I came across a thread on another forum which put forth the premise that all of our senses can be deficient in ways we do not yet fully understand. The main argument for this premise was the number of color blind people who have otherwise normal vision. Among those "color blind" individuals there are those who can be divided into subgroups of various shades of color they cannot perceive and various degrees of color blindness to specific colors. One individual who is red/green color blind may have somewhat better perception of intense hues while other individuals might be totally red/green color blind seeing only shades of grey no matter the intensity of the color presented. Another person can see red/green without problem but is blind to blue/yellow hues. The rare instance would be complete color blindness where everything becomes a black and white movie. Yet all of those afflicted with various degrees and types of color blindness could have "20/20" vision when measured for a more basic perceptive ability.
I know individuals who have a poor sense of smell and those who can detect specific fragrances with ease. The perfume industries select such highly prized individuals as testers for their products. The food and wine industries select those who can pick out the various flavors in a product being prepared for sale. In Italy no Balsamic vinegar, proscuitto, Parmeggiano Regianno or a hundred other specialities can be labelled as DOCC until they have passed a board of expert tasters. I have many friends who can detect small bits of herbs and spices while others haven't a clue what's in a dish.
Studies lump us into "diminishers" and "exagerators". That would suggest we all have some ability, whether innate or chosen, which predicts how our senses will pick up on various stimuli. Apparently some of us are simply "better" equipped to use one or more of our senses when we compare our perceptions to those of another individual.
Some of us have perfect pitch and some can easily hear the way a chord progression moves or the timing of a performance is more expressive to some than to others. Musicians speak of another player's "ear" for certain qualities.
Is this then an explanation for why some individuals are better able to hear the effects of cables, AC conditioners, various alternative room treatments, etc? Shouldn't we expect all of our senses to have more or less the same peculiarities and some of us would then be better able to percieve small changes in sound just as the prized sommelier can detect small changes in flavor? If one individual can be color blind but not blind, couldn't another individual be deaf to specific qualites of sound while not being completely deaf?
I think those metaphors are useful in understanding that differences in hearing exist, and how those differences might manifest themselves. There are many levels to the differences. As you suggest, there are the "color" differences, in that what we hear may be limited in certain areas, and heightened in others.
I think there is also a developmental aspect to this, which is to say, learned vs natural ability. Music students who study intensely and live and breath music will heighten both their awareness of sound/tone/pitch, their ability to distinguish changes or differences, and develop their aural memory to a point well beyond what the average person can perceive, or recollect.
The another interesting aspect is how we are all "hardwired" at birth. If you study NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming) they teach you how to determine someones representational system bias. There are four; Digital,Visual,Audio, and Kinesthetic. If your primary representational system bias is audio, you live more by your sense of hearing than most. Typical traits of an audio are that they write almost nothing down, they are very sensitive to tone of voice in discussions, they like to have information spoken to them (or they read it and speak it to themselves), etc. They typically have excellent recall from discussions....like having a stenographer in the room. What's interesting is that most people with audio as a hobby are digitals, or analysts. People who are largely logical, step by step sort of people. They like instructions...preferably written in bullet form. I'm a digital/visual. Audio is a distant 3rd. My explanation for this is that audios like quiet, and are very sensitive to sounds around them. They hate loud noises. They like either complete quiet or white noise around them. Things like babies crying drive them crazy (a lot of audios never have kids). True audios are not that common. I only know a few, and none of them are the least bit musical, or into audio as a hobby, but I don't know enough of them to get a good sample size.
I always wanted to take an audio and get them to listen to differences in stereo components to see if they could resolve more subtle changes than non audios. It would be a difficult study to setup, but would be fascinating to conduct.
"I think there is also a developmental aspect to this, which is to say, learned vs natural ability. Music students who study intensely and live and breath music will heighten both their awareness of sound/tone/pitch, their ability to distinguish changes or differences, and develop their aural memory to a point well beyond what the average person can perceive, or recollect."
