[chadh]

Of course we have good auditory memory, otherwise how would we be able to make any judgements at all regarding the sound quality of anything?

Now that's what I call a self-serving argument!

Ultimately, this is the whole issue that is raised:  if we really can't remember enough to make valid comparisons, then all of these judgments and choices that we make, and claim are based on our recollections, must be motivated by something else.  Simply stating that we DO make choices doesn't establish that they are based on valid comparisons.  In fact, having made choices, we also have an incentive to justify those choices.  This is precisely the sort of thing that potentially motivates us to overinflate our own perception of the accuracy of auditory memory.  The more money I invest in my system, the more important it becomes to insist upon the accuracy of my memory.

This is why this type of question is really kind of silly:  a bunch of people will say "I have perfect recollection of how my system sounds that lasts over a period of 12 months", or "Because I listen to my system 8 hours a day whilst I work, I know and remember it perfectly."  And these statements mean absolutely nothing.  Nor is it meaningful for any person to respond with a comment like, "Prove to me that your auditory memory is accurate."  The inability of a person to prove a claim doesn't invalidate the claim.  It simply leaves it unproven.

For me, the more interesting question would be whether it is possible to devise a test or an experiment that would shed light on the effectiveness of auditory memory.

Chad

[zybar]

I think even if we can come to an agreement on auditory memory, we still have the bigger issue of us all hearing and perceiving things differently.

In the past month I have had people come over and hear my system.  Two of the guys are lifelong musicians (drummers) who really know their stuff.  However, they each had very differing opinions on how the hi-hats sounded on my system when played the same songs.

Person A thought it was one of the better recreations in terms of presence, body, space, and initial transient response...he basically felt that it sounded like the real thing!

Person B thought it was a little soft, lacking in initial transient response, and didn't sound like the real thing.

Which person is right?   

Does it even matter?

Time to have adult beverage and simply enjoy the system I love.   

George

[JackD201]

For me, the more interesting question would be whether it is possible to devise a test or an experiment that would shed light on the effectiveness of auditory memory.

Chad

Here's an easy test.

Close your eyes and turn on the TV. Listen to the dialogue for 30 seconds. Turn it off. Now repeat what the folks on TV said word for word.

Chances are you'll remember the subject of the conversation and probably most of the important points. If the dialogue was well delivered it might have even elicited an emotional response but that's it. That is how accurate auditory memory is. I don't think we're wired to remember every little detail but are instead wired to remember what is of importance. Yes, fight or flight.

This is not to say that we can't re-wire our brains at least partially. Being into this hobby, we give more importance to musical content and quality of it's reproduction than the average person. Thus we condition ourselves to "remember" more. Still, we have to put our observations into neat little boxes for long term storage labelled with adjectives like warm, bright, spacious and the like. Clearly there is some translation going on and that auditory memory is more like a distilled version rather than an exact copy. This makes it inaccurate from a purely empirical point of view. Within the context of the "labels" however, what our impressions are, these impressions may or may not be empirically accurate but are at least in my opinion totally valid even in the presence of biases and preconditioning. Impressions are impressions. They are as personal as opinions. You like what you like.

Having said that, this applies to all types of sensory memory. Analogies are made in the mind to cement their presence. Whether you're an avid bird watcher or an expert wine taster, these connections have to be etched in the brain.

The question then is, why is it such a big deal?. I echo Zybar. Does it matter at all?  I think what does matters is that whomever gives his impressions is putting forth HONEST impressions. He need not be a golden ear with good auditory memory to do that.

I treat the phrase "Auditory memory being what it is,........" as nothing more than a disclaimer.

[oneinthepipe]

whether it is possible to devise a test or an experiment that would shed light on the effectiveness of auditory memory.

Sure.  A test could be devised.  Possibly a modified audiological test with variations in volume, pitch, etc., with the baseline sound provided at various intervals for various durations.  The tests for recollection could be completed at various periods from listening from the baseline sound and the volume, pitch, etc., could be adjusted.  Everyone's hearing is different, and the test group would need to be fairly large. 

Listen to the dialogue for 30 seconds. Turn it off. Now repeat what the folks on TV said word for word.

This might involve more than hearing, however, and might be influenced by attentional issues and verbal comprehension issues.

