Yes he firmly believes in the need for training and does not like things like walking in and going right into ABX testing. My point here is once you try something like trading files and listening to two different random computer sound cards the chance of getting down to some really subtle differences is probably lost, IMHO of course.
That is to say if there is a hypothesis, for example, op-amp A gives a better 3D soundstage than op-amp B. Then Robert should in the comfort of his own familiar system be able to go back and forth blind and score 100%, then another person being the only variable change can try the same thing. We then have a data point with only one variable changed. My experience is that in these situations where all cheats have been eliminated everyone gets very uncomfortable and looks to diffuse the tension by forgetting the whole thing.
Last edited:
With all due respect to those who contribute freely here it does seem that the average age is quite high. Occasionally apparently heated arguments develop between such people without any reference to age, hearing impairment, standard listening references, choice of music....you get the picture.
It would be great if anyone who regularly contributes and is inclined to get heated - one way or another - were to publish the results of a hearing specialists figures based on a recent test.
I know that certain members will take this suggestion as personal insult; that is not intended. What is intended is to emphasise that we need to be singing off the same hymn sheet...as it were.
It would be great if anyone who regularly contributes and is inclined to get heated - one way or another - were to publish the results of a hearing specialists figures based on a recent test.
I know that certain members will take this suggestion as personal insult; that is not intended. What is intended is to emphasise that we need to be singing off the same hymn sheet...as it were.
Exactly, and I think that's what we are finding out. But, I didn't know in advance it would be an issue. I kind of expected that with so much audio expertise here, people would be using some of the newer and better DACs. After all, arguments about what is hearable or not often say things like, with the latest greatest DACs and amps, etc., distortion is not an issue. Of course, people saying that are probably using exactly what they are referring to, because they are enthusiasts who don't want distortion to be an issue. Or, that's an assumption my mind jumped to anyway, which turns out to be wrong. Good thing we are doing the experiment so I can now correct my misbelief.
EDIT: On the issue of what happens when all cheats are eliminated, understood. However, it's not clear that in an attempt to eliminate all cheating, we are also eliminating ability to discern. Again, we have at least one person here who has extensive ABX testing experience who finds it is only reliable for discriminating gross phenomena. Of course, it may be more reliable when people don't feel stressed out during testing. Over at Benchmark, they say their ABX testing shows they can hear some pretty small differences, but they are not putting each other on the spot to perform or be taken as liars or crazy.
Last edited:
I freely admit that I am old and don't hear nearly as well as I used to. However, normal hearing tests measure the minimum loudness it takes to hear specific frequencies, and that's all. They don't measure ability to detect distortion. That being the case, I don't think an audiologist could tell you for sure that since Bob Ludwig is an old man, he couldn't possibly master records anymore.
Doug Sax worked well into his 70's, Bob Ludwig is 71 they are creating the sources in the first place. I'm not sure standard frequency response hearing tests correlate well to what we are discussing, I certainly might be wrong just questioning.
We're all a mix of being willing to accept greater Type 1 or Type 2 errors. I bet if we ask Mark to write the quoted statement in a different manner, that the language would be more he's willing to accept a whole lot more false positives to avoid false negatives (at least with listening tests). I do get a *wee* bit incredulous as to your quoted test if I read it as written, Nezbleu, but I'm willing to let Mark put in caveats and qualifications.
"were to publish the results of a hearing specialists figures based on a recent test"
I wrote a post about this about an hour ago and accidentally deleted it so here I go again.
What I would say is that audio testing by an audiologist is not perfect in any way. First off many times the isolation from outside sounds is inadequate, outside sounds affect the low frequency responses for sure. Second has anyone here ever looked at the miserable quality of most of the headphones used for this testing, what are the specs on those headphones and what is the distortion level of the amplification that is delivering those sounds to the headphones? I also understand that most hearing test stop at about 8Khz as they are normally looking at how well we can hear speech and not how wide a bandwidth we actually have. Just as in all this argument about audio acuity keeps going on here the same can be said for audio testing of our hearing, the standards are not all that tight. So someone saying they passed a hearing test with flying colors is basically fairly meaningless, just that you can hear someone else talking to you is about all I get from those tests.
Take a look at the best headphones we have as audiophiles available and then look at the headphones used for testing, do you know that they are actually accurate in FR across the band, I highly doubt that fact. Just the factors involved in headphone testing themselves are not necessarily well defined, I have read much on headphone testing and there is as much disagreement on that as any other audio argument out there.
I wrote a post about this about an hour ago and accidentally deleted it so here I go again.
What I would say is that audio testing by an audiologist is not perfect in any way. First off many times the isolation from outside sounds is inadequate, outside sounds affect the low frequency responses for sure. Second has anyone here ever looked at the miserable quality of most of the headphones used for this testing, what are the specs on those headphones and what is the distortion level of the amplification that is delivering those sounds to the headphones? I also understand that most hearing test stop at about 8Khz as they are normally looking at how well we can hear speech and not how wide a bandwidth we actually have. Just as in all this argument about audio acuity keeps going on here the same can be said for audio testing of our hearing, the standards are not all that tight. So someone saying they passed a hearing test with flying colors is basically fairly meaningless, just that you can hear someone else talking to you is about all I get from those tests.
