[zybar]

All over the internet, I see post after post saying our auditory memory stinks and isn't something we can rely on when making comparisons and observations about our audio systems.

The more I think about this type of statement, the more I am inclined to disagree with it.

We clearly have very good auditory memory when it comes to recognizing tens of thousands of sounds, voices, instruments, etc...so why do people think when it comes to our audio systems that we can't remember what something sounds like?  I would think that something that we spend hundreds or thousands of hours in front of (our own audio systems) would allow us to easily identify differences (even subtle ones).

I think some of the basis for people believing we don't have good, detailed auditory memory is that people tend not to do very well in some blind tests.  Tests that have many possibilities or entrants tend to be difficult for people to do well at consistently.  However, similar results are found when it comes to testing food and drink. 

Here is an example:

People don't seem to have much difficulty picking out which is Coke and which is Pepsi when only these two brands are the only choices in a blind test.  Add a third cola and all of sudden people can't figure out what's what. 

Do we maybe have the same issue when there are too many choices in our audio blind tests?

What do you guys think?

George

[bummrush]

Its what some say i dont believe it for a minute,and have plenty good memories of systems,and if i listen to some of the same class of components i dont doubt for a minute that it will come back to me what i liked and didnt like about them.

[emac]

I think that the answer lies somewhere in the middle on this issue.  Our hearing is good enough to separate out the differences between different types of equipment.  And with some practice you can learn to categorize what the sound is like (both good and bad).  So, typically there aren't huge problems with our ability to detect differences.

But when it comes to memory, I just don't think we are set up to be able to compare equipment very well.  We have basically 3 types of declarative memory: immediate, short-term, and long-term.  Immediate is what you did a minute or 2 ago.  Short-term is something like where you parked your car or what you ate earlier in the day.  And long-term is self explanatory.  To me, having a type of sound in immediate memory is probably the most useful for comparing audio equipment, especially if you've trained yourself to be able to capture the essence of the sound you're listening to (i.e. know what to listen to in order to tell the differences).  So, if you quickly switch back and forth between sources, you can hear and hopefully categorize the differences because the sound of the past source is immediately available. 

Also, I think that this ability is dependent on how you're switching between sources and the music used.  If you switch between sources during the middle of a track and continue playing it from that point, it's a lot more difficult because you're comparing the essences of the sound rather than the same sounds.  So, your immediate memory isn't as helpful.  Additionally, if you're familiar with a track, it's a lot easier to compare it between sources.  With a track you're familiar with, you have a sense of the essence of the track in your mind already.  So, you can listen for that essence and hear how it differs between sources. 

As for short term memory, it's certainly possible to use this type of memory to compare equipment, but it's more difficult.  During the progression from one level of memory to another, you often lose some of the information.  Our memories are not exact, just like our vision isn't.  We take a snapshot of the important information and fill in the rest.  Doing otherwise would require brain processing power we don't have and would be inefficient because we'd have too much info stored.  Anyway, if you're familiar w/ the baseline sound, you should be able to detect differences between it and what you're hearing at that moment.  However, it is difficult be able to give much more than broad differences (e.g. the bass isn't as tight) and the smaller differences (e.g. that note doesn't sound as sharp). 

As for long-term memory, it's difficult to use it accurately, but not impossible.  You need to really know the baseline system very well (hundreds if not thousands of hours on it). 

There are 2 other problems that contribute to the problems w/ audiophile memory.  First, despite what people say, the differences between equipment is not huge.  That's why when people do a listening test, they are often surprised at how little of a difference there is.  So, it's difficult to categorize and to remember the 1-5% differences between equipment.  Secondly, people's opinions play a big role.  If someone really likes a piece of equipment, it can bias their memories and blind them to the differences at hand. 

So, just some rambling thoughts from a former psychology major.   

[*Scotty*]

I think ones aural memory is a talent that can be developed with exercise. There are skill sets associated with everything that can be learned and if those are developed the ability to remember things one has heard will follow. A beginning audiophile always has to learn how to listen for things like stereo imaging and the other things audiophiles consider important. Frequently they have to learn how to pay attention in the first place.
Scotty

[oneinthepipe]

Some people have better memories than other people.  I.Q. test (WISC-IV) results are heavily based upon memory.  Additionally, people can be trained to identify and retain specific types of data.  There are other variables, such as hearing quality, I suspect.  Then there are the psychoacoustics. 

[Browntrout]

I think the brain and auditory system are exceptional. When I was eight my mother would play a short ten second excerpt from the radio and I could tell her which composer the piece was by. I did this by listening for the nationality of each work first then the  human character to fine tune my answer. There is so much to the way we listen.
   It's not so much about the physical side of hearing rather perception. Scientific testing is largely bogus, it's like asking ten people if they love their girlfriends and assuming that each one that said yes harbours the same quantifiable feelings. Daft really.

[JerryM]

I'm not quite sure it relates to audiophilia, but I think auditory memory is one of the key things that makes listening cool.

I deal with dozens and dozens of folks on a regular basis. Some nearly daily. Others, bi-annually at best. In the first couple of sentences I can tell if they are having a good day, a bad day, are concerned, depressed, etc. Not by what they say, but by the tone of their voice.

