good luck being able to repeatably identify a 0.2db difference in anything without appropriate test equipment
Go ahead, try.
http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_level.php?lvl=0.2
Go ahead, try.
http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_level.php?lvl=0.2
I couldn't imagine a more boring thing to want to do - something like, this particular Mulsanne has 2HP more than the other one - can you pick it, 😀?
For me, when I can adjust the level by 20dB or so, and subjectively what I listen to doesn't alter then I know the system is in a good zone ...
For me, when I can adjust the level by 20dB or so, and subjectively what I listen to doesn't alter then I know the system is in a good zone ...
The point being that such matters are irrelevant, it has absolutely nothing to do with being able to assess the competence of the system at reproducing a recording - what counts is the absence of subtle defects in the sound, which most people would unconsciously register, irrespective of whether they could say they hear them or not - they would probably just indicate that one system is "nicer" to listen to than another, it's more enjoyable ...
subtle defects like a 0.2db change at a particular frequency. Or even 0.5db. OR perhaps 1db
You do see the problem here don't you Frank. You claim to be able to perceive subtle differences and make adjustments (still undisclosed) to "correct" them, and then discount them as irrelevant. It can't be both - not on this planet anyway.
As SY pointed out, even a minor difference in output levels - one that most people our age are no longer capable of identifying specifically - can change the perceived qualitative nature of the sound - "improved clarity" I think was his wording.
What does that mean for those who listen and tweak?
Cheers.
You do see the problem here don't you Frank. You claim to be able to perceive subtle differences and make adjustments (still undisclosed) to "correct" them, and then discount them as irrelevant. It can't be both - not on this planet anyway.
As SY pointed out, even a minor difference in output levels - one that most people our age are no longer capable of identifying specifically - can change the perceived qualitative nature of the sound - "improved clarity" I think was his wording.
What does that mean for those who listen and tweak?
Cheers.
Hi,
It means that if you're not aware of this you can fool yourself believing things for the wrong reasons.
Cheers, 😉
It means that if you're not aware of this you can fool yourself believing things for the wrong reasons.
Cheers, 😉
It's very straightforward, as I've stated many times - I don't listen for FR or level differences, I listen for faults in the sound; these are very different aspects to the reproduction. To continue the analogy with cars, I'm not interested in the acceleration, or braking performance - I'm concerned with the rattle that happens every time you turn to the right, or the shudder that goes through the vehicle when you put the brakes on at a certain pressure - these are defects, and need to be corrected. Their nature is very different from normal performance metrics, and makes them easy to spot once you tune into the characteristics ...
So, the point of learning to "hear" them is that you then realise that you have to get rid of them, and the marvellous thing is that if you manage to eliminate all the more obvious ones is that you then get convincing sound.
So, the point of learning to "hear" them is that you then realise that you have to get rid of them, and the marvellous thing is that if you manage to eliminate all the more obvious ones is that you then get convincing sound.
You make a good point, fas42. Maybe we should rename our volume control as a 'clarity' control. '-)
Ah well ... I did give Peter Aczel a go, but the "attitude" just gets a bit much in the end - amplifiers are a solved problem, I'll do a token testing, but my real love is speakers, especially those by Linkwitz, 😉. It's another dead end, unfortunately ... nothing interesting will emerge from there ...
This is what is quite depressing at times - no real desire to advance understanding, Yet Again - hence the generally dreary standard of sound that one comes across ... right-o, time to bring in the clowns ...
This is what is quite depressing at times - no real desire to advance understanding, Yet Again - hence the generally dreary standard of sound that one comes across ... right-o, time to bring in the clowns ...
You seem to think your some kind of superman that isn't influenced by level differences. You know very litle on human perception and if more knowledgeable people point you in the right direction, you say its all bull%$*@.
Your not nearly as open minded as you think you are.
Edit: In science you need to test only 1 variable. Because if you don't, what's the cause of the result. That's why level matching is essential.
Last edited:
If you want to be super fussy about level matching, go for it - it doesn't worry me either way. You still don't get it ... I'm not listening for how loud the mosquito is, I'm just checking if there's one in the room or not ... most systems have irrelevant "insects" making noises, I've just worked out that listening for them is the way to make progress ...
On the serious blind listening tests I have been a part off, the subjects (myself included) had a full hearing test before we took part in the test. The test was carried out in a plain room with just the subject present and in the one I was part of conducted via headphones for various reasons. The test was also repeated in the same room but with up to 110dBs background noise, mainly between 30-150Hz.
The only other test I have done that was blind was years ago, listening to op-amps for some mixer desks, again I was one of many people taking parts of differing hearing abilities, ages etc, they wanted as wide a test population as possible.
Did I pass 😀 I don't know as we were not told our results in case we had to repeat any tests, so removing any expectation bias or changing our belief in or ability to perceive things. (Such as convincing ourselves we have super human hearing abilities)
The only other test I have done that was blind was years ago, listening to op-amps for some mixer desks, again I was one of many people taking parts of differing hearing abilities, ages etc, they wanted as wide a test population as possible.
Did I pass 😀 I don't know as we were not told our results in case we had to repeat any tests, so removing any expectation bias or changing our belief in or ability to perceive things. (Such as convincing ourselves we have super human hearing abilities)
No you don't get it: Small level differences don't display themselves as perceived level differences. They display themselves as "insects" making noise, to use your terminology.
You are just a human!
We'll make it easier, using an example, 🙂 - overt sibilance is a horror most audiophiles are fearful of; well, that behaviour is a mighty big mosquito, buzzing around the room ... it's a distortion by the playback system, when it gratingly annoys a listener. I don't like obvious distortion in any form, so I improve the system behaviour, that distortion disappears - I never hear sibilance problems in any recordings where the playback is under my control, because I eliminate the causes of that audible defect ...
I hear sibilance on quite a few records but the only way to get rid of it would have been to use a different vocalist.
But even then it would not necessarily work in all cases since sometimes the vocal track can be completely free of it but it appears when you mix the vocals with the rest of the tune (in particular cymbals) ie it is an impression of sibilance which doesn't really exist.
If you get rid of that you have basically created an effects box, not a HiFi system.
But even then it would not necessarily work in all cases since sometimes the vocal track can be completely free of it but it appears when you mix the vocals with the rest of the tune (in particular cymbals) ie it is an impression of sibilance which doesn't really exist.
If you get rid of that you have basically created an effects box, not a HiFi system.
Why do you think that if you get rid of it you have an "effects box"? What makes you sure that the sibilance should be there, apart from the fact that you're so used to it being present?
I've been recording just enough to be dangerous and to know that sibilance is sometimes unavoidable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.