Of course it does. It lies in minimizing the faults that matter to you since nothing is perfect, especially speakers.
Making the necessary compromises in the right direction is good practice. Idealists won't see that.
Imperfectly captured music imperfectly reproduced into imperfect rooms into imperfect ears and translated into experience by imperfect brains.
Seems to be a game of aligning imperfections.
But I still wonder how much, if at all, these models for human hearing and sound reproduction account for neurological differences.
Seems to me there is an assumption that we all hear and thus experience (meaning, the brains translation of frequency response, phase, time, etc.) sound more or less identically.
Seems to be a game of aligning imperfections.
But I still wonder how much, if at all, these models for human hearing and sound reproduction account for neurological differences.
Seems to me there is an assumption that we all hear and thus experience (meaning, the brains translation of frequency response, phase, time, etc.) sound more or less identically.
Last edited:
You seem to be missing my point still. Let me try to be more clear and use another example.
Let’s say we are at a museum.
A piece of art hangs on the wall.
You are charged with scanning this image so it can be faithfully reproduced for others to appreciate in their homes.
A person in front of your perfect scanned version of this painting in their home has very bad astigmatism.
That person, without their glasses or contacts, would not be viewing the art as intended by its creator.
Moreover, this person is unable to appreciate the effort you have put into your work.
Everyone loses. This is unfortunate.
Think of it more as a disability, not an “annoyance”. An astigmatism of the ears might be a way to consider it in a simplistic manner.
My reason for asking for your insights was to have someone with a background in psychoacoustics help unpack these neurological differences and make a conjecture as to how they might be addressed in a practical matter, but NOT at the point of the speaker. Rather as an interpreter between the reproducer and the listener, or further back in the reproduction chain.
I’m certainly not asking anyone to consider making “distorting” speakers to make things “less annoying” for anyone.
I was not questioning at all the validity of your personal practice, your business or your beliefs. I think it is noble and sensible to design toward your view of perfection.
Let me give you an example:
Bob Z has shooters ear (a hearing loss notch at about 3 kHz.) He hears "imperfectly". Should I design a sound systems that "correct" this loss? I think not because he is not a "typical" listener.
I have a hearing loss as virtually anyone my age has. Should I evaluate my speakers with my ears? I think not.
My loss is probably less than average and I really don't need hearing aids, but because my wife is an audiologist she got me (for free) a pair of $5000 state-of-the-art hearing aids. They work great in noisy restaurants and the like, they are a big help with intelligibility. I suppose they will also "correct" my audio system perception as well. But here is the thing, I still "prefer" not to wear them when I listen to music. They sound "unnatural". That is because I (we all) adjust to our losses and find that "natural" sound is what we hear on a day-to-day basis. This is precisely why people tend to not like hearing aids - they sound "unnatural" even though they do "correct" our hearing faults.
So what should be done for the fact that autistic people have a very different set of preferences than most of us? I would conclude - nothing.
Bob Z has shooters ear (a hearing loss notch at about 3 kHz.) He hears "imperfectly". Should I design a sound systems that "correct" this loss? I think not because he is not a "typical" listener.
I have a hearing loss as virtually anyone my age has. Should I evaluate my speakers with my ears? I think not.
My loss is probably less than average and I really don't need hearing aids, but because my wife is an audiologist she got me (for free) a pair of $5000 state-of-the-art hearing aids. They work great in noisy restaurants and the like, they are a big help with intelligibility. I suppose they will also "correct" my audio system perception as well. But here is the thing, I still "prefer" not to wear them when I listen to music. They sound "unnatural". That is because I (we all) adjust to our losses and find that "natural" sound is what we hear on a day-to-day basis. This is precisely why people tend to not like hearing aids - they sound "unnatural" even though they do "correct" our hearing faults.
So what should be done for the fact that autistic people have a very different set of preferences than most of us? I would conclude - nothing.
I'm not sure I understand your line of thought here, but if you want to argue that any deviation that would give one an evolutionary disadvantage must have been filtered out by natural selection by now, that also means that homosexuals don't exist and that no-one ever commits suicide.
Some autistic traits are definitely an evolutionary disadvantage. It is much harder to find a partner when you haven't the faintest idea which women are and which are not interested.
In addition, I would assume that no two people would have the same set of preferences. This would make it pointless to attempt correction for an entire population.
The visual analogy is a decent one. Each individual has a "relatively" unique Rx. In other words, the chance of finding someone else with your corrective powers, axes, and fitting parameters for only one of your eyes your town are effectively nil. Add a second eye that must be matched at the same time and you're more likely to win the lottery.
-Tim
All your examples are about people with a hearing impairment. Do you have similar objections against using people with better than average hearing in listening tests?
Was never suggested. Again, not a discussion aimed at your speaker business or motives there.
Reread my comments above for clarification.
If I had one foot longer than the other, should I adapt to walking around with a limp? Or should I get an insole?
Should we do away with all prosthetics, bifocals and so on in the name of “naturalness”?
