[Ethan Winer]

and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

[Brian Running]

and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Seems to me that the acoustic effects you describe would lead to worse
sound just as often as it would lead to improved sound, wouldn't it? Do
audiophiles always move from a "bad" sounding spot to a "good" sounding
spot whenever they buy ridiculously-expensive gear? Any changes they
perceive always lead to "dramatically" improved sound, and never
dramatically-worse sound.

It's a nice theory, Ethan, but I ain't buyin'.

[Ron Capik]

Brian Running wrote:

and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Seems to me that the acoustic effects you describe would lead to worse
sound just as often as it would lead to improved sound, wouldn't it? Do
audiophiles always move from a "bad" sounding spot to a "good" sounding
spot whenever they buy ridiculously-expensive gear? Any changes they
perceive always lead to "dramatically" improved sound, and never
dramatically-worse sound.

It's a nice theory, Ethan, but I ain't buyin'.

I might tend to think Hawthorne effect with maybe a little placebo
on the side.


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Jay Kadis]

In article ,
Brian Running wrote:

and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Seems to me that the acoustic effects you describe would lead to worse
sound just as often as it would lead to improved sound, wouldn't it? Do
audiophiles always move from a "bad" sounding spot to a "good" sounding
spot whenever they buy ridiculously-expensive gear? Any changes they
perceive always lead to "dramatically" improved sound, and never
dramatically-worse sound.

It's a nice theory, Ethan, but I ain't buyin'.

If you add in the plasticity of the nervous system in our subjective
experience of sound, it might actually be at least a partial
explanation. The fact that we detect any difference could contribute to
a tendency to think of "improvement".

I have often listened to the same mix and loved it one day and hated it
the next in the same listening environment. It is not impossible that
micro-placement of our listening position contributes to the subjective
good/bad decision. Of course, it's somewhat of a random effect, so I
wouldn't always expect a sense of improvement but it sure could explain
some of the variability.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[H. Schaap]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com schreef in bericht
...
and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Wow, Ethan very bad news for me!
If I am in a mixing or masteringsession and I have to go to the bathroom and
I
return and my chair has moved 4 inches, Hell I must start all over again
until....!

D**n, I have to find another job.

Henk

[Brian Running]

If you add in the plasticity of the nervous system in our subjective
experience of sound, it might actually be at least a partial
explanation. The fact that we detect any difference could contribute to
a tendency to think of "improvement".

Exactly, I agree. But the perception of improvement is not due to the
comb-filtering effect, it's the psychological processes in the
"audiophile's" head. Over in the bass-guitar group I'm usually hanging
around in, people will periodically say things like, "But, I really can
hear a difference when I use Monster Cables!" Yes, okay, maybe you do
-- but the important thing to remember is that "difference" does not
automatically mean "improvement." It's just different. But the
difference is always perceived as improvement, because they've been
pre-conditioned by marketers, salesmen, and the amount of money they
just spent to perceive it as "improvement."

Heck yeah, room effects change perception of sound -- so do barometric
pressure, humidity, sinus infections, your bad mood, etc., etc. -- but
the fact that "audiophiles" always perceive the changes as "dramatic"
improvements is all in their heads, not in the physical, acoustic effects.

[Walt]

Brian Running wrote:


Over in the bass-guitar group I'm usually hanging
around in, people will periodically say things like, "But, I really can
hear a difference when I use Monster Cables!" Yes, okay, maybe you do
-- but the important thing to remember is that "difference" does not
automatically mean "improvement." It's just different.

While I agree with you that "different" != "better", with regard to
Monster Cable and similar items "different" has not been clearly
established. "Different" is certainly a necessary but not a sufficient
condition for "better"; until someone can establish that there is a
difference there is no point in arguing whether or not it's an improvement.

Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe
that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences
can do funny things. For the modern low-Z electronic transformerless
outputs, not so much.

But the
difference is always perceived as improvement, because they've been
pre-conditioned by marketers, salesmen, and the amount of money they
just spent to perceive it as "improvement."

Heck yeah, room effects change perception of sound -- so do barometric
pressure, humidity, sinus infections, your bad mood, etc., etc. -- but
the fact that "audiophiles" always perceive the changes as "dramatic"
improvements is all in their heads, not in the physical, acoustic effects.

That's probably my biggest beef with the audiophiles: they'll take
something that's so subtle that one can't be entirely sure whether it's
real or imagined and then proclaim that it's "dramatic", like night and
day. If they said that the differences were subtle and not always
readily apparant, I'd cut them more slack.

