[Allanmarcus]

A DAC is not a DAC. There are definitely subtle differences between DACs. It all depends on how trained and sensitive your ears are.

... And is there a medical certification/test for that sensitivity?

Absolutely, there is. First, at a broad level, and medically certified, are frequency response tests that audiologists can give. These test can be quite thorough in determining one's ability to hear and distinguish various frequencies. Once ability to hear or distinguish frequencies can certainly affect one's option on a DAC, or any other piece of audio reproduction equipment.

As for training, there are many ear training regimes, classes, and tests one can utilize to train one's ability to distinguish many aspects of music, and musical reproduction. There is a good summary of types of recognition one can train for at Wikipedia. Are there medical certifications for ear training? I'm not sure. There are validated tests that one can take to determine one's ability to distinguish pitch, interval, key, and others. Many well respected universities have music programs that include tests to identify various aspects of music theory.

I think it's pretty well accepted, even among objectivists like me, that individuals hear differently, and that ear training (listening training) is valid. I think it's also well accepted that not every DAC sounds the same. There are measurable differences in FR, distortion, and clock accuracy, and probably other things that I don't understand that can have an affect on sound reproduction, especially to someone with sensitive enough and trained ears.

 

[castleofargh]

This thread has been very quiet for a long time. Maybe it needs waking up?

Was looking through another thread and saw this post from earlier this month and something jumped out at me (bold emphasis is mine):



So is there like an online class for this training? Or is more like going to sports camp? And is there a medical certification/test for that sensitivity?

Now those remarks are a bit flippant, but is there is actually any agreed upon standards for what is being described there? Or is just something people throw out to justify their beliefs, without any real shared basis for what it means?

so long as the argument is used when talking about sighted test, and dudes who don't even know DACs can output different voltages, just laugh it off.
if we're talking about an actual listening test(as in, sound only), then it's absolutely true that training can improve detection within what's already physically audible to the listener. training for the test itself, training with louder samples of the stuff we'll have to notice. training to focus on specific aspects of sound. or on the contrary, learn not to focus on something specific to avoid some kind of "tunnel vision" effect where the brain is so focused on one thing that it might ignore the rest on purpose to help stay focused on that other stuff.
then if you clearly know what's different between 2 DACs, you can always set your listening test around hearing that specifically. for example pushing the sound like crazy to notice a faster roll off at 18khz despite how you maybe can't hear any 18khz at all at normal listening level.

but let's be clear, I would be amazed that something beyond just barely noticeable would elude me in a rapid switching exercise just because I wasn't trained to hear it. the way our brain picks up on variations is the very foundation of hearing. of course we're already amazing at that. saying what the difference is might be a different matter.

Absolutely, there is. First, at a broad level, and medically certified, are frequency response tests that audiologists can give. These test can be quite thorough in determining one's ability to hear and distinguish various frequencies. Once ability to hear or distinguish frequencies can certainly affect one's option on a DAC, or any other piece of audio reproduction equipment.

As for training, there are many ear training regimes, classes, and tests one can utilize to train one's ability to distinguish many aspects of music, and musical reproduction. There is a good summary of types of recognition one can train for at Wikipedia. Are there medical certifications for ear training? I'm not sure. There are validated tests that one can take to determine one's ability to distinguish pitch, interval, key, and others. Many well respected universities have music programs that include tests to identify various aspects of music theory.

I think it's pretty well accepted, even among objectivists like me, that individuals hear differently, and that ear training (listening training) is valid. I think it's also well accepted that not every DAC sounds the same. There are measurable differences in FR, distortion, and clock accuracy, and probably other things that I don't understand that can have an affect on sound reproduction, especially to someone with sensitive enough and trained ears.

you need to keep in mind the difference between identifying something, and noticing a variation. the former is clearly a matter of training, the later not as much. noticing the differences between DACs doesn't require to properly name those differences or even know how to describe them. we only have to perceive the change.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

so long as the argument is used when talking about sighted test, and dudes who don't even know DACs can output different voltages, just laugh it off.
if we're talking about an actual listening test(as in, sound only), then it's absolutely true that training can improve detection within what's already physically audible to the listener. training for the test itself, training with louder samples of the stuff we'll have to notice. training to focus on specific aspects of sound. or on the contrary, learn not to focus on something specific to avoid some kind of "tunnel vision" effect where the brain is so focused on one thing that it might ignore the rest on purpose to help stay focused on that other stuff.
then if you clearly know what's different between 2 DACs, you can always set your listening test around hearing that specifically. for example pushing the sound like crazy to notice a faster roll off at 18khz despite how you maybe can't hear any 18khz at all at normal listening level.

but let's be clear, I would be amazed that something beyond just barely noticeable would elude me in a rapid switching exercise just because I wasn't trained to hear it. the way our brain picks up on variations is the very foundation of hearing. of course we're already amazing at that. saying what the difference is might be a different matter.


you need to keep in mind the difference between identifying something, and noticing a variation. the former is clearly a matter of training, the later not as much. noticing the differences between DACs doesn't require to properly name those differences or even know how to describe them. we only have to perceive the change.

