AudioNervosa

Hello to all

First off, a note to Carl and Rich...  If this belongs on the Audio Syndrome NY board, please move it and chalk it up to a Newbie mistake!   :duh

In the immortal words of John Lennon, "... we're playin' those Mind games, together..."

This will be more relevant to those who attended the most recent Syndrome meeting at Charles Rollo's house last week, but I thought it would be worthwhile to share it with everyone on AN.  The original copy below (keep scrolling) was from one of those "if you can blah, blah, blah - forward this to this many people" e-mails; which is kind of dumb and a waste of time (and yes I know I'm very guilty of forwarding more than my fair share of those stupid e-mails) but... it made me think of something else.

Our club Pres. Paul had an audio engineer friend attend the meeting at Charles' house.  (My apologies; especially to the gentleman being discussed, but his name escapes me right now... maybe it was John?)   Anyway, we had a discussion about hearing changes in a system (speaker cables were being swapped in/out that night for those who weren't there) and the engineer brought up what are real vs. perceived changes etc...  Charles had a Crosby, Stills & Nash album on and everyone was commenting on how compressed the LP recording was and how crummy it sounded as we continued to listen. (I assure you that Charles' system wasn't the problem because we listened to a lot of other LP's that were just fine.)  By the time we were up to song 4 or 5 on that side of the LP, the "engineer dude" asked whether we all thought the album still sounded as bad now on cut#5 vs. the first cut.  Most said they thought the further "in" we were into the record, the better it sounded.  How could that be?  Some reasoned that the quality/accuracy of the mastering was always better on the songs closer towards the center spindal, who said tracking issues could be a contributing factor, others said "hogwash" to all of it and the rest said "who knows?"   :?

At that point, the engineer said that the reason why the LP sounded better as we continued to listen was because our brains were compensating for the crappy recording!  (Our brains being the world's greatest computers.)  He claimed that the more we listened, the more our brain "re-mixed" the sound into something more pleasant sounding.

Hmmmnnn...  I wasn't 100% convinced, but thought that maybe (?) there was some validity there.  Now I see this silly "Can you read this" e-mail and it makes me realize just how powerful that "computer in our skulls" can really be.

Are the changes we make to our systems a direct result of the change itself or is it our brain shifting into Audio Nervosa "overdrive" and transforming what we hear towards what we WANT to hear?!?

Comments?

Bill (StereoNut)

OK... I am 1 of the 55 in 100 and now need a rest as my brain is exhausted. :rofl:

The Dr. says "listen to 2 LP's and call me in the morning!"   :D

This topic was originally sent out as a "broadcast" e-mail to members of the Audio Syndrome NY.  I have gotten a few responses back via e-mail before I actually posted this thread on AN that I would like to share here.  I will post them as I receive permission from their e-mail author.

From Tom (tmazz on AN)

Along the same lines, I remember reading several years ago about a study that said people who listen to a lot of music when they are young continue to "hear" more music when they are older and there auditory function had started to go down hill that did people who did not listen in there younger years. The doctor's conclusion was when people listen in there younger years, while there hearing is still good, the brain gets "educated as to what the music should sound like and once their hearing starts to go, the brain is able to "fill in the blanks". Kind of like the interpolation function used to correct data errors in the CD Redbook standard. Interesting, huh? <TJM>

(Oh, good grief! Did I just even insinuate that the brain might function like a digital audio system???? I feel great shame....)

and...

Hey - wouldn't that be the ultimate paradox, the only way to make your CDs sound better is to listen to more LPs..... I love it!!!! <TJM>

PS - Feel free to post anything that I have written. I'll have my lawyer contact you to work out the details on the royalty payments :-)

Another reply.

From Greg

You've reminded me about a meeting we had at your house awhile back, when Roy brought over what looked like a little IC chip which he used to affect the playback on one of two otherwise identical CDs.

I remember that there was a pretty good turnout at that meeting. Roy played the 'affected' CD, and then he played the unaffected CD on the same track, same duration, and asked us what we thought. If I remember correctly, most of us agreed the two previously identical CDs sounded different. What we didn't agree on was how they sounded different.

I may have commented that one CD1 sounded brighter than CD2, but the guy sitting right next to me thought it was exactly the opposite! I remember that this sort of thing happened for listeners around the room, not just at my spot.

I still don't know what happened that night, but I realized that we all hear differently, and we all process what we hear differently.

Greg

2 things I've noticed in psycho-acoustics and factor heavily into how I listen:

1- Whenever I go to someone's house, I have to acclimate to their system's sound.. Whatever the 'system' sound is must become my new reference.  I get a sense of the personality then try to figure out a few basics, like room interactions and technology used.  That lets my brain say, 'oh, ok, it sounds like this'... now, if we introduce changes, I can hear how it impacts it from that reference point, rather than from some absolute point based on memory.

2- The leading and trailing edges of music are super important, much like the word example in the first post.  This is where the DAC is super critical to me... if it can get the beginning and endpoints of sounds correct, it sounds more real to me.

-C

As I see it, what the engineer guy should have done was cue the arm back to the beginning of the record for a quick comparison. Maybe the tracking errors were larger at the outer area of the LP?
I can see where the subconscious brain would then to fill in the "blanks" , but an aware brain on high critical alert would still be able to "see" the cracks.

