How does one get "trained" ears?

[bonzo75]

Or to paraphase,"Do you really want to know what's in a hot dog?"

"...can't see the forest for the trees."

Anyone with eyes can see the emperor is naked, the test is who has chutzpa to point it out.

These are all funny

 

[bonzo75]

Just a general note: I am not very active on this forum.

 

[Folsom]

Help me understand this riddle for me, will you?

I routinely read that someone changes something in their audio equipment that their wife or girlfriend walked by and out of the blue they noticed the change and commented on it. With respect to her, the test is blind (or so it seems). How is it that she has that ability but the audiophile himself doesn't? Why can't I change something while you are out of the room and see if you can tell when you come back? You think you can pass that test with your power conditioner for example?

As you read further on I believe we need association, which doesn't have to know what equipment was switched. The wife has associations with her response to the music, and if those change she may comment.

I've found with power conditioning how I recommend someone understand what they're hearing is to listen with a unit for 2 weeks. Don't worry about noticing the changes (hard for some people to do, depending on how big the changes are). At the end of 2 weeks when you remove it, you'll know for sure if it's different (and how much you miss it). It's not unsimilar to wine tasting where an "expert" can't tell the difference between a lot of wine, might be able to describe them, but surely can tell you every time their most consumed wine hits the tongue. We begin to have expectations, and when those are not met, we know there's a change. That happens for the wife, too.

Familiarity tells us a lot more than quick changes. We are not good at remember sounds as if they were a picture and we had photographic memory; but most of us at one time or another knew not only that someone was walking in stairs in our house/apt, but whom was walking, for example. There's many examples anyone can come up with familiar sounds where they know more about them then you'd think possible for someone (a human) that can't really remember sounds like words or images. Forming these expectations is about the only way many people "remember" sound as far as I can tell. We're likely remembering varying degrees of our response to the sound, than recalling the sound itself - I suspect the ratio varies a bit person to person, some being very high, maybe even 100%.

Can I pass a DBT with power conditioning of my own? Odds are good. I had a friend as a roommate back when I made my first one. He didn't know the power conditioner was gone one day, but said the stereo sounded bad. I told him that I let Jake borrow it, and he said, "well... can we get it back?" The stereo remained off until it came back because neither of us were enjoying it.

 

[Steve williams]

Just a general note: I am not very active on this forum. It is not a priority for me to jump and answer everything. If you need quick interactions then ask me on ASR Forum.

Regardless, please don't read anything into me not answering something. It could just be lack of interest, time, etc.

Not true.

The admin team can see every member who is signed in and you log in every day between 0730-0800 and don't sign off until 1000-1100 PM. I suggest it isn't lack of interest but rather cherry picking

 

[the sound of Tao]

The obvious for me in this thread is the fact that our resident expert might have golden ears but the reality is none of us really care. As for fixing the problem he has no answer but stated that it is not within the context of this thread when we all know that he always finds a way to take a thread off topic if it is to his benefit.

His classic words were "you have to turn the music off in your head".

I've said before that whilst music lovers are listeners it seems to me that the one with the trained golden ears doesn't have a clue about music because all he hears is sounds. When asked how to correct the problem he goes silent because it is off topic.

Brilliant, Steve you've highlighted the heart of an issue that is relevant to all of us. It is so easy to lose the way and get caught up in the sound and completely lose track of the music. In any training that I would want the music makes the tracks that I want to travel on. Listening to the sounds alone is to lose direction and turning off the music is just an utter derailment of process. Music has sounds and non sounds but music is not sounds themselves, fixing the sounds doesn't necessarily bring you any more music, fixing the arrangement of sounds in time and space does. Training to hear things separately is to lose connection with the essential arrangement of the music.

Music's essence is deep human connection. There is no measurement for that beyond just feeling. That doesn't happen in the ears nor in the head.

So making a system that just does sounds well is not following the pole star but chasing the sirens and ending up stuck on the rocks. Music is the navigator.

You might be able to turn the music off in your head but you certainly can't turn it off in your heart... I'd suggest anyone caught up in their head just to refocus and listen a bit more through the heart and then all they'll hear is music. Training your ears is a fascinating diversion but just not the point of the journey.

 

[Gregadd]

You don't fail or pass a DBT. The results are what they are. They are looking for consistent results

 

[Gregadd]

These are all funny

Tip your waotresses.

