Another blow to audiophilism?

[Arny Krueger]

I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at
audiophilism:

"
Golden Ears and Meter Readers
The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia
Marc Perlman
Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are
both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together.
Consumers of 'specialty' audio equipment (known as the 'high end'), however,
connect both forms of resistance. These 'audiophiles' construct their own
universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive
vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users
dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in
controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would
delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording
formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and
long-playing record [LP]), user 'tweaks' of purchased equipment, and the
supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers,
cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims
of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they
argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences
as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those
in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make
epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They
appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of
subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the
criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective,
detached, and dispassionate

"

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at
> audiophilism:
>
> "
> Golden Ears and Meter Readers
> The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia
> Marc Perlman

Just to be fair to the author and publisher, the piece appears in Social
Studies of Science, Oct. 2004. Perlman is from Brown University.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at
> audiophilism:
>
> "
> Golden Ears and Meter Readers
> The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia
> Marc Perlman
> Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are
> both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together.
> Consumers of 'specialty' audio equipment (known as the 'high end'),
> however,
> connect both forms of resistance. These 'audiophiles' construct their own
> universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive
> vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of
> users
> dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in
> controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would
> delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording
> formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and
> long-playing record [LP]), user 'tweaks' of purchased equipment, and the
> supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers,
> cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the
> claims
> of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they
> argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those
> experiences
> as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble
> those
> in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make
> epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They
> appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of
> subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the
> criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective,
> detached, and dispassionate
>

Of course you would find it "interesting". It reinforces your world-view of
things. I don't think it requires a 100% objective person to say that just
based on the choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the author
is nothing like a dispassionate observer presenting objective reality. The
article is, in other words, a screed.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet
>> another blow at audiophilism:
>>
>> "
>> Golden Ears and Meter Readers
>> The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia
>> Marc Perlman
>> Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of
>> technological artifacts are both inherently contestable,
>> but both are not usually contested together. Consumers
>> of 'specialty' audio equipment (known as the 'high
>> end'), however,
>> connect both forms of resistance. These 'audiophiles'
>> construct their own universe of meaning around their
>> equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and
>> set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of
>> users
>> dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they
>> also engage in controversy to defend themselves against
>> knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe
>> of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or
>> media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and
>> long-playing record [LP]), user 'tweaks' of purchased
>> equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences
>> between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD
>> players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the
>> claims
>> of audio engineering by privileging their personal
>> experiences, and they argue against scientific
>> methodologies that seem to expose those experiences
>> as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic
>> contestation resemble those
>> in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But
>> audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to
>> their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common
>> understanding of music as an exemplary locus of
>> subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to
>> ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science
>> they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate

> Of course you would find it "interesting". It reinforces
> your world-view of things.

That is itself a very interesting comment. If I turn it around, I find it to
be an argument that anything that does not reinforce the Audiophile world
view is disinteresting to audiophiles. This paints a picture of audiophiles
as people who are in despirate need of reinforcement, and who refuse to
investigate anything that does not reinforce their world view. In short, you
are suggesting that audiophiles are narrow-minded and phobic.

> I don't think it requires a
> 100% objective person to say that just based on the
> choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the
> author is nothing like a dispassionate observer
> presenting objective reality. The article is, in other
> words, a screed.

Interesting that without reading the article itself, anyone would so
passionately condemn it.

I have the entire article, and am in the process of studying it.

I have also neither praised nor condemned it. Please take "interesting" to
be a neutral word in my vocabulary.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet
>>> another blow at audiophilism:
>>>
>>> "
>>> Golden Ears and Meter Readers
>>> The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia
>>> Marc Perlman
>>> Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of
>>> technological artifacts are both inherently contestable,
>>> but both are not usually contested together. Consumers
>>> of 'specialty' audio equipment (known as the 'high
>>> end'), however,
>>> connect both forms of resistance. These 'audiophiles'
>>> construct their own universe of meaning around their
>>> equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and
>>> set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of
>>> users
>>> dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they
>>> also engage in controversy to defend themselves against
>>> knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe
>>> of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or
>>> media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and
>>> long-playing record [LP]), user 'tweaks' of purchased
>>> equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences
>>> between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD
>>> players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the
>>> claims
>>> of audio engineering by privileging their personal
>>> experiences, and they argue against scientific
>>> methodologies that seem to expose those experiences
>>> as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic
>>> contestation resemble those
>>> in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But
>>> audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to
>>> their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common
>>> understanding of music as an exemplary locus of
>>> subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to
>>> ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science
>>> they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate
>
>> Of course you would find it "interesting". It reinforces
>> your world-view of things.
>
> That is itself a very interesting comment. If I turn it around, I find it
> to
> be an argument that anything that does not reinforce the Audiophile world
> view is disinteresting to audiophiles. This paints a picture of
> audiophiles
> as people who are in despirate need of reinforcement, and who refuse to
> investigate anything that does not reinforce their world view. In short,
> you
> are suggesting that audiophiles are narrow-minded and phobic.

