@ulogon : cocktail party effect doesn't work once something have been recorded. I'm sure about it as anyone who tried it. And if you don't believe me just try it by yourself, you'll just validate something known for decades...
Why? Because it's a trick...
I can't explain you the why exactly, there is no reason for it to not work once something have been recorded but such is trick played by our brain on us.
I searched for reason and experimented with different mics including some B&K and Earthworks with selfnoise below 120db... nope it's not a resolution issue...
That said as i stated we use this in mixing eg: you want to put attention on an instrument but with it's 'correct' level inside the mix it's too loud: just let the first note played at this level and the remaining one softer, as your brain registered the first 'louder' note it'll focus on it and notice the instrument is now present within the mix despite it's too low in level. Take this opportunity to let another instrument enter the mix in a stealth way and you can fool people the new instrument appeared 'magically'...
If you listen to Massive Attack you'll often hear this used ( eg Protection on the same titled album, it's used on the high pitched hi- hatish sound in the different parts of the track, and the way the tb303 acid line mask the strings arriving).
There is a whole palette of psycho acoustic effect we use to fool brain, the other main one being masking effect... if you want example of this one too i can give if you want to ( from well known 'hits').
Why? Because it's a trick...
I can't explain you the why exactly, there is no reason for it to not work once something have been recorded but such is trick played by our brain on us.
I searched for reason and experimented with different mics including some B&K and Earthworks with selfnoise below 120db... nope it's not a resolution issue...
That said as i stated we use this in mixing eg: you want to put attention on an instrument but with it's 'correct' level inside the mix it's too loud: just let the first note played at this level and the remaining one softer, as your brain registered the first 'louder' note it'll focus on it and notice the instrument is now present within the mix despite it's too low in level. Take this opportunity to let another instrument enter the mix in a stealth way and you can fool people the new instrument appeared 'magically'...
If you listen to Massive Attack you'll often hear this used ( eg Protection on the same titled album, it's used on the high pitched hi- hatish sound in the different parts of the track, and the way the tb303 acid line mask the strings arriving).
There is a whole palette of psycho acoustic effect we use to fool brain, the other main one being masking effect... if you want example of this one too i can give if you want to ( from well known 'hits').
Last edited:
Some things are easier to explain than others when discussing things that fool the brain. You can get a room full of PhDs in physics and EE for a week and they won’t be able to figure out why cellphones hurt the sound, even when they’re turned off. OR why clocks and watches hurt the sound. OR why playing the acoustic version of the Schumann frequency 7.8 Hz (streamed from YouTube) in the background on a portable device improves the sound. Maybe time to dust off those controlled double blind tests, guys. Talk’s cheap.
Last edited:
Greetings,
This is not a reply particularly, but rather a well-intended observation. I was referred to this chain by a friend who knew of my interest in this topic.
The objective value of art and the perception thereof is inherently a controversial topic: hence the manifest lack of agreement on these pages. That this is an important as well as controversial topic is clear from the now 1000 + posts, as well as the frequency of "colorful" attributions. I write to suggest that instead of discussing how perception operates, we consider discussing how it ought to operate in the valuation of a given artistic event--and why?
And what better place to start than our home hifi system?
For example, the friend who referred me to this page has a hifi that while excellent, sounds very different than mine. How to account for the difference in preference for the respective virtues of each system? Each of us could own a system like the other's, but choose not to. One possible explanation is different priorities. All systems excel in some areas and are deficient in others. As my hifi mentor often observed, "There are always trade-offs." My primary reason for writing is to hear how others account for different priorities in the valuation of art--which of course includes literature and many other disciplines as well as music.
It seems to me that we dare not attribute those differences to mere subjective whimsy. I can abide the possibility that you don't care for Beethoven's music on the grounds that "It's not my cup of tea." However, if you claim it is pompous antiquarian rubbish unfit for human consumption, I will conclude that the problem is with you and not the music. Point being, the greatness of Beethoven's music merits our respect regardless of our taste in music. Because, (to put it negatively), "there is no accounting for taste." And taste is all we hve left with which to judge if there is no inherent merit, which to say there is no place for reason. I will leave it with you folks to put a positive spin on that one.
If you can.
-----
l must pause here to request that you seasoned online warriors go easy on me. I rarely post these days as I have no interest in trading insults. If you feel insulted by that statement, please explain why you do when so many others do not.
