Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting post about long-term listening.
I ran into this quote, relates to some of my recent comments about what I've
been reading from Jourdain about the perception of music" jj grumpy old skeptic wrote in http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=31803 Basically, at each of the three classical stages of memory, you lose a LOT of information (partial loudness, short-term feature, long-term auditory object), and since you can GUIDE what you remember, it's very easy for the memory of two IDENTICAL presentations to be recalled as different SIMPLY DUE TO WHERE AND WHAT YOU FOCUSED ON during the listening." Two very important points: (1) Comparisons based on long term listening by definition don't consider all kinds of small differences. (2) Comparisons based on long term listening accentuate the effects of the listener's biases. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting post about long-term listening.
On Nov 20, 12:17*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
I ran into this quote, relates to some of my recent comments about what I've been reading from Jourdain about the perception of music" jj grumpy old skeptic wrote in http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=31803 Basically, at each of the three classical stages of memory, you lose a LOT of information (partial loudness, short-term feature, long-term auditory object), and since you can GUIDE what you remember, it's very easy for the memory of two IDENTICAL presentations to be recalled as different SIMPLY DUE TO WHERE AND WHAT YOU FOCUSED ON during the listening." Two very important points: (1) Comparisons based on long term listening by definition don't consider all kinds of small differences. (2) Comparisons based on long term listening accentuate the effects of the listener's biases. Uh, two "very important comments": (1) No Sh*t. (2) So what? Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting post about long-term listening.
Arny Krueger wrote:
I ran into this quote, relates to some of my recent comments about what I've been reading from Jourdain about the perception of music" jj grumpy old skeptic wrote in http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=31803 Basically, at each of the three classical stages of memory, you lose a LOT of information (partial loudness, short-term feature, long-term auditory object), and since you can GUIDE what you remember, it's very easy for the memory of two IDENTICAL presentations to be recalled as different SIMPLY DUE TO WHERE AND WHAT YOU FOCUSED ON during the listening." Two very important points: (1) Comparisons based on long term listening by definition don't consider all kinds of small differences. (2) Comparisons based on long term listening accentuate the effects of the listener's biases. Long term listening will (depending on SPL) affect your hearing and most likely influence your ears' frequency response for one thing. But if you REALLY want your music to sound good, just take some cannabis beforehand. It's all in the brain you see. The ear is NOT an accurate measuring instrument. Even your MOOD will affect your preception of music. Graham |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting post about long-term listening.
Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: I ran into this quote, relates to some of my recent comments about what I've been reading from Jourdain about the perception of music" jj grumpy old skeptic wrote in http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=31803 Basically, at each of the three classical stages of memory, you lose a LOT of information (partial loudness, short-term feature, long-term auditory object), and since you can GUIDE what you remember, it's very easy for the memory of two IDENTICAL presentations to be recalled as different SIMPLY DUE TO WHERE AND WHAT YOU FOCUSED ON during the listening." Two very important points: (1) Comparisons based on long term listening by definition don't consider all kinds of small differences. (2) Comparisons based on long term listening accentuate the effects of the listener's biases. Long term listening will (depending on SPL) affect your hearing and most likely influence your ears' frequency response for one thing. certainly ...but it's the 'audiophile' contingent that is positing that only long term listening' gives the listener a sense of the 'real' sound. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting post about long-term listening.
