I do feel like the scores for percentage correct can be discouragingly low like you described, when I thought I was pretty close with the shapes of the curves ; they should reward if we were in the right direction with the overall concept and not get petty with exact numbers. Haven't had the experience of being overly rewarded with points, though, haha

I don't know about *overly* rewarded. But I remember one in particular, I had a small boost at, 2500 combined with a low pass filter. I was pretty well accurate on the low pass filter but the real boost was much bigger than the one I did and was at more like 3500. That one came back like 65% accurate.

Then, in the same session I had another one where there was a low shelf cut and an LPF and I nailed the frequency on both—like was really on the frequencies almost perfectly. But even though I had the right frequency on the low shelf cut, the real one I was trying to replicate was maybe 3 db more of a cut than what I had done. Same frequency, just a little more cut. We're talking a really small difference. The thing said I was like 35% accurate.

Whatever the game's scoring, it's fine, I'm trying to get better so if the game is telling me those 3 db matter, than I'll just keep at it. I just wish I understood why the second instance was less accurate than the first because, to me, I did a lot better with that second example than the first one. Maybe I'm miscalibrated in terms of what I think is more important when it comes to db. But, I think the more likely explanation is the scoring on the game is a little wonky.

Sometimes it feels a bit arbitrary, but I'd say that for other games too. For example I find that the panning can be really unforgiving as to whether you're a tiny bit out when it's close to the centre. Regarding the EQ boost/cut, sometimes it seems to give a lot of leeway between about 6,000 and 11,000 Hz but at other times seems to become much stricter.

Yes, it is hard. I am so bad at it lol

I don't mind hard, but it does feel pretty damn unforgiving sometimes. This was one from my most recent workout: I'm not totally sure what that dotted green line is supposed to represent, especially since it's in a shape that is not possible to recreate with the filters given.

This was definitely one where I saw the response and I was like that's *70%* percent?! That's *30%* incorrect?! That's pretty damn brutal grading.

In the end, I'm hear to learn the material, not get random internet points, but once you do this for a while, it does get hard to tamp down those competitive instincts.

The dotted green line is the difference between your answer and the correct answer. My guess is that the game uses the area between the green line and 0 dB to calculate the error score. If this is true, small errors in a shelf can count against you much more than a large error in a PEQ.

Yes the scoring is tough I agree. I think it sounds very close, so good enough to submit, but the small amount of difference is a large amount of percent.

Thats the case for mine as well. However, it seems like grading gets rougher as I move up in levels.

@ Chris Yes I get that that's how the scoring works, but I still think that there are things about the scoring that don't make complete sense.

Using the picture above to illustrate my point, I get how the scoring works with the shelf I set. The shelf was set too high so you see that delta in a way that makes sense: the distance between the green line and the middle line is equal to the distance between the amplitude of the shelf I set and the actual shelf.

What doesn't make sense is where the dotted green line is for the low pass filter. I have set the LPF like 1% too low, so, sure, at the exact point I've set the LPF there should be a delta between the expected filter and where I've set mine. But at frequencies above that, the filter is set correctly but, nonetheless, you can see the game is showing a dotted green line that gets slightly *further* from zero as it approaches nyquist. An HPF is an HPF. Other than setting the correct frequency, which I did almost perfectly, there's really nothing more to be corrected, and yet, I seem to be losing about as much credit for that, like, 15 Hz difference (if even that) as I am for the low shelf which was by 2 entire dB and also was a little off for the frequency.

For that scoring to make sense, there would have to be some slope or Q function that I was allowed to set on the LPF in order to more correctly match the expected curve, but there isn't. There's only one parameter: the frequency. So, basically the scoring for the filters essentially exponentially over-rates the frequency of filters and, relatively speaking, underrates the impact of bells and shelfs, where the scoring is (relatively speaking) forgiving for even pretty big misses.

Again, I'm making it sound like this is bothering me more than it is. I'm here for the skills the games impart, not the points. But, since the gamification of this site has really done a good job of keeping me coming back, I did want to underline how the scoring on this game in particular seems to be a little weird and unnecessarily finicky. I have found it discouraging sometimes and, despite myself, I find myself dreading this game a bit even though it is *precisely* the skill I signed up for this site to build up in the first place.

For the LPF, given that you are off by a little, the error will settle down to a constant once you get away from the corner frequency of the filter.

I agree it's about the training, but you want to be able to move forward in levels to keep motivation up.

I think the scoring would make more sense if it was based on actual parameter values or at least some other measure to capture what is actually audible.

I think at some point you need move on from SoundGym. Use music out there and play with EQ in your DAW. Don't be too caught up in the levelling scoring mechanism. The goal is to use improve your ear hearing.
Just my opinion :P

@KC It's been about a month a half, so I'm probably not going to call it a day on Soundgym just yet. I appreciate the thought though.