"I Trust My Ears"
Do you? Can you? Should you?
I don’t. The darn things try to trick me all the time!
Seriously, our ears are passive sensors. They forward sonic data to our brains. Ears don’t know if the data in question represents a child crying, a Chopin prelude, or a cow dropping a cowpie. That’s our brains’ job to figure out.
Similarly, our brains decide whether A sounds better than B, whether a component sounds phenomenal, etc.
So, "I trust my ears" should really be "I trust my brains".
And that has a different ring to it, doesn’t it?
Trust, but verify -- as Ronald Reagan said (not that he's any hero of mine). A classic story is an audio person hearing a difference, then finding the patch cords were not as expected, and the difference makes no sense. Especially with speakers, I do like a nice measurement to help me understand better what I'm hearing.
|
Inexperienced ears / brains at assessing high quality audio are relatively insensitive and easily deceived. It’s like anything else, if you are new at it, you only hear obvious stuff ... like changes in treble and bass. Your brain thinks, more detail, that must be better... I couldn’t hear that before. like an overly salty snack. Or bigger thump... must be better. The ear / brain combination is incredible, but must be trained. Look at the eye / brain of a radiologist. Everyone has seen an X-ray of something and the doctor says... see this joint, the cartilage... see this little scare tissue area between this fuzzy area... which of course is solid bone. You see clouds... Same thing. What begins as fuzzy, becomes easily seen and appreciated with experience. You must train your ears and your brain. And as you do that your tastes will change because you realize you’ve assembled and have been "eating potato chips" instead of a Beef Wellington or Truffles Risotto. It takes years or decades of training. The best way to get there: listen to lots of live acoustic music, listen to lots of system and try and comprehend the nuances. Read, read, read. Starting with Robert Harley’s The Complete Guide to High End Audio. This will give you the terminology and point out all the different aspects of sound and music and what to call them. It's like the saying goes Eskimos have fifty words for snow. While probably not true... it serves the point. |
ghdprentice said it well... We must train our hearing by tuning our brain with thinking concepts and setting experiments in a system/room with different musical styles.. Tastes are nothing except a starting point from the animal in us to the angel passing through us. Tastes must be educated.
Perception of an unknown event from which we had no prior concept cannot be recognized nor memorized. We need acoustics concepts to understand audio.
|
Yes, @devinplombier, this is can be very tricky, indeed. I don’t anticipate (because I started in this hobby so late), I’ll ever accrue the skill/experience that our friend @ghdprentice describes, so I’ll continue to only purchase gear I can demo at home and return if necessary. Still, speaking from experience, I know this strategy cannot guarantee one will not make mistakes! ;o)
|
How YOU perceive the sound is most important. The physics is known but perception is not. Many variables to consider. Two experienced listeners can have two completely different opinions listening to the same component. Hearing sensitivity varies from person to person. Expectation bias can also cause differences in opinion. Placebo effect also. Even your mood can affect the sound. Bottom line is YOU are the final judge of what sounds best. |
What else should you trust but your ears, unless of course you are doing an audiogram test? Certainly not 'scientifically' obtained measurements. I note that a LOT of folks want to apply measurements in the electronic devices that measure the sources, i.e. audio equipment, and the sonic characteristics of the room using sound level meters. They get to think that the figures should be absolute in determining the results, forgetting I think, that if their audiogram aren't correlated to the sound of the instruments/room they really have nothing much to offer when accessing what his ears are telling him. They may be a rough guideline for someone who understands his hearing acuity. Ergo my purchase dollar is controlled by my ears, especially when compared to my eyes. :-) |
@newbee #1 A person with a high frequency hearing loss may prefer a speaker that's a bit bright. |
Neither is adequate. I trust my ability to pay attention. I trust my ability to interpret. I trust my ability to be patient and be rigorous in my methods. Those are the things at stake.
