The Unreliability of Sound Memory in IEMs Comparisons and Evaluations
How often do you change your opinion on an IEM over time? And how frequently do you change it again? Personally, if I were to create a list of the best IEMs I own, I believe the positions on that list would be rearranged quite often. Ultimately, what does this question lead me to?
The first and most important point I want to address is memory, particularly the ‘memory of sound.’ When I listen to an IEM, especially during comparisons for reviews (but not exclusively), I tend to unconsciously focus on aspects that could be improved in its sound presentation (e.g., perhaps I feel it lacks some bass impact) while simultaneously thinking about other IEMs that I remember excelling in that particular aspect. The issue with this practice stems from the belief that memory is not very reliable in recalling things as volatile and complex as sound. We usually assume it does fine, and therefore, the vast majority of our comparisons and evaluations are based on it. But how fine and accurate can memory really be in relation to something as complex and multilayered as sound in music?
(Here, I really wanted to incorporate many other concepts into the discussion, especially the fact that the first IEM we usually listen to during the day—or after a long period of not listening to music—ends up usually being the reference point for all the other listening we’ll do during the session. But for the sake of conciseness and clarity, I will limit my argument to the ‘memory’ aspect, even though I feel that combining the two could potentially lead to a more exhaustive analysis).
Back to us: direct comparisons are undoubtedly a good method for conducting proper evaluations. However, brain burn-in constitutes the greatest barrier to this method being truly fault proof. Since the vast majority of our listening time is post brain burn-in (aside from the first minute or so needed for brain burn-in to occur), so when doing a comparison, it becomes necessary to wait some time to ‘disaccustom’ from the brain burn-in of the previous session in order to conduct a somewhat unadulterated evaluation of another IEM. The problem? The more time passes, the more we “forget” (lose the feel of) how the previous IEM actually sounded.
Therefore, the new IEM will always end up being compared to a "distorted" (for better or worse) version of the previous IEM. This could work in its favor or against it, with no way to tell for sure. I feel that the reasons that will advocate the superiority of one IEM over the other are as likely to be casual as objective. I believe this is the case because when making comparisons, we tend to test A vs. B on how they perform on a particular track, then proceed to another. However, sometimes, out of mere curiosity, I tend to do A vs. B / B vs. A on the same song, which can (though not always) leads to partial to sometimes substantial differences between my first and second findings. I would even say it’s not rare at all that after a first comparison I think I have a clear winner, but after the second one, I end up questioning where all that certainty was coming from to begin with. Now, would you agree that if I hadn't done this second comparison in the first place, I would've remained with a strong opinion that apparently would've been only "partially" true? This is obviously my personal experience, and I don’t know if any of you have experienced this phenomenon as recurrently as I have, but nevertheless, I think it was worth mentioning for the sake of the argument.
A potential alternative method would be comparing IEMs very quickly, even before brain burn-in takes place. However, I feel this is too short a time frame to properly evaluate an IEM, and I also feel the differences in sound between IEMs at a pre-brain burn-in stage are overly emphasized compared to post burn-in (which, again, constitutes the absolute majority of our listening experience).
To conclude and return to the initial point, we often base our evaluations of IEMs on comparisons. Since I truly believe there can be no "superiority" without comparisons. And, as I mentioned, I believe the memory of sound, with all its flaws, often plays a considerable role in the equation and actively conditions our conclusions. I would also like to point out that this phenomenon is only one of the many variables that condition our listening experience as a whole, and it need to be considered alongside the like of many other physical, psychological, and practical ones that actively affect both our listening experience and the conclusions we draw from it. However, in my view, I consider it a significant one, nonetheless. Ultimately, what do you think about it?
Honestly, I just wanted to share these thoughts with you all, since I was in withdrawal from my usual unnecessary ramblings! Also, as always, I’m really glad I have such a friendly place to share them! Hope you find it somehow interesting.
ing.Corp...excellent! 6!
