IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
"WMA has a richer, warmer sound", A test
tigre
post Sep 4 2003, 00:26
Post #1


Moderator


Group: Members
Posts: 1434
Joined: 26-November 02
Member No.: 3890



QUOTE
I especially find that WMA has a richer, warmer sound than MP3 (yes, even LAME APS MP3s), although WMA chokes on some of the high notes, (the sssss's slur and guitar solos can be watery). WMA has rich, full bass.


That post in http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....pic=12436&st=0& made me curious and as I don't want to add another off-topic post I start a new thread here.

*** Mod's/Admins - feel free to move the other WMA-related posts here (and edit the title if necessary) ***


1st thing I've been curious about: Are rumours like "WMA encodes louder than original" (see Chrisgeleven's 1st post in the other thread) or similar which could be a reason for sound perceived as "richer" or "warmer" true?

Test:

I encoded a track ripped from CD (Omara Portuondo - Quizas, Quizas, Quizas) with CEP2.1 to WMA 9 128kbps CBR and WMA 9 pro VBR 75 (closest to 128kbps) and had a look at CEP's statistics and frequency analysis:

Statistics:
CODE
Uncompressed

    Left    Right
Min Sample Value:    -32393    -32393
Max Sample Value:    32392    32392
Peak Amplitude:    -.1 dB    -.1 dB
Possibly Clipped:    0    0
DC Offset:    -.008  -.007
Minimum RMS Power:    -82.9 dB    -83.94 dB
Maximum RMS Power:    -7.93 dB    -6.43 dB
Average RMS Power:    -16.89 dB    -16.95 dB
Total RMS Power:    -15.98 dB    -15.97 dB
Actual Bit Depth:    16 Bits    16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms


WMA 9 CBR 128 CEP2.1

    Left    Right
Min Sample Value:    -32768    -32768
Max Sample Value:    32767    32767
Peak Amplitude:    0 dB    0 dB
Possibly Clipped:    20    114
DC Offset:    -.006  -.006
Minimum RMS Power:    -85.96 dB    -85.88 dB
Maximum RMS Power:    -7.95 dB    -6.44 dB
Average RMS Power:    -16.88 dB    -16.93 dB
Total RMS Power:    -15.97 dB    -15.95 dB
Actual Bit Depth:    16 Bits    16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms


WMA 9 pro VBR 75 CEP2.1

    Left    Right
Min Sample Value:    -32768    -32768
Max Sample Value:    32767    32767
Peak Amplitude:    0 dB    0 dB
Possibly Clipped:    29    146
DC Offset:    -.01  -.008
Minimum RMS Power:    -82.55 dB    -82.75 dB
Maximum RMS Power:    -7.95 dB    -6.44 dB
Average RMS Power:    -16.87 dB    -16.93 dB
Total RMS Power:    -15.96 dB    -15.95 dB
Actual Bit Depth:    16 Bits    16 Bits

Using RMS Window of 50 ms


Result: WMA isn't louder - it's slightly quieter (but the difference is way too small to be noticable)


2nd question: Does WMA "equalize" (i.e. change the relative volume of certain frequency bands)?

Test:

I took the files from above and Musepac 1.15r --standard --xlevel as reference and let CEP2.1 perform a frequency analysis. Then I copied the results to Exel and summarized the values to 1/2 octave bands: (CBR: WMA9 128kbps CBR; VBR: WMA9Pro VBR Q75)

CODE
    Band   Original     CBR     VBR     MPC   (all in dB)
 