//Walt

[Brian Running]

Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe
that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences
can do funny things. For the modern low-Z electronic transformerless
outputs, not so much.

Sure, they can make an audible difference. If you like it, fine, if
not, then try another cable. The differences are so subtle that the
main factor in selecting musical-instrument cables remains the quality
of the connectors. In that area, Monster Cable is very poor. The only
brand of cables on which I've ever had to re-solder connectors --
multiple times -- is Monster, and my experience is not isolated, among
musicians.

[Walt]

Brian Running wrote:

Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe
that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output
impedences can do funny things. For the modern low-Z electronic
transformerless outputs, not so much.

Sure, they can make an audible difference. If you like it, fine, if
not, then try another cable. The differences are so subtle that the
main factor in selecting musical-instrument cables remains the quality
of the connectors. In that area, Monster Cable is very poor. The only
brand of cables on which I've ever had to re-solder connectors --
multiple times -- is Monster, and my experience is not isolated, among
musicians.

Huh. I've always found their stuff to be reasonably well made, if over
hyped and over priced. But I haven't used a lot of it, so WTF do I know.

Anyway, my main point is that very high Z outputs makes cable length and
cable capacitance a bigger factor.

//Walt

[David Grant]

"Brian Running" wrote in message
m...
If you add in the plasticity of the nervous system in our subjective
experience of sound, it might actually be at least a partial explanation.
The fact that we detect any difference could contribute to a tendency to
think of "improvement".

Exactly, I agree. But the perception of improvement is not due to the
comb-filtering effect, it's the psychological processes in the
"audiophile's" head. Over in the bass-guitar group I'm usually hanging
around in, people will periodically say things like, "But, I really can
hear a difference when I use Monster Cables!" Yes, okay, maybe you do --
but the important thing to remember is that "difference" does not
automatically mean "improvement." It's just different. But the
difference is always perceived as improvement, because they've been
pre-conditioned by marketers, salesmen, and the amount of money they just
spent to perceive it as "improvement."

Even when there's no monetary investment associated with the change can it
appear as an improvement. Spending 15 minutes tweaking the EQ settings on an
instrument, one can fool himself into thinking he's made an improvement;
hitting the bypass button a few times often reveals this false perception.
Time and money are so valueable to us that spending either without gaining
is a concept that the subconsious abhors; if effort comes with change (and
vice versa) we prefer to perceive improvement.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Brian Running" wrote in message
m...
If you add in the plasticity of the nervous system in our subjective
experience of sound, it might actually be at least a partial explanation.
The fact that we detect any difference could contribute to a tendency to
think of "improvement".

Exactly, I agree. But the perception of improvement is not due to the
comb-filtering effect, it's the psychological processes in the
"audiophile's" head.

I just returned from a visit to optical disc supplier in Asia where we
visited Teac, among others. After our meeting, we were ushered into a room
to see the ultimate sound system. The room itself was nothing special; I saw
no real evidence of the level of acoustic treatment I'd expect in a local
studio tracking room. We were treated to a snake-oil sales job about $90k
horn-only speakers with $60k speaker cables, from $200k CD players feeding a
$750k pre-amp.

http://www.teac.com/esoteric/ComponentSeries.html

I just didn't have the heart to ask about the level of componentry used by
the folks that recorded the CD music, and how this system was expected to
pull "higher quality" sound out of their lower-tech efforts.

Glenn D.

[Preben Friis]

"David Grant" wrote

Spending 15 minutes tweaking the EQ settings on an instrument, one can
fool himself into thinking he's made an improvement; hitting the bypass
button a few times often reveals this false perception.

..... especially if you realise that it was on bypass while you spent those
15 minutes

/Preben Friis

[[email protected]]

Preben Friis wrote:
"David Grant" wrote

Spending 15 minutes tweaking the EQ settings on an instrument, one can
fool himself into thinking he's made an improvement; hitting the bypass
button a few times often reveals this false perception.

.... especially if you realise that it was on bypass while you spent those
15 minutes

/Preben Friis

Or tweaking a channel on the mix board, everyone agrees they heard an
improvement, only to find it was an unused channel when marking the
recall sheets. I've had this happen a few times.

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

[Chevdo]

In article ,
ethanwatethanwinerdotcom says...

and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html



". After all, how could a $15,000 power amplifier not sound better than one
costing only $150? Yet tests have shown repeatedly that most modern gear has a
frequency response that's acceptably flat "

Well I'm glad someone besides myself is pointing out that the emperor has no
clothes around here...