 

[Folsom]

You don't fail or pass a DBT. The results are what they are. They are looking for consistent results

The test can fail to be useful. It can contradict all other patterns. And some here would be upset to fail... they aren't doing it for the sake of science, they just want to know if they can hear whatever.

 

[Gregadd]

The test can fail to be useful. It can contradict all other patterns. And some here would be upset to fail... they aren't doing it for the sake of science, they just want to know if they can hear whatever.

I assume you mean the results can be statistically insignificant. That's not a failure.

 

[jkeny]

You are jumping to conclusions that the difference is distortion. Not saying it is or isn't as I don't want to spoil the purpose of the exercise. The files are there which you can download and examine if you like.

Amir, you seem to purposely avoid direct points made to you. In this case 853guy said "so what" about him passing this ABX test & asked you directly what benefit this is to him - where does he go next? The only way to show the relevance of your ABX tests is to point out what you hear in these tests & tell how this helps you in your evaluation of audio playback system. Instead you continually adopt this coy attitude about what you are hearing.

Who knows if you are not turning up the volume wick & listening to the difference in noise in the silence at the start or end of the tracks? Who knows how you might be gaming this "test" just to pass the test & boast of your skills here & elsewhere? Would such "techniques" be of any benefit to normal listening to audio playback systems? Your excuse for this coyness is illogical - if you reveal what you are hearing it in no way invalidates others tests - this is a blind ABX test & knowing what to listen for is not cheating the system, you can either hear it or not & the ABX statistics will show this. So your excuse contains no iota of logic

I've posted before the ABX results of a guy called Ultmusicsnob who posted how he "passed" ABX tests & describes how & what he listened to & what aspects he heard were different between a hig-res track & the same track downsampled to 16/44.1KHz. Having this detail allows us to relate to the possible significance of what he is hearing as a difference

"I tried to listen for soundstage depth and accurate detail. It took a lot of training repetitions, and remains a holistic impression, not any single feature I can easily point to. It seems to me that the 192 files have the aural analogue of better focus. To train, I would try to hear *precisely* where in front of me particular sound features were located, in two dimensions: left-to-right, and closer-to-further away--the foobar tool would then allow me to match up which two were easier to precisely locate. I know it muddies the waters, but I also had a very holistic impression of sound (uhhhhhh) 'texture'??--in which the 192 file was smoother/silkier/richer. The 192 is easier on the ears (just slightly) over time; with good sound reproduction through quality headphones (DT 770) through quality interface (RME Babyface) I can listen for quite a while without ear fatigue, even on material that would normally be considered pretty harsh (capsule's 'Starry Sky', for example), and which *does* wear me out over time when heard via Redbook audio."​

People can judge this description & evaluate it's significance to their own listening but your coyness prevents any such evaluation - all we get are boasts about how important this is (to you)

All you are giving us is boast about "passing" an ABX test & challenging others to do the same. So why not educate others in what you are hearing in this particular Ethan Winer ABX test & see if it matters to anybody?

I routinely read that someone changes something in their audio equipment that their wife or girlfriend walked by and out of the blue they noticed the change and commented on it. With respect to her, the test is blind (or so it seems). How is it that she has that ability but the audiophile himself doesn't? Why can't I change something while you are out of the room and see if you can tell when you come back? You think you can pass that test with your power conditioner for example?

You fail to understand that the wife is probably picking up on many unspoken factors that signify to her that a) Her husband has done some device change as that's the test track he always plays when testing things b) She likes to see him happy in his hobby & supports him as a result
So, no, it's by no means a blind test & has many more biases at play than he probably has!!

 

[Folsom]

I assume you mean the results can be statistically insignificant. That's not a failure.

Sorry Greg but I find trying to apply ethics of science to this as stupid. No, no I don't mean that. I mean when you make a product you need to make choices, not observations. The same is true when purchasing or writing a review. We aren't collecting data, we're making decisions.

 

[jkeny]

The reason I posted my above post is that you have been asked many times what is the relevance of your "training" & you have avoided answering the question.

