easily replicated experiment done by Sennheiser 20-odd years ago where they had a number of engineers listen to a performance of an instrumental ensemble while it was recorded on numerous pairs of tracks, each pair originating from miniature (Sennheiser) microphones worn stethoscope-style within the ears of each engineer. In this binaural mic, which is configured like a stethoscope, the sensing elements are very small, enabling them to be positioned near the ear drums, and not particularly impeding the passage of sound waves down the ear canal in the process.

On auditioning the results, each engineer was very easily able to tell which track pair originated from his ears. Apparently the sounds as influenced by the pinnae were very different from each other.

[mfsoa]

I have a theory I don't really believe in and have no evidence for, but here goes:

Do you know those "Magic Eye" kind of pictures where you far-focus your eyes and these amazing, hidden images come off the page in all their 3D glory?

I wonder if people posess different levels of this in their hearing - And maybe experienced audiophiles have the ability to somehow alter or access a different kind of hearing that gives us that eerie brain-visual disconnect when a system really images well.

I think this "super-hearing" or state of extra-enhanced attentiveness uses parts of the brain that, for some reason, just gives us pleasure that isn't acheived by the average listener.

In the same way that a motorcycle ride relaxes by actually having the mind process tons in information -

"The Zone" feels good however you get there - It's kinda cool that we can do it with music!

-Mike

[Tyson]

Shape of the outer ear most definitely influences how you hear and process sound.  Try this experiment - listen to a track of music like you normally would.  The restart the track and listen to it with you hands cupped behind your ears.  Sounds different.  Same is true for the changes in ear shape from person to person. 

[James Tanner]

Shape of the outer ear most definitely influences how you hear and process sound.  Try this experiment - listen to a track of music like you normally would.  The restart the track and listen to it with you hands cupped behind your ears.  Sounds different.  Same is true for the changes in ear shape from person to person. 

Yes but if you cupped your ears at the live recording venue would it sound the same using cupped ears with the most accurate sound system?

james

[Tyson]

If the playback system is absolutely perfect, with zero deviations from the sound of live music, then you are correct the "perfectly accurate" system will sound the same as the original event to everyone.

My point is that there is no "perfect" playback system currently, so every single one of them deviates in "some" way from live sound.  Where these deviations occur is different from one system to the next.

Different ears mean we have different sensitivities to these deviations.  So, someone with a high level of sensitivity to odd order harmonic distortion might prefer the sound of a tube based system, even though a tube system may have more overall distortion.

[Sasha]

Interesting discussion, but it seems to me everyone dwells on frequency response flatness.
If reproduction chain is not capable of producing natural dynamic levels, rounds leading edges, creates artificially long decays, etc., it will sound nothing like live event no matter how flat it is in frequency domain.
Or even if it does everything perfectly well, but is flat on axis only with serious deviations off-axis, it will sound nothing like live event (unless listened to in an anechoic chamber I guess).

[konut]

Another thing that has not been mentioned is that no recording method, even the most audiophile stringent, can capture the live event in the same way that our ears perceive the world. The most one can hope for is a recording that does the least damage to the music, that contributes to our "suspension of disbelief" regarding our enjoyment of the performance. The same could be said for the playback chain.

[Tyson]

Agreed, recorded music is by nature artificial.  The best we can hope to do is to create a compelling, involving musical event at home.  It might not ever be exactly the same as the live event, but it can still be great, nonetheless.