Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Edvaard]

I did all my 'demonstration' of aural acuity with the music dictation segments in my music theory classes, and in the pre-test to get into the piano tuning program (quite stringent, eliminating a large proportion of those seeking entrance there) and in the pre-test they gave before taking the studio recording class I got into, and two more tests while working as a sound engineer for a large amusement park, scoring higher on most  segments than recorded before, in all cases cited above.


I did not in anything I said attempt nor claim any 'demonstration' of anything, I merely related some "listening experience," an entirely different matter than some 'demonstration test'.

Unlike some here, I well understand the distinction and the difference there, which is why I related the experience as I did.

I neither explained nor implied that my experience was proof of anything, the only question of 'proof!!!' being brought up by others.


If someone wants to say that all the testing I went through is invalid because it all occurred before digital ever came along, and that I therefore had no agenda to "prove!", than so be it.


Have fun kids. (hint, I highly suggest that you don't take any logic classes, just a hint ...  )


Andy brings up the question that actually matters in the cause here, and that is the question of "why?"

I don't know what to tell you Andy, because I never get such questions when discussing matters with people who use their ears for a living. All I get there is admiration for what I can hear.

But it is apparent that you listen to such people in the way you design your tests.


I questioned your precept of "we've got it backwards, we should test with current technology to explain human perception."

I don't agree with the notion that everything about human perception can be measured by limitations of both current technology and current understanding, but as we realize, the full MRI, etc. tests would be cost prohibitive, so the scenario you propose is probably most helpful to the issue as it stands now. Certainly no complaints, per se, about your effort in this regard, I was just trying to point out the natural limits there.


There is a recent thread in Fletcher's forum concerning men's vs. women's hearing, where some alluded to studies done that illustrate that women generally are more easily annoyed by some higher pitched noise than men.  In my own case, I think that I might have "woman's ear syndrome."


lol.


Science rarely asks 'perfect' questions, else we'd never learn anything.

You 'could' introduce some all analog recordings into your venture there, but I think that if we are trying to delve into the fine points of human perceptional ability, throwing this or that 'curve ball' into a 96/24 playback system (good converters assumed) could get to a lot of the issue we seek to understand.

Even with things being well within the hearing range and perceptional abilities of 'typical' people, research I looked at long ago pointed out that the quality of some noise affects discernment of such noise, that is, not dependent upon amplitude alone, regardless of wave form.

In any case, my comments were made in reference to long term listening scenarios that are most likely cost prohibitive to duplicate. But prior to the age of digital, one's own experience was generally accepted and appreciated in the the discussion of sound (pro audio then), unlike today where seemingly the most innocuous personal experience comment is turned and twisted or vehemently fought against by others to fit some 'agenda.' (wanna-be "pro audio" now)

[Edvaard]

PS


Andy, I also recall some media/newspaper reports of a study done about eight years ago that discovered variances in the typical Fletcher/Munson ear response regarding native language.

That is, audiograms with finer gradations demonstrated differences among Polish, British, Japanese, Italian, Norwegian, American, etc. Fletcher/Munson responses.


The study pointed out that the first language heard and spoken places a 'sonic template,' if you will, upon aural perception.

Nothing drastic, but some discernible affect there.

[Jon Hodgson]

Edvaard wrote on Tue, 27 October 2009 20:15

Andy brings up the question that actually matters in the cause here, and that is the question of "why?"

Actually Bruno asked the same question, and came up with a test to reduce the possibilities.

1) You said you find CDs more fatiguing to listen to than Vinyl.

2) Why?

3) Obvious hypothesis (and I'll bet it's the one that the most people would first come up with)... it's something about sampling and playback at 44.1kHz/16 bit

4) Come up with test of hypothesis

properly done, Bruno's suggested test establishes if theres something about the sampling/playback process that causes your fatigue (other possibilities might be, for example, processing commonly applied to CDs, frequency responses, vinyl mastering, etc etc) .... which is a big part of answering the question "Why?".

[Edvaard]

Quote:

3) Obvious hypothesis (and I'll bet it's the one that the most people would first come up with)... it's something about sampling and playback at 44.1kHz/16 bit

It probably has more to do with the anti-aliasing being placed right on top of the 'normally' perceptible audio response of humans. You will never hear from me that I want a higher sampling rate only so that I can hear further what has already annoyed me in the analog realm. I only argue for a better standard to remove the noise somewhere far above any consideration there. People who started out in this businesses as I did would understand these considerations from the start, as contravention to  your being  being a frikin' punk and trying to pin me to the wall about it at every occasion. You are not made for this business, and have no inclination to read anything concerning psyco-acoustics or anything concerning human perception at all, and unlike others who appreciate such things, display repeated absolute hostility towards anyone who does. If the fact that human perception is beyond the capacity of current technology to measure bothers you so much, even if considered a sign of human evolution by others, then you could take the time to get over that by reading such books as read by others who actually belong in this trade.