As for your musing about comb filtering being the reason people claim to hear
what they can't, I think you are right that it is part of the causation,
particularly the initial causation, but I think that the conclusion the
listener reaches can be chalked up to aural-pareidolia and confirmation
bias. Of course sound is going to change if the listening position is changed
by four inches like in your graph. And if placement of the head makes such a
difference as you claim, why did you not provide a chart showing drastic
differences between head positions, rather than a chart showing drastic
differences between moving the listening position four inches? Yes, I can move
my head around and hear music slightly differently by doing so, but when I sit
in a chair with my usual, most comfortable posture, my head is always in the
same position. Claiming it needs to be 'strapped down' to be in the same
position is ridiculous. On the other hand, when I check my mixes I do cock my
head to different angles to hear the mix in different ways. If people are
doing that during listening tests then I can see how acoustic comb filtering
could contribute to aural-pareidolia and confirmation bias, but in that case
the listener is using comb filtering to bolster his bias. Comb filtering
itself won't cause the listener to make qualitative judgements, the process by
which he generally rationalizes conclusions will be the factor that determines
how much the comb filtering he's hearing will contribute to his bias. In fact
your head position theory, which would produce very subtle differences is more
compatible with my theorizing of a delusionary mechanism being employed, than
large differnces caused by a 4 inch listening-position discrepency, because the
mind is wired to expand subtle differences. That is how we notice subtle
differences, by amplifying them with imagination so that they are (or seem)
distinguishable. We evolved this way so that we could, for example, pick out
the sound of a predator approaching amongst a backdrop of bird chirps,
waterfall/river rapid white noise, and other typical 'sounds of nature'. We
are wired to imagine the sound of that predator as being greater than it is.
For this reason it's also in our best interests for the mind to perceive the
subtle sound of a predator amongst a background of noise to be a little bit
closer than it actually is.

[Chevdo]

In article ,
ethanwatethanwinerdotcom says...

and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html



By the way, it's interesting to me that some of your points in this article,
such as:

" Crawling around on the floor will also likely raise your blood pressure,
which can affect your perception. We also hear differently early in the day
versus later when we're tired, and just listening for a while can change our
perception"

is pretty much a repeat of points I made a week or two ago on this newsgroup.
I suspect you got your inspiration for that article from reading my post, and
were not inclined to give me any credit. It could, of course, be a big
coincidence, and I'd venture to guess someone in past, maybe years ago, has
mentioned it on rec.audio.pro, but I haven't seen anything along those lines
since I've been reading over the past year (Granted, I maybe only read 20% of
the posts here). Of course, as usual, if I express any of my opinions here
they are ridiculed and insulted due to the anti-Chevdo bias. I should probably
just be happy that my influence is effective, even if it does have to be
repackaged and re-issued by a more 'reputable' source. Don't get me wrong,
your article is not in any way a plagiarism of anything I've written, and you
certainly expanded on and elucidated the points I made in my post. And I'd say
of the parts that are similar, your treatment is superior to mine
(blood-pressure rising from crawling around to change speaker wires is a
better example than mine, which was that a specific food might subtly change
aural perception, though I failed to cite causation of the food affecting
blood-pressure as a reasonable mechanism for that to happen). But I'll bet that
if you hadn't read my post, you wouldn't have written your article. Even if
that's what happened, you wouldn't have done anything 'wrong', as you're under
no obligation to cite your inspiration. But I would have, if it were the other
way around, and that's because I take a decidedly candid approach to my
communcations.

[Chevdo]

In article ,
ethanwatethanwinerdotcom says...

and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html



Oh, and one more thing, the wishy-washy and pretentious 'third way',
Rodney-King-esque, cant-we-call-get-along conclusion that 'both sides are
right' is an inaccurate and inappropriate shoe-horning of a conclusion that
spoils an otherwise pretty good article. But it's exactly what I'd expect from
the fellow holding his cat in the photo...

The only other inaccuracy was the claim that sitting in a chair in your usual
posture won't put your head in the same position each time you sit on that
chair.

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...

Brian Running wrote:

and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Seems to me that the acoustic effects you describe would lead to worse
sound just as often as it would lead to improved sound, wouldn't it? Do
audiophiles always move from a "bad" sounding spot to a "good" sounding
spot whenever they buy ridiculously-expensive gear? Any changes they
perceive always lead to "dramatically" improved sound, and never
dramatically-worse sound.

It's a nice theory, Ethan, but I ain't buyin'.