How does "it reinforces your world view of things" make me phobic? I simply
said you would find it interesting because it reinforced your views.
Furthermore there is nothing in the precise to suggest anything resembling
research. Nowhere does the author mention doing research. Strange for a
"research article". If it included research, I would perhaps consider it
worth investigating.

>
>> I don't think it requires a
>> 100% objective person to say that just based on the
>> choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the
>> author is nothing like a dispassionate observer
>> presenting objective reality. The article is, in other
>> words, a screed.
>
> Interesting that without reading the article itself, anyone would so
> passionately condemn it.

I told you why above. It doesn't even pretend to be a research
article.....and if it is, then that is the worst precis in the world. But
since the precis reinforces your view of audiophilia, it is of course
"interesting" despite the fact that you yourself hadn't even read it.

> I have the entire article, and am in the process of studying it.

Good for you. Might I suggest you would have been better served by doing
that before you promoted it.

>
> I have also neither praised nor condemned it. Please take "interesting" to
> be a neutral word in my vocabulary.

It is also a word I would only apply after the fact (of reading it), not
before the fact.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> How does "it reinforces your world view of things" make
> me phobic?

You obviously fear that this thesis project would reinforce my world view.

> I simply said you would find it interesting
> because it reinforced your views.

Since you presumably haven't read the thesis, how do you know that?

> Furthermore there is
> nothing in the precise to suggest anything resembling
> research.

Isn't the simple fact that it is a thesis project an indication that it is
probably a research report?

> Nowhere does the author mention doing research.

Does he have to mention it?

> Strange for a "research article".

If you believe that it contains no research, why are you calling it a
research article?

> If it included research, I would perhaps consider it worth
> investigating.

I've read enough of it to know that it contains research.

>>> I don't think it requires a
>>> 100% objective person to say that just based on the
>>> choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the
>>> author is nothing like a dispassionate observer
>>> presenting objective reality. The article is, in other
>>> words, a screed.

>> Interesting that without reading the article itself,
>> anyone would so passionately condemn it.

> I told you why above.

What you said seems to me to make no sense.

> It doesn't even pretend to be a
> research article.....and if it is, then that is the worst
> precis in the world. But since the precis reinforces
> your view of audiophilia, it is of course "interesting"
> despite the fact that you yourself hadn't even read it.

Isn't it possible abnd even reasonable to find a paper interesting based on
its abstract? Isn't the purpose of an abstract to give enough information
about the paper that readers can determine whether they are interested in it
or not?

>> I have the entire article, and am in the process of
>> studying it.

> Good for you. Might I suggest you would have been better
> served by doing that before you promoted it.

Again Harry you are presuming that you know the entire contents of the
paper, and passing judgement on it.

As much of what I've read of it leads me to believe that it is worthy of
other people's interest.

>> I have also neither praised nor condemned it. Please
>> take "interesting" to be a neutral word in my vocabulary.

> It is also a word I would only apply after the fact (of
> reading it), not before the fact.

So Harry, you don't think that it is reasonble to find a paper worthy of
further intereste after only reading its abstract?

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 10:51:34 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article >):

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet another blow at
>> audiophilism:
>>
>> "
>> Golden Ears and Meter Readers
>> The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia
>> Marc Perlman
>> Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are
>> both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together.
>> Consumers of 'specialty' audio equipment (known as the 'high end'),
>> however,
>> connect both forms of resistance. These 'audiophiles' construct their own
>> universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive
>> vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of
>> users
>> dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in
>> controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would
>> delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording
>> formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and
>> long-playing record [LP]), user 'tweaks' of purchased equipment, and the
>> supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers,
>> cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the
>> claims
>> of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they
>> argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those
>> experiences
>> as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble
>> those
>> in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make
>> epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They
>> appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of
>> subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the
>> criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective,
>> detached, and dispassionate
>>
>
> Of course you would find it "interesting". It reinforces your world-view of
> things. I don't think it requires a 100% objective person to say that just
> based on the choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the author
> is nothing like a dispassionate observer presenting objective reality. The
> article is, in other words, a screed.
>

