-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifitommy
please dont bore us with measurements. objective testing STILL needs audible substantiation.
anyway, we have missed you. at least my memories of you are fond. welcome back Kotter! (insert john b sebastian singing theme here).
yes of course, measurements are a necessity. they dont print them at tas but they are used.
Hey! I'm have nothing against measurements. My girlfriends, uh never mind. Anyway, I guess my point is that those who use measurements to decide everything don't seem to have as much fun. This hobby/obsession is supposed to be fun.
I'm just going to turn up the volume on The New Deal Live in Ontario and forget about the numbers.:D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Did you really mean "objectivists"? Say, how are the Acoustats?
rw
Thanks for noticing my mistake. I did mean objectivists. The Acoustats are singing sweet music as I write. The New Deal live in Ontario on the front 2 only. I don't use surround for music mixed to 2 channels. Did I see the name mtrycrafts mentioned? He and I disagreed so much and so often it was as if we lived in different universes.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Point taken. I have never been a fan of single subs for the same reason, seemingly no matter what the crossover setting. Back in '76 or so, a reviewer friend used a single 18" Cerwin-Vega sub in a huge cabinet to supplement his Dayton-Wrights. The organ pedal at the end of "Saturn" from The Planets always seemed to come from the right corner.
Just as the Audiophile test showed, your hearing is above average. From what I have been told, most people could not hear the bass coming from the corner.
-
??
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
How many of them have any musical training? Here's an example of a female voice that I find difficulty listening to when she speaks - but when she sings, her formal training comes out! My wife turned me onto Wicked a while back. When I first saw Chenoweth in the movie "RV", I never imagined she would be singing with the Metropolitan Opera. :)
So you think the people that scored a + 12dB on the test have the same ears as you? Sounded horrible ! ! ! !
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBSTORMIN
So you think the people that scored a + 12dB on the test have the same ears as you? Sounded horrible ! ! ! !
Not necessarily, but I maintain that training can improve the outcome. It did with me since my first take wasn't much better. Over the course of a day, I took the test about ten times. Since most of the cut was sonically unexceptional, the first job was finding a section that would be most affected. I focused on a very short guitar harmonic / squeak in my final assessments.
rw
-
And I thought I had good hearing...
I scored -15dB, smack in the middle, using the pop setting and 6" driver. As Ajani said, the voice was not a good thing to listen to. I focused mostly on the bass? riff, well whatever it was that would easily give it away during the first tries. I decided to play the game and used my stock dell sound card and Senn earbuds. There's a horrible hiss and even noise when I open folders/windows etc.. not ideal. I might try it with the DAC.
-
Ah, but can you hear the music? (Pours gas on the fire and jumps back. "Whoa!")
-
Well, they're not that bad after all :D I've done it a second time. With the DAC (not sure if that made the difference). I was listening mostly to the first 2 seconds of the song.
Believe it or not, I've answered 42 times and the test is still going... So I clicked on finish the test. At one point I went from +9dB to -27dB in one shot. Then it went back up.. then I had trouble going back down. I think I reached -30dB.
My result this time is -24dB. In watts, that's 8 times my previous score! lol
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auricauricle
Ah, but can you hear the music? (Pours gas on the fire and jumps back. "Whoa!")
I'm not positive as to who you are replying, but since the threaded mode suggests this is a response from the top, I'll answer from my standpoint.
Can I hear the music? Within the exercise of taking this test, the answer is no. I am focused on breaking it down into pieces. Having said that, I think there can be long term benefits from this kind of mental exercise. I am a regular runner and have gone as far as a half marathon. Was the process itself enjoyable? Honestly, not entirely. On the other hand, I still benefit from the experience during the normal living process of not totally wearing myself out. I always feel better after a run (usually between 3-5 miles) which translates to an ease in everyday life. Similarly, if one practices their ability to discern fine differences, you will hear deeper into your favorite music. Ultimately, that provides a greater emotional attachment for me.
While exercise itself may not be much fun, I find that the results afterwards can be. I only wish there were a range of higher resolution tests available that were more interesting!
rw
-
....The model of a modern major general!
All kidding here and in the spirit of good fun, (L)estat! I tried the exercize and bombed pretty miserably. Unlike you, my "training" was not quite so vigorous, but I declare I do think that certain exercises like the one you posted are quite useful in development of the "ear". I suppose I was kinda musing over the distinction between those who listen to music for its own sake and those who parse it out, listening to the details. At one time, I would say that I belonged to the latter camp. But since circumstances have curtailed my pursuit of the hobby with the fervor and dedication that I would prefer, my ears have become rather "rusty" (despite my gilded appellation).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Not necessarily, but I maintain that training can improve the outcome. It did with me since my first take wasn't much better. Over the course of a day, I took the test about ten times. Since most of the cut was sonically unexceptional, the first job was finding a section that would be most affected. I focused on a very short guitar harmonic / squeak in my final assessments.
