Variance/invariance. Seems bogus. All systems store energy. Current behavior depends on past stimuli. Pete's guitar sounding different at the end of gig is irrelevant. He cannot play the same note identically even though he and a robot in a vacuum may try. The same is true for amplifiers. Do you want your amplifiers to dance with the music just played or not? You might want that in your guitar amp
Russell, this sound like a spiritual journey, libertarian electronics?
I agree, there is no much interest in such tests I guess i know why... Without the "solid starting point" story about 3 camps sounds like story of 3 cults/religions. 🙄
Haha, that's funny, you sound like a life couch.. 🙂
"listening skill" that's a good one, am I gonna develop an "view skill" , if I watch more movies?
There is no need to do listening tests for anything higher than -90dB distortion or so. Its already known that during a short period of time when CDs first came out some were not dithered and some but not all people could hear the quantizing distortion. Since truncation is done between the 16-th and 17th bits, that point is at -96dBFS.
As Russel already pointed out, there is a wide range over which some people hear distortion and others don't. Lottery of birth, perhaps. Don't know.
However, do personally believe practice can help gain skill at noticing things like distortion, stereo sound stage imaging, musical details (as music majors are trained to do), etc.
As Russel already pointed out, there is a wide range over which some people hear distortion and others don't. Lottery of birth, perhaps. Don't know.
However, do personally believe practice can help gain skill at noticing things like distortion, stereo sound stage imaging, musical details (as music majors are trained to do), etc.
Last edited:
Probably not, if you do it passively. If you study film making, acting, etc., and if you watch movies with focused attention on those things that are being used to affect your perception, then you could probably gain quite a bit of skill. Even turning off the sound and watching scene change cuts, camera angle choices and cuts, lighting techniques, etc., you might learn more about making a good movie than you have so far by passive watching.
I know what you are talking about but that is not "view skill", it has to do with our mind, you don't appreciate art more, by improved "eye skills".
Sorry english is not my native language, i hope you understand the essence of what i write.. Cheers,
On the question of range, no good study that I know of. I would like to see such a study done, but every time I think about what it would take to do properly, what it would cost, how many people it would take, etc., it seems too impractical. Only way I could see it happen would be if some wealthy person who cared enough about the subject wanted to fund the research.
What I mean is that just one listening station to test one person equivalent to what I would want to use to test myself would cost about $10,000. That set of equipment would also be needed to train listeners to the point they can perform as well unsighted and they can sighted. That means it could be tied up for some unknown time just for training one test subject.
In addition, some of the best listeners may be working professionals such as mastering engineers, expert musicians, etc. To test them either they would need to be brought to where testing would occur, or a researcher would have to travel to them, including transporting a listening station. Just the airfreight and travel cases for the equipment would be cost a lot.
What I mean is that just one listening station to test one person equivalent to what I would want to use to test myself would cost about $10,000. That set of equipment would also be needed to train listeners to the point they can perform as well unsighted and they can sighted. That means it could be tied up for some unknown time just for training one test subject.
In addition, some of the best listeners may be working professionals such as mastering engineers, expert musicians, etc. To test them either they would need to be brought to where testing would occur, or a researcher would have to travel to them, including transporting a listening station. Just the airfreight and travel cases for the equipment would be cost a lot.
Mark: you keep tweaking this particular bit of FUD based on a throwaway comment from Earl. Isn't it time to give it a rest?
Probably, but you could make up the test to cost however much you want depending on the rigour you want, the real question is, how much is necessary?
Minimum cost would to show one or a few people can do more than most expect, just using the equipment I have on hand here. The problem with that is that nobody will believe it or they will dismiss it as some freak occurrence.
For example, there was a guy that memorized Pi to some larger number of decimal places, may 3,000, don't remember exactly. So what? It means one freak guy can do it, nothing more. So what if one or a few people can learn to hear very low level distortion? Nobody, that's who.
Even if I did it the simple way for starters, to get people to believe it I would have to have respected skeptics here to comb through the test equipment to make make sure there is nothing they would object to. They would also be needed to verify measurements of distortion levels being tested for. I don't think those guys have any interest in participating in that way. They want to read a paper printed in a journal with lots of test subjects and statistics they can critique, so that they can find some excuse to dismiss it then. OTOH, if they participate, then its partly on them if anything was done wrong. Not so quick to be dismissive in that case.
For example, there was a guy that memorized Pi to some larger number of decimal places, may 3,000, don't remember exactly. So what? It means one freak guy can do it, nothing more. So what if one or a few people can learn to hear very low level distortion? Nobody, that's who.
Even if I did it the simple way for starters, to get people to believe it I would have to have respected skeptics here to comb through the test equipment to make make sure there is nothing they would object to. They would also be needed to verify measurements of distortion levels being tested for. I don't think those guys have any interest in participating in that way. They want to read a paper printed in a journal with lots of test subjects and statistics they can critique, so that they can find some excuse to dismiss it then. OTOH, if they participate, then its partly on them if anything was done wrong. Not so quick to be dismissive in that case.
Last edited:
.Furniture makers become experts by making furniture, not sitting on chairs. All skills can be learned by participation, not consumption.
