Let me go into more detail with gregorio's post here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Neuroscience tells us that only a small fraction of the sensory input to the brain is processed, to process it all we would require a brain 5 or so times bigger than it's current size. The vast majority of the sensory input to our brain is discarded, what is left is used to manufacture a model of reality. What sensory information is discarded and what is retained and how the model is constructed depends largely on experience (that's how cultural differences affect audio perception). Which is why it's impossible to predict everyone's responses, we all have different experience.
Yes, subjective experience is a combination of what is heard and how we model that internally (including what we bring to the model that is
not something we heard). So how does this fact affect the strategies we use (1) to design, compose, or perform sound? (2) To evaluate audio equipment?
Now let me point out how, over and over, you make a contrast between "what we heard" and "reality"--
Quote:
The McGurk Effect proves that our perception of what we hear is a rather vague approximation of the sound entering our ears and that the approximation we create can easily be fooled. (i.e. the sound entering our ears vs the internal model)
they are able to perceive more accurately what they are hearing
They have effectively trained their brains to retain more aural information and to build a more accurate perception of what they hear. (ie. one can train to have a more accurate perception)
their perception is far from truly accurate, bearing in mind that the ear is non-linear device in the first place. (i.e. non-linearity makes the ear fallible)
The audiophiles have trained their hearing against abstract values and the audio professionals (should) have trained their hearing against measured reality. (ie. trainable to improve "reality"; implication that measurements are reality)
partly about the measurements and reality of sound waves (
Then we can see the reason why you feel so strongly about this:
Quote:
I would go as far as to say that my understanding of the perception of hearing vs. the reality of sound waves is more than partly responsible for my professional survival and success.
I think that you are good at what you do because you know what you want and how to get it. I think the way you express your underlying philosophy is nonsense, but I don't know if that directly compromises your work.
On the other hand, I would not hire you to design equipment for me, that's for sure.
Let me try to make my own viewpoint clear.
First, let's go back to a time before recording. All we had was live music. Let's say we have a young student learning the violin. The violin teacher asks him to play in a certain way. He makes an attempt. He gets it partly right. He can hear that it was wrong, but he's not sure why. Maybe it was too fast, too slow. Too dark a tone, too bright. Too much attack. Too smooth. Could be anything. But he's not sure.
The teacher can tell more precisely what he did wrong. She has trained her ear. She can guide the student to make changes in the way he plays.
When he is young, he gives a recital. He doesn't play all that well, and the audience can tell that. The audience is made mostly of non-musicians, so they can't say in detail what's wrong.
But over time, with the guidance of the expert ear of the teacher, he gains skill. His own ear improves so that he can guide himself more precisely.
He gives a recital. People in the audience who are not musicians can hear the improvement. Again, they can't say in detail why it's better, but they certainly can tell.
So what is the importance of having a good ear? One thing is the ability to navigate your choices toward the desired goal. If you can tell more precisely what's going on, you stand a better chance of guiding the process. But there is a
caveat, see below.
Now let's bring in the idea of measurements. Let's say we have a tuner device that tells the student if he is sharp or flat from the expected pitch in a given tuning system. This can help him to improve his pitch. Before his own ear can hear clearly, the device can tell him what he's doing.
But the situation is not that simple. There is no single tuning system, and violinists are free to choose how to tune notes and chords. So how do they choose a precise pitch? By judging the subjective experience it creates.
Listening and
subjective experience are primary.
What if the student came to his teacher and said, "I used the tuner device and I think it's improved my playing." Then the teacher listens to the student and says, "No, I'm sorry but the overall effect has been made worse."
Now suppose the student said, "Well, you know teacher, you are just a fallible human being with a non-linear ear, and the tuner is a device that
measures reality so I'm sticking with my way."
I think it's easy to see how silly that student is being.
Now the caveat about having a good ear-- let's say your ear is 10 times better than the average person's. But let's say you are making music to be heard by an average person. Why does having a good ear help, then? After all they won't hear it the same way you do. I claim the primary benefit is the ability to guide the process toward a result that
can be perceived by an average person.
Perceived. In other words, perception is still primary.