Well, not anyone. Some people are better at the required skills than I am. When I trust their ears -- and maybe suspend belief about my "certainties" my ears (and brain), I can stretch a bit and learn something. The notion that everyone is their best source of expert knowledge is leading us into dangerous waters, let’s not extend it to audio. |
The point of this thread is that sound quality is determined not by our ears but by our brains. Our ears merely transduce the sound waves. Our brains make value judgements as to what sounds good, or which one between A and B sounds better. Just like our eyes see pictures, but it is our brains that see beauty. None of this has to do with measurements and I’m not sure why they’re being brought into the conversation, other than the ears vs measurements trope is a familiar one. Instead it has everything to do with whether and how much we can / should trust our brains to accurately and reliably perform nonsimultaneous A/B comparisons when it is notoriously inaccurate and suggestible in that respect. Literally tens of thousands of pages have been written on the subject, reaching far beyond audio into gastronomy, oenology, etc., and, perhaps more tragically, police lineups. People of good faith place at the crime scene with absolute certainty a person who was later proven to be 500 miles away at the time. The train-your-brains argument is of course valid. Some of the folks who fail these tests are highly trained and have decades of experience, however, like those wine critics who couldn’t pick California wines from French once the labels were removed. How many of us account for the fact that the subtler differences we think we’re hearing may just be our brains telling us there’s something when there’s nothing just because it seems there should be? |
You are over thinking it. Simple point was, should I have my system adjusted by somebody else's ears? I don't think so. Their ears don't know what sounds right to mine. As to the brains vs the ears debate, my ears and brains have been interconnected for over 70 years. I trust the combo. This is a DEEP discussion... |
@toddalin + 1 |
"The point of this thread is that sound quality is determined not by our ears but by our brains."
No, the sound quality is determined by the equipment/source producing it. Your ears are merely conduits to your brain to pick up these vibrations and your brain makes a "judgement" as to what it prefers. BION, some people actually like the sound of a guitar played through a distortion pedal. |
| Post removed |
I mean, objective measurements can certainly help you get to where you're trying to go, but isn't the ultimate judge how it sounds to you? I trust my ears in the same way I trust my taste buds when evaluating a good steak. The butcher can go on and on about how this cut or marbling should taste better, but it's ultimately up to what I find enjoyable to eat. |
@mazian you don't have deficient hearing in the problem areas which is mostly the lower treble region between 2 and 6kHz unless you can't hear to 6kHz.
But yes B&W newer iterations have always sounded stringent, overly bitey to me and the data doesn't lie about that
So preferring bright speakers because of high frequency hearing loss isn't a bulletproof phenomenon. I know many people who don't like B&W, Martin Logan and many speaker brands that have overly zealous presentation in the upper registers |
@devinplombier someone gets it. Instead of blindly doing whack-a-mole with your speaker preferences. You demo something that intrigues you, look and pray it has a competent and full spin data, not some measly on axis FR. Then try to demo other speakers within that form of presentation so you can narrow it down. That's how I ended up with my setup.
Also shunning measurements when the room is basically the biggest denominator is weird to me. Cos if you have a dedicated space and just use vibes to set it up. It will sound good but you'd be bottlenecking yourself not optimising the setup with help of some RTA |
I haven’t gotten around to room measurements yet. I will though. Some measurements are invaluable. Others are worthless. A person can’t just be against measurements, period. But the word itself tends to have negative connotations around here. Talk measurements up in a positive way and next thing you know some folks are waving pitchforks and burning Amir effigies, so when it comes up in a thread as a side topic it can be a distraction. |
@devinplombier ah well. Their loss.
