[Randy]

Perhaps auditory memory, literally remembering how a component actually sounds, may be unreliable. What's not unreliable is remembering one's reaction to that component's sound. If you felt something sounded too bright, bland, wiry, bass deficient, boring or just wonderful, you'll remember that long after the fact, even if you can't really recall its actual sound.

My two cents. FWIW.

[BobM]

I think I can remember pretty well the gross differences between some components. Namely any top end rolloff, or bloated bass, or wide vs narrow vs deep soundstaging, or any hint at grit or digital hash. And I think I can identify these pretty quickly when auditioning a piece (in the same system, of course).

It's when you get to the nuances, like texture or delicacy or micro-dynamics that a direct A-B comparison becomes necessary. But of course, that's where a lot of the differences live for most of us audiophiles.

The key is auditioning in the same system that you are already familiar with, not just listening to a component in an unfamiar room/system. That unfortunately is the difficult part, unless you have plenty of audiophile friends who are willing to bring equipment over for you to audition.

And even then, you may not truly appreciate a component until you've spent some time with it on various pieces of music. Sometimes one song may bring out one trait, while another will bring out something else. That means more than just a quick A-B test.

Yes, notes help also when listening over time.

Enjoy,
Bob

[Tyson]

I would posit that even A-B tests are unreliable.  For example, I've done direct comparisons in my home, where one piece of gear "won", but over the long term I couldn't live with it.  In fact, the only reliable method I know of to determine long-term happiness with a piece of gear, is to actually own it and live with it over a period of time, such as 6 months to a year. 

[ooheadsoo]

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.

I'm curious - can you elaborate?

[ooheadsoo]

I would posit that even A-B tests are unreliable.  For example, I've done direct comparisons in my home, where one piece of gear "won", but over the long term I couldn't live with it.  In fact, the only reliable method I know of to determine long-term happiness with a piece of gear, is to actually own it and live with it over a period of time, such as 6 months to a year.

I would posit that A/B tests are good for determining differences, but not for determining preferences.

[konut]

How is it that, to a person, all of you are advocating that possessing an superior auditory memory is a good thing? Every component I've ever bought has ended up being superseded, at some point, being shone to be falling short in some aspect of performance, and then replaced by another. If it weren't for a decent auditory memory system, I'd be still be happy using that 7 transistor Zenith my Dad bought in '59. Its a CURSE I SAY!! Its  cost me THOUSANDS!! PHOOEY!! 

[*Scotty*]

Try this hobby while living with perfect and relative pitch. I have found that moderate alcohol consumption largely incapacitates the aforementioned faculties and makes me far less critical of the quality of reproduction from sound systems but it still does not make me love the compositions of Arnold Schoenberg. It also increases my tolerance for less than pitch perfect live performances. Good times.
Scotty

[JerryM]

How is it that, to a person, all of you are advocating that possessing an superior auditory memory is a good thing? Every component I've ever bought has ended up being superseded, at some point, being shone to be falling short in some aspect of performance, and then replaced by another. If it weren't for a decent auditory memory system, I'd be still be happy using that 7 transistor Zenith my Dad bought in '59.

Exactly.

If auditory memory sucked, nobody would ever come up with something that really does sound better. Be it amps, preamps, dacs, recordings, speakers, whatever. Even if someone did, and auditory memory sucked, nobody would ever know the difference.

Auditory memory means we remember what we like, and know it when we hear it. We also have auditory memory for what we don't like.

IMHO, YMMV, etc. 

Have fun,
Jerry

[ooheadsoo]

How is it that, to a person, all of you are advocating that possessing an superior auditory memory is a good thing? Every component I've ever bought has ended up being superseded, at some point, being shone to be falling short in some aspect of performance, and then replaced by another. If it weren't for a decent auditory memory system, I'd be still be happy using that 7 transistor Zenith my Dad bought in '59.

Exactly.

If auditory memory sucked, nobody would ever come up with something that really does sound better. Be it amps, preamps, dacs, recordings, speakers, whatever. Even if someone did, and auditory memory sucked, nobody would ever know the difference.

Auditory memory means we remember what we like, and know it when we hear it. We also have auditory memory for what we don't like.

