How many people can hear the difference between...

[miroslav]

What Miroslav started with is borderline "nothing at all should be tested or at least can not be trusted" and that is a subject I won't touch and is out of place here.

Oh...ok...so now you know what I meant to say even if I didn't say it.

My point was that there are tests that have analytical results...but the thing you are looking for, "how many people can hear a difference" is never going to be analytical...only subjective. IOW...how do we know that someone does or doesn't heart a difference, or what that difference is...?

Again...what is it that you're trying to drill down to? Just cut to the chase, it will help the discussion get to a point.

 

[spitzer]

... because it can't be just "have there been any tests".

It can't?

And honestly, I stopped reading your post instantly when you argued that actually I don't even know what question I should be asking... but YOU do. Eh?

 

[miroslav]

And honestly, I stopped reading your post instantly when you argued that actually I don't even know what question I should be asking... but YOU do. Eh?

Right...that's why you keep responding to my posts.
OK...I guess you don't know how to, or don't want to cut to the chase and ask what you really want to ask.

AFA have there been any tests to see who can tell the difference between A & B in the music industry with numbers showing proportions within the group....No.

Next question.

 

[spitzer]

Right...that's why you keep responding to my posts.
OK...I guess you don't know how to, or don't want to cut to the chase and ask what you really want to ask.

AFA have there been any tests to see who can tell the difference between A & B in the music industry with numbers showing proportions within the group....No.

Next question.

I think you know that is not at all what I asked. Your "facepalming" is really unnecessary.

I specifically said I am NOT looking to start another debate on the subject, so maybe you can kind of see why I wanted to avoid asking a bunch of loaded questions or making claims myself? We've gotten a handful of very useful replies here that do address what I'm looking for. So most people indeed read my original post exactly right: have there been studies like this, and where are they? (btw, I would like to see some studies that specifically EXCLUDE "audiophiles". That would be interesting!)

What do you think would have happened if I had started by making a claim that a specific A sounds better than a specific B? Why would I have started a thread like THAT in the first place?

Best regards.

 

[Deleted member 196982]

I hate to say "I told you so, but...."

Seriously, you could take 2 people with precisely measured, identical hearing, give them each a pile of money, put them in a 1970s Hi-Fi store, and I'd bet they'd walk out with different speakers and headphones to listen to the same music, if not turntables, phono cartridges, preamps and amps, too. How can this be anything but subjective? (Corollary, related question for further discussion: how many studio monitor speaker manufacturers can you fit on the head of a pin?)

But, carry on...

 

[spitzer]

I hate to say "I told you so, but...."

Seriously, you could take 2 people with precisely measured, identical hearing, give them each a pile of money, put them in a 1970s Hi-Fi store, and I'd bet they'd walk out with different speakers and headphones to listen to the same music, if not turntables, phono cartridges, preamps and amps, too. How can this be anything but subjective? (Corollary, related question for further discussion: how many studio monitor speaker manufacturers can you fit on the head of a pin?)

But, carry on...

I don't follow. Who said this isn't subjective?

 

[miroslav]

I still think there was more to your question than "have there been any studies"...because there would be an underlying reason why you would want to know that.

That's why I said cut to the chase.
I still don't know what you really want to know (well, I can guess)...and all the "helpful" replies were talking about the same stuff I was...about the "why" and not "was there a test".

So let me ask it directly...WHY do you want to know if there was a test?
This thread would be better if you would answer that instead of debating how people are misunderstanding you and reading into the "why".

 

[Deleted member 196982]

I don't follow. Who said this isn't subjective?

To me, "study" implies scientific, objective methodology to ascertain something measurable/quantifiable. Your post title says "how many people can hear the difference" so we have assume there's a physical, measurable thing being studied. I think what is maddening for all of us is how this kind of topic always turns into a tree circling waste of time, as the goal post keeps getting moved.

I posted one study that was related to lossy audio, but the posts by some participants exposed some of the tests faults, but many are the kind you cannot rectify in a test of this kind of thing, where the simple matter is, some things don't matter in the same way to all people, i.e., even if their perceptive ability might make it possible to discern differences, it could be that this is not in an area they have trained themselves to recognize, or they just don't care. That's only "subjective" in the sense that some of the subjects think about things differently, not that there's a subjective (vs. objective) part of the hypothesis or test method. I can think of all kinds of things you might do to mitigate a lot of the variables in testing, pre-test hearing exams, controlled listening environments, etc., but then what do you have? Results to a test that have no basis in application in the real world. Nobody wants to pay for that. (A subjective, unfounded IMHO.)

