Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

You were doing great right up until the end there...

Tubeguy:

Your final statement there :

That doesn't mean:

1) it doesn't mean the other person is deluding themself,
2) it doesn't mean the other person is convincing themself they're hearing a sound that doesn't exist and most importantly
3) it doesn't mean the other person is claiming they have "super-hearing" abilities.

Comments on the first point:
Well, this in itself is where much of the debate lies (whether people know it or not). Whether or not someone is deluding themselves and is subject to psychoacoustics or expectation bias is really difficult to ascertain. Those who say that they trust their ears without question over measurements are as suspect as thsoe who trust only measurements, and think everything heard is always imaginary. When two people are arguing "I know what I hear" versus "I know what I measure" they are both missing the bigger picture: we need to put more effort into the understanding of the human perception of sound, where more energy is put towards obtaining more conclusing corollary between what we measure and what we hear.

Comments on the second point:
The second point is not really different than the first. In fact you could have reworded point 1) as follows:

1)it doesn't mean the other person is deluding themself, and is convinced they hearing a sound that doesn't exist.

Comments on your final point:
Some people do indeed claim to have "golden ears". Others will admit their hearing is no better or worse than the average person their age, but they have trained their ears to be sensitive to very subtle changes. Ah... perception can be HONED and IMPROVED. A hunter will "see" movement in the trees that is lost upon the casual observer. So, it would seem that man's ability to accurately perceive sound is likely a skill that everyon has near some "base level", but can be improved with the right training. Kind of like the clumsy uncoordinated kid who, after years of training in the martial arts, can stop a punch with amazing reflexes.

Mr. Linkwitz is merely acknowleging that the instruments we use to measure do not respond to acoustic stimuli in the same manner as does our human listening systems. This is no way writes the need for measurement and testing off the page, but it does raise the question:

"Is the current corollary between what is measured and what is heard sufficient to make measurements really useful in the first place?"

I think many measurements, like distortion, frequency response and transient respaonse CAN be very useful. In fact, if you make any of those attributes bad enough, you will definately hear it! The question remains: what is the threshold of audibilty for any one of those attributes? The trouble with audio is that we're attempting to maximize the quality of reproduction, and there could be a point where further improvement of some specific attribute is indeed beyound the audibility of even those with the most sensitive hearing accuity. Anyone can hear really bad sound... but when is sound simply "good enough"? Perhaps then we need to go beyond the scope of the limitations of our playback systems, and insist that musicians cryo all metallic strings, and studios rewire with "audiophile approved" AC cords and interconnects.

The other question is this: are there measurements we are not bothering with that could reveal what seem to be secrects about the audibility of such effects like sound stage "dimensions" and perceived "size" and distance of performers?

This does not have to be an objectivist/subjectivist war. I think the people who will end this "war" and come up with some useful corollary are those who know that human perception is not the opposite of science, but a science unto itself.

It's good to hear what guys like Linkwitz have to say about audibility and aural perception. It's intereting to note, as well, there is much debate about the audibility of the phase distortion associated with a 4th order Linkwitz Riley crossover topology. (Although the LR4 filter Q's result in a flat summation at FC, and the 4th order topology results in a 360 degree phase shift, this topology does not exhibit constant group delay.)

Now if you want to get into really interesting "human perception" stuff, read up on phase distortion audibility and the vastly different positions people have on THIS particular area of audio.

Cheers,
Presto

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Sonic Craft  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]