Not everyone is aware of how they hear.  Beyond that not everyone is analytical enough to dissect and make note of changes between 2 subjective experiences.  And further beyond that, not everyone with those talents cares to do so at any given time... and those talents/abilities vary with other factors. (stress, alchohol, other distractions)

Welcome to the gray area... I've noticed that 'psycho-acoustics' are generally overlooked because they're so variable and uncontrollable.  Not very scientific if a reviewer was fighting with his wife and gives something a bad review. ;)

-C

The outer grooves move across the needle about twice as fast as inner groove. This offers the potential for more resolution. I don't know if it translates to reality. I have records that sound better on outside tracks and others better at the inside. I have seen articles suggesting that the outer tracks tend to sound better for this speed difference. Like running tape faster. But like a tape their is more noise too.

Anything can happen in a particular mastering session, so one record could just be a freak due to equipment malfunction of brain fart. Not all mastering engineers are created equally.

richidoo,Here's a good treatment of the outer groove vs inner distortion phenomena, see link below:
http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm
http://www.recordtech.com/faq.htm
In my system the record surface noise you mentioned at the outer edge of the record varies with the vinyl formulation and wear,but the distortion near the end of the record is a constant and seems to be more noticeable when the recording quality is high. 
Scotty

Another reply.

From Paul S.

The brain is the most wonderful device for any issue that can occur. It can help mend a lost love, bad recording, and much, much more. That is why most of the modders out there tell you to give things a while to break in. I'm not going to say there isn't a break in time with components but 100's of hours is a bit ridiculous. I think more that the brain is adapting to what you are hearing. As most of you all know I am not a favorite of wires and the such. I think when all else is acquired the only thing left to try is changing wires. You will get more results from changing the crossovers in a speaker than changing wires.

Paul

QuoteAnother reply.

I think people should actually reply (actively participate at AN) rather than post a reply to an old email.  Most of us have heard the hackneyed 'you get used to what you're hearing' argument many times.  It's sad that people still think that's where we are in audio listening.

This is a place of learning.  It's time to have participation from people, not stale arguments from posted emails, where you can't reply to the person who wrote them. 

We had a nice discussion happening here and now it's disrupted.

-Carl

This is why auditioning equipment should be based on short recordings and limited to only a very few pieces per day.

Part of the success of our species (and all life forms) is the ability to adapt.  Accommodation is part of that.

BTW speed readers are trained to read scrambled, small words missing, and fully backwards.  Those who teach sit opposite the student and so learn to do this upside down.

Sorry Carl. 

The handful of e-mail responses that I made public here were from Audio Syndrome members before I posted this thread on AN.  (It just took me a while to get their permission to post their viewpoints on this site.)  Some may be AN members, some not.  I won't post any future e-mail responses (if I even get any more of them?) on AN and allow the rest of the thread to continue "LIVE".  I just thought some of the e-mail comments were worthwhile to post here.  I didn't intend to impede the progress of the topic here by adding this content.

StereoNut
Bill

Bill,
Rather than ask permission to post any further replies to your original E-mail, why don't you give them a link to this thread and encourage them to register with AN themselves and get involved in this discussion first hand.

Tom

The accommodation effect is one reason I like single blind tests where a subtle difference between DUTs may exist. I also prefer an A-B-A format. I will confess that most of the time I don't chase subtle improvements, I like to catch bigger fish. The HOLY CRAP! moment is what I look forward to when listening to new gear or new music. If you wonder if you heard an improvement is it really worth the effort. For my self, life is too short to obsess about the little things.
Scotty

Quote from: tmazz on November 05, 2009, 09:19:45 AM
Bill,
Rather than ask permission to post any further replies to your original E-mail, why don't you give them a link to this thread and encourage them to register with AN themselves and get involved in this discussion first hand.

Tom

Excellent suggestion. Good topic BTW. For me the sound we grew up with was tubed. My Dad was not an audiophile but sold TVs and stereos back in the 50s and 60s. We had several tubed consoles. Listenmed to a lot of Sinatra, Count Basie and such. The sound was rich warm and dynamic. never thin or bright. So that was my reference growing up.
   Many years later when I got in to this hobby by accident the sound I heardthat day at Stereo Exchange brought back found memories and that cozy feeling. The demo consisted of Apogee speakers and Counterpoint gear. A TT was used a Linn LP12 which I still have. We listened to some SS gear which did not float my boat at the time.
  I guess I'm a tube man because that was my first experience in sound as a kid. Both SS and tubes have come a long way since my first audition in the 70s. Today either format gives me goosebumps. Go figure.


charles

My first exposure to the sound of music played on a home stereo started when my father purchased Sears Silvertone tube gear. He purchased an integrated amplfier with a ceramic phonostage and Stereo tuner with the tuning eye. He also built his own loudspeakers using Sears Silvertone drivers. My dad was heavily into classical music and I went to sleep many nights to the sound of classical music playing in the living room.
The sound of tube gear was not considered separately from the music itself,it was 1962 and tubes were the technology of the day. It was my exposure to the sound of live music in elementary school and high school and later as a music major in college that help form my expectations from reproduced music.  I wanted to recreate the sound of real instruments and people in my living room. For me the technology employed is not important it is the end result that I am interested in. As a point of fact I don't really want my equipment making editorial comments to the music. Right now I am using custom SS gear for my preamp and power amp as it is the most cost effective means to an end that I can employ.
Scotty

Quote from: tmazz on November 05, 2009, 09:19:45 AM
Bill,
Rather than ask permission to post any further replies to your original E-mail, why don't you give them a link to this thread and encourage them to register with AN themselves and get involved in this discussion first hand.

Tom

Consider it done.  I have e-mailed the link to AN to both Paul and Greg, so they can join up and join in.  Great idea!

Thanx!
Bill