"Sensation Of Tone", Helmholtz
Alton Everest.
Horace Lamb.
Harry F. Olson
Arthur H. Benade.

Either read these books or shut up, but in any case quit trolling around after me on this site.

PS  That is not a 'request'.

[Jon Hodgson]

Edvaard wrote on Tue, 27 October 2009 23:52

Quote: 3) Obvious hypothesis (and I'll bet it's the one that the most people would first come up with)... it's something about sampling and playback at 44.1kHz/16 bit It probably has more to do with the anti-aliasing being placed right on top of the 'normally' perceptible audio response of humans.

Which if you are correct in your hypothesis, would fall under the category of "something about sampling and playback at 44.1kHz/16 bit" and would give a positive result in Bruno's suggested test.

A negative result on the other hand would tell you that what you perceive is not a convertion artifact, including the filters, therefore you would know to look for a new hypothesis and be closer to answering the question of "Why?".

If you had a positive result, then you could do a further test with a high sample rate, and different filter frequencies, that would then either further strengthen your hypothesis, or suggest an alternate cause.

Quote:

You will never hear from me that I want a higher sampling rate only so that I can hear further what has already annoyed me in the analog realm.

I haven't made any mention of any such thing, so I don't know why you're so defensive.

Quote:

I only argue for a better standard to remove the noise somewhere far above any consideration there.

Which is fair enough, but since we live in a world of compromises, where more of one thing means less of another, does it not make sense to try to establish as best we can, how much of each thing we can perceive?

Quote:

People who started out in this businesses as I did would understand these considerations from the start, as contravention to  your being  being a frikin' punk and trying to pin me to the wall about it at every occasion.

Now you're just being rude, nothing new there though. You're also showing a lack of observation, reading comprehension, and logical deduction of what I say... nothing new there either.

I have not questioned your perception in this discussion one iota, in fact your perception is crucial to the test suggested by Bruno, which is not a test of whether or not you can actually perceive a difference between vinyl and CD, but a test of whether the difference you can perceive is down to one specific thing.

Quote:

You are not made for this business, and have no inclination to read anything concerning psyco-acoustics or anything concerning human perception at all, and unlike others who appreciate such things, display repeated absolute hostility towards anyone who does.

Nope, wrong again.

Quote:

If the fact that human perception is beyond the capacity of current technology to measure bothers you so much, even if considered a sign of human evolution by others, then you could take the time to get over that by reading such books as read by others who actually belong in this trade.

Once again a non-sequiteur.

We're talking about an observation you made, and a test suggested by Bruno to partially evaluate the question "Why?", the test is perfectly  achievable using current technology, and the only measurement system used is YOU, and YOUR PERCEPTION, that of which you are so proud.

I find myself wondering why you are so hostile to the idea of actually investigating your theories, rather than just having people nod at your sage suggestions.

Quote:

Either read these books or shut up, but in any case quit trolling around after me on this site.

I'm not trolling after you, stop being so bloody insecure. If you have a tendency to post logical fallacies that I point out, that's your problem, I do the same with others, or agree with them at other times. This is a FORUM, people have DISCUSSIONS. If you just want to make statements without anybody responding, you need a billboard. You made an observation, people such as Bruno and myself suggested ways to investigate the reasons behind your observation... what a surprise, this is an engineering forum.

Quote:

That is not a 'request'.

Well since you're in no position to give me orders, and even less so threats, you would be better off making it such.

I shall consider your suggestion of reading material, as for the rest of what you wrote in that section, I shall treat it with all the respect it deserves.

[Edvaard]

Oh heck, I was just having a bit of fun there Jon, being that you comprehended not the first iota of anything else posted in this thread. But I don't understand where either you or Bruno have such little consideration for mere observation to begin with. And just to set matters straight here, as soon as I do the LP-to-digital conversion suggested (or even done a thousand times with others), then the whole industry is going to change overnight to either 96/24 or MP3, based on such a test, right? Make a point that actually means something, all I'm saying here. Obviously, better aural acuity and experienced sonic integrity is a lost cause in the present climate. If only you folks could have been in charge 30 years ago, I'd never have been allowed in the business in the the first place. Some of us got into this business because of our ears (and actually welcomed, at the time). And now some are getting out of it for the same reason. You've got it to yourselves now, un-hearing and inconsiderate ones .... Have fun now, and remember to bludgeon anyone who comes in the door with silly considerations of "sound" or other such nonsense.

