Psychoacoustics and hearing

[Ukko Kari]

This subject was touched on in the last thread on instantaneous loudness, where the topic moved to perception of sound, and some good discussion resulted.

 

MFD_SR.pdf

[Kvalsvoll]

I get "server not found", and, of course - that's because I have amazonaws blocked in the firewall.

Does this document have a name, perhaps I can find it elsewere?

[Ukko Kari]

Try searching for "Audio Specifications and Human Hearing" by Mark F. Davis

May 1982 Stereo Review Magazine.

[Kvalsvoll]

Perhaps you could quote some of the content from this article, just to get the discussion going.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

I read through this article from 1982, and find that it largely covers what we know today about hearing, all was known back then.

There are some things left out, such as the fact we can hear well below 20hz, and perception also depends on tactile information from skin and body resonances.

The article concludes - "Future" - that performance of sound reproduction systems matches our hearing performance quite well, though improvements can be done, and that the big remaining challenges are related to acoustics and localization.

The technical limitations of 1982's equipment has now been overcome - we have can have full dynamic range, no audible distortion, no noise. Back then, there were very real audible differences between amplifiers, tape machines, vinyl playback. Those differences live on in our day in the high-end world, but they are no longer part of psychoacoustics, it is pure psychology.

Recent advancements in audio reproduction has been seen particularly in the reproduction of lower frequencies - full range systems with response well below 20hz, and full dynamic range exceeding 120dB, with awareness to tactile sensory effects. A big, capable bass system really makes a difference.

Awareness and knowledge about acoustics has improved how well a 3D-rendering of an event can be reproduced faithfully and realistic. But here, we still have to choose what we can have. It has yet not been achieved to be able to reproduce an event so that it sounds realistic with correct rendering of scene and room from the recording, when you move around in the listening room. With directive patterns and early reflections removed it all falls apart when you move away from the sweetspot, or if you choose wide radiation in a lively room the whole scene is diffuse and does not render each object precisely regardless of position.

[SME]

Can you post a link to the article?  I could not find it on Google, and the above link does not work for me either.

[Ukko Kari]

First page.

 

[Ukko Kari]

Second page.

[Ukko Kari]

Third page.

[Ukko Kari]

Fourth page.

[Ukko Kari]

Last page.

[Ukko Kari]

5 hours ago, Kvalsvoll said:

I read through this article from 1982, and find that it largely covers what we know today about hearing, all was known back then.

There are some things left out, such as the fact we can hear well below 20hz, and perception also depends on tactile information from skin and body resonances.

The article concludes - "Future" - that performance of sound reproduction systems matches our hearing performance quite well, though improvements can be done, and that the big remaining challenges are related to acoustics and localization.

The technical limitations of 1982's equipment has now been overcome - we have can have full dynamic range, no audible distortion, no noise. Back then, there were very real audible differences between amplifiers, tape machines, vinyl playback. Those differences live on in our day in the high-end world, but they are no longer part of psychoacoustics, it is pure psychology.

Recent advancements in audio reproduction has been seen particularly in the reproduction of lower frequencies - full range systems with response well below 20hz, and full dynamic range exceeding 120dB, with awareness to tactile sensory effects. A big, capable bass system really makes a difference.

Awareness and knowledge about acoustics has improved how well a 3D-rendering of an event can be reproduced faithfully and realistic. But here, we still have to choose what we can have. It has yet not been achieved to be able to reproduce an event so that it sounds realistic with correct rendering of scene and room from the recording, when you move around in the listening room. With directive patterns and early reflections removed it all falls apart when you move away from the sweetspot, or if you choose wide radiation in a lively room the whole scene is diffuse and does not render each object precisely regardless of position.

Agreed, humans can hear below 20 hz, but that also requires high sound pressure levels, and can be masked by higher frequency content reproduced at the same time.

Agreed, this article was put forth prior to the birth of the compact disc, DVD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-ray, etc, when only tape, vinyl and shellac were the playback mediums.

[dbi]

On 9/6/2017 at 3:03 AM, Kvalsvoll said:

I read through this article from 1982, and find that it largely covers what we know today about hearing, all was known back then.

There are some things left out, such as the fact we can hear well below 20hz, and perception also depends on tactile information from skin and body resonances.

The article concludes - "Future" - that performance of sound reproduction systems matches our hearing performance quite well, though improvements can be done, and that the big remaining challenges are related to acoustics and localization.

The technical limitations of 1982's equipment has now been overcome - we have can have full dynamic range, no audible distortion, no noise. Back then, there were very real audible differences between amplifiers, tape machines, vinyl playback. Those differences live on in our day in the high-end world, but they are no longer part of psychoacoustics, it is pure psychology.

Recent advancements in audio reproduction has been seen particularly in the reproduction of lower frequencies - full range systems with response well below 20hz, and full dynamic range exceeding 120dB, with awareness to tactile sensory effects. A big, capable bass system really makes a difference.

Awareness and knowledge about acoustics has improved how well a 3D-rendering of an event can be reproduced faithfully and realistic. But here, we still have to choose what we can have. It has yet not been achieved to be able to reproduce an event so that it sounds realistic with correct rendering of scene and room from the recording, when you move around in the listening room. With directive patterns and early reflections removed it all falls apart when you move away from the sweetspot, or if you choose wide radiation in a lively room the whole scene is diffuse and does not render each object precisely regardless of position.

how about octahedron speaker,,can that locate every instrument separately?