- 00022 Hz   -64.35  -61.60  -61.30  -63.82
- 00030 Hz   -51.34  -51.20  -51.13  -51.35
- 00043 Hz   -49.23  -49.14  -49.11  -49.23
- 00061 Hz   -37.63  -37.62  -37.62  -37.63
- 00086 Hz   -30.10  -30.10  -30.11  -30.10
- 00122 Hz   -31.73  -31.72  -31.73  -31.73
- 00172 Hz   -37.96  -37.95  -37.95  -37.96
- 00244 Hz   -34.22  -34.22  -34.21  -34.22
- 00345 Hz   -30.85  -30.84  -30.84  -30.85
- 00487 Hz   -34.32  -34.31  -34.31  -34.32
- 00689 Hz   -34.34  -34.33  -34.34  -34.34    
- 00974 Hz   -36.43  -36.42  -36.42  -36.43
- 01378 Hz   -39.59  -39.57  -39.56  -39.58
- 01949 Hz   -43.41  -43.33  -43.33  -43.40
- 02756 Hz   -49.36  -49.25  -49.22  -49.34
- 03898 Hz   -53.11  -52.97  -52.93  -53.10
- 05513 Hz   -58.21  -58.00  -57.97  -58.20
- 07796 Hz   -59.70  -59.48  -59.44  -59.71
- 11025 Hz   -61.85  -61.60  -61.58  -61.83
- 15591 Hz   -66.90  -66.57  -66.54  -66.87
- 22050 Hz   -76.98 -102.45  -92.81  -95.46


Results/Conclusions:

Between 50 and 1000 Hz the difference is >= 0.01dB for both WMA samples and MPC.
Below 50 Hz WMA starts to become louder with arround 3dB difference for frequencies > 22Hz. MPC is only 0.53dB louder < 22Hz.
Between 1378Hz and 15591 Hz WMA starts to become louder again with a maximum at the 11025-15591Hz band: CBR + 0.33dB, VBR + 0.36dB (MPC +0.03dB). The average for 1949-15591Hz band is: CBR + 0.21dB; VBR + 0.24dB; MPC + 0.01dB.
Having a look at the highest band (15591-22050Hz) doesn't make much sense here because the codecs' lowpasses kick in here.

From these measurements it seems like WMA amplifies very low and high frequencies.
Frequencies < 22Hz can't be played back properly with most equipment and don't occur that frequently in music that they could lead to a general change in sound.
About 2000Hz+ frequencies: AFAIK an overall volume change of 0.2-0.4dB can't be noticed/ABXed, but I have no idea about changing only a part of the spectrum. Anyone?
I think most likely the richer/warmer sound is immagination, but as we know how WMA equalizes the music encoded, this could be simulated using FFT filters/equalizers and ABXed. Volunteers?

edited: clarification, typos

This post has been edited by tigre: Sep 4 2003, 00:31


--------------------
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Sep 4 2003, 01:14
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



Just a 2c opinion -- often, "richer, warmer" is descriptive of distortion rather than frequency balance. I have a theory that once lossy artifacts become unnoticeable/unABXable (at least with short time intervals), it's possible they can still be perceived "subconsciously" as an overall effect on SQ.

So anyway... perhaps there is something to claims like "this codec sounds warmer" or "that codec sounds thinner" (outside of volume and frequency issues) but it would be difficult to prove claims like that.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Sep 4 2003, 01:17


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pio2001
post Sep 4 2003, 04:38
Post #3


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 73



QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 03:14 AM)
I have a theory that once lossy artifacts become unnoticeable/unABXable (at least with short time intervals), it's possible they can still be perceived "subconsciously" as an overall effect on SQ.

So anyway... perhaps there is something to claims like "this codec sounds warmer" or "that codec sounds thinner" (outside of volume and frequency issues) but it would be difficult to prove claims like that.

Why would it be difficult ? If a codec sounds "warmer" or "thinner", why would WinABX remove these feelings ? Do you mean that you'd have to listen to the whole CD for the feeling to appear ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Sep 4 2003, 05:24
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Sep 3 2003, 08:38 PM)
QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 03:14 AM)
I have a theory that once lossy artifacts become unnoticeable/unABXable (at least with short time intervals), it's possible they can still be perceived "subconsciously" as an overall effect on SQ.

So anyway... perhaps there is something to claims like "this codec sounds warmer" or "that codec sounds thinner" (outside of volume and frequency issues) but it would be difficult to prove claims like that.

Why would it be difficult ? If a codec sounds "warmer" or "thinner", why would WinABX remove these feelings ? Do you mean that you'd have to listen to the whole CD for the feeling to appear ?

No... but who knows how long it would take for that feeling to come up, and whether it's possible that concentrating (as is often done with WinABX) would again erase those impressions.