But, that's folks I'm used to.

Have you ever been in a public place and heard the same tone expressed by a complete stranger, who was speaking to someone else? It's not just inflection; it's a definitive sound.

Maybe that's not as much auditory memory as instinct? 

Cool topic,
Jerry

[sts9fan]

Taste is more powerful because it is a combo of two senses. 
I am not sure how bad it is but I do know how good people are on convincing themselves of things.
You spend lots of $$$ on this stuff.  You need to convince yourself it is better then before.
I think there are audible differences.  I love the hobby.  I also firmly believe that auditory memory is very poor mainly do to the small differences.
To me it like a little more salt not changing ingredients.   

 

[bummrush]

believe me i remember the sound of my digital amps just fine, i 'll take my old counterpoint any day,especially since it actually sounds good.

[zybar]

Taste is more powerful because it is a combo of two senses. 
I am not sure how bad it is but I do know how good people are on convincing themselves of things.
You spend lots of $$$ on this stuff.  You need to convince yourself it is better then before.
I think there are audible differences.  I love the hobby.  I also firmly believe that auditory memory is very poor mainly do to the small differences.
To me it like a little more salt not changing ingredients.   

I disagree on the money comment, but we can save that for another thread.

Keeping with your food analogy...if I eat the same meal every day, little changes can make a big impact!

BTW, I have over a dozen different types of salt and pepper, so I can vary the taste of my meals.   aa

George 

[JackD201]

I think it's being used as a defense mechanism of some sort so folks don't get pinned down. I think there should be no need for it except that in this hobby there are just so many people that get their kicks by tearing down philosophies of other "camps" and folks just out to prove theirs is better.

Here's what I mean. In the visual art world I've never seen enthusiasts knock the eyeglasses the other guy is wearing. You'd never see one guy say you should use so and so because the reds are redder. Thus you would never get the comeback that so and so is a complete waste of money because tests show that vision is corrected exactly the same degree because the eye doc's instruments say so. Without this then one would never get to the part where there is a challenge for a double blind test that will probably be inconclusive because lighting conditions are likely totally different. It wouldn't be surprising then to hear "Visual memory being as bad as it is...." from pundits of BOTH assertions when asked to compare So and So v1 w So and So v7  or Discount Eyeware V2 and V9. Of course any comparisons between any S & S with any Discount E will have visual memory at 100%!  But you know what? Visual memory IS bad. In criminal cases, visual IDs are one of the weakest forms of evidence......along with auditory memory. 

Hearing is a combination of two senses too. Hearing and touch.  Even mini monitors that roll off at 70hz can serve up ample doses of "touch" while playing at modest SPLs. What makes taste so enduring is, to risk being redundant three times over, duration. A musical note passes quickly while the taste process can be extended by simply not swallowing or spitting out. That is unless some masochist enjoys evaluating a system using white and pink noise instead of actual music. The closest thing with real music is to loop a passage. Even that is masochistic in my opinion.

What IS enduring, however, AND unimpeachable as well, is the personal impression one derives from a musical experience. What is tiresome when reading reviews in the press is having a sense that the reviewer attributes all the properties to that one piece of equipment and not enough talk of the interactions with the rest of the system and room. Heck some reviews don't even list associated gear much less even a rudimentary description of the acoustic space. I still read reviews though because sometimes living vicariously through a total stranger is all you can get.

[chadh]

Suppose I showed you two cars, and tell you that one is scarlet and the other is crimson.  Being a devoted student of the color wheel, you know that scarlet is "orangier" than crimson, and easily identify which of the cars is scarlet.

But now imagine you saw one car in the morning and one car in the afternoon.  Later that evening, I tell you that one car was scarlet and the other crimson, and ask you to identify which was which.  Effectively, I'm requiring you to remember which car was "orangier".  I suspect that most people would have a hard time doing this reliably.  On the other hand, if your own car was scarlet, then it would be much more likely that you would identify the difference in colors reliably.

Of course, if the two cars had been green and pink, I imagine many people would recall this difference reliably (especially if they had an inkling that the colors of the cars would be of some importance later on).

I think that similar characterizations could be made of auditory memory. 
There are some differences that will be recalled effectively by any fool with ears (e.g. the Bose wave radio I heard five years ago sounded far worse than the system in my house right now).  There are some differences that will not be recalled effectively by anyone (e.g. I auditioned X on Tuesday and Y on Thursday and X sounded warmer than Y), unless a well known reference is available against which both subjects can be compared (e.g. I auditioned X in my system in Tuesday and it sounded warmer than the status quo, and I auditioned Y on Thursday and it sounded more analytical than the status quo, so I conclude that X sounds warmer than Y).

It seems silly to suggest that auditory memory is extremely short when there are so many sounds that we can differentiate consistently based on past experiences.  However, this doesn't come close to saying that all auditory information is recalled accurately.  Audiophiles are confronted with difficulties because we strive to make relatively fine distinctions between auditory experiences and (apparently) care to make these distinctions credibly and objectively.  But it's the fine distinctions that are least likely to be recalled accurately.