Agreed. Of course there ARE people like that, but to characterize the entire
avocation as a bunch of ostriches with their heads buried in the sands of
mythology and charlatanism is extremely self serving and unfair. Sure we use
out ears in making audio decisions, we also use other tools, specs (where
applicable) DBTs (when possible, and appropriate). But this author is correct
in one sense (even though he seems to narrowly miss the point). The enjoyment
of reproduced music in one's home is a passion. A passion that most people
don't care about. And, like most passions, it is a very personal and a very
subjective thing. Each music lover's path to his personal audio nirvana is a
journey made up of priorities and compromises and those that each individual
is comfortable living with vary as much as do individual musical tastes. In
other words, the very nature of the hobby cannot, by definition, BE
objective, detached, and dispassionate.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> How does "it reinforces your world view of things" make
>> me phobic?
>
> You obviously fear that this thesis project would reinforce my world view.
>
>> I simply said you would find it interesting
>> because it reinforced your views.
>
> Since you presumably haven't read the thesis, how do you know that?
>
>> Furthermore there is
>> nothing in the precise to suggest anything resembling
>> research.
>
> Isn't the simple fact that it is a thesis project an indication that it is
> probably a research report?
>
>> Nowhere does the author mention doing research.
>
> Does he have to mention it?
>
>> Strange for a "research article".
>
> If you believe that it contains no research, why are you calling it a
> research article?
>
>> If it included research, I would perhaps consider it worth
>> investigating.
>
> I've read enough of it to know that it contains research.
>
>>>> I don't think it requires a
>>>> 100% objective person to say that just based on the
>>>> choice of words and "slant" in the above synopsis, the
>>>> author is nothing like a dispassionate observer
>>>> presenting objective reality. The article is, in other
>>>> words, a screed.
>
>>> Interesting that without reading the article itself,
>>> anyone would so passionately condemn it.
>
>> I told you why above.
>
> What you said seems to me to make no sense.
>
>> It doesn't even pretend to be a
>> research article.....and if it is, then that is the worst
>> precis in the world. But since the precis reinforces
>> your view of audiophilia, it is of course "interesting"
>> despite the fact that you yourself hadn't even read it.
>
> Isn't it possible abnd even reasonable to find a paper interesting based
> on
> its abstract? Isn't the purpose of an abstract to give enough information
> about the paper that readers can determine whether they are interested in
> it
> or not?
>
>>> I have the entire article, and am in the process of
>>> studying it.
>
>> Good for you. Might I suggest you would have been better
>> served by doing that before you promoted it.
>
> Again Harry you are presuming that you know the entire contents of the
> paper, and passing judgement on it.
>
> As much of what I've read of it leads me to believe that it is worthy of
> other people's interest.
>
>>> I have also neither praised nor condemned it. Please
>>> take "interesting" to be a neutral word in my vocabulary.
>
>> It is also a word I would only apply after the fact (of
>> reading it), not before the fact.
>
> So Harry, you don't think that it is reasonble to find a paper worthy of
> further intereste after only reading its abstract?


My answer to all this stands as before. The precis does not mention any
research and it uses loaded, pergorative words. On the surface it fails to
interest me as an article because it doesn't even pretend to be unbiased or
for that matter, research. And if it does contain unbiased research, then
as I said before, it is a terrible precis.


[ Let's get back to high-end audio, please. -- dsr ]

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet
>> another blow at audiophilism:

>> "
>> Golden Ears and Meter Readers
>> The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia
>> Marc Perlman

> Just to be fair to the author and publisher, the piece
> appears in Social Studies of Science, Oct. 2004. Perlman
> is from Brown University.

This is a good point. That means that this is a formal scientific research
paper that was published in a refereed scientific journal.

The article says:

"In this paper I describe one such contest for authoritative knowledge,
played out within an elite group of consumers of 'high-end' audio equip-
ment. Like other groups of users, these 'audiophiles' construct their own
universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive
vocabulary and set of attitudes. But these mostly white, mostly male, mostly
affluent and educated consumers also engage in controversy to defend
themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize that universe.
They resist the scientifically authorized claims of audio engineering by
privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific
methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of
these patterns of epistemic contestation are surprisingly similar to those
in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine)."