No doubt there are numerous ways to train our senses. What I'm discussing here, however, is more akin to your "hardwired at birth". Let's just deal with the idea that some people have distinct abilites - not necessarily talents, they might turn their abilities into talents but that's another subject - they are born with and they have these abilites without training in any particular area.
I think some people are born much more sensitive to music, than others.
Over the years I've seen that music touches or hit's an emotional nerve with some people, while others seem not to feel the melody, the passion, the emotion of music.
I know that most people will have emotional reactions to specific songs because the song strikes a memory and can create a flashback of emotion regarding what ever that individual was going through at that time.
Now, some people are more casual music listeners. Music doesn't mean all that much to them, other than passing the time while driving or at parties.
But I'm talking about people who are deeply, emotionally moved by melody, certain chord progressions, certain notes, music in certain keys or movements; right from the first time they hear a piece of music.
I suspect some of us have a more sensitive, open, active, creative and vivid imagination.
I think we're the ones that typically feel the music on a much more deeper, emotional level and the music/songs/pieces become much more important and significant to us.
Maybe I'm one of those exagerators, you mentioned.
But I'm sensitive to music (and lyrics) and it has a much deeper, emotional effect and connection for me.
My grandfather was an audiologist. He used to test peoples hearing...mostly people that thought they had a problem. Kids and older folks mostly. He always said that no two people were exactly alike. People could be above the curve at one frequency and well below the curve at others. I guess this gives us built in equalizers. Makes sense why some people would perceive a system to be too forward in the midrange, where the next guy could say it sounds very neutral. Different EQ's.
OK, this forum isn't overly populated by those who insist cables and "tweaks" are voodoo that can only be heard by the weak minded fools but that's where I'm headed with this thread. Why do some people just not "hear cables"?
Not one of us hears just as the other guy does IMO. But there are those who insist cables, power conditioners, footers and other tweaks are the stuff of charlatans simply because they cannot hear the effects. That doesn't make them less involved in the music - I don't think - or down in frequency senstivity at certain points. They just don't hear what I and others hear when a cable is swapped into the system or a different footer is placed under a pre amp. So is this "color blindness" of the auditory sense what accounts for this?
I believe there is a certain amount of "pre-programming" in all of us. I also believe that you can become a more acute listener through practice. The longer I have been involved with my kit the more I can hear. Hell, I support a Call Center and I can pretty much pick out one of 30 conversations in a room if I want to. Generally it is all noise to me.
I think of people who cannot hear certain things come in two flavors, those who really can't and those who are in denial. What I wonder is that those who really cannot hear the changes, what can they hear? I mean if you had a decent set up in one room and played music for them, then sent them to the next room where the set up was cleaned up and improved, would both rooms sound the same to them? If not, why wouldn't they be able to hear the improvements as the were made with cables, conditioners, acoustical panels, etc?
To me, "color blindness" equates to frequency recognition and sensitivity in the auditory world. That's why I brought that example up. As far as being able (or willing) to hear the subtleties of tweaks and cable swaps, for me, this would equate not to color blindness, but near sightedness. You mentioned 20/20 vision, which I equate to 20/20 hearing on the auditory side.
I think there are a number of reasons why some people don't hear the differences. Some don't give it a chance, because the analyst in them can't understand WHY it would make a difference, so they don't use their ears to hear that it does. Some just don't have the sensitivity in their hearing to allow it....however you want to describe it...beit color blindness, or whatever. Ears are no different than livers, lungs, or hands. They serve the same purpose, but not all are created equally. Even the structure and size of the outer ear affects how well we hear. Some people are prone to wax build-up which obstructs sound waves passing to the inner ear. I knew one guy that had so much hair growing in his ear I don't think he could hear a darn thing.
Sometimes I sit down to listen to my system and I swear somethings changed, when nothing has...at least apparently. I look for a bad connection or whatever and find nothing. I'll load another disk and still, somethings not right. The next time I listen everything is cool again. Power grid ? Maybe. Funky PCB somewhere ? Perhaps. Or maybe my hearing isn't the same from one day to the next.
