Time for Slow Listening - Genelec paper on listening

[semente]

Time for Slow Listening

THOMAS LUND, AKI MAKIVIRTA, AND SIAMAK NAGHIAN (Genelec Oy)

 

Abstract

Conscious perception is influenced by long-term experience and learning, to an extent that it might be more accurately understood and studied as primarily a reach-out phenomenon, at least in adults. Considering human hearing, time is a deciding factor on several scales, and the sensory information flow rate, otherwise termed the perceptual bandwidth, is modest. We introduce the term “slow listening” and discuss how new findings from other fields of science should be taken into account in pro audio, for instance when conducting subjective tests, and when preserving content for future generations to enjoy.

 

Lund_Time for slow listening.pdf

[tapatrick]

On 2/24/2020 at 8:30 AM, semente said:

Time for Slow Listening

THOMAS LUND, AKI MAKIVIRTA, AND SIAMAK NAGHIAN (Genelec Oy)

 

Abstract

Conscious perception is influenced by long-term experience and learning, to an extent that it might be more accurately understood and studied as primarily a reach-out phenomenon, at least in adults. Considering human hearing, time is a deciding factor on several scales, and the sensory information flow rate, otherwise termed the perceptual bandwidth, is modest. We introduce the term “slow listening” and discuss how new findings from other fields of science should be taken into account in pro audio, for instance when conducting subjective tests, and when preserving content for future generations to enjoy.

 

Lund_Time for slow listening.pdf 152.21 kB · 29 downloads

"Using traditional subjective testing, it has proven difficult to argue clearly in favor of higher data-rates than 48 kHz/24bit linear PCM per channel [12]. The same kind of tests, however, have also been used to promote lossy data reduction, where most audio information is discarded, though anyone interested in sound today notice warbling “space monkey” artifacts and collapsed imaging across platforms, be it broadcast, YouTube, music streaming or phone.....

At least three  temporal time-scales—the 400 ms grey zone, auditory fatigue, and long-term learning effects— should be taken into account in audio standardization, so our society is not used to rubber-stamp vulgarisation in recording, storage or distribution."

Confirms what I thought that short term quick listening comparisons do not fully take account how we perceive sound. Our brain/ears are not a mechanical measuring device - the main concern I have about objectification is how everything is assumed at some level to be a machine...

Thanks for posting @semente

[Archimago]

12 hours ago, tapatrick said:

"Using traditional subjective testing, it has proven difficult to argue clearly in favor of higher data-rates than 48 kHz/24bit linear PCM per channel [12]. The same kind of tests, however, have also been used to promote lossy data reduction, where most audio information is discarded, though anyone interested in sound today notice warbling “space monkey” artifacts and collapsed imaging across platforms, be it broadcast, YouTube, music streaming or phone.....

At least three  temporal time-scales—the 400 ms grey zone, auditory fatigue, and long-term learning effects— should be taken into account in audio standardization, so our society is not used to rubber-stamp vulgarisation in recording, storage or distribution."

Confirms what I thought that short term quick listening comparisons do not fully take account how we perceive sound. Our brain/ears are not a mechanical measuring device - the main concern I have about objectification is how everything is assumed at some level to be a machine...

Thanks for posting @semente

 

Just because "traditional subjective testing" hasn't shown >24/48 is needed doesn't mean that it is needed, right?

 

I have no qualms with them suggesting and trying other forms of non-traditional testing so long as it seems to be a reasonably valid reflection of human perception, but let's remember that hi-res has been with us audiophiles since the late 1990's! After more than 2 decades (long enough for "slow listening" I think 😉), the fact that it doesn't have much demand in the marketplace already tells us much of what we need to know...

[semente]

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Just because "traditional subjective testing" hasn't shown >24/48 is needed doesn't mean that it is needed, right?

 

I have no qualms with them suggesting and trying other forms of non-traditional testing so long as it seems to be a reasonably valid reflection of human perception, but let's remember that hi-res has been with us audiophiles since the late 1990's! After more than 2 decades (long enough for "slow listening" I think 😉), the fact that it doesn't have much demand in the marketplace already tells us much of what we need to know...

 

Hi Archimago,

 

I have been arguing that long-term (week or weeks) listening assessments focussing on identifying shortcomings (using specific pieces of music to spot particular problems, even pink noise), not as direct comparisons, might be a more adequate system to identify certain shortcomings than short-duration quick-swap blind A-B listening comparisons which are chiefly tonal balance driven (though I have no data to support this).
When you replace a piece of equipment if the difference is large then the difference may be readily apparent or not. Returning to the original setup after a week or two may also expose differences. And whilst listening to particular, well known tracks, may also "inadvertently" expose shortcomings. This could of course be performed blind but I am not sure how that could be nor if it would be needed considering that you are not performing a direct comparison.

 

Here's an, albeit anecdotal, example:

 

 

[semente]

P.S.: in regard to the PlayClassics file format comparison I must to stress that my bias was until then firmly leaning towards "there's no difference" based on the writings and videos of people like Lavry, Levin, Monty, Siau, Stuart, Weiss, etc.

And I am still mostly buying CDs, mainly for economic reasons but also because I don't find that in most cases the price difference justifies the sonic benefits. I only buy high res downloads that are on sale.