Look up "aural memory span". It's in the realm of seconds. That's what needs to be compensated for.
No never wondered about something so obvious. There are huge differences in voices compared to amplifiers. Most people can discriminate hundreds of voices, not just there mothers but even strangers. Donald Trump for example. No summary statistics needed.
And since your the spell checker, is everything spelled correctly?
I didn't state what I meant clearly enough - I didn't mean we can tell our mother's voice from others, I meant that we know in our mothers voice the mood or emotion - disapproval, shame, joy, pride, etc. - these are subtle variations in tone & yet we can do so over such lowly replay systems as phones
And since you asked about spelling - no it isn't correctly spelled - it should read their mother's voice, not there mothers voice - unless of course you have many mothers all in front of you there, an impossibility - goes against all know laws of science.
Well, you asked 😉
Last edited:
What bridge would that be - the one to a better understanding of auditory perception? I thought you claimed some knowledge of the neurosciences??
Still no mystery. Not so subtle. You would notice this if you compared the differences quickly. And again, it dosnt have to be your mother, and these differences are huge compared to amplifiers. Ever been in an ADR sessions where the director gets the actor to do the same line 20 times? Every one is different (unless they are real pros and want them the same) and almost everyone can pick this out if compared quickly. Blame evolution.
While I have sometimes disagreed with Evenharmonics in the past, I have to agree that in cases of comparing audible difference where there is, say, a lot of detailed audible information acquired over a very short period of time, in such cases wasting time in switching can increase recognition error rates.
For example, back when people trusted Foobar ABX more there were some hearing test threads. One test was to compare two recordings of violins playing Toccatta in D Minor which were very hard to distinguish. The only difference I could detect required using headphones plugged into DAC-3. There was a very slight difference in the sounds of certain inflections of some fast finger vibrato on a particular short segment violin part. The segment was maybe only 2 seconds long and the vibrato inflections went by very fast. There was an incredible amount of information pouring in over that 2 seconds and the with a slight distraction I would loose it. With some looping and some practice I was able to differentiate the files very reliably but delayed switching would, I think, have made it impossible for me.
Of course, in much easier cases of differentiation a little time delay is less of an issue for me. Doesn't mean it isn't for some people who are still developing listening skills, or just for people who's brains work in a particular way.
So, I would not necessarily extrapolate that the experience of Evenharmonics applies to most other people, but neither would I exclude the validity of his personal observations.
For example, back when people trusted Foobar ABX more there were some hearing test threads. One test was to compare two recordings of violins playing Toccatta in D Minor which were very hard to distinguish. The only difference I could detect required using headphones plugged into DAC-3. There was a very slight difference in the sounds of certain inflections of some fast finger vibrato on a particular short segment violin part. The segment was maybe only 2 seconds long and the vibrato inflections went by very fast. There was an incredible amount of information pouring in over that 2 seconds and the with a slight distraction I would loose it. With some looping and some practice I was able to differentiate the files very reliably but delayed switching would, I think, have made it impossible for me.
Of course, in much easier cases of differentiation a little time delay is less of an issue for me. Doesn't mean it isn't for some people who are still developing listening skills, or just for people who's brains work in a particular way.
So, I would not necessarily extrapolate that the experience of Evenharmonics applies to most other people, but neither would I exclude the validity of his personal observations.
Last edited:
A mother who is trying to conceal her disappointment, frustration , shame from her son/daughter, over the phone, is patently not the same as an actor emoting his/her lines.
In a strangers voice, it's difficult to perceive the emotional nuances over the phone. Why, do you think?
I'm suggesting that our exposure to our mother's voice lays down an internal auditory pattern that we can instantly recognize. The research shows that one efficient method for storing these patterns is in using summary statistics. This long term exposure to a certain soundscape (mother's voice) allows us to build, consolidate & adjust the summary statistics.
We don't have this capability with a strangers voice as obviously such long term statistical patterns are refined over well, a long term
Such long term exposure to our playback systems is likely to result in similar summary statistics patterns
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "these differences are huge compared to amplifiers"?
Comparing familiarity of mother's voice to familiarity of your stereo's sound signature is a stretch too far man.......
Nothing is a stretch here, including the story about LGMs in my back yard and their appetite for anal probing, still waiting for mmerrill99 to prove it wrong.
@ Markw4,
this was the original post:
that triggered my post:
I was asking for clarification and evidence; does "let them listen as long as they want" mean listening to a 2s loop (as in your example) or does it mean listening to long (as long as they prefer) music samples? Fast switching in the latter case seems kind of a dubious demand for - i´d say for obvious reasons .
But taking your example i´d say it raises the question of practical relevance; if detection is indeed only possible under these specific conditions than it can´t be of practical relevance as you couldn´t remember ......
It illustrates the importance of clearly expressed objectives as we know that under best conditions (including carefully selected/constructed stimuli) prolonged training incredible sensitivity is in reach for listeners. But these cases aren´t usually the topics of our discussions.
this was the original post:
that triggered my post:
I was asking for clarification and evidence; does "let them listen as long as they want" mean listening to a 2s loop (as in your example) or does it mean listening to long (as long as they prefer) music samples? Fast switching in the latter case seems kind of a dubious demand for - i´d say for obvious reasons .
But taking your example i´d say it raises the question of practical relevance; if detection is indeed only possible under these specific conditions than it can´t be of practical relevance as you couldn´t remember ......
It illustrates the importance of clearly expressed objectives as we know that under best conditions (including carefully selected/constructed stimuli) prolonged training incredible sensitivity is in reach for listeners. But these cases aren´t usually the topics of our discussions.
I didn't say that now did I? I said the internal auditory mechanisms were likely the same.
One of the guding principles of Biology s that organisms use their resources as efficiently as possible - hence we see quite an overlap in how visual perception operates with how auditory perception operates. Within a perception we also see efficient use of perceptual mechanisms.
So if we use pattern matching & summary statistics to identify complex sounds why would this suddenly be different for our playback systems?
Other than your disbelief do you have any other reason?
I certainly remember the experience of listening. Humans cannot mentally re-experience many things, pain being a well known such experience, but they can certainly remember it happened and that it was very important at the time. And they can remember some things about it.
If I heard the same violin vibrato again now I could not be sure if it was the exactly the same, but I could be sure that the remembered experience was very similar, that it might be same thing. Whether that makes it irrelevant or not, I am not so sure about.
Why do you think you don't have that ability with strangers. I do. ( prove that I don't) Yes the evidence is that most people can tell the difference in emotion between two similar lines of dialogue, but not 2 different amps. They are totally different things.
Don't worry about me, just take care of that proof and let me know when you have it. No, I'm not holding my breath waiting.
It´s relevant for the evaluation of validitiy. If an experimenter doesn´t know what the differences really are it is still his obligation to ensure (in the best possible way) that his detectors (aka listeners) are reaching good sensitivity under the specific test conditions.
If possible, sure go for it, but in the real world you have to deal with shortcomings......
That´s why i wrote "for example" so there is some creativity possible.
But the small level differences are a good choice as we already know that even experienced listeners don´t identify the technical reason but instead respond to the associated sonic difference. Which is perceptionswise exactly what they are asked to do.
I hope i could give some food for thoughts; please consider that it´s the obligation of an experimenter to show that his experiments are objective, valid and reliable, otherwise you can´t draw conclusions from any results.
Which way could an experimenter show validity if he doesn´t know if his detectors/listeners are literally missing the "gorilla in their midst" ?
Because learning the speech pattern, intonation & inflections of complex speech sounds requires some longer term exposure to many different examples of the speech pattern. It isn't even something that should have to be spelled out.
I don't have any desire to prove you do or don't but I would suggest that you present yourself immediately to researchers in the field of auditory perception - you will shake the whole foundation of their work & will be in great demand. Of course there may likely be another reason for your statement & this would require other professional involvement
Sure, repeating the same thing over & over without a shred of evidence is something that appears to be growing in popularity, these days - doesn't make it any more believable for evidence based people!
Last edited:
Ah well - the text is there for all to read - sorry you seem to misinterpret it
- Status
- Not open for further replies.