Agree with Raul. The "audio memory is short" truism has been posted a million times, but I've never found it so. My experience is that as we listen to more music and as our systems evolve our audio memory improves, as do most brain functions when exercised.
Simple example: I last heard a live cello several months ago. Nevertheless, if I heard one live today I'd have no trouble identifying it. If I heard a recorded cello I'd have no trouble identifying that, and also no trouble describing ways in which the recorded sound differed from the real thing. How could I do this without retaining the memory of the sound of a live cello?
Too easy, you say? Here's another: my mom has absolute pitch recall. She hasn't had a piano in her home in 15 years, but if someone plays an "F" she can still tell you it's an "F", every time (assuming modern tuning). If the "F" is sharp or flat, she'll tell you that too. Ask her to sing an "F" and she will, perfectly. At some point, many decades ago, she learned that a certain frequency and its multiples are all named "F". She stored the memory of that frequency and can recall it at will. There's nothing "short" about her audio memory.
Raul's audio memory is different from Paul's. I know this because each of them identified sonic inaccuracies in the other one's preamp in a matter of minutes, inaccuracies neither owner had ever noticed. When listening to the other's preamp, each of them remembered things their own preamp did better. This is is evidence of long-term audio memory, for different things in different individuals.
We can state with confidence that audio memory varies from one person to another and for one sonic artifact to another. Any blanket statement that sonic memory is "short" (or long, or indivisible) is an oversimplification without basis in observed reality.
Simple example: I last heard a live cello several months ago. Nevertheless, if I heard one live today I'd have no trouble identifying it. If I heard a recorded cello I'd have no trouble identifying that, and also no trouble describing ways in which the recorded sound differed from the real thing. How could I do this without retaining the memory of the sound of a live cello?
Too easy, you say? Here's another: my mom has absolute pitch recall. She hasn't had a piano in her home in 15 years, but if someone plays an "F" she can still tell you it's an "F", every time (assuming modern tuning). If the "F" is sharp or flat, she'll tell you that too. Ask her to sing an "F" and she will, perfectly. At some point, many decades ago, she learned that a certain frequency and its multiples are all named "F". She stored the memory of that frequency and can recall it at will. There's nothing "short" about her audio memory.
Raul's audio memory is different from Paul's. I know this because each of them identified sonic inaccuracies in the other one's preamp in a matter of minutes, inaccuracies neither owner had ever noticed. When listening to the other's preamp, each of them remembered things their own preamp did better. This is is evidence of long-term audio memory, for different things in different individuals.
We can state with confidence that audio memory varies from one person to another and for one sonic artifact to another. Any blanket statement that sonic memory is "short" (or long, or indivisible) is an oversimplification without basis in observed reality.
