How Audiphiles are Different

Not just as audiophiles be we as humans are all different with different approaches and solutions.  Just observe how different people count nickels.  Some count them individually or in groups some in stacks and then group them.  The good news is we all get to the same number.

Audiophiles should all get to the same place which is the enjoyment of music but we all approach it really differently.  Look at two contributors here @mikelavigne vs @mahgister.  Completely different approaches but I don't think that either enjoys the music any more than the other.  There's no right or wrong as long as makes you happy.

@deludedaudiophile

Can you please explain the correlations between those measurements and what I like, or what any other audiophile likes?

How were 32 tones selected? Is there a certain number of bones in the human head which corresponds to 32? Am I more susceptible to the middle, beginning or last of those 32 tones? Does it change with age?

That isn’t a test which helps explain what I hear. It is yet another stress test which is self-referenced to the inputs. A test about human experience would be referenced to the listener instead.

Also, my name is right in front of you and it is not Eric.

How can you make that statement Eric for a 32 tone multi-tone test Eric?  That is 32 tones, independent, mixed together, which measure volume will swing from low to high at they reinforce and cancel, and then the total result is captures and measured and compared to what the result should be. That strikes me as a very powerful tool.

What do you think would provide a better indication of "what we hear"?

I still put IMD tests back at the "vintage" rather than "progressive" category of measurements.   Useful, old, and not helping us better understand what else we hear. 

Do we truly listen through bad room acoustics better (and why the heck as audiophiles are we), or have we just heard most pieces we have listened to so many times that much of what we are hearing is high level memory, not low level detail? Most audiophiles experience from what I can tell is their systems, trade-shows, and a the odd dealer system which is usually less than optimal. Many audiophiles are amazed at what a good acoustic space sounds like because they have rarely experienced it for reproduction. I find for critical listening it removes listener fatigue because you are not bombarded with a cacophony of discordant sound. However, for less critical listening, some fake emphasized ambience can be very pleasant. I enjoy being able to do both with the same system.

When I look at the multi tone IMD tests, of which 32 seems to be somewhat standard, I see a recreated waveform that looks like it could be music in its complexity. It is hard to consider that a simple steady state test.

PS- In the title I meant to ask how audiophiles vary from each other.  Not necessarily that audiophiles are different than your average person.

@hilde45 Yes indeed. While I wasn’t intending to get into phenomenology directly with the OP I certainly couldn’t avoid it.

One experiment I encourage others to do is to record some one else talking in an average room. Then listen to that recording with headphones. The reality of the sound in the room is entirely different from our memory of hearing the speaker. Our brain is doing so much work that we are unaware in the moment of fist listening that room acoustics are present. Only after we can hear it again and again can we hear the room is very much present in what we first heard.

But!!! Here is the cool part, after we become aware of the difference we can then go back that room, ask the speaker to repeat their original words and now we are able to selectively hear the room, or not.

Very good.

All of this is just about ear / brain mechanisms. It’s also possible some of us have physical receptors or a combination of different ears/different brains which cause us to hear differently

+1 OP!

Now I'm wondering what Dr. Schrodinger would think about all this.

If you put your bluetooth earbuds in a box . . .

Maybe I'll just put on some Bill Evans.

Excellent, thought-provoking, and well-written post.

In philosophy, my field, these observations fit into the category of theories which argue that perception and interpretation cannot be separated. In practice, they are simultaneous acts. We see the apple as an "apple."

If this is true, then arguments based on measurement of specific factors must already presume -- even if they're not explicit about it -- a certain manner of hearing. They presume at least a certain range of interpretations about what it means to hear. The same would be true about vocabulary used to describe sound; again, already interpretation-laden.

Nice one Eric, same reasons nearly all of us have different gear and approach this hobby with different angles. Same reasons we get emotionally involved by a different song or by a different part of same song. Same reasons we have different tastes in clothing and food. All things are not happening through a straight line in our head but through many touch and go's. That's fun. I really enjoy late night listening when the voices of the world are muted (not my family), and have learned to operate in a non treated room, yet. 

Generally yes.
 

In the beginning I trained myself to listen for minute differences in details and slam… a hold over from college. This drove my purchases.

Over time I learned what real acoustic music sounded like and this took over my decision making and led to me building a much better, incredibly musical system that made all genera sound better and is incredibly engaging. One of the many learning avenues in this complex and multi-disciplinary pursuit.

I agree with you erik. Your OP is well thought out and stated. It is apparent to me that no two of us hear the same or enjoy the same sound or music. The idea that there is one right system or type of music or sound that is best for everyone is misguided. If you consider how different people are in just about every aspect of their beings, how could there be one best (or preferable) for everyone in music/audio?

I read an article where a hearing specialist said that if you brought him 10 people with identical hearing profiles, all 10 would want their hearing aids tuned differently.

We do train our hearing and listening too. Sometimes knowingly, sometimes not.

I hope this becomes a lengthy thread and results in fewer: speaker A is the best available / no it isn’t, I heard it myself and it sucks type discussions, although that might be the end of this forum.

Hi @mceljo  - Of course, audiophiles are human, but being human means we become different types of audiophiles, and that's what I was trying to get to.

It's not so much an audiophile thing, but sound (music or noise) is experienced by everyone differently.  For example, my wife simply cannot ignore any source or sound/noise and as a result doesn't like loud music.  On the other hand, I can tune out just about any reasonable noise and focus on whatever I'm wanting to do.  I like to joke that I learned this by working construction in high school and college and hating country music.  I can tune my kids noise out in the car while my wife simply cannot.