HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

FWIW. I'm pretty good at managing methodologies, processes and procedures having spent most of my career in IT related fields. My involvement in writing and interpreting regulations in higher education (e.g. for assessment and degree awarding boards) helps a bit too, as does being a current camera club judge and former club competition secretary.

Basically one needs a framework which is unambiguous and easily interpreted and implemented, but at the same time retaining the 'fun' element.

I suspect blind testing would be difficult to implement anyway in a domestic environment. Swapping bits of kit around would be a bit tricky as would disguising speakers.

Simon Hickie wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:58 am I suspect blind testing would be difficult to implement anyway in a domestic environment. Swapping bits of kit around would be a bit tricky as would disguising speakers.

Indeed. Not the sort of 'fun' that we would be hoping for!

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:42 am Yes, don't get involved in the crap about blind testing, it makes as much sense as deaf testing.

Agree, completely. We listen to music with all our senses. 'Blind' creates an unnecessary stress on the brain and I certainly wouldn't do it in 'normal life'.

How did you go about writing up the sessions for HFC?

Simon Hickie wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:54 am FWIW. I'm pretty good at managing methodologies, processes and procedures having spent most of my career in IT related fields. My involvement in writing and interpreting regulations in higher education (e.g. for assessment and degree awarding boards) helps a bit too, as does being a current camera club judge and former club competition secretary.

Basically one needs a framework which is unambiguous and easily interpreted and implemented, but at the same time retaining the 'fun' element.

Thanks Simon,

That is very valuable insight. Please do keep posting any more ideas / thoughts here (or PM, if preferred).

Thanks again,

Paul

savvypaul wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:10 am

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:42 am Yes, don't get involved in the crap about blind testing, it makes as much sense as deaf testing.

Agree, completely. We listen to music with all our senses. 'Blind' creates an unnecessary stress on the brain and I certainly wouldn't do it in 'normal life'.

How did you go about writing up the sessions for HFC?

I just gave notes to Paul, he wrote it up.

As I see it, the challenge is to identify the various objective (and subjective?) criteria we tend to employ when assessing hifi kit and then for individuals to score their subjective assessment against those criteria. The psychology of music is an interesting field and part of it deals with the way individuals engage with a piece. For example, a friend hates Genesis with a passion because he has a real aversion to timing changes. Another is a PRaT fanatic and sod the imaging (NAIM kit...). Yet another is very much into pinpoint 3d imaging and so on. I like full-on orchestral music, so weight and scale are important for me, but I also like to be able to unravel the different strands and I like clarity with it.

That of course leads to a challenge with respect to music programming for such a bake-off event. My personal tastes mean that I would need to hear a mixture of classical, classic prog rock, crossover, electronica and singer-songwriter, but jazz would do nothing but annoy me That of course begs the question as to whether one would use the same programme of music for each bake-off, perhaps introducing new pieces over time. Having the pieces available on the appropriate media may be problematic though. An interesting point is whether one should include 'difficult' recordings. For example, Sufjan Steven's Illinoise can sound terrible on a poor system but opens up nicely on a good one. Similarly, Radiohead can sound like a jumbled mess on a system that does not resolve detail or time well.

I think this is a good idea and would be interested in a DAC bake off.