Your preference for not using the hearing aid is likely a deficiency in the technology; not the concept. The technology required is orders of magnitude more complex than a shoe insole.
Once again, NOT a preference. It can be construed as seriously insulting to refer to people with disabilities as “preferential” to their ailments. I would appreciate it we could get beyond that into some more civilized discussion.
Also when I use the word disability, I am referencing the condition as a whole. With regards to this topic it is not necessarily a diminished sensitivity, but in many cases a hypersensitivity to certain stimuli as Marcel pointed out.
Read the studies in the OP. We are talking about consistently measurable differences in brain function, which can be seriously debilitating / life altering for some.
It would be nice if this could not be addressed like its some roundabout justification for the design of poorly measuring audio equipment or $200 Teflon coupling capacitors.
Last edited:
I was trying to steer dialogue toward perhaps something that could be of utility to a misunderstood, suffering group of people.
I imagined a filtering unit much like DSP processing auditory information which could perhaps be gradually “dialed back” to aid in adaptation. Music would be an excellent training battery as it can be done privately, perhaps with headphones. Musical content could be chosen that’s enjoyable to the listener so that the exercise isn’t viewed as a chore.
It’s sad that the same old debate gets recycled.
This is not a shooters ear kind of situation. If you are not familiar, here is an example:
YouTube
Those with major symptoms in many cases are crippled in their ability to effectively deal with the world at large.
Are you suggesting she tell her child that they should simply adapt?
Neighbors send hate letters suggesting their parents euthanize them:
YouTube
Is defending pursuing perfect parameters in your commercial speaker designs really where we are taking this?
I imagined a filtering unit much like DSP processing auditory information which could perhaps be gradually “dialed back” to aid in adaptation. Music would be an excellent training battery as it can be done privately, perhaps with headphones. Musical content could be chosen that’s enjoyable to the listener so that the exercise isn’t viewed as a chore.
It’s sad that the same old debate gets recycled.
This is not a shooters ear kind of situation. If you are not familiar, here is an example:
YouTube
Those with major symptoms in many cases are crippled in their ability to effectively deal with the world at large.
Are you suggesting she tell her child that they should simply adapt?
Neighbors send hate letters suggesting their parents euthanize them:
YouTube
Is defending pursuing perfect parameters in your commercial speaker designs really where we are taking this?
spaceistheplace, I thought the study you brought up was interesting.
It's true that there's a wide range of individual symptoms that fall under autism, ASD or whichever standard or generation of diagnosis you're working from. Mapping behavioral-level phenotypes and the subjective sense of how it seems to be to be around a person with a given condition like autism tends to require a different approach than something closer to physical sciences like audio reproduction. The underlying gene x environment x hard to nail down vagaries of personal variation behind a disorder like autism is such an impossibly high dimensional space that it can encourage the part of one's mind that would want to tease a problem apart scientifically to throw its hands up and say "this doesn't seem like a real category at all."
Just because a family resemblance model of autism would allow for so much variation between any two people who clearly have the disorder that they might not have any single trait in common, does not mean that there's no meaningful discussion to be had around trends...
Sensory Processing in Children With and Without Autism: A Comparative Study Using the Short Sensory Profile | American Journal of Occupational Therapy
"Abstract
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to investigate differences in sensory processing among age-matched children between ages 3 and 6 years with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and those who are typically developing.
METHOD. Reported sensory processing abilities of 281 children with ASD were compared to age-matched peers who were typically developing, using the Short Sensory Profile (SSP).
RESULTS. Ninety-five percent of the sample of children with ASD demonstrated some degree of sensory processing dysfunction on the SSP Total Score, with the greatest differences reported on the Underresponsive/ Seeks Sensation, Auditory Filtering, and Tactile Sensitivity sections. The ASD group also performed significantly differently (p < .001) on 92% of the items, total score, and all sections of the SSP."
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362361306066564
"The study was undertaken to evaluate the nature of sensory dysfunction in persons with autism. The cross-sectional study examined auditory, visual, oral, and touch sensory processing, as measured by the Sensory Profile, in 104 persons with a diagnosis of autism, 3–56 years of age, gender-and age-matched to community controls. Persons with autism had abnormal auditory, visual, touch, and oral sensory processing that was significantly different from controls. This finding was also apparent when the high and low thresholds of these modalities were examined separately. At later ages for the group with autism, lower levels of abnormal sensory processing were found, except for low threshold touch, which did not improve significantly. There was a significant interaction in low threshold auditory and low threshold visual, suggesting that the two groups change differently over time on these variables. These results suggest that sensory abnormalities in autism are global in nature (involving several modalities) but have the potential to improve with age."
Sensory Processing and Classroom Emotional, Behavioral, and Educational Outcomes in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder | American Journal of Occupational Therapy
"OBJECTIVE. We explored the associations between sensory processing and classroom emotional, behavioral, and educational outcomes of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
METHOD. Twenty-eight children with ASD (with average-range IQ) were compared with 51 age- and gender-matched typically developing peers on sensory processing and educational outcomes.