I know that concentrating on the sound of something ('trying to hear a difference') often changes the way it sounds... it happens to me all the time. Listening casually without pressure to choose something over another, an impression or emotion arises by itself. I'm sure it happens to you, too.

Anyway... I just said "perhaps this is true" (postulating, not claiming). I hope this doesn't turn into a stupid objectivist/subjectivist thing many here seem to love to argue about. Admittedly, I'm now standing in the middle of the road rather than holding strictly objectivist beliefs... if it offends anyone, I'll refrain from suggesting things like this. If the forum is completely intolerant of "middle path" audio views, I'll leave.

Apologies to rjamorim for the recent edit.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Sep 4 2003, 05:42


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Sep 4 2003, 05:29
Post #5


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 01:24 AM)
Maybe it's a peculiarity of many HA members that they have no right brain at all... only the left (logical/rational) side, and cerebrospinal fluids filling the area where the right (intuitive/emotional) should be.  biggrin.gif

Makes sense.

Lots of sense, indeed :B

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Sep 4 2003, 05:30


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Sep 4 2003, 06:14
Post #6


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



I think the contradiction here is that if there is enough of a "difference" for someone to clearly label something as "richer" or "warmer", or that it has "firmer bass", or whatever else, that this should definitely show up in an ABX test. If the difference is so subtle that they cannot ABX it at all, then I'd find it very hard to believe that they could even describe whatever it is that they are supposed to be hearing. The fact that they could clearly describe the difference would seem to imply that it is a consciously observable phenomena since it would take a degree of comparison or measurement to come up with an adequate labeling.

QUOTE
I know that concentrating on the sound of something ('trying to hear a difference') often changes the way it sounds... it happens to me all the time.  Listening casually without pressure to choose something over another, an impression or emotion arises by itself.  I'm sure it happens to you, too.


It's not the sound that actually changes, it's only your perception of the sound. Usually I think that when performing these kinds of tests, the reason it may sound different is because you're listening for more detail in the sound than you might otherwise have done. Think of this as a similar effect that you can observe when focusing your vision on a distant object to attempt to view it in more detail -- it changes the way things appear, but it does not change the way they actually are (this can be supported through repeatable tests and measurements of an empirical nature).

I kind of get the impression that you think of this as a degrading process of some sort, which actually decreases sensitivity. I believe this is wrong, and that it is actually a refining process, increasing sensitivity, just without the excess irrelevant information. The point is to eliminate these "feelings" which are not correlated with sound quality itself, but rather with a state of mind or other non-fidelity related matters. These are totally irrelevant to a third party who is interested in determining your level of fidelity perception, or your ability to discern small differences in the absolute makeup of the sound.

So when someone says:

"WMA sounds richer"

We are only interested in the following:

1. What does "richer" mean? How can it be defined in a universally applicable and measureable sense?
2. Can it be shown that you can actually perceive this with any sort of reliability outside of most external influences, or is this simply an artifact of other psychological processes highly influenced by your immediate environment? (For example, you have the "warm fuzzies" because of your new quantum clip and $5000 power cord). Basically, is this even related to the actual sound?
3. Assuming that this is related to the actual sound, is this an attribute common to other peoples systems of perception, or is this unique to your own hearing? If so, why?

At really no point are we interested in the "feeling" itself, or what this means to you on some sort of mystical, spiritual, or other non-scientific level.

QUOTE
Anyway... I just said "perhaps this is true" (postulating, not claiming). I hope this doesn't turn into a stupid objectivist/subjectivist thing many here seem to love to argue about.


Well, you made the statements.... you also made a little joke/insult about the whole right brain thing. Why would want to start a discussion in this vein and then simply end it?

Given the recent onslaught of subjectivist views attempting to infiltrate Hydrogenaudio (people arguing over rule #8 and other established conventions here), I'm put in a situation where I really can't simply ignore these kinds of things.

QUOTE
Admittedly, I'm now standing in the middle of the road rather than holding strictly objectivist beliefs... if it offends anyone, I'll refrain from suggesting things like this. If the forum is completely intolerant of "middle path" audio views, I'll leave.


