Please allow me to disagree. For some time I worked with several acoustic research labs, where they were evaluating the sonic character of various industrial products, particularly cars. The noise of slamming a car door is recognized as a perceived value indicator of the build quality, so auto manufacturers spend a lot of effort on that.
All the tests are conducted with headphones. I was never convinced of the validity of those tests, because a very important aspect of sound perception is in the physical impact, particularly on the chest for low frequencies and the retina for high frequencies.
IMO so it goes for music. I don't like listening on headphones, amongst other reasons is the fact that the sonic cues don't vary when moving head. It creates a neural disconnection that results in a sense of irreality.
Also for some time I was invilved with the French space agency, not for building rockets, but for providing sound systems for broadcasting the Ariane launches. It was a series of VIP-only events, where the launch was presented in lounges, with large screens (about 100 inch) and a sound system. I can assure you taht the physical impact of subwoofers was a determinant part of the experience.
But 1 (audition) minus 1 (physical perception) doesn't make 1 either (neither zero).
Hi abraxalito,
You recognize a friends voice, but not the exact sound of that voice. You remember identifying cues but not how the voice sounds in every situation. But then, you have a reason to remember that voice. Try it with a stranger.
Same thing with each instrument. You can recognize the character of the instrument enough to identify it, but you don't remember each individual instrument. You can recognize a song but not the exact sound of it.
Its the way the human brain works. It stores only what it needs to in order for you to survive. That means it is storing cues and some identifying parts of sounds, but not the exact sound. It doesn't have to for you to "get it".
-Chris
You recognize a friends voice, but not the exact sound of that voice. You remember identifying cues but not how the voice sounds in every situation. But then, you have a reason to remember that voice. Try it with a stranger.
Same thing with each instrument. You can recognize the character of the instrument enough to identify it, but you don't remember each individual instrument. You can recognize a song but not the exact sound of it.
Its the way the human brain works. It stores only what it needs to in order for you to survive. That means it is storing cues and some identifying parts of sounds, but not the exact sound. It doesn't have to for you to "get it".
-Chris
I agree - sound has to be visceral to be realistic.
Also, for me, the binaural headphone "illusion" just doesn't seem realistic. It's a fun effect, but not at all like reality...
I'm not friendly with any actors (that I'm aware of). So the example I gave was with a stranger - just one whose voice I will have heard in multiple contexts.
I beg to differ there - I'm a pianist and I do remember the sounds of instruments that I've played. So no problem telling my own piano from the piano I learned on at home as a child.
Right - so how does this support your argument and undermine mine? How does this support the 'fades within an hour' claim?
For the purpose of making a purchase, my "inaccurate" long term auditory memory serves well enough, no need for me to consider upgrading on a difference not readily apparent. But to really confirm optimum bias point, difference between slightly different parts, minor tweaks or minor modification on topologies, I can not overstate the importance of an A-B comparison. So it depends.
Yes, that's short-term auditory memory and in my case fades within a minute (or more likely, less).
Ignore tricks invented by peddlers of producers marketing products based on numbers alone. Chris is ok, he measures and listens.
Hi abraxalito,
I'm not trying to win a debate here. Just explain how our auditory memory works using general examples.
Try remembering a stranger's voice that isn't famous. Every detail so you can remember the sound without specifically trying to.
You have a specific advantage over most people, and that's perfectly fine. But I think you would have to agree when considering your average humanoid.
-Chris
I'm not trying to win a debate here. Just explain how our auditory memory works using general examples.
Try remembering a stranger's voice that isn't famous. Every detail so you can remember the sound without specifically trying to.
You have a specific advantage over most people, and that's perfectly fine. But I think you would have to agree when considering your average humanoid.
-Chris
I would agree that's difficult, but I don't see it as analogous to the case of being able to recognize when a sound is 'real' or not. Which is where this particular line of disagreement began.
I haven't seen any reason to agree that the average humanoid can't distinguish between different types of piano sound
Or perhaps another instrument they're more familiar with. Its not a matter of training, just a matter of familiarity.
Chris is ok, he measures and listens.
For a very long time Scott Wurcer had as his .sig something along the lines of 'Who's right doesn't matter, what's right does.'. I agree with that.
I haven't seen any reason to agree that the average humanoid can't distinguish between different types of piano sound
That's exactly what I have said several times.
I'm also a pianist as hobby, although I took piano lessons when I was a teenager, so I have real reference.
I have listened to a Steinway piano so many times in live events that there is no problem with hearing memory.
So I can recognize the exact sound of it, I can characterize its sound in my head, I can distinguish between different types of piano in a few seconds (or maybe with a single note).
