I don't blame you for not remembering all of my posts, so please let me repeat my view on this.
In the modern day and age, a driver with its amplification should be seen as one stable sub-system of a loudspeaker, so that the characteristics of driver and amplifier can best be matched. It also needs active filtering, another piece of electronics. Since I designed and built my first active crossover in the mid-eighties, I became convinced that you can't develop modern loudspeakers without a solid design capability for the electronics involved. Within that whole scheme, amplification is important too, but in terms of non-audibility, that part of the chain was solved over half a century ago. Improvement of amplification along other dimensions is still going on of course. An active speaker using 50 year old amplification technology can be made to sound and measure perfectly fine. The same will not hold true for the other components.
It was an interesting program and to me shows how fallible our perceptions are.
Did you ever try the green tomato ketchup... blind (hidden in a burger) the kids loved it, sighted they hated it, also done the different ketchup in their favourite ketchup bottle... sighted they can tell a difference, blind they cant!
marce
The same thing happened in the 80s with clear beer. We did many a blind taste comparison on the weekends. It tasted fine, but no one would drink it, it just didn't look like beer.
The same thing happened in the 80s with clear beer. We did many a blind taste comparison on the weekends. It tasted fine, but no one would drink it, it just didn't look like beer.
As Marce just brought up there are things that with the combination of two or more senses we may perceive differently and I imagine we all have different tolerances for and likes for different things. I would conjecture that in a blind test I could tell you Pepsi from Coke drinks, but put them in the wrong bottle or can in front of me and perhaps that would skew my choices though I don't think so. Some things certain people just like more than another, preferences or just natural selection perhaps. I know in foods that I am just very sensitive to bitter flavors, I can't stand most things with a bitter component, most beers included. It isn't a sighted thing it is a sensory perception from the mouth flavors. Give me a cookie blind and I will detect small amounts of coconut in them, just don't typically like that but even when not looking for it I detect it.
So why don't we think that our ears can have the same type of variations, that certain sound components or harmonics are preferred by individuals than another and that comes into play with our equipment selections? Perhaps someone is more sensitive to certain audio bands than another or just dislikes a particular harmonic content, perhaps learned or just an innate choice from our own personal genetic makeup? Does a simple audiology tests of hearing tell us everything about a particular subjects hearing, probably it is much more nuanced than we have ever really been able to test for, how do you test for brain preferences anyway? One person may prefer a speaker with a limited bass or high frequency response curve due to these differences, doesn't mean one is better than another but perhaps there is much more to all this sound stuff than we give credit to our individual natural selection. Do those with large outer ear structures hear differently than those with smaller outer ear structures, is there more to our individual acoustical responses than we really think about, just questions that I don't think I could answer or have ever thought have been considered.
So why don't we think that our ears can have the same type of variations, that certain sound components or harmonics are preferred by individuals than another and that comes into play with our equipment selections? Perhaps someone is more sensitive to certain audio bands than another or just dislikes a particular harmonic content, perhaps learned or just an innate choice from our own personal genetic makeup? Does a simple audiology tests of hearing tell us everything about a particular subjects hearing, probably it is much more nuanced than we have ever really been able to test for, how do you test for brain preferences anyway? One person may prefer a speaker with a limited bass or high frequency response curve due to these differences, doesn't mean one is better than another but perhaps there is much more to all this sound stuff than we give credit to our individual natural selection. Do those with large outer ear structures hear differently than those with smaller outer ear structures, is there more to our individual acoustical responses than we really think about, just questions that I don't think I could answer or have ever thought have been considered.
Just to be sure--are we in agreement, i.e. you're adding a supplementary anecdote, or are we in disagreement, i.e. you're providing a counterexample? I don't find much contentious here.
I'm not sure which is the case. Do Akron plan churches (it's been some 25 years since I lived in that fine city 😀) sound better empty or with a full house?
My experience of audiology testing that when getting down to very low acoustic levels, the listen/response period is typically too short to reliably/usefully discriminate sine tones above ear self noise.
Tell the audiologist to give you the control, and the test results change.
Yeah, put a finger behind each ear and shift the direction of your outer ears and listen how your hearing response alters......those with cloth ears may not note any changes.
Dan.
Last edited:
There are several recent, up to date, very good books about the quirks of the human mind. Dan Ariely's may be the most entertaining. Serious books by Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Haidt are meant at least in part to be useful for self help. Kahneman received a Nobel prize for his work, which established the field of behavioral economics. Haidt explains why we can't talk about religion and politics here, and why we instead do something very similar with beliefs about audio. The most recent advances come from the Good Judgement Project, as described in the book Superforecasting, by Philip Tectlock. Teams of superforecasters outperform the collective national security agencies as well as prediction markets. Superforecasting leverages everything currently known about how minds work, both in term of minimizing errors and in terms of optimizing accuracy.
Happy to hear that about both of you. I'll keep hoping for the most delightful of boring non-results. 😀
sound of course also affects taste. and shape and colour of plates can change the perception of food. Same with audio. Unless you are John.
I assume all these things have been thought about. Nothing to do with sound reproduction, though.kindhornman said:
marce,
Marc, glad to hear the good news, been waiting for that! I know what's been going on so haven't expected you to see my email or PM's here on the site. Send me a note when you get the time and space.
Steven
Marc, glad to hear the good news, been waiting for that! I know what's been going on so haven't expected you to see my email or PM's here on the site. Send me a note when you get the time and space.
Steven
That´s the reason why sensory labs change the color of lights to seperate the variables.
But i fail to see the relevance soundwise. In a preference test (for example paired comparison, forced choice) the variable under test is sound A vs sound B which is the same variable that is used in an ABX. While the ABX tests just for the difference, the preference tests for listeners _real_ preference and if an preference is established a perceivable difference is confirmed. If the listener after "unblinding" noticed that he prefered under test conditions a different choice than before it is something new. If no preference is established he is free to consider additional features of the DUTs.
But as said before, it depends on the hypothesis to be tested.
Last edited:
DF96,
I would have to kindly disagree with you that some of these preferences haven't been used to design audio equipment. I use Bose Corp. as a perfect example of designing to some of these concepts. No real bass, limited high frequency, no problem for them as they have determined that what you don't hear you don't miss. Of course I don't agree with the sound they have produced, they surely have convinced and sold to so many a sound that I just don't like but many swear by. So Dr. Bose's concepts have a very strong scientific basis to them though many of us would disagree with the outcome.
I would have to kindly disagree with you that some of these preferences haven't been used to design audio equipment. I use Bose Corp. as a perfect example of designing to some of these concepts. No real bass, limited high frequency, no problem for them as they have determined that what you don't hear you don't miss. Of course I don't agree with the sound they have produced, they surely have convinced and sold to so many a sound that I just don't like but many swear by. So Dr. Bose's concepts have a very strong scientific basis to them though many of us would disagree with the outcome.
So it doesn´t matter anymore if the $7000 gets you anything different than a "normal cable" (normal but cheap) ?
I never said that. I'm sure they all have been used to design audio equipment. I said they are nothing to do with sound reproduction i.e. hi-fi. People often get these two quite different aims confused.kindhornman said:
Right Jacco
Drowning in bright blue waters is on top of my wish to... list
And I am particularly weak to the torture of thirst
🙂
George
And then do the same but keep your fingers there for half an hour. After this time, the situation with your ears spread out has become the new normal, and the measure of all other things. I bet you look better as well while at it.
We are all aware of our eyes having automatic (individual moving average) white balance.
Don't forget that your ears have complicated compensation mechanisms as well, working all the time to null out echo's, phase shifts, comb filtering, cross talk, random noise, autonomous noise, fr-deviations, delayed arrivals; must have missed a couple of others as well, but the point is clear. Your hearing is not an objective instrument, but a constantly changing one.
It is an instrument which constantly calibrates itself in order to get as much as possible identical results, under as widely as possible varying circumstances. It is the quite the opposite of a measuring instrument.
It's not only white balance. They tried having people wear glasses that make everything look upside down. After about 2 weeks, suddenly the brain inverts the images and everything looks right side up. Stop wearing the glasses, and it takes about 2 weeks to get back to normal. In general, this is called neural adaptation.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.