In short, the author agrees with those who find that some audiophiles think
about their hobby in their own little anti-scientific universe.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> I found an interesting article that seems to strike yet
> >> another blow at audiophilism:
>
> >> "
> >> Golden Ears and Meter Readers
> >> The Contest for Epistemic Authority in Audiophilia
> >> Marc Perlman
>
> > Just to be fair to the author and publisher, the piece
> > appears in Social Studies of Science, Oct. 2004. Perlman
> > is from Brown University.
>
> This is a good point.

It's always good to give authors and publishers credit.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> My answer to all this stands as before. The precis does
> not mention any research

Itr doesn't need to, given that it has been published in a professional
journal with a professional review board.

> and it uses loaded, pergorative words.

That would be a matter of perception.

> On the surface it fails to interest me as an
> article because it doesn't even pretend to be unbiased or
> for that matter, research.

Intersting that such harsh criticism would be given to the review board of a
highly regarded professional organization.

I submit that should one actually read the paper, or even just give an
unbiased review to its abstract, one would find that it is pretty neutral.

For example:

"The projection problem is a technological cognate of the experi- menter's
regress (Collins, 1985). Scientists demand of experimental results that they
be replicable: a second experiment, duplicating the first in all relevant
respects, should produce the same results. But the notion of replication is
open-ended, in that there can be no exhaustive ex ante specification of what
it means to reproduce all relevant aspects of a previous experiment.
Similarly, in testing a device - where one aims to reproduce in a controlled
environment all relevant aspects of the device's real-world conditions of
use - there can be no exhaustive ex ante specifica- tion of all of the
relevant aspects, or of what it means to reproduce them. Hence test results
can always be contested by claiming that the test conditions differ from
real-life ones in crucial respects, invalidating the desired projection. "

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> My answer to all this stands as before. The precis does
>> not mention any research
>
> Itr doesn't need to, given that it has been published in a professional
> journal with a professional review board.
>
>> and it uses loaded, pergorative words.
>
> That would be a matter of perception.
>
>> On the surface it fails to interest me as an
>> article because it doesn't even pretend to be unbiased or
>> for that matter, research.
>
> Intersting that such harsh criticism would be given to the review board of
> a
> highly regarded professional organization.
>
> I submit that should one actually read the paper, or even just give an
> unbiased review to its abstract, one would find that it is pretty neutral.
>
> For example:
>
> "The projection problem is a technological cognate of the experi- menter's
> regress (Collins, 1985). Scientists demand of experimental results that
> they
> be replicable: a second experiment, duplicating the first in all relevant
> respects, should produce the same results. But the notion of replication
> is
> open-ended, in that there can be no exhaustive ex ante specification of
> what
> it means to reproduce all relevant aspects of a previous experiment.
> Similarly, in testing a device - where one aims to reproduce in a
> controlled
> environment all relevant aspects of the device's real-world conditions of
> use - there can be no exhaustive ex ante specifica- tion of all of the
> relevant aspects, or of what it means to reproduce them. Hence test
> results
> can always be contested by claiming that the test conditions differ from
> real-life ones in crucial respects, invalidating the desired projection. "

All of which is psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo meaning that it is easy
after-the-fact to find things that don't fit with normal home listening
conditions, and therefore are not accepted by the audiophile community.
However, if one is doing real science, and those "after-the-fact conditions"
are thought by many to be important and have been brought up often enough by
the community , then a test, to be valid, must also include them and hold
them constant. The only one I know of that makes this attempt is the first
(listening phase) of Oohashi's experiment with ultrasonic frequency
response. The fact that many "scientists" choose to ignore these
considerations (because they make the experimentation much more difficult
and time consuming) and then accuse people of raising these conditions
"after-the-fact" just to excuse the conclusions is self-serving.

Essentially the mumbo-jumbo cited above is a scientist's rationale for not
doing the difficult work to truly set up the correct conditions....instead
excoriating the audiophile community for asking that such conditions be met.

And by the way, it still has nothing to do directly with a scientific
experiment. It still falls under my accusation of "screed".