I might tend to think Hawthorne effect

Yes, that is generally my opinion as well, but the subtle yet complex
differences caused by comb filtering produced by objects in and shape of the
room could explain why the Hawthorne effect is such a drastic anomaly in
listening tests.

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...


Time and money are so valueable to us that spending either without gaining
is a concept that the subconsious abhors;

Indeed, which can trigger the Sunk Cost Effect, aka Money Pit, "throwing good
money after bad"...

Delusion is clearly a major component in this phenomena, and it is conspicuous
by its absence in Ethan's essay. However, that does not mean that Ethan's
theory regarding comb filtering isn't contributory to the delusions we're
discussing. I think it is.

[Paul Stamler]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

What about differences people hear when changing something in the audio path
and monitoring on headphones?

Peace,
Paul

[Lorin David Schultz]

Jay Kadis wrote:

I have often listened to the same mix and loved it one day and
hated it the next in the same listening environment.



Shhhhh! Don't let David Correia hear you say that! I mentioned the
same thing once, and David responded with "Well, I'll let the secret
outta the bag: You either got it or you don't. It really is about the
sonic sensibilities of the engineer." Apparently he feels that there
is a level of skill at which this will no longer occur.

Given his remarks to Mike regarding drum miking, I guess he's achieved
that level.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

[William Sommerwerck]

Mr. Winer is incorrect on a number of points.

If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to
good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard
the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would produce
significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T.

Mr. Winer's prejudices are obvious -- he works for a company that makes
acoustic-treatment devices.

The (partial) "truth" about this issue is simply that changing a component
is likely to provoke the reaction that "something" about the sound has
changed.

[Ethan Winer]

Brian Running:

Seems to me that the acoustic effects you describe would lead to worse
sound just as often as it would lead to improved sound, wouldn't it?

Sure!

Any changes they perceive always lead to "dramatically" improved sound,
and never dramatically-worse sound.

I was NOT attempting to explain every audiophile experience, and the very
first point I made was about the placebo effect and expectation. The purpose
of my article is to point out that not all reports of "unmeasurable
differences" are necessarily imagined.

that "audiophiles" always perceive the changes as "dramatic" improvements
is all in their heads, not in the physical, acoustic effects.

I agree 100 percent. It's especially silly with blatant snake oil, such as
the recent review I saw of a CD "demagnetizer."

Chevdo:

Delusion is clearly a major component in this phenomena, and it is
conspicuous by its absence in Ethan's essay.

That was the very first point I made!

Of course sound is going to change if the listening position is changed by
four inches like in your graph.

Yes, but I'll venture 99.9 percent of folks don't realize this at all, let
alone understand how huge the change can be. Especially in an untreated
room.

I suspect you got your inspiration for that article from reading my post

Sorry, no. That's an old point anyway. I don't even know which post you
mean. This article has been "in the works" for more than a year.

Paul Stamler:

What about differences people hear when changing something in the audio
path and monitoring on headphones?

Excellent point. Again, I'm not saying *nothing* other than comb filtering
ever makes a difference! Just trying to identify what seems to be the main
cause when otherwise credible people claim to hear things that defies
measurement. Or when a difference can be measured, but is so low (-100 dB
etc) that it's not a plausible explanation.

William Sommerwerck:

If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims

It is! Those are real measurements made with proper equipment. As I
explained, that room was untreated. Audio pros like many of us here listen
in rooms with treatment at the first reflection points, so the changes over
distance are much less but still present to some degree. However, the vast
majority of people, even many who consider themselves to be serious
audiophiles, have no acoustic treatment at all. So for them the sort of
changes over distance I measured are realistic.

Mr. Winer's prejudices are obvious -- he works for a company that makes
acoustic-treatment devices.

That was not my motivation at all, and is one reason I put it on my personal
web site. I sell acoustic treatment because I truly believe in it, not the
other way around!

--Ethan

[Jay Kadis]

In article 6rpUg.38564$Lb5.12406@edtnps89,
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote:

I have often listened to the same mix and loved it one day and
hated it the next in the same listening environment.



Shhhhh! Don't let David Correia hear you say that! I mentioned the
same thing once, and David responded with "Well, I'll let the secret
outta the bag: You either got it or you don't. It really is about the
sonic sensibilities of the engineer." Apparently he feels that there
is a level of skill at which this will no longer occur.

Given his remarks to Mike regarding drum miking, I guess he's achieved
that level.