 

[spitzer]

I still think there was more to your question than "have there been any studies"...because there would be an underlying reason why you would want to know that.

That's why I said cut to the chase.
I still don't know what you really want to know (well, I can guess)...and all the "helpful" replies were talking about the same stuff I was...about the "why" and not "was there a test".

So let me ask it directly...WHY do you want to know if there was a test?
This thread would be better if you would answer that instead of debating how people are misunderstanding you and reading into the "why".

Well, asking directly is much better than what the alternative was!

What is your guess? What do I really want to know?

Of course there is an underlying reason or actually, many reasons. Trying to figure out what they are, is purely subjective and pointless. Right? No. But that is actually a really complex question. It's difficult to say. I don't remember the exact thoughts in my head at that time. I can't put it into a few words in just a few minutes. It'll take at least 10.

 

[spitzer]

I don't follow. Who said this isn't subjective?

To me, "study" implies scientific, objective methodology to ascertain something measurable/quantifiable. Your post title says "how many people can hear the difference" so we have assume there's a physical, measurable thing being studied. I think what is maddening for all of us is how this kind of topic always turns into a tree circling waste of time, as the goal post keeps getting moved.

I posted one study that was related to lossy audio, but the posts by some participants exposed some of the tests faults, but many are the kind you cannot rectify in a test of this kind of thing, where the simple matter is, some things don't matter in the same way to all people, i.e., even if their perceptive ability might make it possible to discern differences, it could be that this is not in an area they have trained themselves to recognize, or they just don't care. That's only "subjective" in the sense that some of the subjects think about things differently, not that there's a subjective (vs. objective) part of the hypothesis or test method. I can think of all kinds of things you might do to mitigate a lot of the variables in testing, pre-test hearing exams, controlled listening environments, etc., but then what do you have? Results to a test that have no basis in application in the real world. Nobody wants to pay for that. (A subjective, unfounded IMHO.)

Oh, ok, I see. We should maybe be more specific.

You can make a scientific study about "What is the best motion picture of all time?", choosing only yourself as part of the group being studied, ask yourself, then compile the data. Obviously the question is completely subjective, but that's not where it goes wrong is it? The sample size is ONE, but everything else about the study would still be completely correct. Picking the sample population and doing the actual raw statistical work are two completely different things. Right? Do this again but instead ask 1000 people picked truly at random. Now you would have something much more useful than just your own opinion. This would still be something along the lines of "objective subjectiveness" which was mentioned in passing before. However, that is NOT subjective anymore. It is objective. It is not someone guessing what the participants answered but an objective compilation of what they actually answered. I don't have a problem with this method.

As for "nobody wants to pay for ..." , that would not explain why a school, non-profit organization, the state etc. etc. would not do it (which is what? ) . Who was it on here that mentioned "[[company name here]] has done these tests, but will not publish the results" ...

I for one definitely hope this doesn't turn into a waste of time. Why should it?

 

[Ponder5]

I for one definitely hope this doesn't turn into a waste of time. Why should it?

Uh-oh... you disagreed with an A-lister. Now you're in for it.

BUT, in answer to your question, everyone can tell the difference. Everyone. Healthy hearing is remarkable in its ability to detect, but interpreting what you detect takes a few years to learn.

Who can tell the difference between string frequency when tuning a piano? Everyone. No one can, initially. First they have to be taught what to listen for. Then everyone can. Who can tell the difference between .mp3 and FLAC and vinyl? Everyone. After they learn what to listen for. Who can tell when Justin Beiber is singing another "baby" or is it a sample from a previous "baby"? Everyone.

Who has taken the initiative to learn these things? Few. Somewhat obscure few at that. Who cares? Not me.

Personally, I think we should take much less effort cork-sniffing and more effort dumping out the vinegar that passes as wine. But hey, a guy's gotta eat and sometimes that means working the bad with the good.