|
It's not always that simple though, especially with music that is somewhat out of the mainstream. As an example, take a punk rock band like the Ramones (who I'm not all that familiar with btw), who were clearly not proficient at playing their instruments, at least not in any normal sense. Another example might be highly improvised avant garde jazz with all the distortion and bleating, etc. So if you're not familiar with those genres, the first thing that needs to happen is for your ears to absorb as much of the music as they can. The next step might normally be for your brain to analyze it and determine if it's "good" or not. But before you get to that step, your brain (and emotions) have for first define what constitutes good with respect to this particular music. One might consider the Ramones nonconventional type of music good if it accomplishes what it set out to do even if it might not actually sound good. As far as I understand it, the intent of the Ramones through their playing and lyrics and stage presence was to make a social and political (or maybe it's asocial and apolitical) statement about adolescent life during that time period. So it's only after you've arrived at a conclusion about what the musicians are trying to do and say that you can then go about assessing whether they accomplished their goal, i.e. was their music good in the context that music isn't just all about the notes and how they're played. It's late here so I hope that makes some kind of sense. |
Apophenia is the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things or random patterns, often leading to false interpretations or beliefs. Pareidolia is the tendency to perceive a meaningful image or pattern where none actually exists. It's essentially the human brain's habit of finding familiar forms in random or ambiguous stimuli, like seeing faces in clouds or hearing voices in static. This phenomenon is a type of apophenia, the broader tendency to find patterns and meaning in random data. The point is, your ears can be trusted, they just convert vibrations to neural impulses for your brain to interpret. It's your brain, that most easily fooled of human organs, that cannot be trusted. |
The OP is only half right. Yes, the brain is the CPU (Central Processing Unit) that processes and defines what the ears send to it. That being said, how many of us get routine audiologic evaluations? How many of us routinely clean our passive receptors? Come on now, all you old audiophile farts out there? When was the last time you had your hearing evaluated or Debroxed your ears? Are you really convinced your hearing acuity is as sharp today as it was when you were young whipper snappers? For that matter, how many professional audiophile reviewers get regular/routine audiologic evaluations? Perhaps this little tidbit of CV should be listed or documented right before their personal impressions and specifications & measurements in reviews? As for the requirement of decades or even years of training to teach our ears and/or brain to truly comprehend what they are sensing, well, I'm sure that kind of training investment is required for competently reading or deciphering XRAY, MRI, EKG, EEG and other such telemetry. However, for music appreciation, I think the old adage applies: "You don't have to know much about art to know what you like." |
Crocodiles had tastes and we cannot convince them their tastes are bad habits... A part of our brain is a crocodile... A higher part need concept to appreciate higher meaning... Our physical hearing is biased physically and physiologically, but we own another pair of ears, not visible in the physical plane but existing in the more subtle plane... Sound is not mere physical meaningless waves but it is which convey the meaning we read in the vibrating sound sources about his own state (human voices states qualities,instruments states qualities,a fruit we tap to decipher his ripebness state etc) This information about the vibrating sound source from which we can respond by resonating ourselves,this information quality is also "sound", it is also linked to a pattern we can see observing water or sand vibrating to some frequencies (Chladni and Cymatics of Hans Jenny). Music in contrast is not mere sound but live on another higher meaning plane of his own manifesting through physical and non physical perceived sound state meaning... Then we must be trained and educated to understand music... calling our starting point "my tastes" is often only reflecting the social programation linked to the social programming engineering of "our tastes"... We must learn in acoustic and in music what is "timbre" meaning,what is musical time (duration,beats,Rythms), why it is not physically measurable as a creative event... etc...
|
So you can choose to trust your senses and interpretation of those senses by your brain, or not. And so we all make mistakes, obviously our senses and brains not always right. Point is why is this such a big deal for enjoyment of our audio systems, I make a mistake, easily rectified, and I'm the only one suffering for that mistake. And then one should be learning from their mistakes so we become better evaluators. I don't want any stand ins or bots choosing for me, I'm perfectly willing to make mistakes because mistakes are the greatest teacher, don't need some bot to keep me from learning. |
A very good article... I used this comb-filtering effect positively in my dedicated acoustics room in many ways with many resonators of different parameters and location... The result was stupendous...( i called this my mechanical room equalizer) My headphone of choice the AKG K340 hibryd is extraordinary precisely because of his dual acoustic chamber with resonators playing positively with combsfiltering effect because Dr. Gorike was a physicist and acoustician... Acoustics rule, not price not the gear but first and last acoustic (Yes gear design matter and source and synergy but not as much as acoustic and psycho-acoustics tools)
Once this is said , the combfiltering effect is huge... but reducing all others factors to it to debunk audiophile is wrong sorry... I used many "tweaks" and they are not the result of combfiltering effect... For example i used well located Schumann generator with positive impact... etc... Combfiltering effect and he is right here makes objective judgment of audiophile products or acoustics new parameters hard to really spot... But when you play with combfiltering effect parameters and able to master them you are able to perceive what comes from it and what do not... His conclusion about the power of acoustics is right and it is what i said here for years but he explained it better than i did... Subjectivist as objectivist miss the psycho-acoustics factors and the power of physical acoustics parameters controls...