Maybe you've been spending too much time at head-fi... wink.gif

I don't think anyone is offended, the fact of the matter is simply that the subjectivist views have no place here. These views have done more to harm and hamper progress, and to foster charlatans in the field of audio than anything else. I don't see how they serve any useful purpose in a debate style mode of communication either, since subjectivist claims are only relevant to the person making them and not to any other single person, unless the point itself is to promote unique, creative, and arbitrary forms of interpretation, which is useful for artistic persuits, but not for scientific ones.

You certainly don't have to leave, but you'd need to remember to be respectful to the doctrine of this forum.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Sep 4 2003, 07:50
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (Dibrom @ Sep 3 2003, 10:14 PM)
Maybe you've been spending too much time at head-fi... wink.gif

Maybe. It's been fun, anyway. To me, audio is either a matter of enjoyment, or there are better/more productive things to do. Life is short, and time is limited.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Sep 4 2003, 07:51


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
caiman
post Sep 4 2003, 08:00
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 27-March 03
Member No.: 5700



hi everyone. this post made me think.

is there "one" psychoacoustic?
because, when youre actually abxing samples or songs you are very concentrated in listening, hence your psychoacoustic is changed.
When you just do casual listening youre in another psychoacoustical "state".

Could it be useful for the psychoacoustic models to have that in mind. And does anybody know if our perception is changed (for example different attention to different frequency ranges when not concentrating) by concentrating or "just" listening

my 2cents. dunno if helpful
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Sep 4 2003, 08:06
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (caiman @ Sep 4 2003, 12:00 AM)
hi everyone. this post made me think.

is there "one" psychoacoustic?
because, when youre actually abxing samples or songs you are very concentrated in listening, hence your psychoacoustic is changed.
When you just do casual listening youre in another psychoacoustical "state".

I would agree that such a thing is possible, even likely -- others would feel differently. The conclusion (if any) is really up to you.

This is an area of great interest in quantum physics, in particular -- how the act of observation may change the observed. IMHO, science has been too neglectful about leaving the observer out of the equation.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Sep 4 2003, 08:12


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
caiman
post Sep 4 2003, 08:16
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 27-March 03
Member No.: 5700



as i am working as social worker, we know that just by observating a system (familiy, group, ethnic group and so on) we are changing, because as there is the paradigm of communication: you cannot "not communicate".
that was my food for thought. if maybe our hearing changes significantly and measureable so its of any use for developing and tuning psychoacoustic models.

but as said, im a social worker, no acoustic einstein.

tanx for the work of all the acoustic einsteins by the way...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Patsoe
post Sep 4 2003, 08:18
Post #11





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 591
Joined: 11-February 03
From: UK
Member No.: 4952



Dibrom, I find the word 'doctrine' implies a negative qualification of things. It sounds like there's no freedom of thought allowed or something. Rather, I'd see them as principles. But then, english isn't my native tongue... smile.gif

Now, on topic (has anyone noticed that things went off-topic almost from the second post on?!):

QUOTE (tigre @ Sep 4 2003, 12:26 AM)
From these measurements it seems like WMA amplifies very low and high frequencies.
Frequencies < 22Hz can't be played back properly with most equipment and don't occur that frequently in music that they could lead to a general change in sound.
About 2000Hz+ frequencies: AFAIK an overall volume change of 0.2-0.4dB can't be noticed/ABXed, but I have no idea about changing only a part of the spectrum. Anyone?
I think most likely the richer/warmer sound is immagination, but as we know how WMA equalizes the music encoded, this could be simulated using FFT filters/equalizers and ABXed. Volunteers?


Couldn't it be that the 3dB boost in the deepest lows account for the 'warm' sound? That would explain why we don't all hear it - my speakers don't do 30Hz...

It is very cool to see how mpc is so accurate regarding the levels. I'm only just out of my bed (yes, HA addict), so I didn't think yet about how legitimate this is as a measure of quality. But it's nice smile.gif Thanks for the extensive work Tigre!

Off-topic again: if you say WMP9 Pro, does that mean the 24bit encoder setting? I've been trying to figure out the WM Encoder the other day. As soon as I select 'Professional', all 16bit options are gone.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Patsoe
post Sep 4 2003, 08:22
Post #12





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 591
Joined: 11-February 03
From: UK
Member No.: 4952



QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 08:06 AM)
This is an area of great interest in quantum physics, in particular -- how the act of observation may change the observed.  IMHO, science has been too neglectful about leaving the observer out of the equation.