Pointless nostalgia: Years ago the amazingly popular 741 op amp was suddenly held in disdain among the upper-crusties as noisy and inadequate. Many demanded their mixers be rid of those dastardly things and many techs, paid by the hour, obliged. To prove a point Texas Instrument (?) built an audio display with random A/B selector. One choice was 1,000 741 opamps wired in series and the other was straight wire. Of course, no one could reliably tell the diff.

That bromide, such as it was, proves pretty much nothing audio, but it demonstrates that when push-comes-to-shove, the voodoo and superstition generally crumbles along with the arbiters and purveyors of the same.

A good song with lousy mix and crappy effects will always be superior to the insipid tripe that passes every test of the Golden Ear crowd. Just ask Justin Beiber.

 

[miroslav]

Well, asking directly is much better than what the alternative was!

What is your guess? What do I really want to know?

Of course there is an underlying reason or actually, many reasons. Trying to figure out what they are, is purely subjective and pointless. Right? No. But that is actually a really complex question. It's difficult to say. I don't remember the exact thoughts in my head at that time. I can't put it into a few words in just a few minutes. It'll take at least 10.

Well...you've had three days to figure out what it is you're really asking.
You didn't want to start a debate on "the subject"...so instead you're debating what people think you really want to know....
(...and yes, the facepalm is necessary).

I for one definitely hope this doesn't turn into a waste of time.

Then take the "10 minutes" and get to the heart of why you're asking the questions. I can't believe you don't have any underlying reasons.
If it starts a debate about audio...at least it will be more interesting than trying to figure out what's going on in your head.

 

[miroslav]

Uh-oh... you disagreed with an A-lister. Now you're in for it.

BUT, in answer to your question, everyone can tell the difference. Everyone.

Mmm...I'm not sure I agree with you. Look out now!

Maybe through some analytical testing it can be proven that everyone does...but haven't you ever noticed something as simple as pitch...tuning...how many musicians or singers can't tell they are not in tune. They can't tell the difference.
Even when you play them the correct note...they can hear it...but then they still sing it off pitch, and I'm sure they can hear themselves, but still can't tell the difference to correct themselves.

That said... I believe for many it's about *learning how to tell the difference*...something that most engineers/producers can do, and it's not about "golden ears", but simply years of ear training.
So in that regard, I would agree that people can hear the difference...they just can't tell what the differences are sometimes, without ear training.
Of course...there are some who are just tone-deaf...can't tell on/off pitch to save their lives.

 

[spitzer]

Mmm...I'm not sure I agree with you. Look out now!

Maybe through some analytical testing it can be proven that everyone does...but haven't you ever noticed something as simple as pitch...tuning...how many musicians or singers can't tell they are not in tune. They can't tell the difference.
Even when you play them the correct note...they can hear it...but then they still sing it off pitch, and I'm sure they can hear themselves, but still can't tell the difference to correct themselves.

I was about to post that a while back, I did some online test that told me I have a very good ear for frequency aka pitch (basically an endless "which frequency is higher/lower" followed by a beep. Maybe someone knows how to find it?) . Now assuming THAT is true, I don't know how that would translate to hearing a difference between let's say an mp3 and a CD, or something else that is audio, yes, but still completely different in nature. I've only tested myself knowing exactly which file is which, listening to mp3's of the same song encoded at different bitrates. What comes to that, I can only say I agree with what the studies say.

So... I don't know, maybe saying everyone can hear the difference between everything, or can be taught to do so, is a slight exaggeration?

 

[spitzer]

...
Who has taken the initiative to learn these things? Few. Somewhat obscure few at that. Who cares? Not me.

Personally, I think we should take much less effort cork-sniffing and more effort dumping out the vinegar that passes as wine. But hey, a guy's gotta eat and sometimes that means working the bad with the good.

Pointless nostalgia: Years ago the amazingly popular 741 op amp was suddenly held in disdain among the upper-crusties as noisy and inadequate. Many demanded their mixers be rid of those dastardly things and many techs, paid by the hour, obliged. To prove a point Texas Instrument (?) built an audio display with random A/B selector. One choice was 1,000 741 opamps wired in series and the other was straight wire. Of course, no one could reliably tell the diff.