|
@ezwind - (great Pigpen song, btw) - thing about the Ramones is that their musicianship was perfect for the music they played; they were tight, powerful, and energetic as can be, and nobody could play Ramones music like the Ramones. The purpose of the music was to get people jumping around and moshing and such, not to sit and think deeply about it. They weren't about social or political statements - that's more the Dead Kennedys territory - their songs were often quite cartoonish, they were about humor and fun. |
+1 @panzrwagn Yup I got the Pareidolia thing down pat. I see faces everywhere. Really disturbing when its pitch black and I still see faces. Must be some neuronal malfunction. Ok, back to my closet know for some rest. Regards, barts |
Put this way, of course it isn't a big deal. If things stayed on that level, everything would be perfectly copacetic, because at the end of the day everyone is free to build systems that please their tastes using whatever means and techniques they see fit, and enjoy music they love in peace. The trouble comes from the folks who perorate endlessly on forums and in online rags, telling grandiose tales of stunning sound improvements allegedly due to modest tweaks or devices never designed to have any effect on sound quality.
|
I always trust my ears. Why wouldn’t I? I also trust my tongue. If something sounds good to me, I’ll want to listen more or something tastes good to me, I’ll go back for seconds. But if something sounds bad to me or something tastes bad to me, I’ll move on. when it comes to my system, it’s all about pleasing ME.
|
@devinplombier i can see from this new thread, as with many other comments you have previously made, that the issue of others observing sound quality improvements that you are unable to perceive, deeply bothers you. It is a good thing, in a sense, because it shows you struggle internally about it, because someone confident about their beliefs would not feel need to disparage others about theirs. There is simple reasoning to sort it out your struggle. First off, in science, it is not only silly, but illogical to argue for the inexistence of something one is unable to perceive. You don’t need to read up on it, it’s even less scientific than it is basic common sense. Second, it is very well known that human beings are not all born equal. My quick muscle ability has never, and could never equal that of the top million sprinters in the world, much less that of Usain Bolt. On the other hand, as a trained architect, my ability to visually perceive will certainly be at a considerably higher state of development, even if my eyesight may not be among the very best from birth - I am able to see if something is off level by a quarter inch over four feet. Likewise, we are able to taste, smell, hear….and listen, at many different levels. Some of us have amazing equipment to hear with, but haven’t yet trained to know how far that hearing can take our ability to listen. Others have learned to develop their listening skills so acutely, it compensates greatly for any lack of natural born hearing ability. With so many audiophiles reporting on their perceptions of such, the refrain of confirmation bias, or whatever else it is deemed to be, simply does not make sense - we are here to share our experiences, not our lack of them. So, there are three ways forward for your struggle. The first is the good one - that your hearing may be good, but your critical listening skills are as yet not fully developed, in which case the difficult journey begins. It took me a good five years to develop mine. I have friends, not merely audiophile ones, who are able to critically listen to nuance I am still unable to discern. I don’t grumble about it, because I know from prior experience all the things I know now that i was never able to perceive before. It is not easy to develop these skills, and it will take effort and patience. Listening to nuance in the time domain is very difficult. The second way forward is that your ability to develop critical listening may be strong, but your actual physical hearing ability prevents the development of your ability to perceive at depth. This would be a truly unfortunate situation. I know a little about how this feels too, as I have a friend who has had his hearing fully tested to know that he is unable to hear nuance of frequency past 7khz. Perhaps there are many others like this friend I have, who haven’t fully tested their hearing to know what is naturally missing, but I do suspect (not know, of course!) that most say they do not hear, because they have not learned how to listen. In this case, one can either bemoan their inability to take this hobby further, or rejoice a little, since at least money will be saved. The third way forward is actually more unfortunate than the second. It would be that hearing ability is either perfectly fine as average, critical listening development ability is good, but confirmation bias prevents one from making the effort to further that ability. It’s the laziest form of confirmation bias in its claim that something that cannot be personally perceived cannot exist. it is an amazing hobby we have here, please don’t disparage others who share their findings just because you are unable to perceive those findings. In friendship - kevin |
HO, it’s your brain making sense of your ears....both compromised by a variety of influences of the former and the quality of the latter’s conversion. One persons’ steak is another’s baloney, to be coarse about it. Makes for a great standard to work towards....👍😎 Having the curves for both ears for reference supplied by the audiologist who was intrigued by why I asked for them. Made for a batch of print-outs, too. *L* |
