Measurements and Our ears

[Jud]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

It already does the correction.

 

If so, then why, in reverberant rooms, do people evaluating speakers almost uniformly perceive a slightly falling frequency response as flat?

[Jud]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

If the information is completely absent (eg UV light), then the brain cannot fill in what is unknown.

 

For UV light, sure.  But let's beware of extending this principle too far (think of optical or auditory illusions - we plainly see or hear what isn't there).

[Jud]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If for example, our hearing is most sensitive between 2-5 kHz, should we use EQ to bump the other frequencies? Thus, making out ear hear flat frequency response rather than the measurement tools.

 

Nope.  I think this is what Bill was saying (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Since we go around the world effectively "hearing less" of higher and lower frequencies, if we suddenly heard more as a result of EQ it would seem anything but normal and "flat" to us.

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, manisandher said:

My previous BD-Design Orelo speakers (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2923.0) had Munson Fletcher curves built in. I never used anything but the flat curve, because all the others sounded unnatural to my ears.

 

Mani.

 

No wonder they sounded unnatural - "Munson Fletcher" curves are backwards! 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher–Munson_curves

[Jud]

23 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

They give the correction that you apply. I.e. a reduction between 1-3kHz.

 

Mani.

 

Yup.  Was joking - sure you knew that. 

[Jud]

Our ear-brain systems are funny old things - frequency response affects perception of distance, reverberation affects perception of frequency response....

[Jud]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I totally understand filling in what isn't there, but it's impossible to fill in what one has never heard. 

 

It depends.

 

For instance, with one of the auditory illusions from Diana Deutsch's research, virtually all right-handers hear it one way (that isn't actually what is happening); *most* left-handers hear it another way (which again isn't really what's happening); but some left-handers hear it as right-handers do.  So illusions are to some extent inborn, but are also to some extent affected by what we're exposed to in life.  IOW, yes we can "fill in" what we've never heard.  But that can be modified by what we *have* heard.

[Jud]

35 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Hallucinations & illusions are exceptions i.e  uncommon in normal listening situations & do not support your claim of "sensory systems almost always 'fill-in' things that are not there" 

 

Well, it's an interesting area of exploration.  How much do our senses reflect the real physical world?  Do we see objects as mostly empty space (which all matter is)?  Folks who've taken certain psychoactive drugs can tell you how much editing the brain performs on sensory input - you're not aware of your vision putting together data from saccades into an integrated whole that simply says "I look at this and see it," for example.

[Jud]

50 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

I agree with this but this is not what ralf11 said - he cited hallucinations & illusions

 

What you are bringing up is the philosophical & interesting question about how our perceptions are internal constructs - because of our shared experience (the physical world) & biological similarity, our internal constructs mostly concur.

 

Of course different biologies will result in different internal constructs but there are many similarities in how our senses work even between species.

 

Sure, perception is a construct & once this is realised we can understand how it's role is to provide a handle on the world that is useful for our purposes - not an accurate representation of the world.

 

This brings a whole different light to the blind test Vs sighted listening debate - we are not measuring machines & being asked to find small differences between snippets of sound is not natural - we need training in order to have any facility in doing this & again, even with training, it's not 100% accurate - we need repeated trials & statistical analysis to show if we have this facility

 

For many things.  Others appear to be inborn: loudness in audio, sweetness in food or drink, can be reliably picked out, remembered and preferred even by the untrained.  Interesting, though - what is sweeter or louder is sometimes not preferred over the longer term.

[Jud]

14 minutes ago, semente said:

Another reference to "flat" vs. "realism" (psychoacoustic) from the BBC archives (Aug1970), talking about studio monitors:

 

 

Bet whoever wrote "Note 2" 47 years ago didn't figure a bunch of people would be paying such close attention half a century later.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

Because reverberant rooms reverberate.

 

(Whaddi miss?)

 

Can't find a hole in your logic.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

I know what you are saying, but if this was strictly true, language and grammar would deteriorate every generation.  It was the observation that this doesn't happen that motivated Chomsky to figure out what is innate.

 

It's a little bit like biological evolution.  There are some things that are conserved (some types of grammar rules, for example), some that change rapidly (like terms related to science and tech), and the great bulk of things that change at a "background rate."  And it occurs in populations rather than individuals (no individual suddenly started speaking French rather than Frankish or Latin, just as no particular animal was born a Homo sapiens to parents of an ancestral species).

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Rarely.....

For some people sure... But for many, many, many, artists, the goal of the recording should be what is best for the song. There are so many "artists" who have ZERO interest in making a record that sounds like what they sound like live, and it is impossible anyway. It could be something as simple as the artist/producer feeling like a violin part is really needed on the song, yet there is no one in the band who can play the violin. Or hauling around a 450lb Hammond organ. Or breaking glass in the hallway.....

As a songwriter and coproducer, I was only ever interested in making a recording that would make the song the best that it could be as written. Playing the song live, was an entirely different goal.

 

George Martin was of generally the same mind: the recording is art (or music, if you don't want to claim artistic merit) in itself.  I would suppose the split between whatever-makes-the-recording-sound-best and a documentary approach would be different among producers of classical music, but would still exist.

 

Actually you can hear these different approaches from the same producer: there is Johnny Cash Rick Rubin and Red Hot Chili Peppers Rick Rubin.

[Jud]

Just now, lucretius said:

 

I don't think this changes the argument but rather just makes it more complex. For example, shouldn't a violin (as in your example) sound exactly like a violin, regardless of how the "violin" sound was actually created?

 

As soon as the electric guitar was invented that argument pretty well went out the window.

[Jud]

21 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Perhaps... but perhaps not... Maybe it's there to "creatively" sound like a violin, or it could be an electric violin. Jean Luc Ponty had a certain violin sound that he/his producer wanted to impart, that was certainly different live, and on other recordings...

 

Even Papa John Creach's old blues fiddle is made to sound a little "out there" (to great effect) on some of the early Starship recordings.

 

 

[Jud]

20 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Hi,

Which generation? There's what it sounds like in the room, standing in front of the amp. Then there's what it sounds like on the board for the rough mixes. Then, it gets EQ'd before it gets "mixed-in" with the other other instruments: then it gets EQ'd again during mix-down to two channel. Then it gets EQ'd a 4th time at the mastering studio. Then the final CD or digital file generated sounds different yet again.

I can safely say that I've never heard any of my guitars sound the same on my home stereo as it does when I stand in front of my amp....   

 

And in line with the original topic, how interesting that aside from any EQ, the differences between second and succeeding in-studio generations come from equipment that no doubt measures as having inaudible distortion and noise, flat frequency response, etc., coming out of the same speakers; and if you had the very same speakers at home, through electronics that no doubt once again measured audibly noiseless, distortion-free, with level frequency response, it would sound different yet again. (Though admittedly the room would be different; anyone want to wager it would sound like a perfect copy through headphones at the studio and the same headphones at home?)