IMHO, YMMV, etc. 

Have fun,
Jerry

That's not what we mean when we say auditory memory is short lived.  For many (not to say you,) to put it bluntly, they think they know, which is different from knowing.  Of course, this can apply to any area of our lives in which we have not spent considerable amounts of dedicated and informed study.  I am not referring to anyone specific here in the following analogy.

This is like comparing the speed and handling performance of two cars, not even necessarily back to back, and making decisions without ever even looking at or timing the speedo, much less the generated stats.  Sure, you may be "right" in determining which car is the superior car.  No one can question your subjective opinion.  However, in the end, it's like stating one car is "faster" than the other based upon your "butt dyno."  Some people may have Golden Butt Dynos.  You may be right - and you will probably be especially right about which car feels faster.  Sometimes the difference is so big that you can call it quits without any kind of objective substantiation.  If you put your money where your mouth is, I sincerely hope you are right.  If you feel you are right, and it lets you have a better experience, I'm all for it.  I would like that for myself.  I still posit that, barring the obvious, you do not know as well as you might.  I hope the analogy makes sense.  The deep and multifaceted technical stats that describe the whole of a car's performance coupled with the experience of driving may in some ways be similar to how music works in our ears and minds. 

On a separate note, the ear/mind also fabricates details that you think you should hear out of thin air.  I can't explain it, but I know this happens to me.  I hear missing notes inside of dense (apparently not quite so dense) harmonies all the time.  We have a tendency to hear what we want to hear in a measurable way that goes far beyond "hearing cables."  This is similar to how we don't see our blind spots in our vision unless they are deliberately revealed.  Test yourself.  It's fun if you're doing it by choice.  Study a piece intently for as long as you want, and then go read the score.  See how close you are.  In simpler cases, you may do just fine.  You will discover your limits.  Self knowledge is...interesting, if not useful.  Bottom line, your ear is probably not as trustworthy as you think it is, which is not to say that it may not be trustworthy enough for your personal purposes.  The more you learn about your ear, the more interesting this hobby is.

[JackD201]

Try this hobby while living with perfect and relative pitch. I have found that moderate alcohol consumption largely incapacitates the aforementioned faculties and makes me far less critical of the quality of reproduction from sound systems but it still does not make me love the compositions of Arnold Schoenberg. It also increases my tolerance for less than pitch perfect live performances. Good times.
Scotty

Just don't drive   

[Browntrout]

ooheadsoo, thanks for asking and appologies for the late response, I've been away walking the hills of Skye.

  When listening critically to someone playing an intrument we listen for mistakes, mistakes in technique that are obvious to someone who plays the instrument. We also listen subjectively with reference to how the piece should be played according to the written music, if it is written that a passage be very quiet then it should be more quiet than the preceeding passage that was denoted as moderately loud as an example. There are lots of other ways we listen critically to someone playing but I cannot go into them at the moment as I'm enjoying a pint of organic vintage cider and have been travelling all day.
 
    When listening critically to a stereo we do not (unless we make or modify components of stereo and have built up an understanding of how each part effects the sound of the whole) have the reference of the written piece or the understanding that comes from having played the work ourselves or even for that matter having heard the original performance. All we can listen for is unaturalness within itself and with relation to other sounds contained within the recording. So say you hear a page being turned or a cough or a chair being shuffled forward or a bow strike a music stand, these sounds are quite easy to remember or relate as within reason the type of chair or bow does not make significant difference and neither does who is coughing which means these little windows 'through' the recording process allow us a common ground to reference the rest of the music against. Usually without these 'common ground' sounds we can only relate one intrument against another inside the recording or one area of sound, say by commenting that the piano sounds real whereas the brass not so much or that the trebles are good but the bass is lacking.
  I hope I have got my point across ok? I think a stereo that scores 92% across all areas of the musical experience will sound much better than one that scores 100% in some and 95% in others, if you see what I'm saying? Anyway Cheers.

[jimdgoulding]

Forgive me for not having read all the comments or if this has been said already but taking notes is a useful thing.  Writing down bits that stood out using a component using some go to music.  I trust my ears to judge but not always my memory of what I've heard especially if some time has passed between auditions.