What is objective or controlled listening?

[metal beat]

I keep reading about objective or controlled listening is more accurate than subjective listening when comparing sound quality or whether it sounds like a master tape.

Can someone explain to me exactly what controlled listening is?

Listening by definition is a human emotion and such is subjective and potentially different to each listener.

Edited February 14, 2012 by turntable

[Drizt]

great debate sub-forum is calling ..... it wants its thread back.

[alistairm]

My experience is objectively better if Salma Hayek changes the records. Fact.

[metal beat]

great debate sub-forum is calling ..... it wants its thread back.

I don't thick we need any great debate about this.

Pretty simple question I thought - I think a not so simple answer given the variables and different types of sources, amplifiers, cables, speakers, rooms, ears.

But quite a few here like to keep quoting " objective listening ". So I want to know what it is.

cheers

[Lil Caesar]

potential answer - does the recording sound like what its supposed to - piano like a piano, violin like a violin, drums like a drum kit, etc. not nice, good, hard, loud, soft, well-placed etc. But RIGHT. now queue the detractors.....

[Drizt]

Basically it means using your ears and only your ears to evaluate audible differences.

It is the same as regular sighted testing in most ways other than the fact you dont 'know' or 'see' what is playing at any given time.

Of.course there is more to it to make it more rigorous and repeatable, like proper level matching and many iterations etc.

[GFuNK]

http://vocabulary-vocabulary.com/dictionary/objective.php

An attempt to remove as many potential sources of bias as possible.

[metal beat]

http://vocabulary-vocabulary.com/dictionary/objective.php

An attempt to remove as many potential sources of bias as possible.

I don't need an English lesson on what objective means.

What is objective listening? - an objective example or process on how this is measured and achieved please.

[GFuNK]

Volume matching and blind listening are a good start, and of course there is ABX testing.

All of which attempt to remove some of the potential bias... But why do I feel this was a rhetorical question .

[metal beat]

Basically it means using your ears and only your ears to evaluate audible differences.

It is the same as regular sighted testing in most ways other than the fact you dont 'know' or 'see' what is playing at any given time.

Of.course there is more to it to make it more rigorous and repeatable, like proper level matching and many iterations etc.

Your ears are human, so any audible differences you hear will be subjective, especially in a group of different listeners with different hearing and different musical tastes

Forget about the source whether it be LP or digital - what about the pre amp, the amplifier, the speakers? How can any listening and subsequent findings be objective ?

Drizt, I believe you are one of the proponents of objective listening. I would like to know how you do it?

[rantan]

Music should never be about objective or controlled listening. it should be about opinions, emotions, impressions and subjective choices.

If anyone doesn't agree I don't care:nana

[metal beat]

Music should never be about objective or controlled listening. it should be about opinions, emotions, impressions and subjective choices.

If anyone doesn't agree I don't care:nana

Rantan, Bravo - we might be getting somewhere.

Still , we are waiting on all the objective listeners ( you all know who you are :-) to tell us what they mean when using that term, especially when they use it as some better methodology to cuss "subjective" listening and the outcomes of that.

[GFuNK]

Rantan, Bravo - we might be getting somewhere.

Still , we are waiting on all the objective listeners ( you all know who you are :-) to tell us what they mean when using that term, expecially when they use it as some better methodology to cuss "subjective" listening

I did, post 9... How was rantan's post getting anywhere, it didn't address your question...

You seem incapable of having a reasonable discussion on the topic, you seem like your just in it for an argument...

[metal beat]

I did, post 9... How was rantan's post getting anywhere, it didn't address your question...

You seem incapable of having a reasonable discussion on the topic, you seem like your just in it for an argument...

Where did I say Rantan's answer the question? I am of the belief that there is no objective listening.

That is why I have asked the question. Since when is asking a question being argumentitive?

Gfunk, do you use ss or tube amps for you objective listening? What speaker type is best for your objective listening

Or, should all the equipment be exactly the same as what was in the studio when recorded, or mixed or mastered?

Or is volume matched and blind listening the main criteria?

Edited February 14, 2012 by turntable

[Drizt]

Rantan, Bravo - we might be getting somewhere.

I am of the belief that there is no objective listening.

Why ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer.

And since when is listening an emotion?

Edited February 14, 2012 by Drizt

[Drizt]

Volume matching and blind listening are a good start, and of course there is ABX testing.

