advertisement


Psychoacoustics... where does it start and stop, what’s the proof?

However, unconscious perception also exists, and is a very well known phenomenon in neurobiology and experimental psychology.
Probably the most striking example of this is blindsight, defined by many in the literature as unconscious vision.
Click to expand...
You're seriously proposing this as relevant?

Paul
 
avole said:
Item, ye who puts words in my mouth, look up Beethoven in Wikipedia. His story does not justify a word of your theories, because he used his ears until late on in his life to listen to sounds.

There is no record of him using his skin.
Click to expand...

Thought you'd like that! For once, I actually was putting words in your mouth!

On a more serious note, though, you are right: we have no record of Beethoven using his skin.
 
Unless he played the piano with the power of thought! When someone plays an instrument, do they not feel the vibrations through the stings for example?
 
spacey said:
Unless he played the piano with the power of thought! When someone plays an instrument, do they not feel the vibrations through the stings for example?
Click to expand...

Yes, but there's not much workable data coming through. I know that if I press the fifth fret on the top or bottom E string on a guitar, I'm playing an A. I know that through proprioception (my muscle memory knows where the fifth fret is relative to the guitar neck) and I can feel the string vibrate at one side of the callus that used to be there when I played more, telling me I've hit the right string, that I've not hit the strings I wasn't supposed to hit and broadly whether that string is playing a note or is muted somehow. That vibration does not translate directly to the frequency of the note. If it's out of tune, my ears tell me relative to the other five strings, not my fingers.

Also, when it comes to the top three (unwound) strings, you often don't even feel the vibration of the pick or fingernail striking the string. You might notice fretbuzz if you set your finger badly on the board, but again, you are more likely to identify that from the dreadful sounds coming from the soundhole or cabinet than from your fingertips.
 
None the less its still a perceived sensation, which was just 'bit player' in the overall satifaction of the event of playing. Do you think Beethoven felt the same or nothing?
 
sonddek said:
Get someone to change cables for you and see if you can identify which is which with anything better than a random rate. If you succeed, then you know you're on to something.
Click to expand...

+1,

I tried furutech not so cheap cable vs cheap one. I could not differential in blind test.
 
spacey said:
None the less its still a perceived sensation, which was just 'bit player' in the overall satifaction of the event of playing. Do you think Beethoven felt the same or nothing?
Click to expand...

Of course Beethoven was able to feel the keys as he depressed them. He was profoundly deaf at the end of his life, not dysesthesic. He would also likely have some form of residual hearing, because very few people are totally deaf, especially those who have lost their hearing over time.

I think if the listener loses a lot of hearing, whatever they have left and however they get that sound is vitally important to them. They don't develop some kind of compensatory spidey sense though. Unless they are Spiderman.

An interesting aside here is the use of a silent guitar. They are useful for musicians to study on the road and in places where an acoustic guitar would be disruptive, but few enjoy or benefit from the experience of playing without the tonal input. The touch is not enough. In the absence of any other option, a good musician can visualise both their instrument and the sound its making, and use the sensory feel from their fingers to help aid that visualisation process. But I still don't think that brings much to the party, because when that pianist is practicing at a kitchen table, they are visualising the keys and the sounds those keys make. They aren't playing air piano.
 
spacey said:
The only thing that will happen is it'll drive the final nail in the coffin, and Lossy MP3 will win!
Click to expand...

Sorry. Didn't see this.

The problem IMO isn't necessarily MP3. It's heavy-handed signal compression coupled to over-eager data-reduction. That's a perfect storm of badness.

Too many people seem to confuse signal compression with data reduction. We should be concentrating our worries about the former, IMO. Signal compression involves using compressors and limiters to reduce the dynamic range of a piece of music, then push the average volume up. Some compression is necessary in music reproduction; for example, a little bit of squeeze can make drums sound fatter and more 'real' than the untouched drum sound when played through loudspeaker systems. But too much and you get Oasis and its two decibel dynamic range.

Nothing can fix that lack of dynamic range. You can't buy a 'better' copy if it's endemic to the recording, no matter what file type you choose.
 
True enough. A 128 kbps MP3 of a good master sounds a lot better
than a 192k/24b file of a bad mastering job.
 
Completely agree. I listen to 'Radio Swiss Jazz' quite a lot through my UnitiQute and i am stunned how good it sounds most of the time and everything is at 128k. Just shows that the majority of what they play is mastered well in the first place.
 
With a simpler musical signal - few instruments, purer tones, lower amplitude - there is possibly/probably no data loss as the compressed signal fits within the available data rate.

With a complex signal - more frequencies contained, more hf, higher amplitude; cymbals, orchestral climaxes etc - then more of the original signal is thrown away in the compression process

So given the right source material, a lossy mp3 can be effectively be lossless
 
ChrisPa said:
So given the right source material, a lossy mp3 can be effectively be lossless
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I've been playing a very high quality lossy album (only available in mp3 ATM) a simple Acoustic EP, just a voice a guitar and piano. Very well recorded and it sounds superb.
 
Werner said:
With the complex signal masking more of itself it is allowed to throw away more of it.
Click to expand...
This is the exact opposite of what I hear

With a data-compressed, more complex signal I am less able to pull apart the individual instrumental lines and notes; treble detail becomes more of a 'mush'

using live instruments and music as my reference, I want to hear this detail. I don't want to throw it away
 
I only wanted to point out the two sides of this: a more complex signal contains more masking and thus allows more of itself to be sacrificed.

This should by no means be read as a claim that post-compression sound quality does not suffer when confronted with a more complex signal.
 
It all started way back when and it will run forever.

There has never been, nor will there ever be, any substantial 'proof' of what we're listening to.

It's all about a level of enjoyment and when science is able to measure pleasure, we my be on to summat - until then........
 
From the unofficial Oxford dictionary :

Psychoacoustics
plural noun (treated as singular)

a contraction of psychosis and acoustics ; a branch of internet science devoted to recursive obsession with the minutia of sound perception, generally to the detriment of enjoyment of same ; is thought to cause a severe auditory disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

Psychoacoustic
adjective

as in '' once a music lover, now completely psychoacoustic ''
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top