RESULTS. For children with ASD, the Short Sensory Profile scores Underresponsive/Seeks Sensation and Auditory Filtering explained 47% of the variance in academic performance, yet estimated intelligence was not a significant predictor of academic performance. Significant negative correlations were found between (1) auditory filtering and inattention to cognitive tasks, (2) tactile hypersensitivity and hyperactivity and inattention, and (3) movement sensitivity and oppositional behavior.
CONCLUSION. A pattern of auditory filtering difficulties, sensory underresponsiveness, and sensory seeking was associated with academic underachievement in the children with ASD. Children who have difficulty processing verbal instructions in noisy environments and who often focus on sensory-seeking behaviors appear more likely to underachieve academically."
- On that last one in particular, I could imagine maybe extrapolating that out to means like white noise or room acoustic treatment making a bigger difference for autistic kids' learning than for kids with neurotypical auditory processing. Just a hunch, no evidence to back that up. Who knows, maybe it'd be the opposite. No idea how that might relate to preferences in music or reproduction though.
It's true that there's a wide range of individual symptoms that fall under autism, ASD or whichever standard or generation of diagnosis you're working from. Mapping behavioral-level phenotypes and the subjective sense of how it seems to be to be around a person with a given condition like autism tends to require a different approach than something closer to physical sciences like audio reproduction. The underlying gene x environment x hard to nail down vagaries of personal variation behind a disorder like autism is such an impossibly high dimensional space that it can encourage the part of one's mind that would want to tease a problem apart scientifically to throw its hands up and say "this doesn't seem like a real category at all."
Just because a family resemblance model of autism would allow for so much variation between any two people who clearly have the disorder that they might not have any single trait in common, does not mean that there's no meaningful discussion to be had around trends...
Sensory Processing in Children With and Without Autism: A Comparative Study Using the Short Sensory Profile | American Journal of Occupational Therapy
"Abstract
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to investigate differences in sensory processing among age-matched children between ages 3 and 6 years with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and those who are typically developing.
METHOD. Reported sensory processing abilities of 281 children with ASD were compared to age-matched peers who were typically developing, using the Short Sensory Profile (SSP).
RESULTS. Ninety-five percent of the sample of children with ASD demonstrated some degree of sensory processing dysfunction on the SSP Total Score, with the greatest differences reported on the Underresponsive/ Seeks Sensation, Auditory Filtering, and Tactile Sensitivity sections. The ASD group also performed significantly differently (p < .001) on 92% of the items, total score, and all sections of the SSP."
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362361306066564
"The study was undertaken to evaluate the nature of sensory dysfunction in persons with autism. The cross-sectional study examined auditory, visual, oral, and touch sensory processing, as measured by the Sensory Profile, in 104 persons with a diagnosis of autism, 3–56 years of age, gender-and age-matched to community controls. Persons with autism had abnormal auditory, visual, touch, and oral sensory processing that was significantly different from controls. This finding was also apparent when the high and low thresholds of these modalities were examined separately. At later ages for the group with autism, lower levels of abnormal sensory processing were found, except for low threshold touch, which did not improve significantly. There was a significant interaction in low threshold auditory and low threshold visual, suggesting that the two groups change differently over time on these variables. These results suggest that sensory abnormalities in autism are global in nature (involving several modalities) but have the potential to improve with age."
Sensory Processing and Classroom Emotional, Behavioral, and Educational Outcomes in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder | American Journal of Occupational Therapy
"OBJECTIVE. We explored the associations between sensory processing and classroom emotional, behavioral, and educational outcomes of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
METHOD. Twenty-eight children with ASD (with average-range IQ) were compared with 51 age- and gender-matched typically developing peers on sensory processing and educational outcomes.
RESULTS. For children with ASD, the Short Sensory Profile scores Underresponsive/Seeks Sensation and Auditory Filtering explained 47% of the variance in academic performance, yet estimated intelligence was not a significant predictor of academic performance. Significant negative correlations were found between (1) auditory filtering and inattention to cognitive tasks, (2) tactile hypersensitivity and hyperactivity and inattention, and (3) movement sensitivity and oppositional behavior.
CONCLUSION. A pattern of auditory filtering difficulties, sensory underresponsiveness, and sensory seeking was associated with academic underachievement in the children with ASD. Children who have difficulty processing verbal instructions in noisy environments and who often focus on sensory-seeking behaviors appear more likely to underachieve academically."
- On that last one in particular, I could imagine maybe extrapolating that out to means like white noise or room acoustic treatment making a bigger difference for autistic kids' learning than for kids with neurotypical auditory processing. Just a hunch, no evidence to back that up. Who knows, maybe it'd be the opposite. No idea how that might relate to preferences in music or reproduction though.
Of course it'd be rude to assume that when interacting with a particular autistic person that they would experience some particular symptom, or experience it in a particular way. The spirit in which we approach this stuff matters: curiosity driven by compassion is going to feel different to a person who might be the subject of what we're talking about than trying to bin them into rigid categories so we don't have to think so much about what they're like as individuals.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.