Why do some Objectivists fear Psychoacousitics?

jkeny said:

Sure, we are discussing this drawing on our personal experiences & conclusions that we have come to. Correct about our hearing mechanism - at the physiological level it is not passive but very much a dynamic & active

Agreed, the stored model is not reality, it is a model of reality in a very synthetic form (the same as our visual model is also a very highly abstracted version of the signals that impinges on our eyes.

Where I think we are talking past one another is maybe in this aspect - there is a set of rules & models that define our internalised auditory library of reality - - for instance we evaluate a sound & conclude things like the size & how far away it is. We can do this, in variously different environments, because we have certain characteristics/rules that is referenced to our internally stored auditory model of the world. This isn't as variable, as you suggest & maybe isn't as fixed in nature, as I suggest - although I believe that, after infancy, it only is added to or changes when we engage in auditory training, otherwise it is fixed & unmoveable. Where I think the gap between us lies is in how we think a mismatch to this internal model will be perceived - you, I suspect believe that this will be immediately noticeable & I maintain that a mismatch is not an all or nothing result - it is a sliding scale from great match to bad match. I'm saying that some mismatches will only become apparent over some time living with the pre-amp.

Here's an interesting paper that is relevant to something JackD posted - "Come on John. It's not like someone is blind testing blanks and live ammo in a revolver in a room full of people". This paper is from the Army Research Laboratory, titled "Feasibility of Audio Training for Identification of Auditory Signatures of Small Arms Fire". I reference this because it very much is a question of life & death - identifying the sound of enemy small arms is crucial in survival & is possible only because of the stored reference of the sound to which "live event" is compared to. This is happening in all sorts of different auditory surroundings.


In this case blind listening can be a matter of life & death

Click to expand...

andromedaaudio said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics yes interesting .

Ive just bought another measuring station The Clio FW 01 and 11 software i ll post some loudspeakergraphs (screen shots) in a while , taken from different postions , people will be amazed how much the FR at the listening spot will change , with just lowering your head just 15 centimeters or sideways , which is essentially being perfected with the amount of toe in .

Click to expand...

esldude said:

One must assume no serious subjectvist audiophile ever moves his head. If he did how could long term listening work to uncover things no one can figure out how to measure or confirm? Or how is it sitting down in a mildly different spot each time causes considerable FR changes yet the subjectivist audiophile can discern jitter effects in the picosecond range and other incredibly small to non-existent differences. It must be described as amazing or actually I like the more accurate term.....INCREDIBLE.

Click to expand...

Orb said:

This also applies to headphones each time they are put on (let alone headband resonance and poor driver-capsule matching) and yet everyone says how amazing and consistent they are
But yeah I can notice variations by moving my head subtly, also can hear reflection from rear painting by moving head position and not just from hifi but the TV (noise due to plasma screen when quiet).

Cheers
Orb

Click to expand...

tomelex said:

People who have been around audio and studied it, as you have, know this already, and it also adds to the remarkable statements made by folks in their long term listening tests, however, folks must believe their ears no matter what. Let alone moving you head, how about not having the volume the exact same, typical ignoring of fletcher munson stuff.....its so academic....and stuff like that... look forward to your graphs as actual evidence, which is sometimes a little hard to come by. You know, the other day, I was pretty stresses out. I put on my favorite music and after not too long turned it off, I knew I loved it but it was doing nothing for me. It was not the system, the recording, my ears, the phase of the moon, it was my emotional well being at that time that made it very uninvolving. Kind of like a beautiful woman, if you are near dying because of the flu you will not have the same reaction looking at her....etc bla blah

Click to expand...

JackD201 said:

MIDI trained. Did lots of hours on modellers on Cubase with a variety of outboards at Full Sail. It wasn't my favourite subject since I have trouble playing chopsticks. Fortunately my lab partner was a really good pianist. Does anybody still use Cubase? It looks like everyone uses Logic these days.

Click to expand...

Orb said:

Here is an amusing point.
How many objectivist and audiophiles have taken the time to train themselves for pitch-tone-timbre-modulation/tremolo-chords as various waveforms-etc using a quality synthesizer?
There is a benefit of using a good synth over traditional instruments in that it is easier to train oneself due to the flexibility of sound manipulation such as extended sustain/tremolo/effects and how they influence the sound/etc.

This is something I have been very grateful for, well apart from these pro synths (especially those 5-10years old that are still very good for this purpose and of course for playing ) weigh as much as many audio amps.
Cheers
Orb

Click to expand...

Whatmore said:

I've not taken any training.
Does that mean I enjoy the music less?

Click to expand...

Orb said:

Here is an amusing point.
How many objectivist and audiophiles have taken the time to train themselves for pitch-tone-timbre-modulation/tremolo-chords as various waveforms-etc using a quality synthesizer?
There is a benefit of using a good synth over traditional instruments in that it is easier to train oneself due to the flexibility of sound manipulation such as extended sustain/tremolo/effects and how they influence the sound/etc.

This is something I have been very grateful for, well apart from these pro synths (especially those 5-10years old that are still very good for this purpose and of course for playing ) weigh as much as many audio amps.
Cheers
Orb

Click to expand...

Orb said:

Yeah just as good and bet you found it a useful experience like myself.
Cheers
Orb

Click to expand...

esldude said:

Have done a little of that. Currently I think you could get much more benefit doing the online Harman listener training or Philips Golden Ears Challenge training.

Click to expand...

Orb said:

What did you use?
TBH you are playing down its usefulness, from this I have good pitch identification and key (agree this is not easy and takes much practice), understood and experienced the sum of complex partials/harmonics and how they influence our perceived loudness-preference with chords, a good experience of how tremolo/modulation influences complex sounds, timbre-microdynamics-colour, etc.
Agree Harman listener training is good (and others), also might remember at length my mentioning about listener training-methodology-framework before when Amir posted his ABX but one still should have a good understanding-experience of what I touch upon in my previous sentence if one is to be critical as many are in this thread.

Cheers
Orb

Click to expand...

esldude said:

No, no you misunderstood me. What you described is hard work. My comment about the effectiveness was that it is hard work and takes quite some time. The online listener training will get you some good benefit. It also isn't easy peasy, but I think it easier to progress than doing something on your own. It ultimately might not be as beneficial doing the online training as what you do yourself. But it is a step in that direction that a larger number of people would benefit from and follow through on. So not trying to downplay the effectiveness of what you did other than in a sense of taking lots of time and effort.

Click to expand...