Listener training targets resonance detection, not specific tonal preferences
Evidence
It teaches listeners to recognize and describe resonances, the most common defect in loudspeakers. It does not train them to recognize any specific “voicing” as some have suspected. Instead, by a process of eliminating timbre-modifying resonances, the preferences gravitate to “neutral” loudspeakers, through which listeners get to hear the unmodified recordings. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1168
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
- DEFINE: Clarifies what professional listener training actually does: it homes in on resonances, leading listeners to prefer neutral speakers.
Related
- Neutral reproductions serve as a reliable baseline for tonal preferences (similarity 0.82)
- Listeners can distinguish loudspeaker resonances from instrument resonances (similarity 0.81)
- Naive and trained listeners agree closely on loudspeaker quality ratings (similarity 0.81)
- Trained listeners can verbally connect sound preference to measurable on-axis and listening-window curves (similarity 0.81)
- Trained listeners improve test sensitivity but misrepresent general audience opinion (similarity 0.80)
- Blind listening shows listeners consistently prefer flat, smooth anechoic frequency response (similarity 0.79)
- Statistically confirmed listener preference for neutral timbre with deep bass (similarity 0.79)
- Listener preferences for neutral loudspeakers proved stable across decades and countries. (similarity 0.79)
- Listener preferences correlate visually with smooth, flat anechoic on- and off-axis response. (similarity 0.79)
- Neutral loudspeakers should be transparent messengers of the art (similarity 0.78)
- Trained and untrained listeners mostly rank loudspeakers the same way (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Controlled experiments trace sound-feature variables against listeners’ behavioral responses
#expands(0.75) — David M. Howard, Jamie Angus, Acoustics and Psychoacoustics, 2378