Here's what this Ultmusicsnob guy says which relates to this & to "training" - note: he has already determined from his long term listening that he "preferred" the high-res audio files rather than the downsampled versions but he had no particular detail about why, it was just a nebulous preference.
So the "training" that he mentions here is the practise needed in order to "pass" the ABX "test" - it has no bearing on what he heard & preferred over long term listening.

"It took me a **lot** of training. I listened for a dozen wrong things before I settled on the aspects below.

I try to visualize the point source of every single instrument in the mix--that's why I picked a complex mix for this trial. I pinpoint precisely where each instrument is, and especially its distance from the listener. Problem is, both versions already have *some* spatial depth and placement, it's only a matter of deciding which one is deeper, and more precise. I've tried making determinations off of a particular part, like a guitar vamp or hi-hat pattern, but can't get above about 2/3 correct that way.
The better approach is just to ask myself which version is easier to precisely visualize, as a holistic judgment of all the pieces together. Equally effective, or rather equally contributing to the choice, is asking which version holistically gives me a sense of a physically larger soundstage, especially in the dimension extending directly away from me--thus the idea of listening to reverb characteristics.​

I believe this gives far more interesting points to discuss than the claim "I passed an ABX test, can you?"

 

[853guy]

Just a general note: I am not very active on this forum. It is not a priority for me to jump and answer everything. If you need quick interactions then ask me on ASR Forum.

Regardless, please don't read anything into me not answering something. It could just be lack of interest, time, etc.

Are you kidding? You’ve posted 15 times in the last 48 hours in this thread alone. C’mon, Amir. I have no interest in reading anything into whether you do or don’t reply, but I am genuinely interested in the part you did not respond to here:

I’m questioning the relevance of such tests outside the remit of the test itself. The danger with any test in which “passing” is limited to a tiny fraction of those who attempt it is to create a belief for the superiority of the test as a defining arbiter of the skills of those who pass the test relative to the rest of the population who have never taken it. To do so is not just to be ignorant of the limits of the test itself, but to fall prey to an attitude of arrogance clouding further discourse and research.

And the response you gave to morricab here:

If you can't or are unwilling to take the test, then you just have an empty claim of hearing acuity in dire need of verification. I don't have that problem since I have provided the proof point.

I’d like to suggest there’s the very real possibility that your ignorance of the limits of a single blind test to detect minimal differences in a converter causes you to believe that your ability to pass the test means you not only possess superior hearing to those that either fail to pass the test or do not partake in it, but are then justified in using that test to dismiss other all other domains of experience (anecdotal/heuristical, socio-cultural, neurobiological) since it does not fit within the domain with which you believe yourself “superior” and then use it as a high bar all others must attempt to clear in order to be worthy of your engagement.

I’ll be very clear: I have no time for that sort of behaviour. It’s nothing more than reductive, regressive arrogance.

Again, I’m asking you to reflect on whether it’s possible your behaviour is indicative of domain specific blindness in which you refuse to give creedence to domains outside your own experience and expertise.

Having said that, you’re neither obligated nor obliged. However, you have someone who took the ABX test asking you to do something in return. I guess we’ll see whether you’re as willing to take on a challenge as you are to dish them out.

Nevertheless, the thing I did learn in Psyc 101 is that the test proves nothing beyond the fact that the test itself contains variables of which a difference can be discerned by the subject relative to a particular level of confidence. That is all. But that neither eliminates the potential for the ABX mechanism to be faulty, for the subject/examiner to have mis-labled/altered the files, or simply that due to sheer luck the subject guessed correctly despite not being able to discern any difference whatsoever.

What was the case for you?

How would I know? What were the controls? What was the vetting process? What would be the sample size needed to avoid low statistical power? Without any of those questions being answered, the danger is the overestimation of the importance of the test. I’d say we’re already there, wouldn’t you?

First, I asked you to take a second, more difficult test. If you take that and pass it too, then we start to form a picture regarding your ability. But even in this one test, many people have tried to pass it -- regardless of their audiophile credentials -- and failed. So passing it in identical form of same set of files, has meaning. And I described those:

1. The test used content that was unattractive. Yet it was revealing of differences to both you and I. It proves all this about music have to move you to diagnose fidelity problems as being nonsense.

