How to Listen doesn't have to include such nebulous terminology in order to have an influence on their usage. In fact, it's because it doesn't include this vague terminology but instead well-defined terms that represent concrete physical properties that means it could reveal to a listener through training that their nebulous terms are either illusory, or can be explained by standard terms, which invariably describe features of frequency response.
It isn’t because How To Listen provides conventional definitions of the attributes it tests for that they necessarily aren’t nebulous.
Some of the “attributes” being tested are less attributes than just EQ filters, in which case it would have simply been more straightforward to simply call them “low shelf” or “high shelf”.
I would also argue that How To Listen’s conventional definition for “coloured” or “uncoloured”, is, in fact, extremely confusing and non-sensical when applied as it is for the sort of studio recordings that are used, requiring listeners to rank samples from “more coloured” to “uncoloured”, even though all studio recordings are by definition “coloured” (starting from the room selection and mic placement). Even if we accept that the un-EQed recording is “uncoloured”, it frequently occurred to me, when presented with two deviations from it that seemed similar in degree but with different filters applied, that I found them both equally “coloured”, but apparently How To Listen had a specific
opinion about what should have been ranked “more coloured” than the other.
For what it’s worth I have no intention to use How To Listen’s definition of “coloured”. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
The other rather amusing thing is that some of the reviewers you called out already are quite convinced that FR remains all that there is or ready to accept it, and quite experienced with EQing headphones (which is another way of training your listening abilities in my opinion) - in fact some of them spend less time bothering with measurable data other than FR than Amir - and yet will routinely still use terminology such as “muddy”, “detailed”, whatever. Heck, Amir will frequently make use of the terminology “spatial quality”. Being convinced that FR is for the most part responsible for what they hear and continuing using audiophile jargon is not exclusive.
My understanding was Harman's how to listen provides an indication whether or not one's ears are trained. The idea is reviewers should train their ears, Harman's how to listen is just one indicator as to whether or not a listener is trained.
There is no such thing as a “train
ed” listener outside of the specific application of How To Listen to Harman’s research.
“Trained” for Harman has a specific definition (level 8) which I’m going to assume isn’t entirely arbitrary and came up with a bit of stats involved.
“Trained” means something specific in the context of Harman’s research, and correlates with some observed trends when it comes to scoring equipment within that research’s format.
That. is. all. Everything else remains a conjecture.
Are trained listeners more capable than untrained listeners to EQ two different headphones to the same on-head target by ears than untrained, for example ?
Are “more than trained” (ie listeners who reached a higher level than 8) listeners more capable of doing so than merely “trained” listeners ?
Also, Harman’s How To Listen only partially trains you. I make extensive use of sweeps and noise to assist in EQing headphones and that’s not something you’ll be tested for in How To Listen for example.
It’s better to understand Harman’s How To Listen, outside of the scope of Harman’s research, as an educational, train
ing program, that harman was kind enough to graciously offer to the public (and that’s worth experimenting with, I’m glad I did).
Outside of that research, the “trained” notion is meaningless.
As
@GaryH put it, at best - but that also remains to be seen, see as an example my question above regarding “more than trained” listeners and some of my concerns below - it’s a continuum.
The problem with
@GaryH uneducated insistence that reviewers take that training and then publish it is that he sees it as far, far more than a training program, but as a “standard”, that would then be correlated to how much “trust” you’d then be able put in the
overall subjective judgements of a reviewer :
If reviewers want their subjective judgements to be some kind of useful data point, they must in some way expect or at least hope their readers trust in their ability to adeptly discern good sound quality. In the same way that we require measurement rigs to conform to industry standards that demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of their readings, if subjective reports are to have any utility to readers, these 'measurement rigs' i.e. the reviewers ears should be subject to provable standards of accuracy too, and being a Harman level 8 trained listener is as good a standard for this as I can see.
Well it's no more of a competition than asking a reviewer what the capabilities of their measuring equipment are before looking at their measurements, except the equipment in this case is your ears.
If you 'win' you get more trust in your subjective judgements, just as the owner of a GRAS 45CA, Klippel NFS, or Audio Precision APx555 gets more trust in their measurements (as long as they know how to use them properly). And of course just for taking part, being the (so far) only reviewer to post their results you'll get something expensive measuring equipment can't buy - respect
We’ll gloss over his comments on industry standard equipment, as if the idea that knowing “how to use them properly” had been settled (to which I’d add : does it actually have to be settled ? Humanity ceaselessly find novel, creative ways to use a hammer after all).
The first thing I have a problem with is the notion of “trust”. If you’re presented with data and know the methodology that was used, you don’t need “trust”. You just need to know the degree of confidence you can have in the presented data, which is not quite the same. “Trust” is unquantifiable, margins of error, deviations and intervals may. In the case of headphones it probably involves far too many measurements of HRTF / HPTF / samples / test rigs to make it a practical reality, but it theoretically doesn’t have to be a question of “trust”.
I, for one, don’t “trust” DIYaudio’s measurements any less than ASR’s. I just guesstimate what degree of confidence I can have in them for various parts of the spectrum, various headphones types and designs, various types of measurements being conducted, etc., based on the knowledge of the methodology and test rigs used, my own experience and the articles I’ve read. That’s all.
More importantly, I greatly object to the idea that “trust” in someone’s
overall subjective judgments would be automatically applied to reviewers who would reach a higher level in How To Listen.
So why shouldn't it ?
First, because How To Listen can’t be used as a standard outside of the scope of Harman’s research, particularly if self administered in uncontrolled conditions.
The insistence that reviewers should publish their results, and even more so that one’s level of “trust” would be correlated by the level reached in How To Listen (if it's indeed a continuum), creates a strong incentive for, well, untrustworthy behaviour. You can totally cheat your way through the levels if you’ve set your mind to do so. The heck it’s even possible to see the differences with real time analysers on the output for some of the tests. A standard you can cheat your way through isn’t a standard.
Since some of the ways you can cheat your way through involve the use of EQ, it stands to reason that the playback equipment used also has a role to play in your performance. There is no possible standard in this case since reviewers would self-administer it on varied equipment.
Second, because Harman’s How To Listen, IMO, is an incomplete training exercise. There are other, just as interesting ways to “train” your ears so that you get better at performing some tasks.
You may not perform that well at How To Listen and yet, perhaps perform better than a "trained" listener at, for example, the exercise of EQing two headphones to the same on-head target by ears, because you found other (perhaps more efficient) ways to do so than being able to identify FR bands by playing music.
It’s really important to note that Harman’s How To Listen doesn’t test your listening abilities
overall. It comprises very specific tests, and that’s
all it tests. No more than that.
Third, because, like all tests of this kind, beyond some point you realise that what you’re doing is not just training yourself at improving the capabilities under test, but simply at “beating" the test format itself. More on that latter.
Fourth, because beyond some point, for some tasks (particularly the ranking tasks), reaching a higher score might be less related to your listening capabilities than to your patience. At some point I felt that How To Listen was less testing my listening capabilities than my patience. Ranking between 12 different more or less noisy samples starts to become incredibly time-consuming and tedious, even when the audibility of the differences (switching between two adjacent samples) remains fairly obvious. Someone without patience may stop at 8, while someone else might go up to 13 without this meaning anything about their respective listening capabilities. More on that latter as well.
Let’s put it in more concrete terms. Perhaps it might be interesting for me to talk about my experience with that program and what I learnt from it (I did learn something
very useful from it that I now make regular use of, but not what you’d expect).
The context : the apparition of object based formats and surround simulation systems have rejuvenated my interest in headphones and I've been trying to find ways to improve my capabilities to EQ headphones to reach a more desirable FR at my own DRP. Harman's How To Listen looked like an interesting thing to do and I tried my hand at it not such a long time ago.
This is where I left the program a few months ago after getting bored with it :
Apparently, that means that I’m “trained” for the most part. It also means, if you’re naive like
@GaryH, that you should find,
overall, my subjective impressions more trustworthy than someone who didn’t reach these levels, and less than someone who reached higher levels (word of advice : you shouldn’t).
I promise, for starters, hand on heart, that I didn’t cheat (but you don’t have any way to verify that).
I didn't bother with the practice sessions and went straight on for the band ID "peaks" session. I went about it a little bit carelessly until I reached a plateau at around 9-10. I then switched to another pair of headphones (equalised HD650 + Dekoni pads), turned the volume a little louder than I'm used to, reached another plateau around 12. So I then did what every competitive student does in this situation : I started to find ways to “beat the test”.
I realised that I was doing it quite wrong as I would listen to the “flat” profile for 10-15s, then switch to the “EQ” profile for 10-15s again, switch back, etc. Something “clicked” when I found out that if I let my brain adjust for enough time to the “flat” profile for each sample, and then only switch to the “EQ” profile for a very brief amount of time, so that it doesn’t get used to it, and particularly doing so during the portions of the samples that comprised the right spectral components, the location of the peak would jump at me in a more obvious way. It became then a very, very boring exercise. I would take as much time as I needed to get confident in my choice, and if it meant spending 3min on one trial, I’d spend 3min.
The weird thing is that it took me far fewer tries to go from 12 or so to 15 or so than to go up to 12 in the band ID test after I learnt that psychoacoustic trick, but a lot, lot more time as it required my brain to fully “normalise” the flat response for each sample.
For the “dip” exercise, I just did it in reverse, turning the “dip” into a “peak” by normalising the “EQ” profile. For the “dip” + “peak” exercise, I simply first examined the change in SPL, if higher I treated it as a “peak” exercise, normalising my brain to the “flat” profile, if lower I’d treat it as a “dip” exercise, normalising my brain to the “EQ” profile.
This approach is typically the sort of thing that can work within the format of How To Listen but wouldn't systematically be applicable in another training program's format. That's why I consider it "beating the test format" itself, and not necessarily evidence that my listening capabilities improved.
Immense boredom took hold of me at this point and I couldn’t go further.
So, did it help me in getting better at EQing headphones, which is, for me, the main area of concern right now ? Not really. I’ve done far more useful things in the last year to help me doing so.
Did it teach me something very useful about psychoacoustics and how my brain works when comparing two different EQ profiles / filters ? Hell yeah. I’m now quite careful in listening to them asymmetrically so that my brain gets used to one of them but not the other, and doesn’t get “mixed” signals.
I expect that I’ll be talking to a wall if I call out
@GaryH again, since it’s quite evident that he never bothered to walk the talk and actually open the app and try it (trying my best at doing some form of reverse psychology here but I’m not hopeful).
But if there is one person in this thread who should feel obliged to published his results, it’s him. Not that anyone should care that much about the level he would reach IMO (my opinion of his subjective impressions won’t budge that much regardless of where he ends up - if he actually is interested in sharing them BTW because his posting history seems to mainly be comprised of looking for arguments instead of sharing experiences), but at least so that we know that his misguided insistence that reviewers should take it and publish their results comes from a place of actual knowledge of what he’s preaching and not ignorance.
For others, treat How To Listen as a very interesting tool from which I hope that you’ll learn something, as I did (and I wouldn’t expect everyone to get the same thing out of it). But please don’t consider it for what it isn’t. And don't get too worked up by the skill levels you reach.