I've posted a new article (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/05/harmans-how-to-listen-new-listener.html) on my audio blog about our new computer-based listener training program used for training Harman listeners.
We are considering making this freely available to audio recording engineers/students, audio reviewers, and audio consumers to increase consumer awareness and appreciation for higher quality audio recording and reproduction.
Cheers
Sean
We are considering making this freely available to [...] audio consumers
Tha would be great. Discussions would be enormously facilitated.
I've been looking for software like this for a while so it would be great if it was released to the general public.
We are considering making this freely available
Oh, please do so!
You have our interest.
I'm intrigued. Do it!
This is fantastic news. I'll be looking for more news on this.
Please release the software!
Please release this one.
Find your blog really interesting.
Cheers,
Lasse
We are considering making this freely available to ....
I'm very interested to try it because I also made a free software to listen and make correction of some random frequency EQ : resone (http://www.ohl.to/about-audio/audio-softwares/resone/)
My main problem was to find a good way to measure the performance of the correction. I ended with a measurement of the remaining "surface" of the frequency peak or notch.
Another tool to listen to various types of distortions : distorder (http://www.ohl.to/about-audio/audio-softwares/distorder/)
Sure that Sean Olive's software is easier to understand than mine
Amen, please release the software
The audiophile world needs this so badly. Given the methodology that it is based on, it can't help but be a huge step forward in the ability of researchers, reviewers and audio enthusiasts to evaluate sound. Heck, if all it did was get us out of the world of the euphonic musicality of greatly-enhanced PRaT, it would be a major step in the right direction. Put me on the beta-testing list if there is one!
Tim
While we wait for Harman, I'm finding this training program to be very good:
http://www.focalpress.com/books/audio/audi..._listening.aspx (http://www.focalpress.com/books/audio/audio_production_and_critical_listening.aspx)
Sean,
Any news on this release?
Thanks!
Sean,
Any news on this release?
Thanks!
A beta version of the software is available for download here (http:///harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/2011/01/welcome-to-how-to-listen.html) (finally). Enjoy!
Cheers
Sean Olive
Audio Musings (http://seanolive.com)
Mr. Olive, thank you very much.
I have a problem running that software. I am using Windows 7 32 bit, and not working as administrator.
When I start the program and login into it, it says it is missing JT_Stereo.wav. It doesn't matter if I start it as Administrator or ordinary user.
Where is it located? It is not in Program Files / Harman International / All subfolders
Nevermind, I figured I have to add my own music.
GUI should be more intuitive.
I have a problem running that software. I am using Windows 7 32 bit, and not working as administrator.
When I start the program and login into it, it says it is missing JT_Stereo.wav. It doesn't matter if I start it as Administrator or ordinary user.
Where is it located? It is not in Program Files / Harman International / All subfolders
We've posted an updated version 2.03 that fixes the Windows bug that prompts you to select program material that is not there.
See http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/2011...-to-listen.html (http://harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/2011/01/welcome-to-how-to-listen.html)
Thanks for making this available! The program is intuitive enough for me to use, but I have run into one minor issue so far: when I want to practice noise or hum with a higher sample rate test file (88 kHz or higher), I get an error "noise file not found". This is of course because you only include 44 and 48 kHz versions. Perhaps you could make the error more explicit if you don't want to include larger noise files?
Thanks for making this available! The program is intuitive enough for me to use, but I have run into one minor issue so far: when I want to practice noise or hum with a higher sample rate test file (88 kHz or higher), I get an error "noise file not found". This is of course because you only include 44 and 48 kHz versions. Perhaps you could make the error more explicit if you don't want to include larger noise files?
No, this is a bug that wasn't in version 2.02 but somehow creeped into version 2,03. We will fix this in the next build to be released this week.
Nevermind, I figured I have to add my own music.
GUI should be more intuitive.
The thing that I think is mssing from the GUI is the ability to hear the music with the change that the listener though was applied to the music to compare it to the test change. Its like being in an ABX with just A and X but no B. Doable, but harder and more error prone.
The big picture comment that I've heard from the frew of my friends here in Detroit that have tried the program is that the program seems to do a pretty good job of training people to do audio production, but is that what we want listeners to be able to do?
My response is that teaching people to recognize faults and name them by their their technical descriptions makes more sense to me than the current situation where most people say hard-to-decode things like "It sounds more chocolatey".
Nevermind, I figured I have to add my own music.
GUI should be more intuitive.
The thing that I think is mssing from the GUI is the ability to hear the music with the change that the listener though was applied to the music to compare it to the test change. Its like being in an ABX with just A and X but no B. Doable, but harder and more error prone.
The big picture comment that I've heard from the frew of my friends here in Detroit that have tried the program is that the program seems to do a pretty good job of training people to do audio production, but is that what we want listeners to be able to do?
My response is that teaching people to recognize faults and name them by their their technical descriptions makes more sense to me than the current situation where most people say hard-to-decode things like "It sounds more chocolatey".
Actually, the software does have the ability for the listener to compare their answer to the correct answer when they get a wrong answer. For the Band ID task, when a wrong answer is entered, the software goes into audition mode allowing the listener to hear the correct answer versus all of the other possible choices (including the one they entered) in addition to hearing the original "Flat" version.
The goal of the software is not to turn people into audio production people, but rather make them better at classifying audio distortions in common meaningful terms that audio product engineers and scientists understand. The Band ID tasks, for example, teach people to classify spectral distortions in terms of frequency, dB, Q. Listeners become adept at drawing the perceived spectral balance on a graph, which is more useful that "chocolatey bass, or "pace and rhythm"
If you look at training software focused on tonmeisters (recording engineers) (e.g. Jason Corey, Rene Quesnel's) it requires the listener to equalize the added spectral distortions out so the sound is neutral -- something we don't expect from listeners participating in listening tests focused on audio product research and testing.
There will be more training tasks added in the future, that will more closely simulate actual product testing, and require listeners to rate preferences among sounds that have been modified in terms of timbre, spatial and distortion attributions. The listener's performance statistic will be based on how well they are able to discriminate among the test stimuli.