This has nothing to do with psychoacoustics!!!!! On a macro scale, no observer is going to change the waveforms in the room when he is starting to pay attention to what he hears!

You're being like the philosophers that Feynman rants about in his Lectures on Physics, who use relativity theory in a general non-physical meaning. Edit: http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/vanbaal/r...ative.html#phil - this is it.

This post has been edited by Patsoe: Sep 4 2003, 08:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Sep 4 2003, 08:29
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (Patsoe @ Sep 4 2003, 12:22 AM)
QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 08:06 AM)
This is an area of great interest in quantum physics, in particular -- how the act of observation may change the observed. IMHO, science has been too neglectful about leaving the observer out of the equation.

This has nothing to do with psychoaccoustics!!!!!

Sorry to disagree with you, but the observer is not fundamentally separate from what he/she observes. Look at something, and you are looking at your own perceptions (same with listening).

Aside from matters of social agreement (which objectivists are always accusing subjectivists of!) there's no fundamental way of determining whether a perception is "subjective" or "objective." Really, it is neither.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Sep 4 2003, 08:36


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
caiman
post Sep 4 2003, 08:31
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 27-March 03
Member No.: 5700



@patsoe

not the waveform changes, but how it is perceived. and thats what its all about here, or?

bueno, im not a acoustic physician

so, what thoughts on that exist in this community. there is alot of thought towards transparency. but what happens (and what use could that be of) if the way the receiver/perceiver woks (hence different psychomodel) changes.

This post has been edited by caiman: Sep 4 2003, 08:39
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Patsoe
post Sep 4 2003, 08:36
Post #15





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 591
Joined: 11-February 03
From: UK
Member No.: 4952



QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 08:29 AM)
Sorry to disagree with you, but the observer is not fundamentally separate from what he/she observes.

That isn't what I said (and sorry if I was being rude - I felt you were insulting quantum theory smile.gif). I meant that the coupling of observation and the observed is totally different in quantum physics.

In quantum physics, observation changes the state of the observed.
In psychoacoustic effects, observation changes perception of the observed.

Or something like that smile.gif

Now, let's get back to Tigre's measurements!


Edit:
@caiman: yes, that's all it's about here. So, it has nothing to do with quantum physiscs... and I felt that the whole mentioning of it was trivialising quantum theory.

This post has been edited by Patsoe: Sep 4 2003, 08:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Sep 4 2003, 08:38
Post #16


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (Patsoe @ Sep 4 2003, 12:22 AM)
QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 08:06 AM)
This is an area of great interest in quantum physics, in particular -- how the act of observation may change the observed.  IMHO, science has been too neglectful about leaving the observer out of the equation.

This has nothing to do with psychoaccoustics!!!!!

Sorry to disagree with you, but the observer is not fundamentally separate from what he/she observes.

Aside from matters of social agreement (which objectivists are always accusing subjectivists of!) there's no fundamental way of determining whether a perception is "subjective" or "objective." Really, it is neither.

I'm glad to see you providing some sort of backing to your claims here.....

Seriously, these are the kinds of things that volumes upon volumes of text have been written about by philosophers and physicists alike for literally thousands of years. I fail to see how you can make such sweeping claims as these without providing any support for them (you didn't even provide examples or expand upon the ideas to any sigificant degree) and just expect people to take your word for it...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Sep 4 2003, 08:44
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (Dibrom @ Sep 4 2003, 12:38 AM)
QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (Patsoe @ Sep 4 2003, 12:22 AM)
QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 08:06 AM)
This is an area of great interest in quantum physics, in particular -- how the act of observation may change the observed. IMHO, science has been too neglectful about leaving the observer out of the equation.

This has nothing to do with psychoaccoustics!!!!!

Sorry to disagree with you, but the observer is not fundamentally separate from what he/she observes.

Aside from matters of social agreement (which objectivists are always accusing subjectivists of!) there's no fundamental way of determining whether a perception is "subjective" or "objective." Really, it is neither.

