Well you could be right. Since you seem to be in a position to judge, perhaps you'd like to share what music tracks were used in Olive's loudspeaker regression papers (parts 1 and 2) and what genre they were?You seem to know awfully little about the Harman studies (eg based on Rock, Olive’s Paper etc) yet you have a strong opinion that they are not correct or flawed.
I am not doing your homework especially as it is futile to begin with as you like your preconceived misconceptions.
I see, so you accused me of not understanding Olive's papers, specifically the music used in the study's listening tests, but you don't actually know, yourself? That's pretty bold of you.
| Artist | Track | Music Genre |
| James Taylor | That’s Why I’m Here | Folk rock |
| Little Feat | Hangin’ On to the Good Times | Blues rock |
| Tracy Champan | Fast Car | Folk/Blues rock |
| Jennifer Warnes | Bird on a Wire | Country rock |
I know and know where to look plus you made the claim not me, so you bring the proof and why would I waste my time trying to help someone who doesn’t want to be helped to learn new things.
HarmonicTHD said:
@HarmonicTHD, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you write: "You seem to know awfully little about the Harman studies (eg based on Rock, Olive’s Paper etc)?" Were you not the one making the claim that I was incorrect that Olive's loudspeaker regression papers were based on ROCK music? Scroll up, I gave you a friendly opportunity to correct yourself, but you didn't take it.
I'm not sure why it makes sense to you that I first learned that the Olive regression papers were based on rock from information provided by @thewas "3 posts up." For starters, I pointed out the fact about rock music in post #405 (4:45PM). @thewas didn't "link" information until post #406 (10:28PM). So, are you saying that I invented a time machine, travelled 6 hours into the future, learned information from @thewas in post #406, then travelled back in time so that I could post #405?
You conveniently picked the 5 tracks which include the word rock to support your incomplete picture and misconceptions - again don’t pick the bits and pieces out of context. Maybe start asking questions, maybe even to Sean Olive himself (he is a member here).
Hold on a sec, @HarmonicTHD.
For Harman and my personal experience pink noise is the most discriminating to hear if some frequency regions are exaggerated, mind you the difference to "Female Pop Rock" is very small and probably pink noise needs more training to get used to the correct overall tilt compared to known music:
Exactly and that gives the hint what pink noise and Tracy Chapman have in common.For Harman and my personal experience pink noise is the most discriminating to hear if some frequency regions are exaggerated, mind you the difference to "Female Pop Rock" is very small and probably pink noise needs more training to get used to the correct overall tilt compared to known music:
Source of above image: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/03/method-for-training-listeners-and.html
White noise is perceived with an uprising tonality.
Here more about it from Toole https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...d-can-it-be-measured.25313/page-7#post-866792
There was a reason why I asked you to read up more and not just pick bits and pieces without having read the larger context.
I did. But it doesn’t matter as the test was done sighted and my impression is worthless to anyone else as it only applies to me in that room with all my biases affecting the results.
You must be hell to go shopping with.
That what my wife says ;-) I take it as a compliment
White noise / pink noise needs a bit of training for sure. I have heard it many times for speaker measurements. With white noise it is more easy to hear the higher frequencies (obviously). Since the room and speaker position alters everything below 300Hz I wouldn't use pink noise since you didn't get much inside in this lower frequencies with it anyways since you hear mainly the resonances of the room and placement.For Harman and my personal experience pink noise is the most discriminating to hear if some frequency regions are exaggerated, mind you the difference to "Female Pop Rock" is very small and probably pink noise needs more training to get used to the correct overall tilt compared to known music:
Source of above image: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/03/method-for-training-listeners-and.html
White noise is perceived with an uprising tonality.
Here more about it from Toole https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...d-can-it-be-measured.25313/page-7#post-866792
IMHO you overcompensate the fact that it is very hard to impossible to reliably test "small" differences without some kind of blind experiment. Bigger differences like differences of loudspeakers can be much better observed even without a blind test. Yes there might be a bias but you can only be tricked to some extent. Therefore condemning all sighted test is the same nonsense like taken ever sighted test as accurate data.
You can see it from two sides. The music selection which is more similar to noise is better at revealing linear frequency differences. Linear frequency differences are the most important parts of the quality differences of typical loudspeakers. On the other had if you use music like the SQAM material you need longer to get the same impression of the linear frequency differences but you also get more inside of other distortion which isn't included in the preference score model and which is especially interesting if the speakers are more similar from the spinorama data.
I would consider in that case rather band limited pink noise as with white noise the higher frequencies are perceived stronger.
Yes you can do that. Pink noise might be better to judge one error over another error than using white noise. But you have to have some experience how different good loudspeaker room combinations sound with that exact noise signal.
Yes. I presume that’s why Olive used trained listeners in his later studies and I think to remember that Amir took one of these trainings (I might be wrong though).