[Robert Peirce]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "The projection problem is a technological cognate of the experi- menter's
> regress (Collins, 1985). Scientists demand of experimental results that they
> be replicable: a second experiment, duplicating the first in all relevant
> respects, should produce the same results. But the notion of replication is
> open-ended, in that there can be no exhaustive ex ante specification of what
> it means to reproduce all relevant aspects of a previous experiment.
> Similarly, in testing a device - where one aims to reproduce in a controlled
> environment all relevant aspects of the device's real-world conditions of
> use - there can be no exhaustive ex ante specifica- tion of all of the
> relevant aspects, or of what it means to reproduce them. Hence test results
> can always be contested by claiming that the test conditions differ from
> real-life ones in crucial respects, invalidating the desired projection. "

Sounds like economics and other "social" sciences. There are too many
variables, some of which may not be well understood and some of which
may not even be known. It is impossible to factor everything in, and
precise prediction becomes impossible. In terms of audio, some people
hear things that are different from what other people hear but nobody
really knows exactly why.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 29 May 2010 09:56:00 -0700, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> "The projection problem is a technological cognate of the experi- menter's
>> regress (Collins, 1985). Scientists demand of experimental results that
>> they
>> be replicable: a second experiment, duplicating the first in all relevant
>> respects, should produce the same results. But the notion of replication is
>> open-ended, in that there can be no exhaustive ex ante specification of
>> what
>> it means to reproduce all relevant aspects of a previous experiment.
>> Similarly, in testing a device - where one aims to reproduce in a
>> controlled
>> environment all relevant aspects of the device's real-world conditions of
>> use - there can be no exhaustive ex ante specifica- tion of all of the
>> relevant aspects, or of what it means to reproduce them. Hence test results
>> can always be contested by claiming that the test conditions differ from
>> real-life ones in crucial respects, invalidating the desired projection. "
>
> Sounds like economics and other "social" sciences. There are too many
> variables, some of which may not be well understood and some of which
> may not even be known. It is impossible to factor everything in, and
> precise prediction becomes impossible. In terms of audio, some people
> hear things that are different from what other people hear but nobody
> really knows exactly why.

While you're obviously right about that, I think the answer is that the "ear"
isn't a stand-alone mechanism like a microphone. A microphone can be measured
and what you measure is what you get. OTOH, human hearing is the combination
of a transducer and a processing unit (one's brain). While only the physics
of the human ear define what sounds our brains receive, it's the brain itself
which changes the electrical signals from the ear into actual perceived
sound. Perception is neither linear (like an amplifier) nor is it neutral.
All kinds of things affect how we hear what we hear; mood, personal biases,
level of knowledge about what we're hearing (IOW, are we familiar enough with
a sound to be able to immediately recognize its source, or is the source
unknown to us), all kinds of other brain processes "color" what we hear. I
have no doubt that that just as no two people react to any given piece of
music in the same way, no two people hear exactly the same things in music
either. I believe that there are people who can hear things in reproduced
music that perhaps, someone else does NOT hear. Perhaps lots of listeners
don't hear the artifacts in MP3, for instance, because they truly don't know
that those artifacts aren't supposed to be there. Or perhaps, they don't hear
them at all, or have trained themselves to listen around those artifacts,
mush as many of us have trained ourselves to listen around the ticks and pops
and surface noise of LPs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Peirce" > wrote in message


> In terms of audio, some
> people hear things that are different from what other
> people hear but nobody really knows exactly why.

How exactly do we need to know this sort of thing?

I don't think that anybody knows exactly which brain cells are involved, but
how the various parts of the brain and ear work together is well known.

A strong component of the process is memory. People learn certain things,
and right or wrong, it has a strong influence over how they perceive what
they hear.

Memory is a big part of the explanation for why a tiny minority of people
still think LPs in general sound better, and memory appears to be strong
influence related to reports that a growing population of people prefer MP3s
made at too-low bitrates and have audible artifacts.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:26:20 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Robert Peirce" > wrote in message
>
>
>> In terms of audio, some
>> people hear things that are different from what other
>> people hear but nobody really knows exactly why.
>
> How exactly do we need to know this sort of thing?
>
> I don't think that anybody knows exactly which brain cells are involved, but
> how the various parts of the brain and ear work together is well known.
>
> A strong component of the process is memory. People learn certain things,
> and right or wrong, it has a strong influence over how they perceive what
> they hear.

That is correct. While "hearing" may be fairly mechanical experience that is
well understood and can even be quantified to a certain extent, "listening"
is a subjective thing. All of one's musical experiences (or lack of them, for
that matter) influence how we perceive music - whether live of reproduced.

> Memory is a big part of the explanation for why a tiny minority of people
> still think LPs in general sound better, and memory appears to be strong
> influence related to reports that a growing population of people prefer MP3s
> made at too-low bitrates and have audible artifacts.

Like I said, it is entirely possible that some people don't hear the
artifacts, and that others don't realize that these artifacts aren't really
supposed to be a part of the performance, and then, I'm sure that there are
even some MP3 listeners who actually LIKE the sound of the artifacts!