Maybe I interpreted your first sentence incorrectly but I don't think you are wrong at all. In fairness, there's a whole lot of autocorrect typos going on throughout the post.
Harman's research does say that. But I have spoken to Dr. Toole about that research and he agrees the similarity of us hearing the same is related to speaker colorations being a linear distortion. And that when it comes to non-linear (i.e. less obvious) differences we do not have the same acuity.
Also, I had the pleasure of participating in the blind testing they use to train their expert listeners as part of the group with Dr. Olive being the procotor (see http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Listen-Software-is-Now-Available-For-Download). I had a bit of practice prior to going there, having run the program when Sean had post it here. The group as a whole could not go past level 2-3. I managed to keep up with Sean to about level 5-6 or something like it. But he sailed past me with complete ease. So even though we all hear colorations similarly, or better put, have similar preferences, our ability to identify them requires training/expertise or better acuity.
Thanks for the implied compliment.Wow,
a bit of an eye opener regarding Sean and listening test in comparison to you Amir.
I would had thought it would be pretty equal between the two of you, well makes you wonder how many of those ABX tests "everyone fails" (using quotes because I am with you regarding importance of training for ABX to have any importance in JND, although it seems we are in the minority on many forums) he would pass lol.
Cheers
Orb
Thanks for the implied compliment.
This was pretty clear evidence that different fields require different training. When I first took the test at home, I could not get past level 3 or so either. But with just a couple of tries, I got to 5-6. I think Sean said their trained listeners had to get up to 12 or something. I suspect with sufficient training I could get up there but thought the contrast was worth mentioning.
Wonder how Sean would do if tables were turned and we were talking about lossy audio conversion.
This was pretty clear evidence that different fields require different training.
I have often wondered if there is a correlation between being "tone deaf" and "I don't hear a difference, it all sounds the same".
,snip> This was pretty clear evidence that different fields require different training. When I first took the test at home, I could not get past level 3 or so either. But with just a couple of tries, I got to 5-6. I think Sean said their trained listeners had to get up to 12 or something. I suspect with sufficient training I could get up there but thought the contrast was worth mentioning. <snip>
I have noticed that my friends that say "it all sounds the same to me" are the same people that can't carry even the simplest tunes to save their lives. Yes karaoke is popular here. LOL.
There may be something to that statement. It might be processing problems and not only hearing problems. Something like dyslexia for readers or whatever.
I had the same concern until I took the test and realized it is completely different. The training is not to teach you what is good or bad speaker. The training involves hearing a coloration and precisely identifying. This is no different than a mechanic knowing what sound to listen for in the engine to know if there are any issues there.This is actually one of my concerns about Harman. I honestly wonder if they aren't potentially stuck in a feedback loop, where they train listeners to hear certain things, and then design their speakers based on those listening impressions.
I suspect they do that too, just not using this type of testing.In other words, is it possible that training some of their listeners in other areas (like the non-linear distortions you mention) would result in better-quality speakers?
Hi Tom. As I just explained, this is specialized testing designed to tease out design problems that need to be resolved. The purpose of running such tests is to find problems and get them to be specific enough so that they can be addressed.Hello Amir and good morning to you. First off, congrat's on getting to level 5 or 6. While I personally do not know what level I would get to, my first thought was that I believe I would hate it if I were to get anywhere close to level 12 or higher. I am picky and analytical enough without nit picking to the nth degree. At some point along this test, there comes a line one would cross to where they are listening to the playback mechanisms and not enjoying the music. Yes, there are some things I hear with every system I observe (my system I am THE most critical with) but at what point do you simply turn the "audiophile card" off and just enjoy the musical reproductive effort? I.E., simply enjoying the music itself.
While I believe that many members of this forum could climb high on the test, if everybody here at the WBF could achieve level 12 or higher, at what point would the members here disengage from the music itself and be analytical zombies, if you will?
Tom
I had the same concern until I took the test and realized it is completely different. The training is not to teach you what is good or bad speaker. The training involves hearing a coloration and precisely identifying. This is no different than a mechanic knowing what sound to listen for in the engine to know if there are any issues there.
I have taken the blind preference test (different than the training test above) and both times have voted the same as larger population that have tested such tests which included all walks of life:
![]()
![]() | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |