Yes. Stereo sound is a nice example that we take for granted. Hint: there is no singer in the room between the speakers! That you 'hear' a singer there is indeed a cognitive construct of the brain, not the ears.
Jan
There is the place theory and the temporal theory for example, does that help? Hearing pitch – right place, wrong time? | The Psychologist
Last edited:
without published papers that's called 'marketing' not research.
They've not left any breadcrumbs to replicate their work so I'd say enought for 6 Moons reviewer to believe but nothing else.
Yes thank you. That article shows us that we are still learning about the details of auditory perception.
However, it does not mean that we have to rewrite the textbooks. This research does not undermine what is understood about the psychological aspects of sound perception and why they are the way the are. In fact, the article keeps referring to known aspects of sound perception. It also does not change the fact that the singer in your living room is an illusion and not really there.
I could nitpick the article but my biggest point is that these new findings do not necessarily even present a dichotomy. Sound perception is primarily a cognitive process and does involve learning.
Last edited:
The article makes a good example of the difference between responsible scientific journalism and misinformation. The article just referenced the research and presented a few possible implications.
That exact same study could have been spun into multiple pieces of misinformation. It could have been presented as "proof" that evolution is false. After all, scientists claim that our auditory perception is the result of evolution, right? Well now we have "contradicted" (not really ) what we know about auditory perception; therefore, evolution is false (because scientists claim it's the result of evolution).
Seed how that works? That's why I gave my woo warning. Don't ever ask me to look at stuff like that.
That exact same study could have been spun into multiple pieces of misinformation. It could have been presented as "proof" that evolution is false. After all, scientists claim that our auditory perception is the result of evolution, right? Well now we have "contradicted" (not really
) what we know about auditory perception; therefore, evolution is false (because scientists claim it's the result of evolution). Seed how that works? That's why I gave my woo warning.
Don't ever ask me to look at stuff like that.Ha ha yes. "Proprietary" can be a red flag.
However the concept is based is based on sound principles. It could probably be identified. Testing its perception might prove difficult. It's not on my short list either.
It's proprietary
You mean in stereo perception? Sound location is mostly hardwired, not so much learned. You learn details so after experience you know what you're hearing (turkey vs opossum, or clarinet vs saxophone).
The illusion is created with the studio mix. There's an evolution to the mix too. Some early stereo mixes had what could hardly be called a soundstage. The guitar is in one speaker, the keyboards the other, drums in the middle. Really basic stuff. Then it was George Martin, who produced the early Beatles, that started painstakingly constructing what could be called the modern stereo soundstage with the mixing board. His influence has been obvious since then.
It´s funny how "soundstage" is skillfully created at the Sound Studio, emplasis on created , instruments and performers are never together on a stage and picked up live by a pair of XY microphones, a binaural head, etc. and recorded straight to Stereo, but vapour heads insist that a resistor - capacitor - wire - etc. "improve" it .
Oh well.
As of tbhe Linear Audio article, no way I am paying to read it, but in any case the fact he has to dig down to -170dB to "find differences" confirms my belief there are no differences at all.
Not significant ones, which might influence our perception I mean.
Of course, if you dig deep enough you might find a mosquito influencing sound we hear, from the opposite side of the World.
Or from Mars.
Oh well.
As of tbhe Linear Audio article, no way I am paying to read it, but in any case the fact he has to dig down to -170dB
to "find differences" confirms my belief there are no differences at all. Not significant ones, which might influence our perception I mean.
Of course, if you dig deep enough you might find a mosquito influencing sound we hear, from the opposite side of the World.
Or from Mars.
Last edited:
I've seen one researcher claim (on TV, no paper ref sorry) that changes to the Pinnae can cause a relearning. But that was more related to height perception IIRC.
But yes a newborn will turn it's head to look at a sound (as much as it can anyway). Once they can sit up they will track a moving sound source until they fall over. Amazing how many of mine have made it to adulthood
- Status
- Not open for further replies.