Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: The "average" listener (Read 19293 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The "average" listener

Reply #25 –
Quote
Dibrom, I can understand that you've seen this sort of thing before, and I agree that relaxing the ABX standard wouldn't make any sense, but I think that an "untrained listener" isn't so much of a definitional problem....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327994"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's not so much that "untrained listener" is a definitional problem (though it is in it's own right, and I think I explained why) as it is the case that practically the entire constraints for such a test are completely arbitrary, and practically meaningless.

I agree with Cosmo here, and this is what I tried to convey earlier:  The entire premise for such a test as this is flawed.  Instead, you need to simply shoot for the best possible level of tuning and quality that you can for a given resource target (i.e., bitrate, whatever).  Then, it's up to the actual listener himself to choose a point along the scale of different possible resource configurations to find what works for him.  If he wants to find something that works for "casual listening," then great -- he determines what "casual listening" means for him, and can discover what works best for him to achieve that by performing his own private listening test.

You can't properly test for the "average listener" in the fashion that most tests around here are performed (in other words, you can't really do it in a highly relevant and meaningful way).  And trying to tune for such a target is not only just about impossible, but a very bad thing to even attempt at that.

The "average" listener

Reply #26 –
This discussion is very interesting. I joined on this forum because of a recent purchase, my most advanced piece of audioequip, an ihp-120.  After researching portable devices for some time, I concluded the decision after comparing the firepower of everything on the market.  Specifically, the ability to record (highest quality available) on the go, while maintaining a decent file compatability, drive size, and good quality output.
It was some time ago that computer audio tech was hitting the consumer market, and I asked a friend what an mp3 was.  A filetype that "cuts out" all the noises that we are incapable of hearing on track.  There are few people who can hear one instrument in a 50 musician arrangement, but numerous people who could spot a change from the original. The difference between 128k/s & 192k/s wavs I found to be huge.  I avoided electronic audio for some time because I know nothing about the mechanics and theories behind audio/sound, and know nothing of hacking.  I do not believe it is possible to remove the inaudible alone, and would go almost as far as to say those sounds are just as important as the rest of the track.  As one could imagine, I am having difficulty on deciding how to encode my lib.  Lossless will very quickly kick my hardspace's ass, and I'll end up having to grab an extra 200$ worth (a matter of time rather than neccessity).  And then I wonder, are lossless formats  lossless?  And then after much reading.... I ran into this topic, and yet feel nowhere closer to what I'm looking for. I hope some of these words will provoke discussion towards comfortable resolution, and give me some clarity on what to do now.
"Who needs courage when they have a gun"

The "average" listener

Reply #27 –
Quote
I do not believe it is possible to remove the inaudible alone
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328003"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's possible in theory if you have a perfect psychoacoustic model and know the various hearing thresholds of everyone that ever existed or will exist

But in practice, it's impossible, yes.  There will always been an exception out there -- someone who is able to hear a change in a file that 99% of the other people will not.  That's why people perform these listening tests (to get the best idea possible), and why codec developers are always looking for ways to improve things.

Quote
and would go almost as far as to say those sounds are just as important as the rest of the track.


If you can hear what an encoder is changing, and it bothers you, then yes it's just as important as the other stuff.  In this case, the encoder's model is wrong.

On the other hand, if you can't hear it, then it's NOT as important as the other stuff.  This is at least if you are talking about subjective perceptual quality.  If you're implying something else that isn't related to perceptual quality, then that's a different story.  But that's also outside of the scope of this discussion really.

Quote
And then I wonder, are lossless formats  lossless?


Yes.  Assuming that the encoder is not buggy (this sort of bug is easy to test for usually), and that your computer components are working properly (meaning you don't have bad RAM or a bad HD which could both end up corrupting data), then a lossless file should decode to a 1-to-1 bit identical clone of the input signal.

If that doesn't answer things, you probably should start another thread

The "average" listener

Reply #28 –
Lots of interesting comments in here, especially Axon's idea of distributed listener results. But I can see both sides of the argument.

I guess I have to learn how to do ABX tests (without trying too hard) for my own conditions, I get the general idea of them, but probably need to read more on how to do it.
Is 10 short samples of various music styles be enough?

The "average" listener

Reply #29 –
oh well... I've done one for myself and headphones, 12 songs. Anyone care to hear the outcome?

The "average" listener

Reply #30 –
Quote
oh well... I've done one for myself and headphones, 12 songs. Anyone care to hear the outcome?

sure!

The "average" listener

Reply #31 –
OK

The executive summary:

My first ABX.. It was so much easier to run than I thought it would be, it just got tedious.

Testing: Lame 3.96.1 -V switches. Budget Headphones.
The goal was to find my transparency threshold with my current listening equipment.


V9 - very easy to pick audio defects. I think even the dodgiest audio set-ups would benefit from settings >V9.

V8 - Mostly transparent for me, but some artifacts weren't too hard to pick up at all, so that's obviously not going to be enough to optimize all my music.

V7 - I can rarely make out any differences between this and wav, unless I try. Good enough for me and my sample of songs. I'd probably suggest this to people with low-end hardware who care more about the music than the audio (but still care enough to optimize size & sound).



