On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:04:46 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):
On Sep 17, 3:18=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:58:09 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):
. . .
=A0 =A0 =A0References, please. I strongly suspect that you are inventin=
g
=A0these studies :-) But of course it is just my private opinion.
Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a number of tests
during the 1930's of these phenomenon, and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did so=
me
in the 1940's and seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer ofCBSLabs
did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in audio A LONG TIM=
E
and have read thousands of articles on this and other subjects. But the
biggest ally for my assertion is common sense. If something sounds distor=
ted,
or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could be subliminal) =
he
or she is not going to listen to it for long. Of course, gross distortion=
s
will get an immediate reaction and people will stop listening, but more
subtle forms of distortion may not drive the listener away immediately, b=
ut
could do so over a long listening session.
Exactly what I expected - "somebody, somewhere in 30's and 50's"
did research on the subject. Never mind that it was a completely
different landscape in music's recording and reproduction.
You mentioned "numerous scientific studies", I am still waiting
one or more direct references.
One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to say:
"For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One of the main one=
s is
CD Red Book quality audio which has less low level information than all b=
ut
the worst analog recordings, if that. Meaning there is just less involvem=
ent
possible with the music, so the recording flaws stand out more. I was
semi-enthusiastic about SACD and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving t=
he
low level resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book, but it
appears they are going by the wayside."
Sounds like one of those misguided vinyl lovers who never heard
about dithering. I am surprised he did not use step-sound-wave as an
argument :-)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...uses-listening...
14.html
Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.
Just a cursory search onGooglefound this description on Wikipedia:
"Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted noises and focus=
es
on the wanted ones. When listening to music for example, the speakers may
give off an unwanted hissing noise that the person has to focus out, caus=
ing
"Listener Fatigue".
This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological perception of soun=
d,
adding time-variance effects.
This subject is not well covered on the internet because most of these
research papers haven't been posted.
So we don't know what they researched and what results they got.
They just used term "fatigue" and, probably, in their own way.
However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses the subject and t=
he
seminal work by Read and Welch, "From Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listene=
r
fatigue modeling done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
tended to show that some types of distortion cause greater listening fati=
gue
than do others.
1933? :-) And still no exact reference.
You want the page numbers from the books I referenced?
For Instance, =A0Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well
tolerated than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records and rad=
io
reception, but that intermodulation distortion was poorly tolerated where=
ver
it occurred and very small measured amounts is clearly audible.
If you want to look for more and better cites, than I provided, be my gue=
st,
but be advised that this information is thin on the ground.
References, please, if you have any.
I gave them to you; Howard Tremaine, and Read and Welch. If you mean web
references, you are making the common mistake of many in assuming that the
sum total of man's knowledge is available on the web and can be found simply
by Googling. I assure you this is not the case.
=A0My only real assertion here is that distortion on some level and of so=
me
kinds cause listener fatigue. This is well known. CDs have LESS distortio=
n
than analog sources and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue. Tha=
t it
does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend to understand. =
I
don't think anybody does. =A0
I did offer you my explanation, did not I? I just believe (from my
own experience) that well recoded music causes more emotional response
and more "fatigue" in the listener (me). That is all.
I don't think that follows. less distortion should result in LESS listening
fatigue.
I agree with you that distortions can cause stress and fatigue.
Strangely most of distortions inherent in LP technology do not fall
into this category :-)
It's certainly possible. I don't pretend to know.
I suspect that your real agenda is to rehash old "fatigue"
argument proving superiority of LP vs. CD. That is it, I am out of
this thread.
I don't have any agenda. I merely noted that I find that I can turn listening
to one record into a whole night of vinyl listening sessions and that CDs
never pull me in like that.
Since I started this thread, I have had more respondents coming down on my
side of the fence than have come down on yours. That doesn't really mean
much, but what it does show is that my experience is not an isolated case.
Given the number of people who respond on this NG, I'd say that the
phenomenon is more common than not.