I agree, anyone can be trained to do better. I do not think you can train everyone to make it all the way to -36dB, where you tested. I maintain again, you have to have good ears (GOLDEN EARS seems to be the term everyone dislikes) to score higher with or without training. A good ear will start higher without training and finish higher with training on the scale. It is a physical difference between people. The equipment is different. Don't know if it's better ears or a better interconnect :-) to the brain but there are differences.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auricauricle
Ah, but can you hear the music?
I know what you mean. I used to be so obsessed with finding a better amp/player/whatever that I never sat and just listened to the music. I have started just listening to the music recently. What I have found is as I have done upgrades to my system at home, I've grown so used to the music sounding good, that it's hard to listen to music anywhere else. I don't even turn the radio or cd player on in my car anymore. If I do, I only listen about 15-20 minutes and I have to shut it off because the detail is not there and I miss it. I can listen to my MP3 player only when I am working around the house and yard and it's just background music, and I bought a Toshiba for this because it sounded better than the I-pod. Kinda sucks because I used to have music going everywhere I was. I have trained my ears to not enjoy anything but clear sounding detailed music. I'm kinda afraid to make it sound any better at the same time I want to. I think I need help...........
-
There is always an easier way to get more outta yer music, y'know....(Pfffffffffffft! Here!)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auricauricle
There is always an easier way to get more outta yer music, y'know....(Pfffffffffffft! Here!)
Isn't that a factor in everyone's baseline?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBSTORMIN
I agree, anyone can be trained to do better. I do not think you can train everyone to make it all the way to -36dB, where you tested. I maintain again, you have to have good ears (GOLDEN EARS seems to be the term everyone dislikes) to score higher with or without training. A good ear will start higher without training and finish higher with training on the scale. It is a physical difference between people. The equipment is different. Don't know if it's better ears or a better interconnect :-) to the brain but there are differences.
I think there is some merit to what you say. I scored -36db on this test and while I agree with E-Stat that people can be trained to hear better perhaps he is also being overly modest not wanting to toot his own horn as it were. Neither do I and as he pointed out people do in fact score better than either of us. I will try it again when I have time but my job right now makes this secondary.
I also agree with you that some people simply have a better ear for this. At a younger age I needed glasses because I could not read road signs - others go their entire life without the need for glasses - they have far superior vision - and they were born with that ability and I was perhaps born with poor eyes or didn't eat enough carrots.
All the training in the world does not make one Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan. But you can still be very very good at these sports.
I look at it like a line where every ability (or in my field multiple intelligences) reside. We ALL have abilities in every one of Gardner's intelligences but each of us is stronger and weaker in any given area. Some of us have perfect listening pitch - we instantly know when a singer or pianist is off key - someone else may only detect it if one instrument is playing but not when 3-4 instruments are playing and some rarely if ever notice it. Judging by American Idol - I am not sure if Paula Abdul can really tell - while SImon is considerably better.
Training can improve your abilities only so far. You can study math and study math but there is a limit that most people simply cannot get past, as with sports, as with music playing or listening.
This test might have been harder for me for example had I not read the thread before I did the test. For instance, E-Stat mentioned what he listened for. Normally when I listen to music to relax I listen to the singer and the instruments for me are the background or accompaniment - in other words I listen to lyrics and singer centrally, when they're there, more than the instruments. Chapman's voice for me is far less distorted at the lower levels and if I listened to her voice I would not have scored nearly as well. But listen for bass and instruments and try to get her voice out of the equation then it was much easier to detect some issues at the two frequency extremes.
I think you can tell maybe what kind of music listener you are by how your toes tap to the music. I usually snap my fingers to the syllables of the song, while others keep time with the drum beat. I can do both but the syllables for me are generally easier. My ear is drawn to the voice.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auricauricle
There is always an easier way to get more outta yer music, y'know....(Pfffffffffffft! Here!)
Pffffffffffft Thanks, I needed that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I was baited by an "objectivist" on another audio board to *match* my skills with his using an online sound distortion comparator. He considers components that I find can be of value like aftermarket power cords to be unsubstantiated *voodoo*. Alas, that is his loss, not mine.
For anyone game, here is the link: Distortion comparator
It requires using your (less than ideal) PC and headphones. I used a bone stock Dell laptop and Shure earbuds. Running on battery of course. The musical selection is not exactly my cup of tea either. In any case, see how you can do. My tempter achieved the -30 db level whereas I was able to go a bit further. What this really illustrates is the value of training and the notion that sometimes we must be told what to listen for. In my teens, I was most fortunate in having three mentors (all audio reviewers) who coached me in such affairs. Of the entire clip, I used only a select two second section to make my determinations.
Give it a try!
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/dist.jpg
rw
Interesting and somewhat fun. You alluded to several points in your post that I agree with.