I was surprised that I only got this far. I was thinking I'd get to V5 before it got tricky... Ah well, it only has raised my respect bar ridiculously high for those who can differentiate V2 from wav.


Here's my crude, completely non-standard issue graph. It's just the overall results. This test was for me, so I'm not going to try and waste too much more of your time with logs files, etc..

edit: look down

The "average" listener

Reply #32 –
it stretched my post making it hard to read...
here it is

The "average" listener

Reply #33 –
10$ speakers, right?  I can barely make out 128 from aps on those  (though i still can.. actually, i can diff. 192 cbr from aps, pretty easily...;  I've only found a difference between aps and wav on few samples.)

(on a sidenote, try lame 3.97b1, for your abx test, again, if you can -- it might be transparent at v8 for you! )

The "average" listener

Reply #34 –
Quote
Quote
Along with this we might want to consider relaxing the ABX protocol a bit, because the focus here is on casual listening.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327871"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You are scaring me.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=327874"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL!   

The "average" listener

Reply #35 –
I juts think that "relaxing" the ABX is just what who doesnt know what ABX is already doing nowadays: encode the music, listen in the speakers and say "perfect" or "it's really good", changing between the original and the encoded. I think that the great majority of people dont care about small artifacts at all -  so they test by themselves in their proper ways. The problem is when someone testing samples using this method tries to clame to everyone that nothing can beat his test.
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!

The "average" listener

Reply #36 –
Quote
I think that the great majority of people dont care about small artifacts at all -  so they test by themselves in their proper ways.

Or it is testing without really testing anything. They could as well encoded at v5. Besides of "minor artifacts", those users will probably notice no serious problems. And there is even a good chance that they wont even notice the minor artefacts. The question is: if we know this already with high probability, then why do we need multi-listener tests? Just to ease the "good feeling in they belly"?


Quote
The problem is when someone testing samples using this method tries to clame to everyone that nothing can beat his test.

Because it is not representative and unreliable - what was the purpose of a test again?

Tests like the one which blue did are a useful addition. But relaxing the requirements which are needed for reliability will make the those tests weak and meaningless for other users. People would basically just test for their own placebo and not for really knowing whats going on. As mentioned earlier, you cannot relax the fundemental requirements without loosing something important(relevance).

I dont want to stop people from testing for placebo. But ha.org is the wrong place for this kind of "research". Even the dreaded TOS8 would be in conflict with conducting this kind of tests here.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

The "average" listener

Reply #37 –
Hey, I'm not into relaxing the tests. I wasnt saying that as an argument to relax the ABX tests: i was just saying we dont need tests for the great majority of people because they dont really care about that.
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!

The "average" listener

Reply #38 –
Okay, sorry - my misunderstanding of your words.
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

The "average" listener

Reply #39 –
Quote
I dont want to stop people from testing for placebo.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=328228"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What placebo?
It's blue57's own ears; or are they not as 'qualified' as guruboolez'?
Even guruboolez stated that his test results are from his own ears, and that it might not represent every audiences.
And most people here seem to take it (the results) for granted.

But if what u meant by 'testing for placebo' is 'a relaxed ABX test', then I agree.

The "average" listener

Reply #40 –
Quote
But if what u meant by 'testing for placebo' is 'a relaxed ABX test', then I agree.

Yes, i was adressing what would happen if blind-testing conditions are taken less serious - the results would be useless for others, and the tester as well - so, the tester would only do the test to satisfy his own "warm feeling of asumed safety".
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

The "average" listener

Reply #41 –
Just the other day, my wife and I are both in our office working while listening to mp3's.  All at once I audibly shutter as I shout, Dam!%.  There was a slight artifact in the track!  At once I began preparations to re-rip the track while making sure everything is kosher with my rig.  Through all this my wife just looks at me like I am crazy.  Even after replaying the offending section to her multiple times she could not understand what the problem was and why on earth it would get me that agitated.  That is just the difference between us, what sounds acceptable to her would keep me up at night.  But I love her anyway =)  Because like love, music quality and acceptability is subjective.  We all know this.

My wife would never come to a forum like this and ask a question about audio setup or formats. But I think that if a person DOES comes here to ask what the forums opinions are, that person is demonstrating that while they may not be an audiophile, they do want a decent listening experience and are trying to get input from a group whose opinion is valued. I don't see why it should not be ok to do so without all the rigamaroll.

  How many times has a close friend told you, 'here try this, you'll love it!'  So you try it and it it's terrible!  Your physiology is the same, your interpretations are not.  But the opinions of others have value in so far as that it gives you a place to start figuring out what works for you.  As long as it’s stated as opinion, then I have no problem with it, it’s when a putz extols their opinion as fact that the ship runs a ground. 

Disclaimer:
The opinions of rockdog are solely his and may not be reproduced in whole or in part w/o the express written consent of the national football league.  Said opinions are in no way legally binding and the author reserves the right to amend the opinion as new information comes to light. Any violation of TOS #8 either real or imagined is understood to be bad form but should not result in ridicule or death.
 

The "average" listener

Reply #42 –
Quote
Okay, sorry - my misunderstanding of your words.

That's ok, I've been writing ambiguous enligsh sentences lately.
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!