This is also similar to one of the verbal tests that neurologists give to patients to rule out significant memory loss from Alzheimer's disease or dementia, often repeating a story several times then asking the patient, after one minute, five minutes, etc., to repeat the story.

[JerryM]

Sure.  A test could be devised.  Possibly a modified audiological test with variations in volume, pitch, etc., with the baseline sound provided at various intervals for various durations.  The tests for recollection could be completed at various periods from listening from the baseline sound and the volume, pitch, etc., could be adjusted.  Everyone's hearing is different, and the test group would need to be fairly large.

Let me choose the song that will be played during the 'test', and I'll bet you the majority present would recognize a change in volume, pitch, tempo, and so on.

However, a majority can be a small margin. A measurable percentage will likely notice no difference. A measurable percentage will like the distorted version(s) more than they liked the baseline. A measurable percentage will think your taste in music sucks. And, lastly, a small but measurable percentage will think "Who cares. Gotta beer?" 

Then, the wife kicks in with "You're doing this again???" 

Yeah, maybe we can make this a legititmate 'Test' so I can have a better answer to that... 

Have fun,
Jerry

[JackD201]

Listen to the dialogue for 30 seconds. Turn it off. Now repeat what the folks on TV said word for word.

This might involve more than hearing, however, and might be influenced by attentional issues and verbal comprehension issues.

This is also similar to one of the verbal tests that neurologists give to patients to rule out significant memory loss from Alzheimer's disease or dementia, often repeating a story several times then asking the patient, after one minute, five minutes, etc., to repeat the story.

Exactly what I'm theorizing Pipe. I think it is mainly a comprehension issue and not a hearing acuity or memory issue. I think it's about being able to appreciate the musical experience rather than remember every single molecular compression or rarefaction it was made of. The same attentional issues apply to music and pitch and amplitude tests and if the music has lyrics, verbal comprehension issues apply as well.

As this applies to audio equipment, we can forget exactly what we heard but are likely not going to forget our reactions to what we heard especially if it was spectacularly good or bad    Once I'm able to assign even a rudimentary "character" or set thereof, then that's what gets remembered. The "character" can then be superimposed and I can sort of imagine what it would sound like with a particular piece of music or mixed up with gear with characters of their own. I sure as heck don't get it right all the time and have ended up with a whole lot of synergistic dead ends (aka Dog combinations) over the last 25 years but it's still better than buying stuff without listening to it at all.

[chadh]

Since the sort of information we typically share concerns the relative performance of various pieces of equipment, it seems that the most important tests to undertake would be to see how consistently a person can rank two comparable pieces of equipment as the time between listening to the two increases.  The criteria on which the items are judged wouldn't really matter, and could easily be completely subjective, since the aim would not be to establish the ability to identify anything in an absolute sense, but only to assess the consistency of the person's rankings.

For example, suppose I listen to two systems side-by-side, and form my impressions of the two without any reliance on auditory memory.  The two differ only in one dimension (e.g. a pair of interconnects).  Then, over time, I continue to listen to the same system, but periodically the interconnects are changed. Each time the interconnects are changed, I have to rank these interconnects relative to the first two.  In this sequence of interconnects, both the first two interconnects appear randomly.  The rankings I assign are then examined to find intransitivities.  The person with "completely reliable" auditory memory will display no intransitivities in her rankings.  The person whose rankings of that pair of subjects is indistinguishable from a random draw would seem to have poor auditory memory (or extremely fickle preferences).  We could also see how the correlation between rankings decays over time, to get a feeling for how quickly this aspect of auditory memory wanes.

Chad

[Mariusz]

Time to have adult beverage and simply enjoy the system I love.   

George

Agree

[JackD201]

I agree Chad, but is it in reference to the two prior cables or the databank of collective experience? I mean is it the way the cables sounded or was it the cable's noted contributions, good or bad, that is remembered? For me it's the latter. For the life of me I can't imagine how a cable or any other piece of equipment can sound on its own given that by itself there is no sound at all.

The tricky part is trying to extrapolate or infer characteristics that would show up consistently in a wide variety of system configurations without going overboard and assigning a stereotype. Some call it color, some call it flavor. Every piece of gear has some so it can be done. This is of course not to be confused with capabilities like bandwidth and other quantifiables that exist independently of the subjectively rated quality of those quantities.

In the end it's it's like painting a broad picture of something or taking notes in class. I don't expect to get it perfectly right but try to get a reasonable understanding for future reference and not in the formation of any absolutes regarding any particular piece. This to be used to narrow down options in an environment where there are so many choices. I don't believe however that there can be TOO many choices.

[Browntrout]

I just pulled this from a site concerning auditory memory and how it affects students/children.


 "Auditory memory involves being able to take in information that is presented orally, to process that information, store it in one's mind and then recall what one has heard. Basically, it involves the skills of attending, listening, processing, storing, and recalling. Because students with auditory memory weaknesses pick up only bits and pieces of what is being said during a classroom lecture, they make sense of only little of what is said by the teacher. Afterwards they are able to recall only a small amount or none of what was said, says Cusimano. 

 Students with auditory memory deficiencies will often experience difficulty developing a good understanding of words, remembering terms and information that has been presented orally, for example, in history and science classes. 

 These students will also experience difficulty processing and recalling information that they have read to themselves. When we read we must listen and process information we say to ourselves, even when we read silently. If we do not attend and listen to our silent input of words, we cannot process the information or recall what we have read. Therefore, even silent reading involves a form of listening, says Cusimano.

Research also suggests that children with spelling problems have deficits in auditory memory skills." 

 
 Now to say that we use auditory listening when we are reading inside our heads to ourselves is really interesting to me. Does this mean that to remember our own thoughts (in words) we use our auditory memory? If we do not 'internally silently verbalise' our thoughts do we use a different memory?
   Finally when listening to music without words do we verbalise it in our minds as we listen, no, I'm pretty sure I don't, so are we using a different memory mechanism for music with lyrics than music without? This seems quite plausible to me.

[ooheadsoo]

I think many people do not understand what is meant when it is claimed that people have poor auditory memory.  Go to any music theory or musicianship class and take some elementary dictation tests and you will instantly grasp the problem, barring you have some genius musical ear like Mozart or are otherwise in the top 3% of the class.  A test like that will quickly reveal whether you can remember what you heard or not.  Let's say you reject that anecdote when it applies to things you hear with a lot of repetition, that with enough repetition, you will remember it perfectly.  Ever write a paper dissecting performance practice and comparing different performances of the same piece?  Again, in the event you are not a musical genius, I think you will find yourself "going back to the well" again...and again...and again...Just because you have heard the performance say 50 times for each version by no means indicates you will remember what it sounds like when you get down to all the fine little details.  Nevermind the fact that the last thing you want to do is listen to the damn thing again.  The fine details of auditory memory are very elusive and the deeper you delve, the more you realize how limited our auditory memory is in so many respects.  Ever judge recital/ensemble competitions?  Better hope you take some darn good notes, and compare them to the other judges'.

Having done these things, I can personally attest that my auditory memory is quite bad indeed, and that it is also considerably above average.  The golden ear audiophiles must be that top 3% or better "cream of the crop."  There are certainly those people out there who are essentially geniuses when it comes down to these kinds of things.  But the average joe?  No way, I can't imagine it in a million years.  They have no idea what it even means to remember what something sounds like. 

This is not to say I only believe in strict double blind instant A/B switch tests, but I do have my doubts.  I can easily concede that there are some differences that only become obvious over time, and that these differences, once identified, can be more easily and quickly found thereafter.  Just don't...never mind.

[JackD201]

I think many people do not understand what is meant when it is claimed that people have poor auditory memory.  Go to any music theory or musicianship class and take some elementary dictation tests and you will instantly grasp the problem, barring you have some genius musical ear like Mozart or are otherwise in the top 3% of the class.  A test like that will quickly reveal whether you can remember what you heard or not.  Let's say you reject that anecdote when it applies to things you hear with a lot of repetition, that with enough repetition, you will remember it perfectly.  Ever write a paper dissecting performance practice and comparing different performances of the same piece?  Again, in the event you are not a musical genius, I think you will find yourself "going back to the well" again...and again...and again...Just because you have heard the performance say 50 times for each version by no means indicates you will remember what it sounds like when you get down to all the fine little details.  Nevermind the fact that the last thing you want to do is listen to the damn thing again.  The fine details of auditory memory are very elusive and the deeper you delve, the more you realize how limited our auditory memory is in so many respects.  Ever judge recital/ensemble competitions?  Better hope you take some darn good notes, and compare them to the other judges'.

