Measurable aspects of sound perception

[j_j]

The dark force is strong in him. SCNR

Well, he does seem to make things fly off in different directions rather too quickly, yeah.

 

[tomtoo]

"...scientific proof that we cannot hear anything that we cannot measure. ..."

That would be like a scientific proof that there is no god.
Thats not possible. But there is good reasoning that we can measure all and much more. The problem is how big is the influence of that we can measure.

 

[xr100]

"...scientific proof that we cannot hear anything that we cannot measure. ..."

That would be like a scientific proof that there is no god.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence

Back on Earth... we can measure far more than we can hear but the "problem" isn't acquisition.

Of course, those who promulgate a non-scientific approach to audio tend to be those whose "suggestions" are either patently entirely ineffective, or hover somewhere around JND level, or have a deleterious effect on transparency... whilst ignoring factors that provably make an unquestionably large audible difference.

Hence rubber mats under routers (for network-based audio streaming) and... no room treatment.

 

[tomtoo]

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence

Back on Earth... we can measure far more than we can hear but the "problem" isn't acquisition.

Of course, those who promulgate a non-scientific approach to audio tend to be those whose "suggestions" are either patently entirely ineffective, or hover somewhere around JND level, or have a deleterious effect on transparency... whilst ignoring factors that provably make an unquestionably large audible difference.

Hence rubber mats under routers (for network-based audio streaming) and... no room treatment.

You know for me it's always the same. Take Homöopathie. At C30 there is not one molecule of any active substance in it, it's sugar. And then exactly the same argumentation paths start like but it helped me(i can hear) science should proof that it not works.....Some kind of akustik placebos this people like. Some start with there is more between heaven and earth than science knows..some with quantumeffekts from wich the usually know less than me whats hard. It's realy strange that audio and homöopathie has so much in comen.

 

[tomtoo]

@xr100
Sry for my english.

 

[xr100]

@xr100
Sry for my english.

Don't worry, I understood your post (and my German vocabulary is limited to "sehr gut!")

 

[tomtoo]

@xr100
I should learn more about Psychologie. I think this are known Effekts. But i'am so lazy..

 

[Snarfie]

This thread is started for @PeterZui

Psychoacoustic research as such goes back across history, back when it was intimately entwined with acoustics as a whole and practical anatomy rather than being seen a discipline of its own, which happened only in the 20th century.

The major question is how do we hear what we hear and what aspects are measurable. So much work has been done, especially recently, that it's hard to think of an area which hasn't received empirical study with some corresponding numerical data. Much of the work was done either in the medical or engineering fields to define practical requirements for diagnosis or design.

@PeterZui please reply with those aspects of perception you're interested in to open a discussion.

Found this advise quite usable tho not quite scientifically.

" Stop trying to quantitatively analyze the bass, the midrange, the dynamics, the transparency and all that and concentrate on your emotional response to the music being played. Remember your feelings about the music and you’ll find that all of a sudden, differences exist where they did not exist a few minutes ago. If you keep trying to be objective about the sound quality, everything just runs together and you find yourself unable to form an opinion.

Source: http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/interviews/int07.htm

 

[pozz]

Found this advise quite usable tho not quite scientifically.

"Stop trying to quantitatively analyze the bass, the midrange, the dynamics, the transparency and all that and concentrate on your emotional response to the music being played. Remember your feelings about the music and you’ll find that all of a sudden, differences exist where they did not exist a few minutes ago. If you keep trying to be objective about the sound quality, everything just runs together and you find yourself unable to form an opinion."

Source: http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/interviews/int07.htm

I can't say I agree with that quote. Since I began studying what speakers and electronics can do, acoustics generally, and how we hear, my own hearing has only gotten better, not worse. I'm far less confused about what's going on than before, and I've added mental checks to help me figure things out when I'm not sure.

I'm not sure what the author means about "trying to be objective". I think he's using that phrase to mean a very restrained, unattached, disengaged listening attitude. I'd say that being "objective" means being as engaged and emotionally involved as you can be, but aware at all times of what you want, where you're concentrating, and what you're hearing from moment to moment, which I think is very similar to learning to hear beats in a bar, or variations on a theme—any kind of larger musical pattern within a piece.

 

[Snarfie]

I can't say I agree with that quote. Since I began studying what speakers and electronics can do, acoustics generally, and how we hear, my own hearing has only gotten better, not worse. I'm far less confused about what's going on than before, and I've added mental checks to help me figure things out when I'm not sure.

I'm not sure what the author means about "trying to be objective". I think he's using that phrase to mean a very restrained, unattached, disengaged listening attitude. I'd say that being "objective" means being as engaged and emotionally involved as you can be, but aware at all times of what you want, where you're concentrating, and what you're hearing from moment to moment, which I think is very similar to learning to hear beats in a bar, or variations on a theme—any kind of larger musical pattern within a piece.