That's OK, it hasn't happened lately.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[cporro]

slightly tangential.... does anyone know of a good psycho acoustics
book or CD? when i took my protools training i remember my teacher
talking about the concept and being fascinated. but when i looked
around the Internet i couldn't find much.

i'm looking for something more recording engineer oriented then
academic. i'd want to apply some of the ideas to what i'm doing rather
then just absorb information.

thanks.

[studiorat]

Excellent article...
And I must say that is the biggest cat I've ever seen!!!!

[Powell]

"Ethan Winer" wrote

I agree 100 percent. It's especially silly with
blatant snake oil, such as the recent review I
saw of a CD "demagnetizer."

That's old news. The new news are LP demagnetizes
like the Furutech De Mag ($1,800) and Acoustic
Revive ($2,995)... Stereophile recommended.
Seems that the dye infused into clear PVC to make
records black contains metallic (magnetizable)
contaminants which interfere with the cartridge's
motor, believe-it-or-not.

[David Grant]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Mr. Winer is incorrect on a number of points.

If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to
good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard
the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would
produce
significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T.

Your aural perception and Ethan's data don't agree. This hardly makes ethan
"incorrect"; for example, the conscious mind could have evolved to not
notice any such spectral changes, and it's only when coupled with
psychological factors that this change leads to perceived improvement. Or
perhaps it's due to the "averaging" effect stereo hearing has which he
mentioned. Or perhaps something else.


Mr. Winer's prejudices are obvious -- he works for a company that makes
acoustic-treatment devices.

This arouses suspicion and encourages checking of results (someone should
repeat the experiment and check results). This fact alone however doesn't
necessitate that he's twisting the truth. I don't think it discredits him in
any way - unless of course the data is fabricated. I'd certainly publish any
such findings if I were in his business. Not all marketing is evil - just
the dishonest kind.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[hank alrich]

Walt wrote:

Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe
that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences
can do funny things.

What pickups have that output impedance?

--
ha

[hank alrich]

rsmith wrote:

Preben Friis wrote:
"David Grant" wrote

Spending 15 minutes tweaking the EQ settings on an instrument, one can
fool himself into thinking he's made an improvement; hitting the bypass
button a few times often reveals this false perception.

.... especially if you realise that it was on bypass while you spent those
15 minutes

/Preben Friis

Or tweaking a channel on the mix board, everyone agrees they heard an
improvement, only to find it was an unused channel when marking the
recall sheets. I've had this happen a few times.

Now, how to charge extra for that...

g

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

Jay Kadis wrote:

I have often listened to the same mix and loved it one day and
hated it the next in the same listening environment.



Shhhhh! Don't let David Correia hear you say that! I mentioned the
same thing once, and David responded with "Well, I'll let the secret
outta the bag: You either got it or you don't. It really is about the
sonic sensibilities of the engineer." Apparently he feels that there
is a level of skill at which this will no longer occur.

Given his remarks to Mike regarding drum miking, I guess he's achieved
that level.

I think David has the unusual (for many RAPsters) opportunity to work
everyday in a facility that is purposed at music recording, that has
been developed over several ownerships, and hence is refined in detailed
ways that many of our own setups are not. That can bring stability and
fluidity to many aspects of the process., resulting in more consistent
mixes.

Just a thought.

--
ha

[hank alrich]

Paul Stamler wrote:

"Ethan Winer" wrote in message...
and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

What about differences people hear when changing something in the audio path
and monitoring on headphones?

That depends upon with what their intra-aural spacer is stuffed.

--
ha

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...

Mr. Winer is incorrect on a number of points.

If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to
good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard
the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would produce
significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T.

It does in my world. I wouldn't be compelled to move my head around to hear
different things when checking my mixes if it didn't.

[Chevdo]

In article ,
says...



Your aural perception and Ethan's data don't agree. This hardly makes ethan
"incorrect";

Actually Ethan provided data for four inches of positional difference, not for
less than an inch of positional difference from head placement. That's why I
found it unusual that he didn't provide data to bolster the crux of his
argument, instead he provided data that indicated that the data that may
bolster his argument would be worth looking at to see if it does bolster his
argument, if we had that data to examine...

[Chevdo]

In article ,
ethanwatethanwinerdotcom says...


What about differences people hear when changing something in the audio
path and monitoring on headphones?

Excellent point.

It is a good point, but there is still comb filtering occuring from the shape
of the pinna, which differs in shape and dimension in different people, as well
as ear canal length and diameter, which also differs considerably between
different people. I simply don't hear the same as you do, and depending on how
different our pinnas and ear canals are, that difference may be greater or
lesser. I suspect the ossciles, drum, cochlea and even configuration of the
auditory nerve probably differs among people, as well. Technically, our
'hearing print' is as unique to each of us as our finger prints.