All of which attempt to remove some of the potential bias... But why do I feel this was a rhetorical question .

Exactly right. I feel the OP never really wanted to learn about this topic but was looking to tell us why it is not necessary.

[Once was an audiophile]

Music should never be about objective or controlled listening. it should be about opinions, emotions, impressions and subjective choices.

If anyone doesn't agree I don't care:nana

nobel prize award thanks rantan

[Drizt]

Or is volume matched and blind listening the main criteria?

Pretty much.

It is taking away what you see and what you know so that you can use your ears and only your ears to judge what you hear.

The idea is to remove bias and make the findings repeatable.

Sighted testing is completely flawed in that you know what is under test and / or you can see what is under test.

Everyone (there are no exceptions) are subject to bias (many different forms).

The 'only' way to remove that bias is to do objective testing.

It is a very very simple topic. Yet many people make every excuse under the sun on why it is not so.

You can either hear a difference under controlled tests or you can not. There is nothing more to it.

People that trust their ears are not afraid of objective testing.

[Once was an audiophile]

And since when is listening an emotion?

I am sure for many it is i guess for some its not so they require objective or controlled listening

great post drizt love it

[soundfan]

I think rantan is dead right. And there appears to be a lot of side stepping the original question going on here.

[Once was an audiophile]

Drizt, I believe you are one of the proponents of objective listening. I would like to know how you do it?

Why don't you ask him how many components are in his system using objective listening ?

In fact i wonder if their is any in his system that have been chosen with objective listening

[metal beat]

Why ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer.

And since when is listening an emotion?

Where did I say I did not want to know the answer. I gave you my belief, however that does not mean I won't change if I actually learn anything new.

So during listening you have no emotion about the music or the sound? - perhaps that is why you are so good at objective listening.

[Drizt]

Why don't you ask him how many components are in his system using objective listening ?

In fact i wonder if their is any in his system that have been chosen with objective listening

What has that got to do with anything? Please try and be logical and sensible kajak. If you can't do that I would kindly ask you to leave the thread alone. Do not ask me about my system or my choices again as I have answered your inane questions many many many times. If you have not grasped the answers by now you most likely never will. Please don't make everything into a personal insult kajak. You have already insulted my choice of components on the forum publicly and I believe you earned an infraction for that. Perhaps you should stop playing the man and play the ball instead.

</soap box>

If I wanted to be certain of an audible change and I wanted to prove it to myself and/or to others I would use objective testing. I believe I have always been consistent with this line of thought.

I usually just buy what I want without doing objective testing. I'm more than happy to do that. When have I ever said otherwise? I have done objective testing when buying amplifiers and preamps before and that has served me well.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Drizt

[Once was an audiophile]

So during listening you have no emotion about the music or the sound? - perhaps that is why you are so good at objective listening.

Gold post turntable nobel prize heading your way

[Drizt]

Where did I say I did not want to know the answer. I gave you my belief, however that does not mean I won't change if I actually learn anything new.

So during listening you have no emotion about the music or the sound? - perhaps that is why you are so good at objective listening.

lis·ten (lsn)

intr.v. lis·tened, lis·ten·ing, lis·tens

1. To make an effort to hear something: listen to the radio; listening for the bell.

2. To pay attention; heed: "She encouraged me to listen carefully to what country people called mother wit" (Maya Angelou).

n.

An act of listening: Would you like to give the CD a listen before buying it?

Phrasal Verb:

listen in

1. To listen to a conversation between others; eavesdrop.

2. To tune in and listen to a broadcast.

e·mo·tion (-mshn)

n.

1. A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.

2. A state of mental agitation or disturbance: spoke unsteadily in a voice that betrayed his emotion. See Synonyms at feeling.

3. The part of the consciousness that involves feeling; sensibility: "The very essence of literature is the war between emotion and intellect" (Isaac Bashevis Singer).

[French émotion, from Old French, from esmovoir, to excite, from Vulgar Latin *exmovre : Latin ex-, ex- + Latin movre, to move; see meu- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

emotion [??m????n]

n

any strong feeling, as of joy, sorrow, or fear

[from French, from Old French esmovoir to excite, from Latin ?mov?re to disturb, from mov?re to move]

emotionless adj

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

emotion (-mshn)

A psychological state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is sometimes accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling.

Listening is an action.

You may have an emotional response to what you 'hear' but listening is not an emotion.