'listening Fatigue'

Topic: 'listening Fatigue' (Read 31853 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

'listening Fatigue'

Reply #75 – 2003-02-24 17:47:25

about the fatique: It is very very hard to scientifically investigate it, because the effect is known to be weak, if it even exists, and its difficult to measure. I could design an experiment, but i'm sure it has to have a few hundred participants at least, take alot of time - so it whould be very costly. And what are the profits??? As long as there is some theoretical gain, you might find an psychology-student interested, and an university willing to pay, but I dont see an connection to any theory... so it has to be practical, and again - I'm afraid you whouldnt find someone willing to pay.

I think the main problem is that you can't measure with in direct consious way (e.g. "do you experience listening fatique") because I dont think you can find much ppl who can distinquish listening fatique from having had a bad night.
another problem is that the experiment has to have an "within subject" design. this means that the effect must be measured within 1 person, so that one person has to be measured alot.

Lets think of an (possible) experiment:
At first, select some ppl who can listen music for a long time. Then let them listen their fav music a dozen of times UNTIL THEY GET BORED. Thats all. But: you have to have the variable compression, with which I mean there has to be music compression in some of the samples. Then you might measure wheter they were bored faster when listening to compressed music, or not.

BUT:
-first verify wheter they can CONSIOUSLY hear differences, e.g. ABX the music first!!! Also ask them reguarly wheter they know they listen to the compressed music or not, or, better, dont tell them about compression - just ask wheter they hear any difference.
-ALL sideeffects, like time of the day, time the stereo has been playing, effect of medium (dont use original CD's AND CD'r, but only CD'r, for example), how much sleep they had, etc etc etc etc etc - they must all be accounted for, be recorded, being measured, and probably corrected for. Because maybe you dont measure listening fatique / effect of compression, but something totally unrelated (like ppl like listening to CDR less than listening to original, so they get bored faster etc).
- i't ll take time: how long can you listen (REALLY LISTEN) music without getting bored???
-and, cuz I dont think the effect is big, it'll take a lot of participants to measure it for sure.

so it'll kost a lot of money. but it IS possible, although (filosofie of science again) its harder to prove than to disprove (no outcome from the experiment? something might gone wrong....)

'listening Fatigue'

Reply #76 – 2003-02-25 12:26:10

There are people that love and use analog devices for record, processing, playback. ONLY.
At the other side - people, loving n using digital - hard/soft - for the same purposes.
And when any of them says that "sound differs" - he is actually right. It cannot be said that digital sound is better then analog (i mean HiFi, of course), or vice versa. They just differ.
It seems to me that the same situation is going up now - between digital formats.(!!!) They again say (like some time ago about digital) - "it's brighter then it should be" and etc.
And, yes, analog sound is really smoother then digital, but i have no problems in using lossy codecs, actually OGG.
But - maybe ogg - the digital audio lossy codec of the next generation - "kills the soul" of music more intensive?

'listening Fatigue'

Reply #77 – 2003-02-25 13:09:20

Quote

It cannot be said that digital sound is better then analog (i mean HiFi, of course), or vice versa. They just differ.

Objectively, good digital rec/play is better (higher resolution, accuracy, fidelity, whatever) than good analog rec/play, and there's no turn around.

'listening Fatigue'

Reply #78 – 2003-02-26 10:27:46

Quote

Quote
It cannot be said that digital sound is better then analog (i mean HiFi, of course), or vice versa. They just differ.

Objectively, good digital rec/play is better (higher resolution, accuracy, fidelity, whatever) than good analog rec/play, and there's no turn around.

It is more convinient and faster to reach, NOT sure that better. Some analog freaks do the hells job and there is a noticable result.

'listening Fatigue'

Reply #79 – 2003-02-26 13:06:03

Whilst I am a scientist at heart, it's the contradictions that interest me most!

For example, I can heartily agree with everything people say about turning off CDs because I'm bored, but having to wrench myself away from LPs because I have to go and do something else.

And the thing is, sometimes, I can hear that the CD sounds better! Or to put it another way, I can hear the background noise on the LP between tracks, and I can hear the tracking distortion near the end (on old, worn LPs). The latter I don't like - the former doesn't worry me. With both inaudible, at least at home, the CD and LP could sound identical. But I prefer the LP. I also quite like the LP copied onto CD, but not as much.

Thinking about all this, it's clear to me that
a) I like actually putting the needle into the groove and watching the LP go round
B) I like the background noise on the LP. And don't realy mind the distortion
c) with no background noise, no sense of occasion, no great input from me to get the thing started, and nothing to look at when it's playing, CDs are boring!

The background noise issue is an interesting case of psychoacoustics, and auditory streaming. If you take a signal, and add noise, sometimes it sounds better (apart from the noise, of course!).