[Jon Hodgson]

Edvaard wrote on Wed, 28 October 2009 01:39

Oh heck, I was just having a bit of fun there, Jon. But I don't understand where either you or Bruno have such little consideration for mere observation to begin with.

I don't understand your logic here, neither of us has shown a lack of consideration for your observation, nor conversely does it being a "mere observation" somehow preclude it from being discussed and scrutinized.

Science is based on "mere" observations... something is observed, people propose a hypothesis to explain the observation, then deduce a test of the hypothesis. You have presented both an observation (that vinyl is less fatiguing to you than CD), and a hypothesis (that it is due to the effects of anti alias filters)... all we've done is suggests tests of the hypothesis, if we were showing a lack of consideration for your observation we wouldn't bother.

Quote:

And just to set matters straight here, as soon as I do the LP-to digital conversion suggested (or even done a thousand times with others)

Actually the test suggested has not been done a thousand times, we're not suggesting you burn a CD from the LP and then listen to both of them, we're suggesting a system similar to that used in the test referred to at the start of this thread, with an AD/DA pair in line with the output of the LP. The mechanism of the test would be different of course, short term ABX wouldn't work, it would need to be longer term, it might not be ABX, but it would certainly have to be blind.

Quote:

, then the whole industry is going to change overnight to either 96/24 or MP3, based on such a test, right?

So actually understanding the differences you perceive is only of interest to you if it results in a change in the industry? You lecture me about reading books, but you're apparantly hostile to the idea of actually advancing the state of knowledge yourself.

Quote:

Make a point that actually means something, all I'm saying here.

We are.

Quote:

Obviously better aural acuity and experienced sonic integrity is a lost cause here.

Where does that come from? You've got good ears, great, you can hear things I can't hear, fabulous, that makes you invaluable in investigating sound, it doesn't make you omniscient though, and it doesn't make the scientific process invalid.

Quote:

If only you folks could have been in charge 30 years ago, I'd never have been allowed in the business in the the first place. Some of us got into this business because of our ears.

Well then they're the perfect thing to use in the suggested test.

Quote:

And now some are getting out of it for the same reason. You've got it to yourself now, un-hearing and inconsiderate ones ....

Oh give over with your hard done by attitude, really, all that's been talked about here is a way to increase understanding of the issues, which can only be a good thing for those more sensitive to audio artifacts. The whole industry to switch to 384kHz at 32 bits, or return to vinyl, or make half inch analogue stereo the consumer format, and it would STILL be a good thing to know that, for example, 1 db of ripple on a low pass filter at 20kHz can cause listener fatigue.

[Edvaard]

When I first got into the business, all I needed to do was pass some ear tests. Now, I say the least little thing, and I am immediately pegged with all these new considerations and demands. It was just normal conversation in the old days. Now everything is a battle ground. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, . war, war, war, Tony Blair, Bush, ... Well gee, I wonder where all THAT came from? Well, [excuse me] for getting into this in the Carter era. LOL

I am doing the best I can with my stupidly-attempted double major in International Economics and German.  Specifically for the purpose of moving away from here. But it is also good that I just get into something entirely else here. It's going to be two years or so when that happens, but Andy Simpson has first dibs on my ears. Believe-you-me, I wondered about the "why" thing long ago. But I suppose some of the frustration here is that I don't have the good gear available to go through all this, combined with the fact that I was never pinned down about it in this manner previously.

In times past, people just heard what I could do, and then just wanted to hear what I had to say once they observed the result. But now everything is all internet, -Pauses, considers getting a clue here or not .... - I only have cheap speakers at present. This just isn't helping here, is it folks?

In olden times, we just discussed these things in terms understood by all, as a matter of course, almost as if we were sound engineers or something. Nowadays, everybody wants a dog and pony show out of me at the least mention of sonic considerations.

Pass  

[bruno putzeys]

I'm shutting this thread. Vague observations and hand-waving arguments are OK if in the end they refocus to something tangible but if it just goes on AND people start getting worked up about it, I don't think the art & science of electronics and DSP is much helped here.