2. That because so many people have failed it, it is a recognition of someone having above average acuity.

Unfortunately not. You’ve overestimating the importance of the test and now, embellishing freely on its significance. All it proves is that a subject can distinguish between two files within a level of confidence. To test for the significance of whether people being “moved” by music leads to greater or lesser levels of detection between two files you need to design a wholly different experiment. To figure out how well the test determines whether someone has above average acuity, you need the sort of controls I mention above, and especially, to determine the level of statistical power to avoid over-confidence in the results or over-estimation in its effects. Again, this is all covered in any introductory course on experimental design.

Button, Ioanndis, Mokrysz, Nosek, Flint, Robinson & Munafo(2013); Vankov, Bowers & Munafo (2014); Cohen (1962); Sedlmeier & Gigerenzer (1989); and Pan, Trikalinos, Kavvoura, Lau & Ioannaidis (2005) have all done extensive research on the over-confidence and over-estimation of true effects in experimental design. You are overestimating the effects of the ABX test.

In this thread has every bit of value because so many are challenging whether training does one any good. I am here to tell you without shadow of doubt that I would not be able to pass this test by merely being an audiophile. Countless others who have failed it attest to it.

Remember I come from many years of looking for people with critical listening test ability to hire for our signal processing team. Passing such tests was critical and industry standard method of knowing someone really can hear versus thinking they do.

Please, Amir, be reasonable. It’s called domain specific blindness. The “expert problem”. It’s the abuse of a narrow band of very specific information in which over-confidence leads to generalisation beyond the context in which it was designed to analyse, causing over-estimation of its effects and significance, and worse, justifies the dismissal of information from domains outside of itself.

You continue to claim you have no emotional interest in being here, but again, I’m asking you to consider whether it’s possible that you have mistaken your own ability to pass the test as “proof” of your superiority, leading to over-confidence in its significance, and an over-estimation of its effects for real-world listening.

853guy

 

[jkeny]

Here's something to ponder - if someone who has a preference for something over long term listening, does such a blind test & doesn't "pass" it, what does this show?

Does it show anything other than he can't pass a test - a test that requires special "training" in order to do "well" in the test - "training" in how to identify particular types of distortions that are conducive to A/B differentiation?

Does this result now change that person's perception in their sighted, long-term listening or do they still have a preference. If this test has changed their perception, is it not possible that they have now installed in themselves a bias which will mean that they will not hear any difference because the "test has revealed that there is no audible difference". How do they test for this newly installed bias? How do they know that the test was not flawed & bound to give them a null result & that they are therefore duping themselves with what they are being led to believe is "data"?

 

[Gregadd]

The 800lb gorilla repeats If only the best can detect it, what relevance does it have to mere mortals?

 

[treitz3]

853guy....Well said sir.

Tom

 

[Folsom]

Perhaps Amir just loves everyone here so much that he wants everyone to think he doesn't love them too much so he keeps it a little confrontational?

 

[Gregadd]

Sorry Greg but I find trying to apply ethics of science to this as stupid. No, no I don't mean that. I mean when you make a product you need to make choices, not observations. The same is true when purchasing or writing a review. We aren't collecting data, we're making decisions.

When someone calls me stupid I usually just ignore them.
It seems to me when someone makes a decision without gathering and analyzing the requisite data that assures an erroneous conclusion. Or to use your colorful term,"stupid".

 

[jkeny]

The 800lb gorilla repeats If only the best can detect it, what relevance does it have to mere mortals?

Have a listen to this binaural recording using headphones & follow the instructions avidly https://youtu.be/zGKADgFCoeU

 

[DonH50]

The 800lb gorilla repeats If only the best can detect it, what relevance does it have to mere mortals?

Well, that is true for a lot of audiophile things, yes? We could all point to things we can hear, or others claim to hear, that they/we cannot and then blame it on any number of factors from power cord to amplifiers to speakers to ear/brain and how we felt that minute. Still probably can't really prove any of it to the other's satisfaction.

I do tend to find I listen differently at different times, depending on what I feel or want that day/hour whatever. Sometimes I get very analytical, but most of the time I just want it to sound good and look past any number of flaws (mine and my system's). I was much more analytical when I was younger; now, I just want to relax and enjoy it. Playing in the orchestra is much more taxing because I have to be very much in time and in tune and yet still want to enjoy the music while I and the others are playing. Getting lost in the music can be a detriment when I miss an entrance, usually dragging my section if not the whole group to a halt...