Critical listening is a learned skill or our skills improve over time with practice.
I remember when getting into sound reinforcement some years ago, learning how to pick one instrument or sound out of a song with a live band playing. How to isolate feedback and ringing to a single drum head or mic channel.
Took some time.
Another area was tempo or rhythm. Listening to drummers for tempo and interaction with bass and guitars.
Knowing why a band doesn't sound tight. Fun stuff. Oh yeah, I only hit 18db on the test. Probably could squeak out a bit more if I turned down computer fans and quit petting dog with testing - but, what the heck.
Good job.
Good thread - thanks!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveW
Interesting and somewhat fun.
Cool. That was my intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveW
Probably could squeak out a bit more if I turned down computer fans and quit petting dog with testing - but, what the heck.
Take it multiple times. Back to training and learning what to listen for in that otherwise uninspired clip of music. It took me about ten tries to get the best results.
rw
-
I agree with the notion that this is a skill that takes some practice and that there is a good possibility that some indiciduals may be more adept than others when it comes to the application of this skill....Reading up on the brain and on current research in neurology, I have run accross the phrase "use it or lose it" more than a few times. In this case, recent advances in the science inform us that the brain is far more flexible and plastic than we ever before thought. The doctrine that once the brain is injured, it is forever altered, no longer applies. With enough training and stimulation, various portions can be rehabilitated. This does not mean that absolute restoration of neural tissue is possible, but that the Central Nervous System (CNS) is far more resilient than we thought. In his book, "The Users Guide to the Brain", John Ratey refers to experiments that showed portions of the brain devoted to manual dexterity increased their development in reponse to a training regimen targeting key neural tissue. Similar rehabilitative response is possible, I expect, in aural and other portions of the brain. So, yes, it is possible to acquire this ability, but it takes work and it has to affect the right places in the right way to operate.
On the other side of the coin is the fact that listening to music is far more complicated than studying a bunch of charts and listening to a waves and distorted signals. Listening to music is an emotional and cognitive experience that can be refined, but I think that the basic process of musical appreciation is far more complicated. In the book, "Beethoven's Anvil", William Benzon refers to the cultural and neurological bases of music appreciation.....
Just to further the discussion....
Benzon, William. Beethoven's Anvil. (2001) Basic Books ISBN 0-465-01543-3
Ratey, John. A User's Guide to the Brain. (2001). Panthon Books. ISBN 0-679-45309-1
-
Firstly, Hi everyone! I'm sorta new here, and I found this thread rather interesting...
6 tries, and this is my result http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3004/thisu.png
I got -21dB at forst, and slowly got better...I might have an advantage though, this being 2AM here, with no noise, and my computer fan spinning low and stuff. I'm using KOSS Protapros and a laptop with stupid Conexant sound, which sounds worse than Realtek, or my MP3 player for that matter.
Oh and by the way, I've got no formal training for my ears. Just a music-loving teenager who cares more about music than headbanging.
-
Well....
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
For anyone game, here is the link: Distortion comparator
It requires using your (less than ideal) PC and headphones. I used a bone stock Dell laptop and Shure earbuds. Running on battery of course. The musical selection is not exactly my cup of tea either. In any case, see how you can do. My tempter achieved the -30 db level whereas I was able to go a bit further. What this really illustrates is the value of training and the notion that sometimes we must be told what to listen for. In my teens, I was most ft ortunate in having three mentors (all audio reviewers) who coached me in such affairs. Of the entire clip, I used only a select two second section to make my determinations.
Give it a try!
http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/dist.jpg
rw
http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/...t-results2.JPG
Equipment used
Sony Vaio laptop
Rega Ear
AKG 501
Test: octave
Jittery USB-SPDIF interface, Laptop and Headphone amplifer running off 'dirty' ac power and no specialist audiophile training :devil: . Well, what can I say!
-
I got down to -45 but not sure if I was doing it right since it seemed kind easy since all you have to do is listen to for the most regular tone-which for me was the one that did not seem to have a cycle to it if that makes any sense. I do know that when I took a complete physical years ago, which included a hearing test I was freaking out several corpsmen who could not believe my range of hearing. but that was simple test as well where you only had to identify which earpiece they were send the signal to.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekid
I got down to -45 but not sure if I was doing it right since it seemed kind easy since all you have to do is listen to for the most regular tone-which for me was the one that did not seem to have a cycle to it if that makes any sense. I do know that when I took a complete physical years ago, which included a hearing test I was freaking out several corpsmen who could not believe my range of hearing. but that was simple test as well where you only had to identify which earpiece they were send the signal to.
Good on you, the best I achieved was -42dB. How does the Kenwood KA-8001 sound? I'd like to get one of those someday. I have a C2 gathering dust in the shed, would love to press it into service once I manage to fix the faulty balance control knob.
|