That's because your ear/brain tries to separate the signal and noise into two auditory stream. But it takes any parts within the noise that it thinks should be in the signal, and chucks them into the internal "signal" stream, and leaves the rest in the "noise" stream. So, with noise in the background, your brain can grab any part of it, and add it to the signal to make the "perfect" signal - what it thinks the signal SHOULD sound like. This auditory streaming is all subconscious - you can only perceived the "streams" after they've been streamed. There's still a noise stream in your head for you to concentrate on if you want, but most people choose to ignore this.

Now, in a system with no background noise, you've just got the signal. If it doesn't quite sound how your brain expects, well, it lets you know - consciously.

So, that's a plausable explanation, based on known psychoacoustics, as to why noisy signals (e.g. LPs) can sound better than clean ones (e.g. CDs). You can re-create the effect with Cool Edit. Gently low pass filter a signal. Listen to it. Add some white noise. Listen to it again - do any of the (absent) high frequency sounds come back at all?

As for the other effects (a and c in the list) - I'm just weird! I need no explanation beyond that! ;-)

Cheers,
David.

'listening Fatigue'

Reply #80 – 2003-02-27 15:19:58

Quote

Quote
It cannot be said that digital sound is better then analog (i mean HiFi, of course), or vice versa. They just differ.

Objectively, good digital rec/play is better (higher resolution, accuracy, fidelity, whatever) than good analog rec/play, and there's no turn around.

I'd propose the exact opposite: Objectively, "Good" analog rec/play is better (resolution and phase-accuracy are infinite, non-quantized dynamics, etc) !

Maybe it's just me, but one thing that bothers me from digital recordings (not just lossy codec, but also 'straight' digital) is the 'quantized' nature of the sound. It almost feels like I keep hearing those 44.100 steps/second (even though they're filtered, oversampled etc); not as a very apparent fenomenon, but rather as some kind of quartz-locked "mantra" that keeps me locked as well, somehow....
(BTW It's not my crappy A/D/A stage that's causing this feeling; My studio is my living room as well, and monitoring is done through 24 bit external ADAT lightpipe D/A convertors, using Marantz-amplified Spirit monitors and active Philips MFB speakers, modified for linear response)

I'm experiencing the same phenomenon as 2Bdecided: I can listen to vinyl forever!

I personally think it has something to do with the phase-accuracy being infinite, even on "bad" (in the sense of dynamics, noise-floor etc) analogue recordings.
[edit] I thing 'phase-continuity' better describes what I mean [/edit]

Somehow phase-related: I've done a test with a pair of PZM-microphones out of the window, registering street noises in stereo: 44.1 kHz monitoring sounds realistic, 96 kHz and even 48 kHz make it almost real, but then analogue monitoring and I can see the birds hopping on their branch with my eyes closed. It's like the windows is behind my monitor speakers.... The 'analogue' stereo IS just plain better, I can ABX it 100/100 I guess!

About the noise on analogue records: I rarely find this disturbing my listening experience. And as 2Bdecided states: it's often almost like it adds to the realism!
I was thinking about the parallel to dithering a 32-bit or 24bit-recording down to 16-bit for reproductional purposes: the noise added by the algorythm increases the perceived bit-depth, so a signal that is theoretically up to 3 bits below the .5bit dithering-noise level become apparent!
Maybe the (non-quantized) analogue noise on vinyl records works as dither of some kind?....

OK I've done enough ranting for today....

'listening Fatigue'

Reply #81 – 2003-02-28 11:16:14

SenatR The Last, ernest@:

What I say is objectively true: that doesn't mean that analog sounds better to you for whatever reasons (some of them psychoacoustical, as the ones that 2bdecided points out, some of them just purely psychological).

Just compare specs of a pro analog recorder and pro digital recorder: the digital recorder will win everywhere: dynamic range, distortion both at high and low levels, frequency response accuracy, phase accuracy, jitter of the digital vs. wow and flutter of analog, etc.

In fact any inexpensive semi-pro 24/96 card is already better in these terms than the best analog pro recorder.

ernest@: about the 'quantized' nature of the sound at digital, once it gets out of a good DAC, there will be no traces of its quantized nature, since quantization error won't exist thanks to the use of dither, and the time-step nature of digital dissapears after oversampling and analog filtering: you get a near-perfect, smooth analog wave, limited in frequency depending on the sampling rate (nearly fs/2), and in noise floor depending on bit depth (SNR approx. = 6.02 *nº. bits) and analog constraints of real-wold electronics.

About the relationship of analog noise with dither that you suggest: the phenomena explained by 2bdecided is just a psychoacoustical phenomena, from a strict signal point of view (that means, out of our ears/brain) it is not related to dither. Dither has only sense on digital audio, it is used to randomize and in fact convert quantization distortion into noise, avoiding this distortion.

Notice