Any talk of proof by simulation gives the empiricist in me the willies.
Sorry, I hoped my "hint" would be enough explanation. The fallacy is supposing you need to correct for human hearing "deficiencies." Human hearing is what it is.... hope this isn't too mysterious a sentence.
El Greco fallacy
With 50 years of studying perception behind me, I still am confused about this loudness compensation thing. For sure, the discussion treads dangerously close to the El Greco fallacy quite often.
My comment was merely that a simulation will show how accurately the suggested circuit will provide a classic "loudness compensation" curve. If it provides a similar curve to my originally suggested circuit then it will be a preferable solution, as it requires only a 2-unit (for stereo) potentiometer instead of a 6-unit monster.
I don't see it as a fallacy. It is a physical fact. The effect is real and quantifiable. Anyone can hear it for themselves. Where we differ is that you believe the "loudness" effect, as actualised by use of the volume control, is natural and does not require compensation, whereas I see it as an unnatural alteration of the music which requires compensation. (Unnatural = does not occur in nature. If it did, there would be no need for compensation.)
In my opinion, music is best listened to at the SPL at the listener position that it was created for. (Creation may mean the original performance, or the engineer's creation of a mix of separate components recorded at different times in different acoustics - or no acoustic at all in many cases.) If we normally listened at this SPL, there would be no need for any loudness compensation. But we do like to listen at different levels for several good reasons, and when we do so we no longer hear the intended tonal balance. Many of us like to adjust the tonal balance at our chosen listening level so that it is similar to the perceived tonal balance at the "correct" level. Done properly, we find this adjustment effective and pleasing. It is an effective mitigation of the degradation forced by having to listen at a different level to that which the work was intended for.
So regarding the "El Greco" effect, I have no problem listening to music that is "tall and thin", provided the music was intended to be heard that way. I imagine El Greco would not be happy if the aspect ratio of his work changed from "tall and thin" to "short and fat" as the viewer moved away from it. He intended it to be seen at a specific aspect ratio, regardless of the distance from it. It's not an exact parallel to the acoustic case, but I hope you see what I mean.
Hold on a minute. My original comment was to somebody else's post and also not about doubting the reality of the lab tests which produced the equal loudness curves.
Further, my comment about simulations was not to doubt whether or not a computer could duplicate the theoretical performance of a physical circuit, but whether you could demonstrate some truth about human hearing that way.
Specifically, the original post pointed out that people hear poorly in the treble and maybe should get some EQ correction for it. I pointed out people hear barely at all above 20kHz but it would be fallacious to "correct" for that human limitation... an obvious, self-evident, and intuitively-grasped strange idea. And THAT is an El Greco fallacy.
Further, my comment about simulations was not to doubt whether or not a computer could duplicate the theoretical performance of a physical circuit, but whether you could demonstrate some truth about human hearing that way.
Specifically, the original post pointed out that people hear poorly in the treble and maybe should get some EQ correction for it. I pointed out people hear barely at all above 20kHz but it would be fallacious to "correct" for that human limitation... an obvious, self-evident, and intuitively-grasped strange idea. And THAT is an El Greco fallacy.
Last edited:
You're right on your first point. I misunderstood your post #79, for which I apologise.
I also misread your point about the simulation - I thought you were doubting that the presented circuit would work as advertised. Again, I apologise.
But on your third point, the original post (#78) didn't specifically single out high frequencies as requiring correction, even though the equal-loudness curves suggest that some HF boost may be useful as the volume is reduced. (Personally, I don't see the need for it. I'll explain later.)
You said earlier, "...The fallacy is supposing you need to correct for human hearing "deficiencies." Human hearing is what it is...."
You're right, but this does not negate the argument for "loudness compensation".
In the specific case of loudness compensation, we aren't correcting for human hearing deficiencies. We're compensating for deficiencies in the reproduction environment.
In a "live" situation, if we move away from the source we experience an overall level decrease. In addition, the treble decreases somewhat faster than the midrange, and the bass somewhat less. We perceive this as a natural tonal balance change, which needs no correction.
In a reproduction scenario, if we reduce the volume by a similar level, the tonal balance does not change. Compared to a distance increase, we have too much treble and not enough bass. We perceive this as unnatural. This is why I believe in leaving the HF compensation alone and just boosting the bass. The natural change in HF sensitivity of the ears, as illustrated by the "loudness curves", takes care of the required additional HF attenuation, so only the bass requires compensation. Which is where we came in, at the beginning of this thread.
I also misread your point about the simulation - I thought you were doubting that the presented circuit would work as advertised. Again, I apologise.
But on your third point, the original post (#78) didn't specifically single out high frequencies as requiring correction, even though the equal-loudness curves suggest that some HF boost may be useful as the volume is reduced. (Personally, I don't see the need for it. I'll explain later.)
You said earlier, "...The fallacy is supposing you need to correct for human hearing "deficiencies." Human hearing is what it is...."
You're right, but this does not negate the argument for "loudness compensation".
In the specific case of loudness compensation, we aren't correcting for human hearing deficiencies. We're compensating for deficiencies in the reproduction environment.
In a "live" situation, if we move away from the source we experience an overall level decrease. In addition, the treble decreases somewhat faster than the midrange, and the bass somewhat less. We perceive this as a natural tonal balance change, which needs no correction.
In a reproduction scenario, if we reduce the volume by a similar level, the tonal balance does not change. Compared to a distance increase, we have too much treble and not enough bass. We perceive this as unnatural. This is why I believe in leaving the HF compensation alone and just boosting the bass. The natural change in HF sensitivity of the ears, as illustrated by the "loudness curves", takes care of the required additional HF attenuation, so only the bass requires compensation. Which is where we came in, at the beginning of this thread.
Over a decade later I am reading this thread and hoping that Don never gave up on this idea. I agree 100% with post #8 of this thread. Surely, this is possible to achieve in 2020. No?
With the help of audiometry, you can determine the characteristics of your hearing. Then take into account the characteristics of the rooms and speakers.
Synthesize frequency characteristics of equal loudness.
Program DSP🙂
Synthesize frequency characteristics of equal loudness.
Program DSP🙂
Recently a long thread included Fletcher-Munson issues.
Yes, possible but complicated to hard-wire F-M like in old Kenwood Basic pre-amps (AKA "4 gang volume control"). But hard-wired or programmed, you need to "manage the gain" so that loudness in the room tracks the loudness curves of the listener. At one point, much discussion over at mini-DSP on doing this.
Toole says (paraphrased) if think you don't need tone controls in your system after you set it up perfectly to your liking on Day One, you aren't a careful listener. He recommends a single tone control that simply tilts the FR from bottom to top and all the way from bass-heavy to treble-heavy.
Yes, possible but complicated to hard-wire F-M like in old Kenwood Basic pre-amps (AKA "4 gang volume control"). But hard-wired or programmed, you need to "manage the gain" so that loudness in the room tracks the loudness curves of the listener. At one point, much discussion over at mini-DSP on doing this.
Toole says (paraphrased) if think you don't need tone controls in your system after you set it up perfectly to your liking on Day One, you aren't a careful listener. He recommends a single tone control that simply tilts the FR from bottom to top and all the way from bass-heavy to treble-heavy.
Anyone can implement any number of tone controls (single, double, triple, multi-band EQ, tube vs. SS, DSP ...) but none of them are tied to the volume so need to be separately adjusted every time the volume is changed.
I think this thread is not for people who a) think tone controls are unecessary or b) think tone controls are perfectly fine being adjusted independently of volume, every time the volume is changed.
I think this thread is not for people who a) think tone controls are unecessary or b) think tone controls are perfectly fine being adjusted independently of volume, every time the volume is changed.
Last edited:
"but none of them are tied to the volume so need to be separately adjusted every time the volume is changed. "
Not sure what you mean, but you can implement the entire Fletcher-Munson-type chart to any degree of faithfulness you please AND you make it true to your ears by validating any one point on it.
Now, obviously unfeasible to simulate the chart or to fit the chart to your hearing with a single point, but you can do a pretty good job of implementing core rudiments loudness correction (meaning only bass boost) as per the Kenwood Basic pre-amp that I repeatedly mention.
If you listen to string quartets late at night when other* people are sleeping in your home, you will be immensely happier being able to hear the cello sounding about right, Beeth. 9th quartet recommended.
Actually, rare on this forum to mention the secret sauce that makes stereo work: human adaptation and the ability to ignore conflicting cues.
B.
* OK, maybe I'm being a bit compulsively formal to add "other"
Not sure what you mean, but you can implement the entire Fletcher-Munson-type chart to any degree of faithfulness you please AND you make it true to your ears by validating any one point on it.
Now, obviously unfeasible to simulate the chart or to fit the chart to your hearing with a single point, but you can do a pretty good job of implementing core rudiments loudness correction (meaning only bass boost) as per the Kenwood Basic pre-amp that I repeatedly mention.
If you listen to string quartets late at night when other* people are sleeping in your home, you will be immensely happier being able to hear the cello sounding about right, Beeth. 9th quartet recommended.
Actually, rare on this forum to mention the secret sauce that makes stereo work: human adaptation and the ability to ignore conflicting cues.
B.
* OK, maybe I'm being a bit compulsively formal to add "other"
Last edited:
No offense, Ben, but you seem to have missed the entire point of this discussion. If you go back and read post #8, perhaps you'll know what I am driving at.
No offence cogitecch, but instead of vaguely pointing to a wordy post of yours containing special insights I have overlooked entirely, perhaps you could briefly state just what particular point you think you are making that I missed entirely from within that wordy post #8.
Thanks.
B.
Thanks.
B.
Last edited:
I didn't write post #8. I guess if you read it, you would know that already.
The point is: the need for "loudness" control (whether F-M curve or other flavour) is entirely dependent on listening level (volume).
At very low listening levels, lots of loudness control needs to be applied to maintain proper tonal balance. At moderate listening levels, less loundess needs to be applied to achieve proper tonal balance. At "loud" listening levels, no loudness control needs to be applied to achieve proper tonal balance. The result is that the listener needs to adjust the loudness control every time he/she adjusts the volume. If you adjust loudness control for listening at low levels, and then increase the volume significantly, then the bass becomes far too heavy - the tonal balance is way off.
Therefore, in post #8 Don described an ideal loudness control that is tied to (coupled, tracked, use your own word) the volume control.
The idea, to put it as simply as I can, would result in:
Turn the volume up --> loudness control automatically decreases
Turn the volume down --> loudness control automatically increases
Don spoke of configuring the circuit with a "calibration" adjustment, so that the relationship between volume position and the strength of loudness control could be adjusted to ones room and/or preferences.
The point is: the need for "loudness" control (whether F-M curve or other flavour) is entirely dependent on listening level (volume).
At very low listening levels, lots of loudness control needs to be applied to maintain proper tonal balance. At moderate listening levels, less loundess needs to be applied to achieve proper tonal balance. At "loud" listening levels, no loudness control needs to be applied to achieve proper tonal balance. The result is that the listener needs to adjust the loudness control every time he/she adjusts the volume. If you adjust loudness control for listening at low levels, and then increase the volume significantly, then the bass becomes far too heavy - the tonal balance is way off.
Therefore, in post #8 Don described an ideal loudness control that is tied to (coupled, tracked, use your own word) the volume control.
The idea, to put it as simply as I can, would result in:
Turn the volume up --> loudness control automatically decreases
Turn the volume down --> loudness control automatically increases
Don spoke of configuring the circuit with a "calibration" adjustment, so that the relationship between volume position and the strength of loudness control could be adjusted to ones room and/or preferences.
I dunno, Scott. Maybe?
I have a fairly modern Yamaha Natural Sound stereo amp here (covered in dust under my desk) and it has something close to what I am talking about. It has a loudness dial that goes from "flat" to -30dB.
It works, but only if you use it in a very non-intuitive manner. By this I mean, you set the volume to the loudest point that you will want to listen and then leave it there, and then you use the loudness dial to bring things down to a normal listening level.
Basically the "volume" dial becomes sort of a master volume and then you use the loudness control to change the volume. The effect is that the bass gets turned down a lot less than the mids/highs.
It works, but it seems sort of cludgy to me, and counter intuitive.
Did the old Yamaha amps do it this way, or was it actually tied to the volume knob ?
I have a fairly modern Yamaha Natural Sound stereo amp here (covered in dust under my desk) and it has something close to what I am talking about. It has a loudness dial that goes from "flat" to -30dB.
It works, but only if you use it in a very non-intuitive manner. By this I mean, you set the volume to the loudest point that you will want to listen and then leave it there, and then you use the loudness dial to bring things down to a normal listening level.
Basically the "volume" dial becomes sort of a master volume and then you use the loudness control to change the volume. The effect is that the bass gets turned down a lot less than the mids/highs.
It works, but it seems sort of cludgy to me, and counter intuitive.
Did the old Yamaha amps do it this way, or was it actually tied to the volume knob ?
Last edited:
From my Yamaha user guide:
1 Set the LOUDNESS control to the FLAT position.
2 Rotate the VOLUME control on the front panel (or press VOLUME +/– on the remote control) to set the sound output level to the loudest listening level that you would listen to.
3 Rotate the LOUDNESS control until the desired volume is obtained.
1 Set the LOUDNESS control to the FLAT position.
2 Rotate the VOLUME control on the front panel (or press VOLUME +/– on the remote control) to set the sound output level to the loudest listening level that you would listen to.
3 Rotate the LOUDNESS control until the desired volume is obtained.
True Scott, like that Kenwood Basic pre-amp I've keep on mentioning and others in Days oi Yore.
Not a simple matter to simulate THE SET of curves, but requires a volume control with 4 pots (or with software) it can be done OK. And as I always add, you've got to set up your system's gain to match your ear or ears.
Or as Toole suggests, buy a pre-amp with tone controls and use them.
Again to mention, the crowd at miniDSP used to argue about setting up loudness compensation. May be easy or may be hard to do.
Not a simple matter to simulate THE SET of curves, but requires a volume control with 4 pots (or with software) it can be done OK. And as I always add, you've got to set up your system's gain to match your ear or ears.
Or as Toole suggests, buy a pre-amp with tone controls and use them.
Again to mention, the crowd at miniDSP used to argue about setting up loudness compensation. May be easy or may be hard to do.
Exactly the same, Scott.
That's all fine and dandy until someone unknowingly (intuitively) changes the volume dial.
Furthermore, the loudness control (which is now supposed to be used to adjust the volume) is not controllable on the remote.
Again, it does "work", but the whole thing feels like a cludge.
That's all fine and dandy until someone unknowingly (intuitively) changes the volume dial.
Furthermore, the loudness control (which is now supposed to be used to adjust the volume) is not controllable on the remote.
Again, it does "work", but the whole thing feels like a cludge.
I think it's probably why they never really caught on, as Ben says, and I've said somewhere else before, it's a simple enough matter to turn the volume down and the bass up as required, and more flexible, listening at low volume late at night turning up the bass may be the last thing you want to do.