I'm glad to see you providing some sort of backing to your claims here.....

Seriously, these are the kinds of things that volumes upon volumes of text have been written about by philosophers and physicists alike for literally thousands of years. I fail to see how you can make such sweeping claims as these without providing any support for them (you didn't even provide examples or expand upon the ideas to any sigificant degree) and just expect people to take your word for it...

What could I possibly provide -- an ABX test? biggrin.gif

All I can do is invite someone to look into the nature of perception, and of objectivity/subjectivity... same as those philosophers have been doing for thousands of years. What else could anyone do? If one is so inclined, look into it rather than taking things for granted. If you aren't inclined, don't do so. What more is there to say?

P.S. I'm not some kind of radical, for anyone who may be thinking so. For all practical purposes, objective is objective and subjective is subjective. What I'm questioning is the assumed conflict between the two, as if reality were split in half.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Sep 4 2003, 09:00


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
caiman
post Sep 4 2003, 08:45
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 27-March 03
Member No.: 5700



@patsoe

"In psychoacoustic effects, observation changes perception of the observed."

that is my point. but you pinpoint it better. so what happens if the perception of the observed is changing not only for a few people but if its kind of a psychoacoustic rule, which can be useful to save bits.

edit: typo

This post has been edited by caiman: Sep 4 2003, 08:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Patsoe
post Sep 4 2003, 08:45
Post #19





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 591
Joined: 11-February 03
From: UK
Member No.: 4952



This is another topic running out of hand, and in great part it's my fault. I apologize.
Can we all drop the issue and get back to WMA? I promise not to talk about quantum comparisons here any longer...

Restart:
QUOTE (Patsoe @ Sep 4 2003, 08:18 AM)
Couldn't it be that the 3dB boost in the deepest lows account for the 'warm' sound? That would explain why we don't all hear it - my speakers don't do 30Hz...

It is very cool to see how mpc is so accurate regarding the levels. I'm only just out of my bed (yes, HA addict), so I didn't think yet about how legitimate this is as a measure of quality. But it's nice smile.gif Thanks for the extensive work Tigre!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KikeG
post Sep 4 2003, 08:53
Post #20


WinABX developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1578
Joined: 1-October 01
Member No.: 137



QUOTE (caiman @ Sep 4 2003, 08:00 AM)
Could it be useful for the psychoacoustic models to have that in mind. And does anybody know if our perception is changed (for example different attention to different frequency ranges when not concentrating) by concentrating or "just" listening.

I believe (and if I'm not wrong scientific literature agrees) that people used to perfom quick switching, time and level aligned, blind tests with reference (ABX and ABC/HR tests for example), are much more sensitive to detecting subtle differences in those kind of tests, than just when doing casual listening. But it is also true that stress and tireness when performing such a test can lead to poor sensitivity.

On the other side, casual listening is usually not blind, so its results are not reliable at all. When people make sighted A/B tests, they don't complain about having to concentrate, I guess because they feel they are not really at test, they feel "safe" about their perceptions. The problem is that those perceptions can be seriously influenced from other things but the actual sound reaching their ears. For example, some people claim they can hear "glaringly obvious" differences that, when repeated blind, magically dissapear.

For people that have such doubts about ABX tests, casual listening and concentration, maybe you could try a long-term ABX test performed in a more "casual" way of listening, over several days or even weeks. For that, you can use my fileABX utility, that will generate several wav files for performing such a test. If some of you do, please report results here, they would be very interesting.

Edit:
but, in my opinion, those problems have not much to do with different psychoacoustic models depending on the observer "way of listening". I think all you can talk about is a greater or lower sensitiveness, or sighted tests being responsable for unexistant differences. According to James Johnston (JJ), one of the greatest experts in this field, the thresholds of human hearing that have been found according to listening tests, always using DBTs of course, are very similar to the thresholds that could be expected analyzing the physiological working of the ear.

And yes, maybe it's time to move this discussion to a new thread.

Edit: some few additions.