Having done these things, I can personally attest that my auditory memory is quite bad indeed, and that it is also considerably above average.  The golden ear audiophiles must be that top 3% or better "cream of the crop."  There are certainly those people out there who are essentially geniuses when it comes down to these kinds of things.  But the average joe?  No way, I can't imagine it in a million years.  They have no idea what it even means to remember what something sounds like. 

This is not to say I only believe in strict double blind instant A/B switch tests, but I do have my doubts.  I can easily concede that there are some differences that only become obvious over time, and that these differences, once identified, can be more easily and quickly found thereafter.  Just don't...never mind.

This post pretty much sums it up, as far as I'm concerned.

[zybar]

BTW, when I am seriously comparing gear in my system, I take notes about what I hear and what I feel.

Geeky?  Absolutely!

Helpful?  You bet!

I feel that it allows me to more accurately compare things.

As others have stated, I am not so concerned with my auditory memory, as I am with my general memory.   aa

FWIW, I am a very big note taker in the work place.  This ensures that I don't miss things and allows me to more effectively do my job.

George

[JackD201]

Can't knock something that works George.

Jack

[sts9fan]

Time to have adult beverage and simply enjoy the system I love.   
George

Here here!

So I thought a bit more on the subject on my short drive into work today.  I think that another thing that effects the memory of what a cd player etc sounds like is the music.  When you compare two peices of gear what is 99.9% of the information you are processing?  So when it comes to memory the small details are lost and the meat remains.  In this case the music is the meat.
Will I test this hypothosis by listening to test tones?
No...

[rydenfan]

BTW, when I am seriously comparing gear in my system, I take notes about what I hear and what I feel.

Geeky?  Absolutely!

Helpful?  You bet!

I feel that it allows me to more accurately compare things.

As others have stated, I am not so concerned with my auditory memory, as I am with my general memory.   aa

FWIW, I am a very big note taker in the work place.  This ensures that I don't miss things and allows me to more effectively do my job.

George

+1

I find diligent note taking to be extremely helpful and a nice reminder if it has been awhile. Plus the look on my wife's face when she finds note comparing different tubes is pretty priceless 

[zybar]

+1

I find diligent note taking to be extremely helpful and a nice reminder if it has been awhile. Plus the look on my wife's face when she finds note comparing different tubes is pretty priceless 

My wife can understand notes on tubes...but power cords and cables have her just laughing and laughing.   

George

[twitch54]

For example, suppose I listen to two systems side-by-side, and form my impressions of the two without any reliance on auditory memory.  The two differ only in one dimension (e.g. a pair of interconnects). 

While all this is nice one must remember when doing component comparrisons, 'level matching' is essential, otherwise regardless of your audutory skills / memory it's all but meaningless.

[Browntrout]

I'm going to suggest that listening critically to someone play an instrument is different to listening critically to a stereo. In the way we listen.
 

[*Scotty*]

I will suggest that there is no difference in the mechanism at all,only a difference in intention. The same task of critical listening could be done with a recording of someone playing the instrument. I think some of us are superbly aware of changes in our environment including changes to sounds in our environment, others not so much. For many followers of this hobby hearing a change in sound when a different piece of gear is inserted into the system is at the core of their enjoyment of the hobby. Being sensitive to subtle changes in the sounds in ones environment is a survival mechanism,which is why I think some of us are adept at spotting small changes in the sound of our stereos. This innate ability is substantially augmented by an A-B-A comparison or single blind testing when necessary.
While the processor is certainly vulnerable to errors and self generated misidentifications these are avoidable with the insertion of the aforementioned testing methodologies. I think a lot of the arguing that occurs when discussions of the audibility of various types changes to cabling, powercords,and even electronics, can be attributed to individual variation in thresholds of perception. What also must be taken into consideration is improvements in the technology of the equipment we listen to. Twenty-five years ago even radical changes in speaker-wire and interconnect design and materials were hardly audible to me and my hearing was certainly better back then. What has changed in my system in the intervening years is its components circuit design and parts quality as well as the advanced technology employed in the loudspeakers. The combination of these two things has lowered the perceptual threshold at which changes to the system can be heard by substantial amount, rendering previously unheard factors influencing the sound of the system clearly audible.
Scotty