And I'm a average humanoid, nothing special, no golden ears.
I would call this merely musical education.
The people who partecipated to the listening session I have described didn't know anything about high end audio, measurements and so on.
But they got a good musical education, so they are able to recognize the instruments, they have real references.
So they did listen to the instruments exactly as they would in a live event.
They did care less than zero about the audio system.
Finally I believe that average humanoid with a decent musical education has his references therefore he has no difficulty in comparing the reproduced music with the live one.
But now we have a problem, the live event interacts with the recording, the recording interacts with the source, the source interacts with the DAC, the DAC interacts with the amp, the amp interacts with the speakers and finally the speakers interact with the room.
This is what we are listening to rather than the amplifier itself.
So, how much can the measurement of a single component of the chain, for example the amplifier, help to understand the final result?
I drew my conclusions many years ago and nothing has changed in the last years.
Right, my point is we all have internal references for the sounds we're familiar with - whether family & friends' voices or instruments we play or the sound of the car door we close every day before the drive to work.
Of course the internal references are not explicit ones like a voltage reference in a 6.5digit DMM. Rather they held as weightings in neural networks in our brain. They are not any less of a reference for being implicitly held within neurons.
The weak auditory memory is both, correct and an urban legend, mainly due to the reason that the context of the situation and structure of the sounds strongly influence our abilities for long term storage.
In addition certain subgroups exist, like the humans with perfect pitch, who obviously do have an internal reference.
Usually it is way more difficult to memorize simple physical parameters like loudness, without any additional category it is impossible to remember if a certain sound event yesterday was at 78 dB (SPL) or 82 dB (SPL) so comparing to the loudness of the same sound event today, will not work.
It is different, if additional features are available that allow categorization of the event in seperate areas; maybe something kind of annoyance or even pain, other additional second order effects evoked like the impact of the sound wave, noises or something else.
Abraxalito already mentioned the sound of particular instruments one has played, that is a common feature among musicians. Some are very capable to memorize sound of specific instruments even when only heard them played by other musician on records or live events.
Long term storage works better the more brain areas are involved which depends on the level of categorization involved and of course individual differences are common.
Otoh, it seems to be true that the exactness of memory for sound events deterioates during the higher level processes, so the most exact impression of the sound event will in fact only last for a couple of seconds.
In addition certain subgroups exist, like the humans with perfect pitch, who obviously do have an internal reference.
Usually it is way more difficult to memorize simple physical parameters like loudness, without any additional category it is impossible to remember if a certain sound event yesterday was at 78 dB (SPL) or 82 dB (SPL) so comparing to the loudness of the same sound event today, will not work.
It is different, if additional features are available that allow categorization of the event in seperate areas; maybe something kind of annoyance or even pain, other additional second order effects evoked like the impact of the sound wave, noises or something else.
Abraxalito already mentioned the sound of particular instruments one has played, that is a common feature among musicians. Some are very capable to memorize sound of specific instruments even when only heard them played by other musician on records or live events.
Long term storage works better the more brain areas are involved which depends on the level of categorization involved and of course individual differences are common.
Otoh, it seems to be true that the exactness of memory for sound events deterioates during the higher level processes, so the most exact impression of the sound event will in fact only last for a couple of seconds.
One other thing that might be involved is that we don't necessarily memorize a sound, although to some extent we may do so. The brain also performs a recognition function that might be compared in some ways to a hash algorithm. More or less, if a sound produces correct 'hash' result, it is recognized.
True, everyone has a point here. But we humanoids make lousy test instruments as a group.
I will say that something either sounds right, or it doesn't. But most people don't get any closer than that. If familiarity with some measurements can help out, then avail yourself to them. Its just more information for you to work with, and that's good.
I will say that something either sounds right, or it doesn't. But most people don't get any closer than that. If familiarity with some measurements can help out, then avail yourself to them. Its just more information for you to work with, and that's good.
I agree, the measurements help a lot during the development.
IMHO much less in order to predict and compare the sound quality (intended as the ability to reproduce music as close as possible to the real event).
Finally the two amps whose measurements I have posted are:
(A) Mauro Penasa's MyRef Rev. A, LM3886 implementation
(B) Hypex UCD180, Class D amp
IMHO much less in order to predict and compare the sound quality (intended as the ability to reproduce music as close as possible to the real event).
Finally the two amps whose measurements I have posted are:
(A) Mauro Penasa's MyRef Rev. A, LM3886 implementation
(B) Hypex UCD180, Class D amp
- Status
- Not open for further replies.