[SoundAndMotion]

HRTF is subjective. It's different for everyone and it affects what we hear.

HRTFs are like a set fingerprints or retinal scans. They are certainly unique and individual. But they can be measured/determined while you are asleep, unconscious or dead. The HRTF is determined by your pinnae, head, neck and torso, and not at all by your brain. Are your fingerprints "subjective"?

 

[bigshot]

Yes, because you can't use my fingerprints! (Although I saw a detective show where they did that with rubber gloves once!)

If only I hear it that way, it is subjective to me.

You realize this is just a semantic argument, right?

 

[Whazzzup]

my server when it rips does a fingerprint analysis

 

[gregorio]

HRTF is subjective. It's different for everyone and it affects what we hear.

No, as others have said, HRTFs are NOT subjective, they're objective. AND "they're different for everyone and affects what we hear".

Yes, because you can't use my fingerprints!
You realize this is just a semantic argument, right?

I don't know about anyone else but I don't "realise this is just a semantic argument". What I realise is that it's a "nonsense argument", in an attempt to defend a fallacious position. This is the science forum, not the bigshot forum and you don't get redefine/swap the meanings of "subjective" and "objective". For science and any rational person, fingerprints are not subjective, they're objective and this determination has nothing to do with who can or can't use them.

G

 

[castleofargh]

if it's a per subject measure, isn't it subjective?

 

[SoundAndMotion]

if it's a per subject measure, isn't it subjective?

That’s your subjective definition!

 

[johnzz4]

For the sake of any new head-fiers reading this thread, it should be made clear that the HRTF EQ adjustments should be made to raw, uncompensated measurements. If trying to apply an HRTF EQ to a graph that's already compensated using a manufacturer's or reviewer's compensation curve will likely sound terrible.

Also, in regards to headphones being used for mastering. I seriously doubt there are any major artists whose music has been mastered solely on headphones. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that Noisia uses the LCD-X. This is true, and I'll also add Rob Swire (Pendulum/Knife Party) and Jon Gooch (Feed Me/Spor). The part that got lost is that the LCD-X is just part of their overall mastering process.

Finally, I think there are many aspects of sound that influence perceived detail with FR being one of the top contributors. As for real detail, which IMO is synonymous with resolution, I think that has more to do with the acceleration and deceleration of the driver which is tied to motor force and lack of inertia (lightness) of the driver combined with low distortion. The speed at which the drivers start/stop is influenced both by the drivers themselves in combination with the electronics driving them.

 

[bigshot]

As for real detail, which IMO is synonymous with resolution, I think that has more to do with the acceleration and deceleration of the driver which is tied to motor force and lack of inertia (lightness) of the driver combined with low distortion. The speed at which the drivers start/stop is influenced both by the drivers themselves in combination with the electronics driving them.

What makes you think speed has anything to do with it? If a set of headphones is able to reproduce a 20kHz tone cleanly, isn't that fast enough to reproduce any sound below that?

if it's a per subject measure, isn't it subjective?

How does an unique individual separate the subjective perception from the objective perception? Is it possible for you to objectively perceive my hearing the same way I do? You might have to eat that nice salad I had for lunch first!

If I experience an objective experience that no one else can experience, does a tree falling in the forest make a sound?

 

[johnzz4]

What makes you think speed has anything to do with it? If a set of headphones is able to reproduce a 20kHz tone cleanly, isn't that fast enough to reproduce any sound below that?

Impulse response graphs and the inability of drivers to perfectly reproduce a square wave are examples of situations where a faster driver helps match the incoming signal more accurately. Also, two 20khz tones partially out of phase require the driver to start and stop faster than 20khz since the composite waveform will have more amplitude changes than a pure 20khz sine wave, right?

 

[sander99]

perfectly reproduce a square wave

A perfect square wave is the summation of an infinite number of sine waves, only the subset of them below 20 kHz need to be reproduced because the rest is inaudible (and to reproduce all of them is impossible anyhow).

Also, two 20khz tones partially out of phase

Two 20 kHz tones partially out of phase added together result in one 20 kHz tone (with phase somewhere halfway between those of the two added signals, depending on the amplitude ratio of the two).

But I don't know how the situation is with "swing-in swing-out" behaviour(?), isn't that what is actually meant when people talk about loudspeaker/headphone driver speed?

 

[bigshot]

Impulse response graphs and the inability of drivers to perfectly reproduce a square wave are examples of situations where a faster driver helps match the incoming signal more accurately. Also, two 20khz tones partially out of phase require the driver to start and stop faster than 20khz since the composite waveform will have more amplitude changes than a pure 20khz sine wave, right?

When do you listen to square waves with headphones? Nothing like that occurs in music, and it is technically classified as an "illegal signal" in digital audio. As for phase, that depends on how far out of phase it is. What kind of group delay are you referring to? a ms? less? Accuracy is great up to a point. But there's a point where your ears can't even hear it any more. I was wondering if you could show some sort of evidence that speed in headphones equates with detail with human ears.

 

[gregorio]

How does an unique individual separate the subjective perception from the objective perception? Is it possible for you to objectively perceive my hearing the same way I do?

Ah yes, a nice variation of a very old audiophile fallacy, thanks! Which is: We can't objectively measure the experience/perception of music and therefore no music recording and music playback system can ever be accurate. This is an obvious fallacy because music recording and reproduction does not attempt to record the experience/perception of music, there is no such thing as a music recording or reproduction system, only audio recording and reproduction systems, where certain OBJECTIVE properties of the audio are recorded and reproduced (such as freq and/or amplitude, phase/time). How each individual perceives/experiences those objective audio properties is up to them and their individual perception.

Your questions are therefore irrelevant; HRTFs are NOT measurements of perception, subjective or objective. HRTFs are a set of objective transfer functions that convert the objective properties of the audio being output into the objective properties of the sound being input (to the ear drums) .... No subjectivity, perception or personal experience involved!

Your post/questions indicate either; a serious ignorance of what audio and HRTFs are, or the deliberate use of "a nonsense argument, in an attempt to defend a fallacious position"!!

G

 

[bigshot]

Uh... I was joking with Castle. No need for you to burst in and do victory laps in your own head.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

Uh... I was joking with Castle. No need for you to burst in and do victory laps in your own head.

Uh... 2 things:
- When you have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding HRTFs for weeks, how can one identify a joke vs. continued misunderstanding?
- If you want to share a private joke with castle, use PM. If you post for all to see, you should expect people to "burst in", especially given the first point.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

@bigshot , to get you started on your journey to understand HRTFs (if you choose that journey), I'd like to introduce you to KEMAR. He is mostly plastic, but his interchangeable "pinnae" are latex. He has 2 calibrated mics in his head, inside his "ears". He has no brain. He can't perceive anything. Some people have used him to make binaural recordings, but he is mainly used for auditory research. He is made by Gras (link). Meet KEMAR:

You can get his full HRTF from MIT here(link).

If you have the proper tools, you can look at any aspect of his HRTF, e.g. sagittal plane, coronal plane, or whatever you want. Here is a graphic of just the horizontal plane: