[mikeaj]

Quote:

So this program by Harman was posted in another forum here; it's called How to Listen. It offers examples of different types of distortion that users can classify. Legit or no legit? It seems like it could be a very helpful tool.

 
If you look at research papers out of that group, there certainly is a case for it working.
 
So-called "trained listeners" (using this program) that they use for their research have been shown to outperform other groups. Look at a comparison of relative F-test values and some discussion here, which was prior to the release of the software:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html
 
Some of the later papers and blog entries have some more info on the performance of the trained listeners.

 

[gnarlsagan]

Quote:

 
If you look at research papers out of that group, there certainly is a case for it working.
 
So-called "trained listeners" (using this program) that they use for their research have been shown to outperform other groups. Look at a comparison of relative F-test values and some discussion here, which was prior to the release of the software:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html
 
Some of the later papers and blog entries have some more info on the performance of the trained listeners.

 
Awesome link, thanks! Didn't realize Sean Olive had a blog. Seems trained listeners are to be taken quite seriously.

 

[bigshot]

Do they define what it is that trained listeners can hear? I would think that artifacting you could train to hear. Super audible frequencies, no.

 

[uchihaitachi]

Do they define what it is that trained listeners can hear? I would think that artifacting you could train to hear. Super audible frequencies, no.

It is an artifacting spotting training software.

 

[krismusic]

Well. I have been listening to Spotify Premium recently thinking that I was getting 320kbps. Just discovered that I had it set on lowest quality. 96kbps!!! So that shows how critical my listening is that I had not realised. Maybe I need training. Hopefully by a very attractive female audio dominatrix rather than Bigshot in a gimp suit! The increase in quality is one hell of a free upgrade though!

 

[Steve Eddy]

Well. I have been listening to Spotify Premium recently thinking that I was getting 320kbps. Just discovered that I had it set on lowest quality. 96kbps!!! So that shows how critical my listening is that I had not realised. Maybe I need training. Hopefully by a very attractive female audio dominatrix rather than Bigshot in a gimp suit! The increase in quality is one hell of a free upgrade though!

Speaking for myself, when I listen to music for pleasure (and I can't really think of any other reason), I'm not focusing on every little fly speck. To me, that's listening to "sound" rather than music. When listening to music, there are things about the "sound" that simply don't make it to the conscious level.

But there are a lot of people out there who seem to be absolutely fixated on "sound." That's all well and good, but it's not for me.

se

 

[bigshot]

Most of what I listen to is performed on acoustic instruments, so I'm pretty sensitive to electronic sounding distortion and digital artifacting. I don't mind limited response so much.

Do they have gimp suits at Amazon? I need to order one.

 

[mikeaj]

You can listen to music to analyze its structure (instrumentation, form, etc.), transcribe it, understand the nuances of the performance, etc. It might be a bit more difficult if the response of the playback system is imbalanced or there's some gross distortion. Or even higher noise / artifacting / potentially high-frequency cutoff of very lossy music. But I don't think most audiophiles are musicians or musicologists in that sense.
 
I don't really understand people listening for sound either, particularly to enjoy music. Though I legitimately wonder if some people pay more attention to timbre than I do. Do people with musical training focus on different aspects of music in general?

 

[krismusic]

I think we are into the nub of it here Steve Eddy and mikeaj.
I have said in other posts that I really question this "critical listening" idea that the essence of the music resides in micro details that you would need bat like hearing to detect but somehow "convey emotion".
Fortunes are spent trying to extract this information. I would be very interested to know if there is any objective basis for the premise.
I am fussy about music reproduction (and I begin to think that audiophile is a dressed up term for my being fussy).
All things being equal as long as there is no obvious deficiency in reproduction I suggest that the artistic quality of the Music is what connects with us.
Bigshot. Your old suit is fine. Don't just upgrade for the sake of it!

 

[bigshot]

I haven't found artifacting to be "micro details". In general, artifacts are big ugly splats. It's just that in electronic music, a big ugly digital splat can get hidden behind a bit of guitar distortion or synthesizer bleat. If you are used to listening to acoustic music, you don't need a heck of a lot of training to hear digital artifacting. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

But the nice thing about artifacting is that it is all or nothing. Something artifacts or it renders properly. There's no shades of gray inbetween. Once you find the bitrate that can sucessfully encode music, anything beyond that line is fine.

When people refer to microdetails, I think they are usually referring to the effect of masking. As you balance your frequency response, details that were covered up before start to come forward. It hard to know exactly what people are referring to with vague audiophile terms like "micro details" but that seems like a more likely explanation than artifacting.

 

[krismusic]

I agree that digital artefacts are unpleasant and obtrusive. I was sort of relating this to other threads where we have discussed audio myths and snake oil salesmen. I would suggest that the "last 1% " of audio reproduction is where these thrive. Would anyone like to put forward a sensible reason why a £20,000 CD player would sound better than a £500 player for instance?

 

[xnor]

Fairy dust polished laser lenses?

 

[krismusic]

I did say sensible.

 

[xnor]

Hmm, I see no reason why a CD player in this day and age should cost anywhere near 20k. Sure, "boutique" audio companies can sell them at whatever price they want and some people are still gonna buy that stuff but that doesn't mean the manufacturer did any novel research or innovation or is using different parts than other companies which sell their players for reasonable prices. Sorry if I'm not helpful at all.
 
But one thing: I don't remember the company name but they sell expensive, shiny CD players with tubes and blue leds -- and they perform abysmally. I guess people hear with their eyes.

 

[miceblue]

Random post, but have you guys heard of this before? It's the ultimate insanity-inducing torture chamber that is literally isolated from the rest of the world.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/04/03/daily-circuit-quiet-room