Adaptive loudness scaling requires roughly 15 times fewer trials than fixed-level procedures.
Evidence
For reference, for a listener with a 0–105 dB SPL dynamic range, the fixed-level procedure required 440 experimental trials while the ISO adaptive-level procedure required 30 trials. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2518
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
- CANDY: A striking, quotable efficiency contrast — 440 trials vs 30 — that lands without needing context.
Related
- ISO adaptive loudness testing needs under a tenth the trials of fixed-level testing (similarity 0.94)
- Adaptive loudness scaling needs only 30 trials versus 440 (similarity 0.85)
- Adjustment methods bias moderate sounds toward louder settings for good audibility. (similarity 0.82)
- Sparse trial counts can still yield accurate loudness functions via estimation theory. (similarity 0.81)
- Psychoacoustic results depend on experimental procedure and sensitivity rises with alternatives. (similarity 0.81)
- Loudness is not reducible to sound pressure level or signal power (similarity 0.80)
- Experimental results in psychoacoustics depend on the measurement procedure used (similarity 0.80)
- Hearing-impaired listeners vary more than normal hearers in quiet threshold, complicating averaging (similarity 0.80)
- Doubling sound level from 30 to 90 dB only doubles perceived sharpness (similarity 0.80)
- Humans detect level changes of about 1 dB at moderate volumes (similarity 0.79)
- No single frequency-weighting can accurately meter loudness at all levels (similarity 0.79)
- Doubling perceived loudness requires a 10 dB increase. (similarity 0.79)
- Duration perception distortion is largely level-independent above 30 phon (similarity 0.79)
- Each 10 dB of level requires ten times the amplifier power (similarity 0.79)
- Loudness-calculating procedures outperform simple SPL for practical noise reduction (similarity 0.79)