Take a look at the best headphones we have as audiophiles available and then look at the headphones used for testing, do you know that they are actually accurate in FR across the band, I highly doubt that fact. Just the factors involved in headphone testing themselves are not necessarily well defined, I have read much on headphone testing and there is as much disagreement on that as any other audio argument out there.
It would certainly be salient wrt people's complaints about effects > 10 kHz (e.g. jitter), although IM will fold these back to lower frequencies.
I ran this a week ago (using HD280 Pro headphones)
Extended High Frequency Online Hearing Test | 8-22 kHz
32 Y/O (a kiddo amongst this group
), pure tone 18 kHz, white noise ABX test 8/10 at 15 kHz -- didn't try my luck any higher as the latter was exhausting enough.
Hearable, where does this word keep coming from, sorry but it is driving me crazy every time I see that spelling. How about using the word audible, that would make more sense. Just my first New Years gripe I guess but I keep seeing people use that term and I guess if you aren't a native speaker you get a pass, but the rest of you are driving me nuts with that term.
Yo, dude. Language is constantly evolving! But I will try to do better. Don't want to make things hard to read.
Well done protecting those ears! And, yeah, good ear protection when needed and enjoying music at sane levels goes a long ways. As does picking one's parents wisely.
Edit -- and happy birthday!
(I swear I could replace my amps with opamps + EF2 follower running at +/- 15 V and still have too much gain/power in my system)
Last edited:
For what Bob charges to master an album, I'm sure he can afford to hire some young engineer to spend an hour double checking any HF issues he may or may not miss. They might double check each other in any case.
Years ago I heard Gateway charged $10k per album.
And CLA (Chris Lord Algae) reportedly charges $100k to mix one song, so one picks the song one thinks will be the radio hit, and then hire him to mix that one. He has guys that prepare all the tracks for him before he mixes. It takes about 8 hours to clean up the vocals for one song. Then CLA spends 4 hours mixing the song. How can he do it so fast? He has racks of vintage and great sounding effects boxes all set to their sweet spot settings, and he patches in the effects he wants. If a box has more than one sweet spot, he buys two or whatever, so he never has to turn the knobs.
A useful discussion about blind testing appeared on Jan's blog "Can a double blind test really be double blind?" where some misunderstandings were demonstrated. Some examples of real world ABX testing were provided.
Markw4 has a point - one has to evaluate the test efficacy & not assume its accuracy particularly if there are no in-built self-checking mechanisms to tell us if a test has gone wrong.
Blind tests are not simply a case of close your eyes & identify the differences
Markw4 has a point - one has to evaluate the test efficacy & not assume its accuracy particularly if there are no in-built self-checking mechanisms to tell us if a test has gone wrong.
Blind tests are not simply a case of close your eyes & identify the differences
MarkW4,
sorry I'll try to get with it on new terms, I'll try Biggly to be more understanding!
DPH,
Yes I try to be careful with my ears though I have been exposed to plenty of loud industrial noises for way to many years. I was helping someone doing some construction the other day and walked away when he was shooting nails into the floor with 22 caliber shells, not something I wanted to do to my ears for no reason if I could help it. I saw a Nascar race about 6 months ago and had my sound barriers on that I have for the gun range, wasn't about to listen to those cars for hours with no protection, most people just sat there and took it, even little kids were exposed to that loud exhaust sound!
sorry I'll try to get with it on new terms, I'll try Biggly to be more understanding!
DPH,
Yes I try to be careful with my ears though I have been exposed to plenty of loud industrial noises for way to many years. I was helping someone doing some construction the other day and walked away when he was shooting nails into the floor with 22 caliber shells, not something I wanted to do to my ears for no reason if I could help it. I saw a Nascar race about 6 months ago and had my sound barriers on that I have for the gun range, wasn't about to listen to those cars for hours with no protection, most people just sat there and took it, even little kids were exposed to that loud exhaust sound!
MarkW4,
sorry I'll try to get with it on new terms, I'll try Biggly to be more understanding!
DPH,
Yes I try to be careful with my ears though I have been exposed to plenty of loud industrial noises for way to many years. I was helping someone doing some construction the other day and walked away when he was shooting nails into the floor with 22 caliber shells, not something I wanted to do to my ears for no reason if I could help it. I saw a Nascar race about 6 months ago and had my sound barriers on that I have for the gun range, wasn't about to listen to those cars for hours with no protection, most people just sat there and took it, even little kids were exposed to that loud exhaust sound!
Holding rafters up against your head while toe nailing them won't help.
I didn't want to misspeak or overstep my claim, just simply that folks at home or audiophile magazine writers may not have the hearing themselves. And that this is also edge-case material, or at least not the core essence of the musical piece (where Bob, et al are at their best).
Steve Albini still charges $200/hr. IIRC and thinks digital sucks. BTW Bob's efforts to promote some very eclectic music sits well with me, you could do anything with a Diana Krall album and I would not have the slightest interest.
Last edited:
Whether working for myself or working for others I always made sure to have at a minimum of foam ear plugs for all the workers. I prefer the over ear sound barriers myself but no hearing protection at all is just crazy in many situations. Most of the construction we were doing the other day was with steel studs so it was using a screw gun and not a hammer, just the floor plate needed to be shoot into the concrete floor.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.