Listeners have different preferences(and thereby differing strengths and weaknesses)i love a nice full range low distortion sound,but i will take a realistic soundstage/imaging in exchange for less performance in some other areas.So i may notice imaging more than freq anomalies/distortion ect.

 

[Allanmarcus]

This thread has been very quiet for a long time. Maybe it needs waking up?

Was looking through another thread and saw this post from earlier this month and something jumped out at me (bold emphasis is mine):



So is there like an online class for this training? Or is more like going to sports camp? And is there a medical certification/test for that sensitivity?

Now those remarks are a bit flippant, but is there is actually any agreed upon standards for what is being described there? Or is just something people throw out to justify their beliefs, without any real shared basis for what it means?

Ahh! For some reason I didn't see the original response.

Are there actual classes for ear training? Absolutely. Just google "ear training course", possibly ass "sound engineer" to the search. Phillips used to have a course and free test on their web site that many in the audiophile community took, but alas, it's gone. Most courses are for musicians, but some focus on sound engineering, and others on piano or instrument tuning. Some are on-line, some on CD. Some free, some paid.

A trained ear should be able identify variation, as well as identify pitch, interval, and other stuff. My ears are not trained. It's one of them things to do on my bucket list. I imagine not everyone has the same ability to be trained, just as with everything else.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Ahh! For some reason I didn't see the original response.

Are there actual classes for ear training? Absolutely. Just google "ear training course", possibly ass "sound engineer" to the search. Phillips used to have a course and free test on their web site that many in the audiophile community took, but alas, it's gone. Most courses are for musicians, but some focus on sound engineering, and others on piano or instrument tuning. Some are on-line, some on CD. Some free, some paid.

A trained ear should be able identify variation, as well as identify pitch, interval, and other stuff. My ears are not trained. It's one of them things to do on my bucket list. I imagine not everyone has the same ability to be trained, just as with everything else.

Sounds like a great way to go from enjoying music to dissecting it....gotta draw the line bud.

 

[Allanmarcus]

Sounds like a great way to go from enjoying music to dissecting it....gotta draw the line bud.

Yep. One of the reasons I haven't done any of the courses. Many say that once you can hear stuff, can can't not hear it.

As my lawyer wife says, you can't unring the bell.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Yep. One of the reasons I haven't done any of the courses. Many say that once you can hear stuff, can can't not hear it.

As my lawyer wife says, you can't unring the bell.

I love my stereo equipment...its taken years to to put it in 2nd place to the music.

 

[U-3C]

Well, having an ear to notice things you never gave thought to before can definitely lead to a new appreciation to things, no?

 

[cel4145]

Ahh! For some reason I didn't see the original response.

Are there actual classes for ear training? Absolutely. Just google "ear training course", possibly ass "sound engineer" to the search. Phillips used to have a course and free test on their web site that many in the audiophile community took, but alas, it's gone. Most courses are for musicians, but some focus on sound engineering, and others on piano or instrument tuning. Some are on-line, some on CD. Some free, some paid.

A trained ear should be able identify variation, as well as identify pitch, interval, and other stuff. My ears are not trained. It's one of them things to do on my bucket list. I imagine not everyone has the same ability to be trained, just as with everything else.

So I am confused then. What would make you think that a trained ear can hear the difference between expensive DACs if (a) your ears are not trained and (b) there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the differences people hear between DACs is due to expectation bias and listening test issues, not hearable difference?

 

[cel4145]

Sounds like a great way to go from enjoying music to dissecting it....gotta draw the line bud.

And if a $100 DAC sounds the same to me as a $600, why would I want to get trained so I can hear the difference? Ignorance is bliss...err rather...better money never spent

 

[Allanmarcus]

So I am confused then. What would make you think that a trained ear can hear the difference between expensive DACs if (a) your ears are not trained and (b) there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the differences people hear between DACs is due to expectation bias and listening test issues, not hearable difference?

I cannot hear the difference between most DACs, but I could in at least one case. I compared three DACs, one Sony and two Schiit. The comparison was blind (son was switching). I (and he) could consistently identify the Sony UDA-1, but we could not tell the difference (other then a slight volume difference) between the Bimby and the Gumby. Both of our bias was to assume the Gumby was better.

As for training, there are many ear training regimes, classes, and tests one can utilize to train one's ability to distinguish many aspects of music, and musical reproduction. There is a good summary of types of recognition one can train for at Wikipedia. Are there medical certifications for ear training? I'm not sure. There are validated tests that one can take to determine one's ability to distinguish pitch, interval, key, and others. Many well respected universities have music programs that include tests to identify various aspects of music theory.

I think it's pretty well accepted, even among objectivists like me, that individuals hear differently, and that ear training (listening training) is valid. I think it's also well accepted that not every DAC sounds the same uses the same technology. There are measurable differences in FR, distortion, and clock accuracy, and probably other things that I don't understand that can have an affect on sound reproduction, especially to someone with sensitive enough and trained ears.

So, to sum up, a trained ear might be able to distinguish, and prefer, and describe, the subtle variations in DAC technology implementations (e.g., different DACs). Objectively, not all DAC implementations are the same. Measurements often prove this.