That bromide, such as it was, proves pretty much nothing audio, but it demonstrates that when push-comes-to-shove, the voodoo and superstition generally crumbles along with the arbiters and purveyors of the same.

A good song with lousy mix and crappy effects will always be superior to the insipid tripe that passes every test of the Golden Ear crowd. Just ask Justin Beiber.

Hear hear. (although I know exactly zero Justin Bieber songs so who am I to criticize him... I get the point)

 

[Ponder5]

So... I don't know, maybe saying everyone can hear the difference between everything, or can be taught to do so, is a slight exaggeration?

If it makes you feel better to say that, then sure, go ahead. I know certainty can make people squirm these days.

That's why i said "healthy hearing". Guys that have lots of unprotected rock and roll in their ears might not be the best data points to collect, y'know?

Believe it or not, this hearing stuff has been around for a very long time. Look up the Bell Lab studies from something like a century ago. How humans hear is far from new science.

 

[spitzer]

Believe it or not, I have nothing against you being right about what you said. I'm just not 100% sure you are. Why the attitude?

 

[ronhar]

Not sure what this thread is supposed to be. No question. No answer. Don't matter. I can relate with visual info. I do video and photo work. Try to get colors "best" even if i enhance light and color manually or digitally. My daughter is totally blind. She could care less about how hard i work at perfecting a project. My son-in-law is color blind, everything is hues of brown. Not my go to critic. Everybody else just looks for a pretty picture. No surveys or test needed.

 

[rob aylestone]

Got to disagree with this statement.
[quote[Who can tell the difference between string frequency when tuning a piano? Everyone. No one can, initially. First they have to be taught what to listen for. Then everyone can. Who can tell the difference between .mp3 and FLAC and vinyl? Everyone. After they learn what to listen for.[/quote]

I've worked with students and my attitude, and that of very able colleagues is that not everyone can do everything, no matter how hard they try.

To teach people what to listen for assumes they have that ability, but it's sleeping. You could try to teach somebody with colour blindness that this really IS blue, and this really IS green, but if all they see is the same colour but a different brightness or saturation, we can't. Somebody can be taught to detect the beating of two pitches, but piano tuning is NOT a zero beat solution, it's different temperaments so it's unison beats vs perfect with beats and the interaction between them. If they cannot 'hear' the differences in a musical context, but only the mechanical one, they will be a rubbish tuner.

Some very, very capable bass players cannot play fretless basses. Fact. No amount of practice makes them able to do it, despite having good musical skills and probably a very capable tuning by ear ability. It's just a skillset they don't have, and cannot develop. How many drummers can't tune their own kit? Quite a few. How many CAN do it but are crap drummers?

In college I had somebody who could not sing in tune. I was ready to give up, so went to my expert, piano playing, perfect pitch colleague and asked for help. He's the kind of guy who cannot stand anything that is not in tune. A guitar perfectly tuned to almost E makes his skin crawl - drives him mad. It is either E, Eb or F - nothing else is allowable. He sat the girl down, played a note and said sing that. She tried, badly. He went up and down and nothing worked. Sometimes she was flat, sometimes sharp. So he reversed it. He hummed a note and said find it. She went through 88 keys and said "no, none of them".

You cannot ever know what colour somebody sees, you can't hear what pitch they are hearing and you have no idea what smell people get when they sniff a flower. All the senses are individual, and individuals have different abilities to resolve them. taste and touch have the same subjective elements.

I cannot dance. I know exactly how to dance. I have even graded dance performance because I know the rules, can spot the components and have a good understanding of it. My brain just cannot make my limbs do it.

I have been doing audio since 1974 - I can not tell with any accuracy the difference between wav and flac, and can only detect high bitrate mp3 vs wav when I have access to both files for comparison. play them to me five minutes apart, with something of a different genre in between and I cannot say with any authority - Ah, the wav! I KNOW the differences, but sometimes different formats just sound different and I cannot say in words what the differences are. I am perfectly happy to believe some people can, but I just know I cannot. I also think that hearing issues can be worked around. I have a friend who teaches audio in a university and has two hearing aids. He is just as able as me - he just hears differently, and knows where his hearing is flawed and works around it happily and effectively.

 

[miroslav]

Not sure what this thread is supposed to be. No question. No answer. Don't matter.

I know what you mean.