[Chevdo]

In article VyDUg.46708$bf5.39295@edtnps90, says...

In article ,
ethanwatethanwinerdotcom says...


What about differences people hear when changing something in the audio
path and monitoring on headphones?

Excellent point.

It is a good point, but there is still comb filtering occuring from the shape
of the pinna, which differs in shape and dimension in different people, as
well
as ear canal length and diameter, which also differs considerably between
different people. I simply don't hear the same as you do, and depending on
how
different our pinnas and ear canals are, that difference may be greater or
lesser. I suspect the ossciles, drum, cochlea and even configuration of the
auditory nerve probably differs among people, as well. Technically, our
'hearing print' is as unique to each of us as our finger prints.





I also forgot to mention that the age of the ears differentiates between their
action, as well. And I think it's fairly well established that this influences
genre preference - older people tend to prefer softer sounds of jazz or easy
listening, while younger people prefer harsher sounds of rock or techno.
Perhaps differences in pinna, canal, and the rest of the components of the ear
also contribute to people's individual tastes in music genre preference, which
would explain preferences for sub-genres. For example, two people might be
into hip-hop for cultural reasons, but one of them prefers a harder hip-hop
sound, while another prefers a jazzier hip-hop sound. Who knows, maybe a
shorter or longer, wider or narrower ear canal makes one more inclined to
prefer slight differences in the frequency content and arrangement formulas in
various sub-genres.

[William Sommerwerck]

The fundamental problem with Ethan Winer's "explanation" is that it assumes
not only that huge differences in tonal balance are produced by minor head
movements, but that listeners make such minor movements during audition.

This simply isn't true. People tend to sit where they're comfortable; I'd be
willing to bet that most listeners can stand up, then sit down again
multiple times, and the total peak-to-peak variation in the positions of
their ears will be 1" -- probably less

[William Sommerwerck]

What about differences people hear when changing something in the audio
path and monitoring on headphones?

Excellent point.

It is a good point, but there is still comb filtering occuring from the
shape
of the pinna, which differs in shape and dimension in different people, as
well
as ear canal length and diameter, which also differs considerably between
different people. I simply don't hear the same as you do, and depending
on how
different our pinnas and ear canals are, that difference may be greater or
lesser. I suspect the ossciles, drum, cochlea and even configuration of
the
auditory nerve probably differs among people, as well. Technically, our
'hearing print' is as unique to each of us as our finger prints.

But that's not what he said. Read the original post.

[[email protected]]

One factor that would need to be examined in this study, is the
affect of there being two ears and thus two very different sound
sources being mixed. Obviously, the brain is doing some seriously
complex stuff to deal with the "comb filter" differences described
in the paper (not to mention interpreting the differences between ears
as a stereo spatial image). How to reconcile the two different
waveforms into a single mix, in this hypotesis/context, would be tricky.

Unless of course the person evaluating the stereo systems has only one ear,
in which case the hypothesis might be plausible as is.

[Skler]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
and I explain it here in detail:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html



Nice little web site.

I remember decades ago when I first read about comb filtering and after
having an increased awareness of the effect, realizing that it was a really
huge factor and so common. The next stage for me was when I saw it measured
and displayed on the earliest model of the Crown TEF analyzer. Now, FFT
software is very affordable so the ability to measure and display acoustical
effects such as comb filtering is within reach of practically anyone who's
interested. The amazing thing is how much time and effort is spent on very
subtleties occurring in the signal chain, when transducers and acoustical
effects are so much bigger. Acoustics is the big deal to me, because I
sometimes deal with sound reinforcement at work and there are so many things
working against you when you're trying to get intelligibility and some
decent sounding rendition of pre-recorded stuff. Some folks will spend a
zillion bucks on a sound system and then totally cut the budget for acoustic
treatment of a big venue. Interesting...

Skler

[David Grant]

Actually Ethan provided data for four inches of positional difference, not
for
less than an inch of positional difference from head placement.

Four inches seems reasonable in a good number of situations (maybe not all)

I dunno about you but even sitting here typing right now my head moves a few
inches here and there - I feel pretty stiff and uncomfortable if I don't
shift around a bit. If you're imagining me passionately swaying my head like
Keith Jarrett as I type, stop it. My point is I'd have to make a special
effort to stay within a 4-inch window while listening - but maybe I'm just
fidgety.

1 inch or less would put the issue to rest, however... Ethan?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com