I have been to many AES shows, both in NYC and SF as well as almost two dozen NAB conventions in Vegas. I highly recommend that anyone pursuing audio, even as a hobby, go and attend the AES sessions and "do the floor." They'll be a real ear opener.
The AES show is a lot smaller than the NAB show. You can do the floor at AES in a day and a half if you spend enough time really looking at everything, but the sessions take more time and are worth it. Even so, you just can't see everything. Great Fun. Here's a link to this year's show in NYC. They alternate coasts each year. This year it's October 18-21. The NYC hotel prices are pretty steep, so maybe try AirB&B. Regards, Ty Ford |
Quote:
|
'Persactly!
The m296 is very amazing as well. Regards, Ty Ford |
Quote:
http://imgur.com/a/XQVgW That's what I would call a matched pair. |
Quote:
By double blinding the source expectation bias is removed. The tools I've used allow looping and selection of starting points, so clips can be compared in detail at different locations, which deals with the focus issue. http://lacinato.com/cm/software/othersoft/abx It turns out that doing this carefully (minimum of 16 trials with full attention and concentration, using level matched same source material) is a lot of work but can be quite revealing. Fran |
Quote:
Yes I have known about ABX testing for some time now, and Yes It is extremely useful in many testing circumstances, particularly in placebo type tests and tests that measure group reactions . Where it is unknown to both the participants and person conducting the test as to who is in the control group and who isn't. Yes the link for the ABX test software is helpful thanks Given the nature and logistics of audio testing I was thinking it may be somewhat less important over just single blind testing. (provided the person switching is not giving off some kind of visual cues ) And Yes blind testing certainly does serve to eliminate the positive expectation bias (those who believe they can hear a difference) But unfortunately. No it probably has significantly less if any advantage to eliminate negative expectation bias (those who believe there is no difference) because in that circumstance the "objectivity " you speak of, may not actually be coming into play. It can be a matter of the belief in "I don't hear a difference" trumping any advantage or accuracy of blind multiple tests. Then as far as "deals with the focus issue" depends on what you mean by "deals with" Helps with focus then Yes . While certainly loping back and listening for very short clips (a few seconds ) starting at the same point can definitely help eliminate the inherent inaccuracy of listening to a whole clip of anything say 30 seconds or longer then listen to another clip. It still does not eliminate eliminate the fract that we the listener can still change focus from clip to clip and as James Johnston noted, when we listen and focus on one specific detail ( high frequencies for example ) we tend loose focus on the rest of sound spectrum. And the other two factors that come into play and double blind really does nothing for, is, 1. the ability or lack thereof to actually listen critically, to know what to listen for, and what it is you may actually be hearing or not hearing. Critical listening is learned skill set just like mixing, and is by no stretch something inherent to every musician regardless of years of experience. And 2. the other factor is , each individual's actual hearing range. If you can't hear above 10k or 12k or 13k then you may have no idea what may or may not be happening to the high end for example . Is it accurate and airy, detailed and present or harsh and sibilant, or dull, or non existent ???..... So while blind testing is no doubt a very good exercise and I would encourage it , it may not quite be the panacea be all to end all, that some believe it to be. |
This really shows the importance of the vintage gear....
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Bob |
Quote:
On the serious side here is a modern studio specifically designed around some interesting vintage gear. And while not for everyone, it is interesting. at about 16:00 he makes some interesting observations of some of the differences in technique between a modern recording and vintage recording and there is a bit of music also |
I think the discussion has been very interesting and should continue
But as far as the actual question posed in title of the OP the answer is simply that , it is not a quantifiable question. It is a qualifiable personal judgement and as such based entirely on individual subjective criteria, so in effect is also largely unanswerable (except to the individual themselves) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Fran |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum