Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Learning more about the science of sound
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Learning more about the science of sound - Page 5

post #61 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post


Curiosity here. In the AES archives was there ever testing done on human hearing? Bright, Warm, Textured, Cold, Dark, are all perceptions and caused by our experiences and inherent ability to hear physically. I would love to see a test where each paricipant in a double blind study went through a hearing test first.

Probably not much.  But it wouldn't matter much anyway.  Anyone with hearing acuity from good to moderate loss would be able to make valid subjective judgements, because their reference is the sound quality of life.  Their subjective judgement would be how similar a sound reproduction system sounds to real life. Even someone with moderate hearing loss can do that to an impressive extent.  

 

DBT is a comparative test, and again, anyone with excellent to moderate loss would be able to compare two choices well enough to match up the unknown.   

 

Severe losses in hearing would make anything involving sound difficult, so they may disqualify themselves from a evaluation panel.

post #62 of 395

What equipment do you need to make measurements? Looks like for technical audio fidelity measurements really are indeed the be all and end all. Could someone tell me what the equipments are and where I could get them ?

post #63 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post


Curiosity here. In the AES archives was there ever testing done on human hearing? Bright, Warm, Textured, Cold, Dark, are all perceptions and caused by our experiences and inherent ability to hear physically. I would love to see a test where each paricipant in a double blind study went through a hearing test first.

 

 

The Meyer and Moran study (60 participants, 500+ trials)  tested listeners first. No correlation between hearing ability and detection of a separate 16/44.1 A/D/A stage.

post #64 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post

What equipment do you need to make measurements? Looks like for technical audio fidelity measurements really are indeed the be all and end all. Could someone tell me what the equipments are and where I could get them ?

Most equipment measurements can be done with a computer, software and a good sound card.  

 

Two free applications that are really quite good:

http://cpu.rightmark.org/products/rmma.shtml

 

and

 

http://www.hometheatershack.com/roomeq/

 

RMMA is meant for equipment, RoomEQ Wizard is targeted at acoustics, but works well for some equipment too.  

 

There many paid applications too, here's one example:

http://www.trueaudio.com

 

But, read this thread, particularly posts by stv014: 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/609480/ok-so-what-can-i-reliably-measure-from-a-pc-soundcard

 

I don't want to discourage you, but there is a learning process here.  Your question is a little like, "What tools do I need to build a house?" We can tell you, a hammer, a saw, and a drill, but there's also the skill.  You have to obtain skill with study and experience.

post #65 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post

 

 

The Meyer and Moran study (60 participants, 500+ trials)  tested listeners first. No correlation between hearing ability and detection of a separate 16/44.1 A/D/A stage.

 

Ah detection certainly, however my curiosity is more in the impression they had of the sounds being presented.

post #66 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post

 

Ah detection certainly, however my curiosity is more in the impression they had of the sounds being presented.

 

Well suppose 5 people hear the same type and level of distortion in a sample. One listener does not detect anything different, one says it is an organic fluid sound better than before, one says it is grainy and harsh,  one calls it velvety and warm and the other says it is rolled off.

 

What do you conclude ?

post #67 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post

 

Well suppose 5 people hear the same type and level of distortion in a sample. One listener does not detect anything different, one says it is an organic fluid sound better than before, one says it is grainy and harsh,  one calls it velvety and warm and the other says it is rolled off.

 

What do you conclude ?


Why, I am glad you asked.

 

From the info provided I would conclude absolutely nothing.

 

    However, if you had also provided bios of those people which told me that one was Inuit the other a masai from africa, the next a concert cellist with a philharmonic orchestra and the last an Amish, then we can start looking for patterns.

 

 There are miles and miles of data out there containing flat response curves,rms figures, impedance matching etc. Yet virtually none regarding the most important part of the audio equation. How do we develop our preferences?  Why do we do it?  Is it predictable?

    Until now the adage has been when someone reviews or auditions something they like, out come all the response curves and data to corroborate that opinion. This way we can say we know why it sounds good with empirical proof. That strikes me as a little bassakwards, if not completely erroneous. The users preference comes from a completely different set of personal data and their preference for such and such equipment with such and such audio specs is largely a mere coincidence.

 

 In short, when it comes to matching audio gear to the users prefs we have been looking in the wrong direction for quite some time now. 

we need to start gathering data from the person not the machine.

post #68 of 395

Before jumping to conclusions and hunting for patterns, I'd think you'd want to retest the listeners and see if the descriptions are consistent first, have any statistical significance.  Audio perception is influenced by a great number of things, one of which is the actual sound waves.  Don't be too hasty, or you're accepting false positives like kids pick up candy on Halloween.

 

 

Maybe this is not quite what was being asked earlier, but there are some interesting papers out of Northwestern (and not behind AES paywall) on frequency response and different listeners' subjective descriptors such as "warm" and "bright":

http://music.cs.northwestern.edu/publications/sabin-pardo-acmcc09.pdf

http://music.cs.northwestern.edu/publications/Sabin_Rafii_Pardo_JAES_2011.pdf

post #69 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post
The users preference comes from a completely different set of personal data and their preference for such and such equipment with such and such audio specs is largely a mere coincidence.

 

Not in the slightest. There is plenty of research out there that establishes clear statistical trends in listener preferences. You simply haven't looked.

 

User preference does depend on factors outside of objective performance measurements, but these are dependent on the user him/herself. Factors like aesthetic sensibility of industrial design, mood at the time of listening and so on. None of these have to do with what the equipment in question actually does.

post #70 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

Before jumping to conclusions and hunting for patterns, I'd think you'd want to retest the listeners and see if the descriptions are consistent first, have any statistical significance.  Audio perception is influenced by a great number of things, one of which is the actual sound waves.  Don't be too hasty, or you're accepting false positives like kids pick up candy on Halloween.

 

 

Maybe this is not quite what was being asked earlier, but there are some interesting papers out of Northwestern (and not behind AES paywall) on frequency response and different listeners' subjective descriptors such as "warm" and "bright":

http://music.cs.northwestern.edu/publications/sabin-pardo-acmcc09.pdf

http://music.cs.northwestern.edu/publications/Sabin_Rafii_Pardo_JAES_2011.pdf

 I am not being hasty. I simply think that we should now be looking in different areas for explanations to the subjective listening experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anetode View Post

 

Not in the slightest. There is plenty of research out there that establishes clear statistical trends in listener preferences. You simply haven't looked.

 

User preference does depend on factors outside of objective performance measurements, but these are dependent on the user him/herself. Factors like aesthetic sensibility of industrial design, mood at the time of listening and so on. None of these have to do with what the equipment in question actually does.

 Sure I have and if you have some unknown data mine that goes beyond statistical trends I would love to see them.

 

We are not talking about trending here at all we are talking about an inherent predisposition to specific sounds. IE people who are brought up speaking a tone language have very different perceptions than those brought up with a latin derivative.

post #71 of 395

tonal languages only improve the tonal sensitivity? Does it also affect how one hear music subjectively?


Edited by uchihaitachi - 3/29/13 at 7:28pm
post #72 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post

tonal languages only improve the tonal sensitivity? Does it also affect how one hear music subjectively?


You tell me:)

 

 That sense of tonality is much like the orchestra musician who can pick out anomalies in the music most untrained ears miss. I think we may need to separate hearing and perception in this case. How your brain perceives what your ears have heard is what I am getting at.

post #73 of 395

I have perfect pitch and I can't listen out for tonal accuracy whilst trying to gauge how good the SQ is. I think that's the same for most people? Wow this is quite interesting :D

post #74 of 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post

I have perfect pitch and I can't listen out for tonal accuracy whilst trying to gauge how good the SQ is. I think that's the same for most people? Wow this is quite interesting :D


Here's a liitle food for thought. Owl's are renowned for their amazing night vision largely attributed to the size of their eyes. In fact it is the owls brain which has adapted to processing the information the eye sends it which is to be credited for the low light perception.

 

 The arctic fox uses its binaural hearing to track mice under the snow. By canting it's head left and right it creates a perfect picture of where the mouse is under the snow cover and pounces with its forepaws to trap the rodent. The fox rarely goes hungry.

 

 The brain adapts to just about all input and so I am curious as to how audio preferences develop. There is a large cultural/experiential/educational component to our "taste".

post #75 of 395

Saying that user preference and specs/measurements are largely unrelated is like saying such objective data is largely irrelevant and meaningless. If anything I'd argue that subjective impressions are largely meaningless, for untrained listeners anyway.

 

And I do not understand why you bring up different types of languages and their effect on perceiving sound. Seems like another matter to me.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Learning more about the science of sound