The upgraded cables in my system were very noticeable to both my wife and I. We both noticed the same improvements from one IC to another. The IC's made an improvement in tonality, midrange detail and tightness of bottom end bass. I heard these improvements first, then I brought my wife into the room played some music and asked what she hears. It was identical to what I heard. If we heard these improvements to the same degree, it's hard to say.
As far as this goes, I think some people don't hear it at all.
I think some people maybe are in denial, if they do hear a difference and refuse to admit it.
I also believe some people are in denial in claiming they hear a difference and they really don't hear anything different.
I think it's also possible some people believe the hear a difference, but there may not reall be anything.
And I think we should realize that just because a tweak or cable sounds different; it doesn't mean it sounds better.
Better or worse is up to the individual and their own preferences for sound.
I think some tweaks are a major scam and don't really do a damn thing. And I think some tweaks are very legitimate and make a noticable difference.
I prefer to take each individual tweak on it's own merit and decide whether it does anything positive for my system.
I don't think one can generalize all tweaks as being effective or all tweaks as hogwash.
As for cables, I've never heard any ultra expensive cables that made any significant improvements, that would make it worth their price tag.
Realistically, I have heard different cables that sound different from each other. That doesn't necessarily mean they sounded better.
In fact, those XLO-VDO cables were terrible. Cardas were nice, but barely ...I mean by a hair...sounded better than what I have. Not worth the price.
Other's may find their differences or "improvements " worth all that extra cash. But for me, no way. To each his own.
All I know is this, a high majority of people can't consistently tell a difference in double-blind tests.
And the power of suggestion is extremely high in this hobby.
Several friends routinely picked Cobalt Cables because they thought they were listening to Cardas Golden Reference Interconnects and Golden Reference Speaker Cables.
And then when not told what cables they listening to, they all picked the Cobalt, anyway
So, I believe there's a lot of contributing factors to what people hear, what they think they hear and what they swear they hear.
Cables are very subjective, but there are differences for better or for worse. I took my $37 Blue Jeans Cable IC's with me over to a friends house and switched out his expensive IC's with the BJC IC's. At the end of a listening session we agreed that neither IC was better than the other. There were differences between the two, mainly in the mid to lower bass, but both were good.
The IC's I had before the BJC LC-1 was a XLOHTPRO, which was pretty bad.
"OK, this forum isn't overly populated by those who insist cables and "tweaks" are voodoo that can only be heard by the weak minded fools but that's where I'm headed with this thread. Why do some people just not "hear cables"?
Not one of us hears just as the other guy does IMO. But there are those who insist cables, power conditioners, footers and other tweaks are the stuff of charlatans simply because they cannot hear the effects. That doesn't make them less involved in the music - I don't think - or down in frequency senstivity at certain points. They just don't hear what I and others hear when a cable is swapped into the system or a different footer is placed under a pre amp. So is this "color blindness" of the auditory sense what accounts for this?"
Jan, you ask a very interesting question.
From my personal experience I enjoy listening to music although I would not consider myself to be an "Audiophile". I don't really sit down with my system at home and "critically" listen to look for areas open for improvement. However; Given an A/B comparison between speaker brands/models etc. I can usually hear or pick out subtle differences. Throughout my years selling A/V equipment and performing demonstrations for customers I have formed the opinion that some people that don't hear a difference simply don't know what to listen or look for while others are simply not concerned with hearing or seeing a difference at all.
For those people who don't know what to listen or look for, they may hear a difference but not know what to attribute that difference to or how to describe it.
A classic example: A few months ago a trainer from a well known speaker manufacturer had set up a pair of speakers to demonstrate to us, and when he played a music clip the speakers simply didn't sound right at all. Only one person out of the entire group (not the trainer) stated that one of the speakers was wired out of phase. Most of the group new that would make a difference in the sound quality, but not what the difference would sound like.
