MQN testing/experimentation thread

[sbgk]

I don't understand the issue with recording the stereo effect in a normal room, if your ears can hear a difference between versions why wouldn't a microphone ? Is the room effect that large ? JC was listening using headphones and remarked on the different stereo effect, maybe stick the mics beside the headhone speakers.

[Fran]

Can I just say the last string of posts from sgbk, jkeny, davef, and others is just a credit to you all. Reasoned questioning, teasing out the issues, explaining a viewpoint and suggesting experiments.

Proud of you guys!

Keep up the good work!


Fran

[jkeny]

I don't understand the issue with recording the stereo effect in a normal room, if your ears can hear a difference between versions why wouldn't a microphone ? Is the room effect that large ? JC was listening using headphones and remarked on the different stereo effect, maybe stick the mics beside the headhone speakers.

It's the processing behind the ears that makes sense of it all - creates the illusion.
The thing is that the closer the waveform is to what we would expect to hear in a realistic 3D soundfield the better the realism. But remember no 2 channel stereo can give us the full soundfield we would hear at the live event. It is very much an illusion which is created because stereo sound gives just enough of perceptual clues that our brain fills in the rest.

I've heard this theory which makes a lot of sense to me - when listening to live music we are using both our Limbic system in the brain - the older brain & automatic reactions stem from - & the more recent evolutionary part, the frontal cortex, the thinking part - but & here's the issue it is skewed mostly towards the limbic brain. The "early/more automated" reactions stem from our primitive brain (and maybe things we needed for self preservation) and the more sophisticated, emotional reaction to music from our more modern brain.

When we are listening to replayed music, if it has sufficient audio cues to pass muster we use the same ratio of limbic to frontal cortex but when any cues are off-kilter, our brain tries to figure this out using the frontal cortex - we snap out of our stress-free listening & get pulled back to an conscious attention to analysing the sound.

It's one possible reason why all these blind tests return null results - they are designed to force the listener into spotting differences or similarities - the conscious brain in action - & push the limbic brain to the background. I haven't seen any blind tests which asked which playback do you connect more emotionally with but I may be wrong?

[jkeny]

Yes, Fran, it's refreshing to realise that people here are of sufficient understanding/intellect to know that we are knocking around ideas & brainstorming rather than trying to put forth definite theories of operation. We are guessing & discussing what might/might not be possible/feasible.

I consider this forum more in line with what real science is about - investigation, not the pseudo-science (anti-science) that is often encountered on forums & comes out with posts like "you made a claim & need to provide proof"

[sbgk]

I don't understand the issue with recording the stereo effect in a normal room, if your ears can hear a difference between versions why wouldn't a microphone ? Is the room effect that large ? JC was listening using headphones and remarked on the different stereo effect, maybe stick the mics beside the headhone speakers.

It's the processing behind the ears that makes sense of it all - creates the illusion.
The thing is that the closer the waveform is to what we would expect to hear in a realistic 3D soundfield the better the realism. But remember no 2 channel stereo can give us the full soundfield we would hear at the live event. It is very much an illusion which is created because stereo sound gives just enough of perceptual clues that our brain fills in the rest.

I've heard this theory which makes a lot of sense to me - when listening to live music we are using both our Limbic system in the brain - the older brain & one in which emotions are felt & automatic reactions stem from - & the more recent evolutionary part, the frontal cortex, the thinking part - but & here's the issue it is skewed mostly towards the limbic brain

When we are listening to replayed music, if it has sufficient audio cues to pass muster we use the same ratio of limbic to frontal cortex but when any cues are off-kilter, our brain tries to figure this out using the frontal cortex - we snap out of our stress-free listening & get pulled back to an conscious attention to analysing the sound.

It's one possible reason why all these blind tests return null results - they are designed to force the listener into spotting differences or similarities - the conscious brain in action - & push the limbic brain to the background. I haven't seen any blind tests which asked which playback do you connect more emotionally with but I may be wrong?

interesting. The other night I was wondering if music could sound different if the different sides of the brain were stimulated so did a search

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=eye+s ... 3&ie=UTF-8

and thought this link looked promising

http://www.oprah.com/spirit/How-to-Tap- ... k-Advice/3

However, suggestion 4 is maybe taking it a bit too far

[jkeny]

Fran, would it be worth splitting off the measurements discussions so far into another thread or is that a real hassle?

[jkeny]

sbgk, it seems that brain-sidedness has been "proven" wrong http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-b ... -myth.html

[Clive]

A brilliant discussion that is open and questioning with no one thinking they have the answers or that the anwsers are straightforward and easy. I also agree jk that blind testing generally omits and even encourages you to leave out or miss emotional aspects. Most blind tests are fairly quick A/B comparisons and therefore analytical. The usual response is that blind tests can be longer term but this rarely is done which says a lot.

[jkeny]

... I also agree jk that blind testing generally omits and even encourages you to leave out or miss emotional aspects. Most blind tests are fairly quick A/B comparisons and therefore analytical. The usual response is that blind tests can be longer term but this rarely is done which says a lot.

Yes, I've seen that retort often but as you say it's only a retort & hasn't made it into a reality in any audio tests that I have heard of. So I wouldn't say "rarely" I maintain that it's "never" done unless someone can reference one?

[Clive]

... I also agree jk that blind testing generally omits and even encourages you to leave out or miss emotional aspects. Most blind tests are fairly quick A/B comparisons and therefore analytical. The usual response is that blind tests can be longer term but this rarely is done which says a lot.

Yes, I've seen that retort often but as you say it's only a retort & hasn't made it into a reality in any audio tests that I have heard of. So I wouldn't say "rarely" I maintain that it's "never" done unless someone can reference one?

I only know of an accidental one which I performed with MQn when I forgot which version I was listening to!