[Shluupag]

With my short time here now this is really starting to bug me. Everything else possible is taken into account here and honed to perfection, but the human factor feels like almost isolated from discussions. Brain adjustment vs headphone burn-in sticks out as on thing for me. It's like the brain, mind, ears, psychology, human factor part is not even considered it feels like, when it kind of is everything.
 
So why isn't there a forum for such discussion? It could be incorporated to this forum or made as sub-forum to this one. Just no-where it reads something of that sort so people could go there to discuss. It probably wouldn't be super popular forum, but I feel like it would be one of the important ones. Could include anatomy and stuff.
 
(Purposefully posted here because I think I reach most people who are potentially interested in such here.)

 

[Strangelove424]

Psychoacoustics. There's a lot of information online, and we discuss it here very routinely. Good equipment manufacturers and music engineers will take psychoacoustics into consideration all the time. Compared to the capability of modern hi-fi equipment, the human perception and interpretation system is the bottleneck. 

 

[Shluupag]

Thanks, is this sound science forum place for the discussion then? Or do you mean it's scattered around? Because there could be a focused psychoacoustics forum., that's what I mean.
 
This happens to be most interesting part for me, and I feel like it's scattered and underpresented, and people don't know where to discuss it. This is like feedback to administrators to slap psychoacoustics word somewhere, and asking if anyone else has interest.

 

[limpidglitch]

I did a sub-forum specific search for the term 'HTRF', and it seems like it has been used exactly 10 times in our little corner of Head-Fi.
Not a lot, but it shows that anatomy is at least a part of the discussion. I'm sure if you searched for physiology and psychology specific terms you'd see something similar, mentions sprinkled around in disparate threads. Fletcher-Munson e.g. is mentioned almost ad nauseam, and frequency masking was discussed not too long ago.

 

[Strangelove424]

  Thanks, is this sound science forum place for the discussion then? Or do you mean it's scattered around? Because there could be a focused psychoacoustics forum., that's what I mean.
 
This happens to be most interesting part for me, and I feel like it's scattered and underpresented, and people don't know where to discuss it. This is like feedback to administrators to slap psychoacoustics word somewhere, and asking if anyone else has interest.

 
Sound Science is the perfect place to discuss it. That's one of the major subjects discussed here. Since psychology/psychophysics (and it's intimate relation to regular physics) are all within the purview of science, and since we rely on those concepts for much of our communications, I'd like to see psychoacoustics stay here. There is already such a a few concentration of people genuine interested in the scientific aspect, why split them up further into sub-group? My two cents.
 
This is a thread you can check out to see the kind of stuff that's been discussed, and maybe start you on your search:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/645851/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear   [size=x-small] [/size]

 

[Shluupag]

Aha, that clears it up, thanks. What was my point though is that the word psychoacoustics doesn't read anywhere, so people could be directed to discuss it here... of course somebody who has been here longer knows to come here and cherrypick the relevant threads, but for me it's very unclear. It could read under Sound Science as sub title.

 

[jcx]

you might try "HRTF" instead, the Smyth Realizer and other "Virtualizers" are a known topic across head-fi

 

[Strangelove424]

I think they should definitely add some links to the top part. It's funny that we have a link to a glossary with words like "juicy" and "PRaT" (it's actually spelled like that in the glossary) and yet no information on psychacoustics... or even regular acoustics! 

 

[limpidglitch]

  you might try "HRTF" instead, the Smyth Realizer and other "Virtualizers" are a known topic across head-fi

 
D'oh!

 

[esldude]

In almost any part of our modern equipment other than microphones and speakers the fidelity is beyond that of human hearing.  Much of it far beyond.   So even though there is no good reason that bears scrutiny to hear differences most audiophiles say they do.  And yes, psychoacoustics is where that discussion belongs and definitely is part and parcel of this forum. 
 
So much discussion elsewhere at head fi is about things that objectively cannot be heard.  People don't want to be told you aren't hearing what you are subjectively experiencing and so the discussion stops cold. 
 
But you have the tendency of humans to hear things twice and experience a difference when there is none.  A tendency to be sloppy and not match levels leading to a louder source sounding of higher quality.  Of the subjective experience of honestly trying to be careful and hearing things different.  Yet getting tripped up by known psychological issues that somehow they don't want to hear about or agree this can happen to them. 
 
Headphone burn in specifically has been a topic here.  Probably mostly about physical reasons it might happen a bit or not.  Some of the psychological as well.  Simple things like tweak the treble up a few db and listen for 200 hours.  Set it back to flat and no surprise it sounds a bit dull.  You wouldn't do such a thing for 200 hrs, but get new phones, be told it smooths out during 200 hr break in and you might just put up with the equivalent only to adapt to it.  Then it sounds right and other stuff sound dull and undetailed to you.  I take it this is the thing you wish to talk about in this particular case.
 
So get a new phone and find it smoother after break in.  Was it real or did you adapt?  Simplest way is to measure and see if it measures differently.  A number of ways to do that.  You'll need to do it before and after.  That gets to the crux of the matter.  Some will accept identical before and after measurements showing adaptation.  Others will claim something beyond the measurements is being perceived. 

 

[limpidglitch]

 
Headphone burn in specifically has been a topic here.  Probably mostly about physical reasons it might happen a bit or not.  Some of the psychological as well.  Simple things like tweak the treble up a few db and listen for 200 hours.  Set it back to flat and no surprise it sounds a bit dull.  You wouldn't do such a thing for 200 hrs, but get new phones, be told it smooths out during 200 hr break in and you might just put up with the equivalent only to adapt to it.  Then it sounds right and other stuff sound dull and undetailed to you.  I take it this is the thing you wish to talk about in this particular case.
 
So get a new phone and find it smoother after break in.  Was it real or did you adapt?  Simplest way is to measure and see if it measures differently.  A number of ways to do that.  You'll need to do it before and after.  That gets to the crux of the matter.  Some will accept identical before and after measurements showing adaptation.  Others will claim something beyond the measurements is being perceived. 

 
We tend to treat the psychological effects as a part of the null model. We accept them, even take them for granted, and then try to see if there can be some effect beyond this. Which there usually isn't.
It makes sense to delve a little deeper into the psychological aspects of audio, but I rarely feel that I can contribute much on it.

 

[castleofargh]

don't worry, the marketing guys take the human parameter very seriously and know all about it.

 

[bigshot]

  I think they should definitely add some links to the top part. It's funny that we have a link to a glossary with words like "juicy" and "PRaT" (it's actually spelled like that in the glossary) and yet no information on psychacoustics... or even regular acoustics! 

That glossary is a joke. No one from Sound Science had anything to do with it. It's full of hoodoo.

 

[vertical]

Interesting article from Psychology Today about price influencing our senses (taste in the case of the experiment cited)...
 
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201002/does-price-tag-have-taste

 

[castleofargh]

I think it's here(sound science) that someone mentioned peen&teller "bottled water" episode. it's simple but it shows it all.