Why we hear what we hear

[j_j]

It is nice to read the descriptions how our ears seem to work. But this has nothing to do with audio reproducer systems in a technical sense. These should put out exactly in a amplified way what was put in. If this was perfect the ear/brain system behavior is a different thing and every individual may have a slight different perception. Thus for me audio blind tests make no sense. There are different individuals testing A against B what they like more or less but not compared to reality.

What comes out of a stereo reproducer set is nothing like the original soundfield at all. It collapses a very complex 3-dimensional variable to 2 particular single-value measurements. So in terms of "sound stage" and the like, it's all illusion.

This has nothing to do with blind testing, so I'm not sure you even bother to raise the issue.

 

[Count Arthur]

What comes out of a stereo reproducer set is nothing like the original soundfield at all. It collapses a very complex 3-dimensional variable to 2 particular single-value measurements. So in terms of "sound stage" and the like, it's all illusion.

This has nothing to do with blind testing, so I'm not sure you even bother to raise the issue.

Also, while there are recordings made with just two microphones, in a single take, I think that's pretty rare.

Most rock and pop, tracks are "assembled" from multiple separate mono recordings, possibly recorded in different studios and at different times. The mixing engineer will then take all the separate mono recordings and combine them into a track. There's much more to it than this, but each separate mono recording can then be panned left or right and altered in volume, to effectively move that instrument or vocal from side to side or forward and back within the mix/sound stage.

As such, the "sound stage" created by a pair of speakers is entirely artificial. The separate vocals or instruments, never existed in physical space in relation to one another in the way portrayed by the stereo image.

 

[j_j]

Also, while there are recordings made with just two microphones, in a single take, I think that's pretty rare.

Yeah, and of course, even that is missing effectively all of the actual soundfield information.

Most rock and pop, tracks are "assembled" from multiple separate mono recordings, possibly recorded in different studios and at different times. The mixing engineer will then take all the separate mono recordings and combine them into a track. There's much more to it than this, but each separate mono recording can then be panned left or right and altered in volume, to effectively move that instrument or vocal from side to side or forward and back within the mix/sound stage.

As such, the "sound stage" created by a pair of speakers is entirely artificial. The separate vocals or instruments, never existed in physical space in relation to one another in the way portrayed by the stereo image.

Very much so. In fact, using modern software like we made a few years ago, you can make the ILLUSION better by using the fact you know it's an illusion to start with.

 

[Count Arthur]

Here's a video Erin made about sound stage:

I don't know why he gave the video that title.

I thought the analyser/imager software looked interesting. Turns out there's a free version:

https://www.izotope.com/en/products/downloads.html

If you have music playback software that can use VST plug-ins, you can add it. Here it is in JRiver Media Centre:

 

[kandamrgam]

Also, once again, your skin, via touch, detects very high intensity ultrasound. Ask anyone stationed on a sub.

When you mentioned skin/touch, it reminded me a question I have had long in my mind.

There is this thing called sensory adaptation or sensory fatigue when you perform a/b testing back to back. For e.g. when you are a/b testing fragrances, your nose loses sensation after a while, so you need to smell coffee or something to clear it up. Similarly if you are a/b testing food, you will get desensitized to taste after a while.

I know each of our senses are different, hence I want to ask, is this also applicable for hearing? Or do you think our ears are so flexible and resilient that if there is a clear difference between two audio signals, then our ears will always pick it up?

 

[j_j]

I know each of our senses are different, hence I want to ask, is this also applicable for hearing? Or do you think our ears are so flexible and resilient that if there is a clear difference between two audio signals, then our ears will always pick it up?

The answer is a bit complicated.
With any threshold detection, there are two functions, the function that shows "missing an event that occurred" and the function that shows "hearing an event that did not happen".

As it happens, experience and various work in cognitive areas far from my area of expertise suggest very, very, very strongly that we are heavily biased toward "missing no true events" (of course, it's probabilistic, so you can't say 100% ever), which also means "detecting quite a few false alarms.:

It was explained to me, and I've explained to others this way:

If you're walking down a path, and you hear a "snap" above you, and you duck, if it was a predator, you survive. If it was not a predator, no harm done.

If you don't hear the "snap" of a predator (from above, behind, whatever), and therefore don't duck, you are removed from the gene pool. 0

The cost for a false detection is very small, the cost for a missed event is very large.

 

[kandamrgam]

The answer is a bit complicated.
With any threshold detection, there are two functions, the function that shows "missing an event that occurred" and the function that shows "hearing an event that did not happen".

As it happens, experience and various work in cognitive areas far from my area of expertise suggest very, very, very strongly that we are heavily biased toward "missing no true events" (of course, it's probabilistic, so you can't say 100% ever), which also means "detecting quite a few false alarms.:

It was explained to me, and I've explained to others this way:

If you're walking down a path, and you hear a "snap" above you, and you duck, if it was a predator, you survive. If it was not a predator, no harm done.

If you don't hear the "snap" of a predator (from above, behind, whatever), and therefore don't duck, you are removed from the gene pool. 0

The cost for a false detection is very small, the cost for a missed event is very large.

I get you, we are conditioned to miss no events.. But it's not clear for me, if back to back a/b testing of different sounds does negatively affect our hearing, i.e. our ability to detect events, just like in case of smell and taste.

 

[j_j]

I get you, we are conditioned to miss no events.. But it's not clear for me, if back to back a/b testing of different sounds does negatively affect our hearing, i.e. our ability to detect events, just like in case of smell and taste.

That's not how ABX testing works. It's not "back to back", and hearing does not have the chemical "hangover" effects of taste and smell. The issue with touch is not that the sensation goes away, but rather it ceases to alarm.

 

[Earthbound]

He uses a scientific study which he gives access to that uses 83 studies in hearing and sound. Such an informative video. Interesting responses from people here. Sad actually.

 

[voodooless]

Sad actually.

So what are your actual objections to the comments made in this thread? Just a sad feeling isn't a very good argument, is it?

 

[Mart68]

He uses a scientific study which he gives access to that uses 83 studies in hearing and sound. Such an informative video. Interesting responses from people here. Sad actually.

That study is discredited. He's just another of these people who clutches at straws to try to explain why he perceives unmeasurable differences instead of just accepting that it's cognitive bias.

 

[ahofer]

He uses a scientific study which he gives access to that uses 83 studies in hearing and sound. Such an informative video. Interesting responses from people here. Sad actually.

I suppose you didn’t read this response, from a widely recognized expert?

Post in thread 'Why we hear what we hear'
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/why-we-hear-what-we-hear.61424/post-2252805

 

[mhardy6647]