Distance perception is perception and is part of the stereo illusion. For example, I just listened to a live performance at the Fillmore from 1970ish where it sounds like you're sitting in the audience - band is in front, and you can hear people talking and coughing all around you. I don't know how the producer did that; maybe he miked the audience and mixed it in. Anyway, the illusion of being in the room with the band and audience is very, very good. This is all done with two speakers, conventional stereo.
Perception is perception. Illusion is illusion. You perceive what you perceive whether the perception is accurate or not. And everything - I mean everything - about sound reproduction is an illusion, despite being based on sound scientific principles.
You do not have to know what the instruments are to experience the illusion. How many people know what all the instruments are in an orchestra? If you showed the average person ten different musical instruments, how many would know what all ten are? Everyone knows what a saxophone is, but how about a double contra bass flute? Think about it.
Perception is perception. Illusion is illusion. You perceive what you perceive whether the perception is accurate or not. And everything - I mean everything - about sound reproduction is an illusion, despite being based on sound scientific principles.
You do not have to know what the instruments are to experience the illusion. How many people know what all the instruments are in an orchestra? If you showed the average person ten different musical instruments, how many would know what all ten are? Everyone knows what a saxophone is, but how about a double contra bass flute? Think about it.
Perhaps instrument was too specific and I should have said sound object. When there are multiple objects we have to recognise all the frequencies coming from one object, as opposed to those coming from a different object, to locate it accurately. Is that what happens, and if so, how's it acheived?
This sort of thing The what, where and how of auditory-object perception
This sort of thing The what, where and how of auditory-object perception
Last edited:
About as dumb as it gets:
"CD's were, cryoed, outer edge painted with green laquer pen, de-magnetized and ripped with the Optiarc AD-7260S (digital step motor version) with 4x speed."
"CD's were, cryoed, outer edge painted with green laquer pen, de-magnetized and ripped with the Optiarc AD-7260S (digital step motor version) with 4x speed."
First, location is perceived regardless of frequency (within limits; lower frequencies are harder to place). Second, our hearing perceives fundamental + harmonics as one tone. Why? Because that's how all sound is, and evolution honed our hearing to make it that way. In other words, in nature one sound may contain many harmonics (like a twig snapping) but it all comes from one source. In fact, a saxophone (or piano etc) is the same way: A fundamental tone + harmonics from one physical source.
Another interesting aspect of psychoacoustics is that if the ear hears all the harmonics of a tone but not the tone, the mind perceives the fundamental tone along with the harmonics. It just fills it right in there.
So as you now hopefully see, there's a few ways to trick our audio perception.
Rarely used in reproduction though since level difference does the trick. Well, in a studio mix mostly
If the resistor was an input resistor (input to gnd), and the input was being driven by a relatively low Z source resistance, You would not even see that 22K in there at all, much less hear it.
Just think how fun it would be if only true believers responded to posts like post #1. Save discussions involving theories and objective measurements for those that value them.
So long and thanks for all the fish!
So long and thanks for all the fish!
I hope the replies caused him to think a bit about it, rather then disappear.
Jan
Threads like this are interesting. If you were to ask the members at ASR forums they would say threads like this are emblematic of DIYaudio forum as a whole. Go to AA and ask there and we’re all a bunch of dogmatic objectivists who are hard of hearing.
c'est la vie
c'est la vie
"WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously."
"This is the forum where we try to impress each other with how much we know about audio. Heavy use of technical jargon is required for participation."
Some in this thread take themselves far too seriously for sure.
That may be so. I try to be as honest about my motives as is possible. I’ll use fancy caps in crossovers because it helps sell speakers. I’ll use PRP resistors because it’s faster than learning the color code. I think tube amplifiers are beautiful objects and that’s enough of a reason for one to prefer them to solid state gear. SY was correct to call it audio jewelry and more people need to be honest about it.
On the other hand, I think the placebo effect is very powerful and can be prompted as readily by ultra-low distortion figures as it can by snake oil cable lifters. This is one reason it’s fruitless to argue with someone who is engaging in ritualized behavior using placebos (ie advertised low distortion levels; passive component swapping; peripheral junk) the effects are very real for them.
I do find the opening post very amusing but also very sincere. It took a lot of time to craft that, regardless if it’s only of interest to me from a post-modern anthropological point of view.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.