Indeed. Or the intent to please everyone. "There is a problem with the measurement here, but you may prefer it that way. " Or, "I think it is too bright but everyone hears different so you may be fine with that."
I agree, but it would probably be useful for a reviewer to get up to a certain level in the software and learn to identify frequency ranges and give up on words like "microdynamics", etc.
The chart demonstrates both.Well at least you're both on the same page.
I raised what I felt were some reasonable questions about the assumption that trained listeners are more discriminating than untrained listeners, based on the first study that GaryH posted on this. And rather than addressing any of those questions I was given a new set of graphs from another unidentified study that showed something different...
So be it... What I see in the graphs from this new study, with considerably more untrained listeners than trained listeners, is that the relatively small group of trained listeners are more consistent in their opinions and preferences than the much larger group of untrained listeners... Which is what I've said from the very beginning of this conversation.
I'm still waiting though for someone to actually define or articulate (without throwing another graph at me) what "more discriminating" actually means in this context... Dr. Olive seemed to be starting to do that in his post. But somehow his reply got cut off in mid-sentence...
("identify" is where his comment seemed to end)
This is probably neither here nor there, but perhaps if the above sampling of trained listeners was also larger it would also show more inconsistencies as well, like the much bigger untrained group. (?)
I thought you were ignoring everything associated with "circle of confusion." You seem like a pretty literal person so I took you for your word.
That is an unrelated point to the fact that the data points to trained listeners being better at judging sound quality.
Exactly, this is what some people are failing to understand. How to Listen doesn't have to include such nebulous terminology in order to have an influence on their usage. In fact, it's because it doesn't include this vague terminology but instead well-defined terms that represent concrete physical properties that means it could reveal to a listener through training that their nebulous terms are either illusory, or can be explained by standard terms, which invariably describe features of frequency response.
I think Stereophile has shown that providing 'reasonably accurate measurements' along with a review has pretty much zero correlation with the consistency or discrimination of the subjective portion of the sound quality assessment.
Hello,
My understanding was Harman's how to listen provides an indication whether or not one's ears are trained. Other programs would be more useful to train one's ears, and I would imagine there is a superior evaluation than Harman's. The idea is reviewers should train their ears, Harman's how to listen is just one indicator as to whether or not a listener is trained. Perhaps an alternative evaluation should be suggested instead.
I completely agree. Trained vs untrained ears is a relatively minor concern. As others have stated earlier in the thread, pressuring reviewers about something minor doesn't make much sense, as the the major problems that you described are unfortunately common.
Subjective assessments are used to characterize flaws in the frequency response. A trained listener typically would do this more reliably than an untrained listener. Given that most headphones have some flaw in their measurements, and that headphone measurements are not very accurate or precise, trained ears are a useful tool in evaluating headphones. That being said, measurements are a far more useful and important tool.
No idea what you're trying to convey here
In the other post, you said "if the argument is that the typical audio reviewer needs to go through Harman training in order to produce reliable and valid reviews", which was not an argument people were making. That is why I had the impression some of the nuance was missed. My mistake there.
The impartial reviewers was a hypothetical, just to illustrate a point that training ears is a good thing. Again, impartiality (the lack of it) is much more important and relevant issue. Two reviewers who I would want to see if they are trained, and to do a training of not, are Oluv and Solderdude.
I may not have explained it so clearly. From 49 minutes onward in the video below, Amir talks about the importance of subjective assessment in relation to measurements. I am just saying this subjective assessment will be done more reliably by someone with trained ears.
As far as I'm aware there's no other evaluation that has the backing of public research demonstrating its efficacy in verifying and improving listening abilities, consistency and discrimination. And that's the key point. The term 'trained listener' is thrown around quite a lot, often without detailed delineation. What Harman have done is give the term a verifiable, quantifiable definition so we don't have to just take someone's word on what their personal training/experience has conferred on their listening abilities anymore, they can now prove it. We use verifiable standards for measurement equipment, it's about time we had some kind of verifiable standard for reviewers' ears too.
Not according to Harman's definition. He's said he got up level 3 on the first attempt of How to Listen, which is no better than the general public from his comments here. So whatever previous training he's done in the specific task of identifying digital lossy codec compression artifacts did not confer an improved ability to identify frequency response differences and so better discern differences in sound quality of transducers. After practice he got up to level 5, still 3 levels short of a trained listener according to Harman. And that was over 10 years ago. As @Sean Olive demonstrated in this post, a lot can change in 10 years in terms of hearing, and so listening ability as Floyd Toole has shown.
A hypothetical that doesn't exist unfortunately. No reviewer can be 100% impartial, because no-one is 100% free of subconscious biases.
The latter's already blankly refused. Knew I'd forgotten someone though - @oluvsgadgets up for giving the below a try?
If reviewers want their subjective judgements to be some kind of useful data point, they must in some way expect or at least hope their readers trust in their ability to adeptly discern good sound quality. In the same way that we require measurement rigs to conform to industry standards that demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of their readings, if subjective reports are to have any utility to readers, these 'measurement rigs' i.e. the reviewers ears should be subject to provable standards of accuracy too, and being a Harman level 8 trained listener is as good a standard for this as I can see. So calling all reviewers, @Resolve , @metal571 , @crinacle , @antdroid , Jude (I know you're watching), care to give Harman's How to Listen a go and post your results?