Chad 

[mjosef]

Some people say a lot of unusual things...I have found auditory memory can be retained for over a year with regard to stereo-world. That might just be classified as unusual to some people. 

[sts9fan]

Keeping with your food analogy...if I eat the same meal every day, little changes can make a big impact!

For sure.  Although what if the same dish is made but the level of salt varies around the mean only slightly.  Would you, a year from tasting a slightly above the mean dish be able to tell the difference between it and the mean?

Anyway analogies don't always fit very good because you can always add "yeah buts".
I have thought about this a bit and my opinion is that its a tolerance issue.  Of course you can tell what a train sounds like form anything else because that is a large difference.  When music and hifi is evolved its WAY different.  Ben Harper is always Ben Harper and the instruments are always the same etc.  So the sounds/differences you are trying to retain are way smaller.  I would say a cables difference would be below the tolerance. 
I cannot think of a survival related reason we would need auditory memory tolerances as low as taste.  Taste is to prevent us from eating poison, rotten and non-nutritious food.  Its not a good analogy really.  As for as hearing goes we know its The Bee Gees and we should run.

[TomW16]

I don't have too much to contribute on the subject other than the placebo effect can be extremely powerful and is taken into account in pharmaceutical studies.

Auditory memory, in my opinion, isn't necessarily "bad" per se but is variable.  I have heard people say that the power supply in the evening is cleaner and, therefore, makes your system sound better.  This seems plausible but for me, I believe the reason my system sounds better in the evening is that the kids are in bed and the typical day-time noises are gone (e.g. lawn mowers, etc.).  I am probably more relaxed at that time in the day and can enjoy the system more.

Anyone feel that their system sounds better with a glass of wine?  I don't think that the sound changes with wine but the listener might be more receptive. 

All of this to say that the most variable part of the auditory process is the individual listener.

Cheers,
Tom

[sts9fan]

I have seen a study where people with Parkinson's had holes drilled in their head for direct gene therapy.  The control group just had the hole drilled.  The most improved subject only had the hole drilled and no treatment.
The human brain is an amazing thing.  You can really go crazy thinking about how it can convince itself that it can defeat itself.
How can something be more powerful then itself?

This is on topic because there is a chance that the difference you remember was greater then it actually was.  Thus putting it into another catagory of memory, or above the threshold of long term auditory memory. 

[*Scotty*]

To state the obvious, your hearing acuity and aural memory are a primary defense mechanism and tie directly into the fight or flight reflex. Fail to respond to the stimulus correctly and you die. Now it can be argued that we haven't needed this very much in the recent past and I suppose there are certain number of individuals currently in existence who do not now posses this ability in full measure. The gene pool is probably not being weeded as vigorously as it used to be. As far as the efficacy of treating Parkinson's with a placebo goes I would want a longterm study of those individuals who showed a marked improvement.
Scotty

[TheChairGuy]

Some people have better memories than other people.  I.Q. test (WISC-IV) results are heavily based upon memory.  Additionally, people can be trained to identify and retain specific types of data.  There are other variables, such as hearing quality, I suspect.  Then there are the psychoacoustics.

Good points here (not to at all sleight any of the other good points in this thread)

To the above variables I would just add repetition.

I listen to my (main) system more than most of you are able to as I work from home (for 15 years my primary work space is my home and that's where my system is).  So, assuming I'm not out of town on business, away on vacation or taking a break from music, I am listening for 8-12 hours on busy days.

String out maybe 100 of those days a year....and I catch things many would miss in their system listening for maybe a couple hours after work. I tend to hear almost every change - tho I can't always pinpoint what change was made or whether it's for the better or worse - but I hear nuances strictly due to the repetition (I believe)

In the end, the only thing I assess is if it sounds natural...like a live event itself.  That's my sole focus in creating a 'better' system.

Ciao, John

[TomW16]

To add more regarding the placebo effect, a long term study would likely show no long term improvement.  But long term clinical studies are expensive so that is why placebo arms are incorporated into short term clincial studies.  Placebo treatment of patients brings in ethical questions but that is a topic for another thread.

To keep this on the audio topic, I recall a Bryston story where only the color of the power button was changed on a particular amplifier (I can't recall all of the details) but many customers commented on the sonic improvement.  Just critically listening will often reveal "improvements" that were not obvious with casual listening.

Cheers,
Tom

[Tyson]

If we have poor auditory memory, then how do we remember and recognize things like people's voices?  Even subtle deviations (such as tone of voice) we can pick up on and recognize immediately (ie, "Honey, what's wrong?")

Plus, like everything else, we vary in our auditory talent.  For example, some people have perfect pitch, others do not.  But it's not an either-or situation, it's a continuum, with people falling all along the path from perfect pitch to tone deaf.  And that's just one aspect.  There are others that go into auditory perception and processing. 

In general, I think audiophiles are more tuned into their hearing abilities than the general populace, otherwise there'd be no hobby for us to enjoy.  But, we all hear and process sound differently, and that accounts for why the same piece of gear may sound "right" to one person, and "not right" to another.

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?