Other people may simply be of the opinion that "I can hear it, and that's good enough". For these individuals, their "Passion" simply lies elsewhere.
After more than 12 years selling A/V equipment and I don't know how many different demonstrations one of the best displays of the differences between speaker cables was a very simple demonstration involving an inexpensive bookshelf audio system. The only modification to the bookshelf system was the addition of multi-way binding posts to the main unit and the speakers. This would allow the person performing the demo to very quickly change out the speaker cables. The reason for this is based on a theory that the average person has an auditory memory of approximately 20 seconds. Outside of that very short time span, people can remember what they heard, but lose track of the specifics i.e. tone, clarity, detail etc. The person performing the demo would play 20-25 seconds from a music CD, stop switch the speaker cables and play the same sample of music again. Each person listening to the demonstration was instructed to write down a few notes rather than discuss the differences while the speaker cables were being changed to keep the pause as brief as possible. With each different speaker cable that was used most people listening to the demonstration were able to pick out a couple of subtle differences (I won't say improvements since that's rather subjective) in the sound or tonal quality from one speaker cable to the next.
Based on this theory, if you are trying to demonstrate the difference between two power centers and it takes a minute or more to re-connect power cables etc. most people would be less likely to pick up on any subtle differences. They would hear or see and recognize the same music or movie clip but they may not remember some of the more fine details of the audio or video.
These are all very interesting points made, and mostly above my pay-grade. One thing I would add is I agree with Leo's point about education. The way I see this is I was a musician for a many years, so I understood music, and the dynamics of live music. But for many years I had never had the privilege of hearing music on a good system. It wasn't until a few years ago that I really got into home audio (and could afford to buy half decent gear) that I "learned" to appreciate what music should sound like and what sounds good. So there ya go - that's education. Forums like this help too.
Certainly we can train ourself to better our skills. Skills however are not what I'm talking about in this thread. I'm trying to restrain the discussion to "innate abilites". There are no great athletes, surgeons, performers without a great deal of effort being put into becoming the best in a field. However, you can train for years or even decades and still not reach the top of your chosen field if you do not have that extra innate ability that sets the best apart from the very good.
I always suggest everyone go out and listen and think. Listen to live music and think about what you've heard. Listen to reproduced music and think about what you've heard. My experience tells me two individuals sitting side by side can and very likely will have dissimilar response to what they have heard. It happens with experienced and unexperienced listeners alike.
Therefore, what are your thoughts on "innate abilities"? Do you know someone who has abilities "far beyond those of mortal men". Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Able to stop bullets? Outrun trains?
What sets those individuals apart from the rest? Are those abilities similar to the "born with" deficiencies of someone who is color blind or are these now two distinct things? In other words, you can teach someone to have a better swing at a baseball or a golf ball, but there are still those with natural abilities who will rise to the top. I've heard batters say they can pick up on the way the ball rotates, which seems an impossible thing to do when a four inch round object is coming at you at 95 m.p.h.
On the other hand there is a limit to what can be done by way of training to improve the color perception of a color blind individual.
Are either of these related to our ability to hear?
What about a balance of abilities, and the differences borne of necessity? When a person is rendered blind (not from birth) the other senses become heightened in many cases, including hearing. This could be an automatic function of survival, as in hear the tiger that you cannot see, but the hearing ability was not excited except out of necessity.
By the time the tiger is close enough to smell, a blind person is in a pickle, so hearing often is boosted.
I can go along with Nuck's assessment. My eye sight was poor most all of my life, I had sinus surgery which has limited my sense of smell, and I often cannot detect certain herbs or spices in food. I cannot sing for sh!t either. Could be why my hearing supposedly is so good.
Yet I have tweaked my gear and JV hears things that I have not and visa-versa, but we mostly hear the same things. I have auditioned gear with Nuck and both of us heard different subtle idiosyncrasies that the other could not recognize but in the end we both were in complete agreement to what was good or bad.