In this context, in particular with regard to jj's comment, the
following passage from Zielinski et al., "On Some Biases Encountered in Modern Audio Quality Listening Tests-A Review", JAES Vol. 56, Issue 6, pp. 427-451; June 2008 is of interest: "The third criterion, related to the selection of program material, is the consistency of characteristics. If the duration of a given excerpt is long, say more than 30 seconds, it is likely that its timbral and spatial characteristics will vary in time. If these variations are large, the listeners may find it difficult to "average" the quality over time, and consequently some random errors are likely to occur in the data (see [21] for an example). Therefore short, consistent, and perhaps looped excerpts are beneficial in this respect. There is another problem related to using long, time- varying stimuli, which potentially can give rise to a systematic error. As mentioned, listeners face problems when evaluating the audio quality of long program material. It was observed that listeners are not reliable at "averaging" quality as it changes over the duration of the whole excerpt, and their judgments are biased toward the quality of that part of the recording that is auditioned last (the end of the recording if the recording is not looped). This psychological effect is related to the dominance of short-term memory over long-term memory and is often referred to as a recency effect, as the assessors tend to be biased toward recent events. For example, Gros et al. [22] conducted a study evaluating telephone speech quality and observed a systematic shift in scores due to the recency effect of a magnitude of up to 23% of the total range of the scale. Moreover, the recency effect was studied extensively by Aldridge et al. in the context of picture quality evaluation [23j. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as a forgiveness effect as the assessors tend to "forgive" occasional imperfections in the quality, provided that the final part of the evaluated excerpt is unimpaired. For example, in the study conducted by Seferidis et al. [24] it was observed that for some stimuli the recency effect biased the results of the subjective evaluation by almost 50%. There are three solutions to reduce the magnitude of the recency effect. The first, which is commonly used in audio listening tests, involves using short and consistent recordings in terms of their audio quality. The second solution is to randomize the temporal distribution of distortions for the same stimuli and use several profiles for the same levels of quality. Unfortunately this solution is expensive since it requires more stimuli and hence leads to a longer overall duration of the test. The third solution, which is sometimes employed in picture and multimedia quality evaluation experiments, involves a so- called continuous evaluation of quality. Instead of assessing the quality of a stimulus once, normally after its presentation, the participants are instructed to evaluate the quality of stimuli in a continuous manner during their presentation [25], [26]. On 20 nov, 18:17, "Arny Krueger" wrote: jj grumpy old skeptic wrote: it's very easy for the memory of two IDENTICAL presentations to be recalled as different SIMPLY DUE TO WHERE AND WHAT YOU FOCUSED ON during the listening." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting post about long-term listening.
wrote in message
In this context, in particular with regard to jj's comment, the following passage from Zielinski et al., "On Some Biases Encountered in Modern Audio Quality Listening Tests-A Review", JAES Vol. 56, Issue 6, pp. 427-451; June 2008 is of interest: This paper can be freely downloaded from http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/ias.../Zielinski.pdf "The third criterion, related to the selection of program material, is the consistency of characteristics. If the duration of a given excerpt is long, say more than 30 seconds, it is likely that its timbral and spatial characteristics will vary in time. If these variations are large, the listeners may find it difficult to "average" the quality over time, and consequently some random errors are likely to occur in the data (see [21] for an example). Therefore short, consistent, and perhaps looped excerpts are beneficial in this respect. " A complementary fact is that our memory for concrete musical sounds is on the order of from 1 to 10 seconds, with most people being most effective around 2 seconds. After 2 seconds or so, our memory of musical sounds is abstract, and most details of the sound are no longer remembered. Small details that can be compared within our memory for concrete sounds must appear within a few seconds of each other, or detailed variations will not be heard as effectively and reliably. " There are three solutions to reduce the magnitude of the recency effect. The first, which is commonly used in audio listening tests, involves using short and consistent recordings in terms of their audio quality. " I've taken immeasurably large amounts of abuse from people who deny the validity of listening tests composed of short segments of music. It's really about their ignorance of how human perception works. The very act of taking a number of DBTs can be a quick but brutal lesson about what works, and what doesn't. Since sighted evaluations are often inherently invalid, they lead to a lot of totally bogus, but tightly held urban legends. These urban legends favor people who are trying to sell audio gear without regard to whether or not it actually sounds better when compared to some kind of reference, as opposed to perceived differences that need not be reliable or even based on hearing. On 20 nov, 18:17, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Two very important points: (1) Comparisons based on long term listening by definition don't consider all kinds of small differences. (2) Comparisons based on long term listening accentuate the effects of the listener's biases. jj grumpy old skeptic wrote: it's very easy for the memory of two IDENTICAL presentations to be recalled as different SIMPLY DUE TO WHERE AND WHAT YOU FOCUSED ON during the listening." |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting post about long-term listening.
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message In this context, in particular with regard to jj's comment, the following passage from Zielinski et al., "On Some Biases Encountered in Modern Audio Quality Listening Tests-A Review", JAES Vol. 56, Issue 6, pp. 427-451; June 2008 is of interest: This paper can be freely downloaded from http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/ias.../Zielinski.pdf That must be a different version, since it does not contain the text quoted by Mr. Rampelmann (including the paragraph below) "The third criterion, related to the selection of program material, is the consistency of characteristics. If the duration of a given excerpt is long, say more than 30 seconds, it is likely that its timbral and spatial characteristics will vary in time. If these variations are large, the listeners may find it difficult to "average" the quality over time, and consequently some random errors are likely to occur in the data (see [21] for an example). Therefore short, consistent, and perhaps looped excerpts are beneficial in this respect. " -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Long term listening and enjoyment | High End Audio | |||
Long Term Versus Short-Term Listening | High End Audio | |||
Never got bob's answer: Long Term Listening Myth thread... | High End Audio | |||
The Long-term Listening Myth | High End Audio | |||
Short term - Long term listening | High End Audio |