BlindInOneEar
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2012
- Posts
- 135
- Likes
- 23
Actually, I'd say they already are pretty entertaining...
Actually, I'd say they already are pretty entertaining...
3% of the sound is more noticeable when 97% of the sound is drowning it out than when it's isolated all by itself. Who'da thunk it?!
He's not just making all ths stuff up... Noooooooooo....
Is it drowning it out or giving it context though - only example I can think of is if one were to take a photograph and extract only the pixels with brigthness over 90% and place that against a white background - yes its hard to see. If that same information was adding highlights to an image where our schemas might allow us to notice them. They may be harder to see than when isolated but they could make a noticeable change to the overall dynamic contrast of the image. Of course this analogy is not directly comparable as we are able to focus our visual attention more easily than our auditory senses.
Is it drowning it out or giving it context though - only example I can think of is if one were to take a photograph and extract only the pixels with brigthness over 90% and place that against a white background - yes its hard to see. If that same information was adding highlights to an image where our schemas might allow us to notice them.
But to me blind testing, within the domain of discussing and selecting audio gear, is for mo mostly superfluous in that it mostly focuses on the production of evidence which can be used by others, so that they are excused from gathering their own evidence and experience. It is a fairly blunt and mute instrument, and more often than not it is applied with the intention of mythbusting and is held to be more conclusive than it deserves to be.
Objective testing with equipment, although having problems of it's own, is much more reliable in my opinion. It can reliably show many differences that blind testing cannot, and this information can be used to challenge or corroborate sighted testing.
Did you actually try this test ? Of the following images, the top left one is the original (converted to greyscale), the top right one is limited to the range 230 to 255, and the bottom one is limited to the range 0 to 230 (and scaled to 0 to 236 to compensate for the slight loss of overall brightness). The changes to the finer details are more visible on the top right image.
Did you actually try this test ? Of the following images, the top left one is the original (converted to greyscale), the top right one is limited to the range 230 to 255, and the bottom one is limited to the range 0 to 230 (and scaled to 0 to 236 to compensate for the slight loss of overall brightness). The changes to the finer details are more visible on the top right image.
I'm not suggesting this a useful analog in any way, but I'm curious, if you put the second image on a black background, what would the result look like?
Do you mean something like this (pixel values < 230 replaced with 0) ?
The main probem is that many people don't realize that frequencies double as they go up the scale. Each octave is double the one that came before. In other words, the lowest octave we can hear is 20 to 40 Hz, which is the exact same size as 10,000 Hz to 20,000 Hz. 16kHz and above is about two notes in the musical scale at the very edge of human hearing. Totally useless. Anyone who says that is important to their enjoyment of music flat out doesn't know what they're talking about.
Discussingt numbers on paper without understanding what they mean is a total waste of everyone's time.