I welcome constructive criticism however. Peace.
I will therefore lay my head on the block and state that I agree with those who believe that what we perceive correlates profoundly with what we believe: If I truly believe there are ghosts in my room, I will see them.
Now, is there an obligation to demonstrate the truth to those operating under obviously mistaken belief?
I append further reading for those interested. Both of these are available online.
Alexandr Solzhensyn, "Nobel Prize Lecture." (1970) This is long but astonishing. Not to be confused with the famous Harvard Commencement Address. (1978)
C. S. Lewis,The Abolition of Man, Chapter 1. This is short and right on point.
And finally, my speakers. For the benefit of those for whom knowing this tells them all they need to know about me.
BBC LS3/5a.
(Two REL T-5x subs added 2021.)
This is not a reply particularly, but rather a well-intended observation. I was referred to this chain by a friend who knew of my interest in this topic.
The objective value of art and the perception thereof is inherently a controversial topic: hence the manifest lack of agreement on these pages. That this is an important as well as controversial topic is clear from the now 1000 + posts, as well as the frequency of "colorful" attributions. I write to suggest that instead of discussing how perception operates, we consider discussing how it ought to operate in the valuation of a given artistic event--and why?
And what better place to start than our home hifi system?
For example, the friend who referred me to this page has a hifi that while excellent, sounds very different than mine. How to account for the difference in preference for the respective virtues of each system? Each of us could own a system like the other's, but choose not to. One possible explanation is different priorities. All systems excel in some areas and are deficient in others. As my hifi mentor often observed, "There are always trade-offs." My primary reason for writing is to hear how others account for different priorities in the valuation of art--which of course includes literature and many other disciplines as well as music.
It seems to me that we dare not attribute those differences to mere subjective whimsy. I can abide the possibility that you don't care for Beethoven's music on the grounds that "It's not my cup of tea." However, if you claim it is pompous antiquarian rubbish unfit for human consumption, I will conclude that the problem is with you and not the music. Point being, the greatness of Beethoven's music merits our respect regardless of our taste in music. Because, (to put it negatively), "there is no accounting for taste." And taste is all we hve left with which to judge if there is no inherent merit, which to say there is no place for reason. I will leave it with you folks to put a positive spin on that one.
If you can.
-----
l must pause here to request that you seasoned online warriors go easy on me. I rarely post these days as I have no interest in trading insults. If you feel insulted by that statement, please explain why you do when so many others do not.
I welcome constructive criticism however. Peace.
I will therefore lay my head on the block and state that I agree with those who believe that what we perceive correlates profoundly with what we believe: If I truly believe there are ghosts in my room, I will see them.
Now, is there an obligation to demonstrate the truth to those operating under obviously mistaken belief?
I append further reading for those interested. Both of these are available online.
Alexandr Solzhensyn, "Nobel Prize Lecture." (1970) This is long but astonishing. Not to be confused with the famous Harvard Commencement Address. (1978)
C. S. Lewis,The Abolition of Man, Chapter 1. This is short and right on point.
And finally, my speakers. For the benefit of those for whom knowing this tells them all they need to know about me.
BBC LS3/5a.
(Two REL T-5x subs added 2021.)
Geoffkait, as you say talk is cheap.
Hurt the sound? I say it again it doesn't mean anything so please be more accurate about the ill effects you identified. Were they repeatable with 'virgin' guinea pigs? Virgin in the sense they do not know what is tested ( non influenced by a speach or something before the test)?
Could you tell me what are your sub and their bandwidth please? As well how did you figured out a switched off cellphone induced some change to sound? Was it repeatable in double ABX? Same with clock and watches?
All this seems to belong more to mentalist territory than anything else. Self influencing is pretty effective. Homeopathy and placebo are strong example.
One thing i can say with 100% confidence is that without clock my digital chain is dead quiet. No sound at all. 🙂
Hurt the sound? I say it again it doesn't mean anything so please be more accurate about the ill effects you identified. Were they repeatable with 'virgin' guinea pigs? Virgin in the sense they do not know what is tested ( non influenced by a speach or something before the test)?
Could you tell me what are your sub and their bandwidth please? As well how did you figured out a switched off cellphone induced some change to sound? Was it repeatable in double ABX? Same with clock and watches?
All this seems to belong more to mentalist territory than anything else. Self influencing is pretty effective. Homeopathy and placebo are strong example.
One thing i can say with 100% confidence is that without clock my digital chain is dead quiet. No sound at all. 🙂
Last edited:
The thing is, if it can’t be measured, I don’t know how you can improve it.
We are probably supposed to rely on some showroom golden ears, who will tell us what is better, despite the fact it can’t be measured.
But, it’s probably just as wise to trust your own ears if it can’t be measured ; and at the end of the day, we can all be right by our own ears.
We are probably supposed to rely on some showroom golden ears, who will tell us what is better, despite the fact it can’t be measured.
But, it’s probably just as wise to trust your own ears if it can’t be measured ; and at the end of the day, we can all be right by our own ears.
Not that simple. I have long suspected that some things I say are taken as provocations by a small number of people. What I am not good at is predicting what will or won't be taken as provocation, and or how to restate some point so that it won't be taken as provocation yet still get the underlying idea across.
Last edited:
They may not really be all the way off. Sometimes location services may be still running. At a minimum they have to be able read the status of the soft power switch. The only way to be sure is remove the batteries.
https://www.quora.com/Is-our-cellphone-truly-off-when-we-turn-it-off
The other question is as to whether the cell phone is out in the open where it can act as sound reflector. It doesn't necessarily take a very big solid object in the sound field to produce a little comb filtering.
Last edited:
Quote from that quora link "There have been rumours going around for years, that some phones could operate in some kind of covert surveillance mode, where they appear to the user to be powered off, but they're still listening and transmitting, but I have no faith in those rumours with respect to the current era of smartphones, and I've never seen any credible claims to support the rumours, despite fairly intensive googling."
So your link seems to shoot down your previous posturing.
So your link seems to shoot down your previous posturing.
So let's just run back the last couple of days. You have
1. suggested ALL objectivists are hard wired to only work with Crisp logic
2. Suggest ALL objectivists will immediately latch on to any form of paper the supports their views and claim it's proof.
In doing so you have not only taken an extreme position that does not match the posts being put in this thread but have lumped everyone who doesn't believe in magic audio flooby dust into the same pot as if the venn diagram of audio contains 2 non-touching sets. You know this is wrong, but still post it, so it's hard to accept that you are not predicting it will be interpreted as provocation, as a non-provocative response would be nuanced.
I should also point out that I can't remember the last time I saw any form of scientific paper that concluded anything had been proved. Mostly they end by saying 'more research needed'. Marketing papers from audio companys do tend to like to use wording to suggest that they are right though.
I have made a wild assumption you are trying to get people to understand where you are coming from. On this thread at least you aren't succeeding and an outsider might see you as someone trying to build a following from the subjective camp, which you have always refuted. It's most confusing.
Something hurts the sound when it (1) compresses it (2) distorts it, (3) makes it less detailed, (4) makes it less dimensional/ambient and/or (5) makes it less musical.
Last edited:
Hi Bill,
I assume the word 'ALL' is in caps because I didn't say that but that's how you read it?
OTOH, I have suggested that objectivist/subjectivist divide is not bivalent in reality. And just a few posts ago I said I must be an objectivist, didn't I? And then I suggested maybe I am a subjectivist too. Does that mean I am at the 100% extreme of both? If so, then I guess I must be wired with crisp logic, and yet believe everything geoffkait says? What a mess, isn't it? If only I could escape the bivalent logic it it, and find some fuzzy midground.
Mark
lumping us all together with added extremist wording which you have already been called on. And now find me someone on here that does automatically reject these claims without caveats?
Lumping us all together again so I do think I was valid to use the word 'ALL' in caps. There is zero nuance here, no fuzzy anything in your posts. Claiming you are the one and only with a foot in both camps is then trying to make yourself some sort of saviour...
That was directed at one particular person who is frequently expressing disdain and disgust at those who don't believe the same things he does. It was not directed at you, nor at most of the good people here, regardless of their points of view. My apologies for any confusion.
We're not all subject to well-known ubiquitous human biases? Who here is free of human bias?
You wished ,but it's a well researched product of objectivists approach to sound backed by years of research and enormous budget of government funded organization (BBC)
Not a mumbo jumbo of small company of one sound prophet.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.