Also note that I never said "a trained ear can hear the difference between expensive DACs". I said, well, what I just said above. "There are measurable differences in FR, distortion, and clock accuracy, and probably other things that I don't understand that can have an affect on sound reproduction, especially to someone with sensitive enough and trained ears."

 

[bigshot]

It's easy to determine differences between DACs if they aren't level matched.

I don't think you can train your ear to hear things you couldn't hear without training. I think practice just makes you better at describing the differences. When I'm listening to an imbalanced system, I can call out the ballpark response location and level difference. I can also pinpoint distortion within frequency ranges. I'm not good enough to describe different kinds of distortion or venture a guess as to what the rating of the distortion is, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone could do that.

Most of the people I see claiming to have "golden ears" that are trained to jump through hoops describe sound in the most vague and poetic ways. They say they can detect "veils" and talk about hearing flies buzzing across the room and footsteps in tall grass a block away. These sorts of people fall into the category of self validating delusion as far as I'm concerned. If you can't equate sound with some sort of precise description, it really doesn't matter what you hear. You aren't going to be able to point it out to anyone else. But that doesn't matter because their only purpose in flaunting their trained ears is to impress other people.

I'm not that easily impressed. Knowledge and the ability to put observations to practical use impress me, not the ability to hear raindrops falling on a velvet pillow. In fact, I feel sorry for people who are able to hear very high frequencies. I've known a couple and the high pitched squeal of TV sets and fluorescent light ballasts made them crazy. I could hear that stuff when I was about 8. I remember going to Sears and getting dizzy headaches from the combination of banks and banks of fluorescent lights. The nauseatingly pervasive odor of popcorn didn't help any. I *hated* Sears.

 

[Allanmarcus]

It's easy to determine differences between DACs if they aren't level matched.

I don't think you can train your ear to hear things you couldn't hear without training. I think practice just makes you better at describing the differences. When I'm listening to an imbalanced system, I can call out the ballpark response location and level difference. I can also pinpoint distortion within frequency ranges. I'm not good enough to describe different kinds of distortion or venture a guess as to what the rating of the distortion is, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone could do that.

Most of the people I see claiming to have "golden ears" that are trained to jump through hoops describe sound in the most vague and poetic ways. They say they can detect "veils" and talk about hearing flies buzzing across the room and footsteps in tall grass a block away. These sorts of people fall into the category of self validating delusion as far as I'm concerned. If you can't equate sound with some sort of precise description, it really doesn't matter what you hear. You aren't going to be able to point it out to anyone else. But that doesn't matter because their only purpose in flaunting their trained ears is to impress other people.

I'm not that easily impressed. Knowledge and the ability to put observations to practical use impress me, not the ability to hear raindrops falling on a velvet pillow. In fact, I feel sorry for people who are able to hear very high frequencies. I've known a couple and the high pitched squeal of TV sets and fluorescent light ballasts made them crazy. I could hear that stuff when I was about 8. I remember going to Sears and getting dizzy headaches from the combination of banks and banks of fluorescent lights. The nauseatingly pervasive odor of popcorn didn't help any. I *hated* Sears.

I'm 54 and just replaced a few ballasts. I could easily hear the hum. I cannot hear above 16.5khz, based on audiologist testing.

No one can train their ears to hear things they cannot hear. No one suggested that. Ear training, especially for musicians, is all about pitch (FR), interval (timing), chords, and timbre. Sound engineers earns about distortion, compression, and delay times. All measurable.

This ain't rocket science, folks. Fact: some people have better and/or more sensitive hearing than others. There are measurable differences in sound that people can be trained to distinguish, identify, and describe.

Yes, many "audiophiles" describe sound like floating in a breeze over a field of colorful flowers which sipping sweetened Ice Tea. I ain't one of them. That's not what I'm talking about. People's ears can be trained to recognize all the stuff discussed above. Some will do it better than others as a result in inherently better/more sensitive hearing, some will do it better as a result of better training and experience.

Am I saying expectation bias doesn't exists. Of course not.
Am I saying DBT isn't needed? Of course not.
Am I saying everything DAC sound different? Of course not.

Am I saying there are differences, sometimes audible in some DACs? Yes.
Am I saying that people with trained ears, trained in hearing and identifying variations in pitch, tempo, interval, distortion, and compression may be able to better identify and describe differences in some DACs? Yes.

This seams pretty strait forward for the science board. This is science, not voodoo, audio-phoolery.

 

[Raketen]

That Phillips Golden course was very cool, unfortunate that they took it offline... though gladly the would-be tonmeisters adding "CERTIFIED PALLADIUM EARS" to their signature have abated

Personally find that stuff extremely mentally draining after even a few minutes, like an itch that can't be scratched. Imagine that to become a good mastering engineer it really must take years of daily work before it becomes non-exhausting, second nature type of skill.

 

[bigshot]

Am I saying there are differences, sometimes audible in some DACs? Yes.

Which ones? The only ones I’ve ever seen are obsolete pre oversampling DACs from the 1980s.

Hearing a difference just requires ears. Describing the difference requires understanding and experience. If two DACs sound different, you wouldn’t need training to hear the difference. Only to describe it.