This post has been edited by KikeG: Sep 4 2003, 09:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dibrom
post Sep 4 2003, 09:02
Post #21


Founder


Group: Admin
Posts: 2958
Joined: 26-August 02
From: Nottingham, UK
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 12:44 AM)
What could I possibly provide -- an ABX test?  biggrin.gif

All I can do is invite someone to look into the nature of perception, and of objectivity/subjectivity... same as those philosophers have been doing for thousands of years.  What else could anyone do?  If one is so inclined, look into it rather than taking things for granted.  If you aren't inclined, don't do so.  What more is there to say?

Since I seriously doubt that you are any sort of authority on psychoacoustics, quantum theory, philosophy of science or mind, metaphysics, or epistemology, you could start by providing at least some sort of reference for the basis of your rather "matter of fact" claims, if you expect anyone to consider what you're saying here as meaningful. If you don't care about this though, then I have to question why you're posting in the first place.

If you're just posting here to "bullshit", so to speak, then it is not only out of place, but it is also unwelcome. Myself and the others around here would like to see the discussion on HA stay useful and relevant, and outlandish and unsubstantiated claims made by those who have no interest (on any level) in providing something which can be used by others, do not help this cause. Instead all they end up causing are more flamewars and bitching.

Edit: I find it seriously disturbing that I should be having to explain this sort of basic matter to someone who has over 1000 posts on this board...

This post has been edited by Dibrom: Sep 4 2003, 09:05
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Patsoe
post Sep 4 2003, 09:10
Post #22





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 591
Joined: 11-February 03
From: UK
Member No.: 4952



Dibrom, I understand your anger, but please drop it.

Get some sleep, all you Americans! smile.gif I went to sleep before 1AM last night. I can't remember when I last did that. It should be a HA recommended...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fewtch
post Sep 4 2003, 09:12
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 1460
Joined: 5-February 02
From: Seattle WA. USA
Member No.: 1261



QUOTE (Dibrom @ Sep 4 2003, 01:02 AM)
QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 12:44 AM)
What could I possibly provide -- an ABX test? biggrin.gif

All I can do is invite someone to look into the nature of perception, and of objectivity/subjectivity... same as those philosophers have been doing for thousands of years. What else could anyone do? If one is so inclined, look into it rather than taking things for granted. If you aren't inclined, don't do so. What more is there to say?

Since I seriously doubt that you are any sort of authority on psychoacoustics, quantum theory, philosophy of science or mind, metaphysics, or epistemology, you could start by providing at least some sort of reference for the basis of your rather "matter of fact" claims, if you expect anyone to consider what you're saying here as meaningful. If you don't care about this though, then I have to question why you're posting in the first place.

No need to doubt, I'll state outright that I'm not an authority on anything.

Here are a few references for anyone who may be interested in investigating this topic further (check out the first in particular):Some of the above has connections with traditional philosophies and religions (more Eastern than Western) and some doesn't -- I trust in the ability of the reader to take what makes sense to you and leave the rest. Personally I'm no believer in religion, but (fortunately or unfortunately) a lot of mystical/new-agey bullshit has been historically wrapped around this kind of philosophy. If you're interested and open minded enough, you'll be able to sort out the philosophy from the idiocy.

This post has been edited by fewtch: Sep 4 2003, 09:34


--------------------
Bring back dynamic range... www.loudnessrace.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spoon
post Sep 4 2003, 09:19
Post #24


dBpowerAMP developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2758
Joined: 24-March 02
Member No.: 1615



QUOTE
WMA has rich, full bass.


Looking at the findings, this statement seems to hold true "Below 50 Hz WMA starts to become louder with arround 3dB", it is ok to now say this on HA?


--------------------
Spoon http://www.dbpoweramp.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KikeG
post Sep 4 2003, 09:33
Post #25


WinABX developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1578
Joined: 1-October 01
Member No.: 137



QUOTE (fewtch @ Sep 4 2003, 08:06 AM)
IMHO, science has been too neglectful about leaving the observer out of the equation.

Not real science.

On the other side, many of the times philosophy has nothing to do with real science. Poor sensitivity of listening tests or unreliable sighted tests are just problems that must be addressed, and philosophy can't help here.

This post has been edited by KikeG: Sep 4 2003, 09:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th December 2014 - 15:04