What i meant with usable is the fact when i used Room correction (software) suddenly it looks like a curtain was pulled away an the music became way more transparent. Ok this is probable obvious an was aspect-ed because of my poor acoustics an the room correction flatten out most acoustic anomalies. But then i moved the speakers like 10 a 15 cm away from a wall or table and again i heard a clear change/details (for the better or the worse) an not because i was annalising or expecting it but because I knew the music by hart an love to hear it an noticed the difference. So I was eager to find the best spot not by annalising but pure because of the knowledge of the music I knew so well.

"I'm not sure what the author means about "trying to be objective"

Knowing Richard Vandersteen from previous interviews i think he meant the difference between the left an right side of the brain one is emotional the other one analytic. If you try to be analytical (objective) it could block your emotional side (which implies by him a realaxd state of mind where you could hear more or different) that is probably his assumption. So I don't know if that is an scientifically approach or not.

Ha ha with golf it work for me the other way around if i use my emotional side the ball will go into the ruff if i use my analytical side (a matter of visualization) it blocks my emotional side an the ball go's mostly straight a golf lesson that i learned from a pro 40 years ago who also advised me to read the "Inner Game Of Golf" by Gallwey. My Handicap went down from 23 to 14. Could work for listening to decent gear to but than the other way around.

 

[xr100]

On the subject of "measurements"... to quote Douglas Self:
(My emphasis.)

'Following the growth of subjectivism through the pages of one of the leading Subjectivist magazines (HiFi News), the first intimation of things to come was the commencement of Paul Messenger's column "Subjective Sounds" in September 1976. He said "The assessment will be (almost) purely subjective, which has both strengths and weaknesses, as the inclusion of laboratory data would involve too much time and space, and although the ear may be the most fallible, it is also the most sensitive evaluation instrument'. Subjectivism as an expedient rather than a policy."

In 1976, Mr. Messenger would have been very lucky to have had access to a HP FFT analyser. Yet nigh on 45 years later, when we have comparatively immense signal processing power at our fingertips with any reasonable PC (with the right interfaces for acquisition, of course)...

 

[j_j]

You know for me it's always the same. Take Homöopathie. At C30 there is not one molecule of any active substance in it, it's sugar. And then exactly the same argumentation paths start like but it helped me(i can hear) science should proof that it not works.....Some kind of akustik placebos this people like.

It is MUCH like homeopathy indeed, a matter of belief informing unblinded (meaning knowing which is which, instead of not knowing which is which) perception, which is then ascribed to physical reality, rather than human perception foibles.

And, of course, demanding proof of a universal negative is simply a false demand. Always.

 

[BDWoody]

Some start with there is more between heaven and earth than science knows..some with quantumeffekts .

Often, though certainly not always, these are the same people who have the least actual scientific background or education.

I would never claim that we have all knowledge...but when 'they' try to use that to explain why they hear things beyond the (so far) demonstrated physical capabilities of the auditory system, it just leads to an often predictable fiery end when confronted with skepticism or requests for more than just 'cause I said so,' or ' because my neighbor used to be a 'sound engineer and musician' and he should know'...

There is a mountain of misinformation out there...if it doesn't jibe with known physics, I'd bet there is a BIGGER chance it is bogus, than that Physics is just missing something...

 

[scott wurcer]

It is MUCH like homeopathy indeed, a matter of belief informing unblinded (meaning knowing which is which, instead of not knowing which is which) perception, which is then ascribed to physical reality, rather than human perception foibles.

And, of course, demanding proof of a universal negative is simply a false demand. Always.

Homeopathy is always any number of degrees of blind.

 

[xr100]

 

[Blumlein 88]

Brandolini's law.

 

[j_j]

Homeopathy is always any number of degrees of blind.

Not sure if that is claiming that homeopathy tests were blinded, or if that was suggesting that homeopathy is useless.

In fact, homeopathy tests are NOT blind tests, therein lies the reason they "worked". When blinded, they do not, just like the contrived test of "prayer effects".

 

[scott wurcer]

Not sure if that is claiming that homeopathy tests were blinded, or if that was suggesting that homeopathy is useless.

In fact, homeopathy tests are NOT blind tests, therein lies the reason they "worked". When blinded, they do not, just like the contrived test of "prayer effects".

Sorry a sarcastic comment on the pointlessness of it all.

 

[j_j]

Sorry a sarcastic comment on the pointlessness of it all.

I TOTALLY understand!

Like I said to someone else in in a PM

"Homeopathy
Seven syllables to use
But "bullshit" is two"

Totally I understand how sarcasm erupts in such situations.

 

[j_j]

Brandolini's law.

Often accompanied by a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop