Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 15:44 -0500, Charles Henry wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Ralf Mardorf
>  wrote:
> 
> > It's not impossible. I guess nobody is able to note, let's say, 10 000
> > pictures a second as single steps for a movie, of course you and I
> > aren't able to note it for just 30 pictures a second. But I don't
> > believe in digital audio math, on the niveau we reached until today.
> > Btw. I don't have knowledge of this math, I'm just listening and have
> > long time experience with doing analog recordings.
> Ah!  That's just a bandwidth limitation, but it's a rather good
> example for the mathematically inclined.  Let's say we're just talking
> about the set of sounds that are 1 second long or less.
> 
> I'd like to show that the human auditory system performs a significant
> reduction in the dimensionality of sounds.  Start with sets of signals
> on [0,1] that have finite energy and power: s(t) on [0,1] is finite,
> and the integral of s(t)^2*dt on [0,1] is also finite.
> 
> Q: So, how many dimensions do we start out with?
> A: infinite--this is one example of a Hilbert space.  The
> dimensionality is clear by application of Fourier series.  We can
> represent functions in this space with a series of orthogonal
> functions (sines and cosines), but to represent *all* functions in
> this space, the series has to be infinitely long.
> 
> Q:  Now suppose we limit the bandwidth to 200 kHz.  How many
> dimensions do we need?
> A:  400,000.  By Nyquist's sampling theorem, we need 400,000 samples
> to represent continuous signals up to 200 kHz.  Either by
> sampling/reconstruction or Fourier Series, we can show that our space
> is homeomorphic to R^400,000.
> 
> So, your own example shows that if we increase our bandwidth
> arbitrarily high, we can't tell the difference anymore.  The auditory
> system is bandwidth limited in this way--typical rule of thumb is
> about 20kHz of bandwidth.  We represent these continuous sounds with
> samples at a rate more than twice the bandwidth.  So typically, we
> sample at 40kHz and above.  Real acoustic sounds can have a lot of
> extra frequencies above 20kHz, so sample at higher rates to reduce
> aliasing of those frequencies onto the auditory band.  No further
> increases in quality can be obtained by sampling at faster rates.
> 
> Regardless, it's a gigantic number of dimensions.  The essence of
> psychology is the study of mental representations.  How can each of
> those things be represented in the mind?  The problem becomes, what is
> the smallest integer-dimensional space into which we can embed the
> space of all sounds?  This is not a problem that has been solved, nor
> do I prescribe how to take such a measurement.
> 
> But finding such a result is the *exact* problem to solve in
> psychoacoustic coding.  It's reducing a problem from a set which takes
> a large number of points to represent all possibilities to a set which
> takes the fewest number of them.

Full ACK again. My example was for video and film, of cause we only need
30 pics/second, but we might be completely save with 1 pics/second.

For digital audio there still is an issue regarding to the
transformation D --> a, A --> D.

For my ears I've got some perfect masterings at 32 KHz DAT long play and
I'm fine with every 48 KHz standard DAT recording I ever made.
I'm not fine with any 96 KHz recording done with my sound cards.

So, the reasons obviously depend to hardware, regarding to 'my DAT
recorders are better, than my sound card is', but for the same DAT
recorder doing the mastering sometimes was fine when using just 32 KHz
long play and sometimes I need to use 48 KHz, even CD quality wasn't
good enough. NOT BECAUSE 'twice as loud', but because of the complete
quality, e.g. loudness ratio for high and low frequencies.

I never heard or read about such issues, but I had such effects when
doing a mastering at my home studio.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Charles Henry]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Ralf Mardorf
 wrote:

> It's not impossible. I guess nobody is able to note, let's say, 10 000
> pictures a second as single steps for a movie, of course you and I
> aren't able to note it for just 30 pictures a second. But I don't
> believe in digital audio math, on the niveau we reached until today.
> Btw. I don't have knowledge of this math, I'm just listening and have
> long time experience with doing analog recordings.
Ah!  That's just a bandwidth limitation, but it's a rather good
example for the mathematically inclined.  Let's say we're just talking
about the set of sounds that are 1 second long or less.

I'd like to show that the human auditory system performs a significant
reduction in the dimensionality of sounds.  Start with sets of signals
on [0,1] that have finite energy and power: s(t) on [0,1] is finite,
and the integral of s(t)^2*dt on [0,1] is also finite.

Q: So, how many dimensions do we start out with?
A: infinite--this is one example of a Hilbert space.  The
dimensionality is clear by application of Fourier series.  We can
represent functions in this space with a series of orthogonal
functions (sines and cosines), but to represent *all* functions in
this space, the series has to be infinitely long.

Q:  Now suppose we limit the bandwidth to 200 kHz.  How many
dimensions do we need?
A:  400,000.  By Nyquist's sampling theorem, we need 400,000 samples
to represent continuous signals up to 200 kHz.  Either by
sampling/reconstruction or Fourier Series, we can show that our space
is homeomorphic to R^400,000.

So, your own example shows that if we increase our bandwidth
arbitrarily high, we can't tell the difference anymore.  The auditory
system is bandwidth limited in this way--typical rule of thumb is
about 20kHz of bandwidth.  We represent these continuous sounds with
samples at a rate more than twice the bandwidth.  So typically, we
sample at 40kHz and above.  Real acoustic sounds can have a lot of
extra frequencies above 20kHz, so sample at higher rates to reduce
aliasing of those frequencies onto the auditory band.  No further
increases in quality can be obtained by sampling at faster rates.

Regardless, it's a gigantic number of dimensions.  The essence of
psychology is the study of mental representations.  How can each of
those things be represented in the mind?  The problem becomes, what is
the smallest integer-dimensional space into which we can embed the
space of all sounds?  This is not a problem that has been solved, nor
do I prescribe how to take such a measurement.

But finding such a result is the *exact* problem to solve in
psychoacoustic coding.  It's reducing a problem from a set which takes
a large number of points to represent all possibilities to a set which
takes the fewest number of them.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 14:26 -0500, Charles Henry wrote:
> To describe the things we can study ethically and scientifically, use
> numbers.  For everything else, use words :)

... words? ... yes, but add music, paintings, dance etc. ;)

Full ACK :).

Btw. the NAZIs did unethical experiments, while Einstein didn't,
regarding to the results humans win more knowledge from Einstein, but
from the 'NAZI science'. So, it could be, that even doing 'extreme'
tests isn't able to teach us more than math is able to do.

The thread still is 'half/double as loud'. Depending to some situations,
some people claim 3 dB, others 6 dB, while it's most common to say that
'around' 10 dB is half as loud.

I experienced 9 dB to 12 dB as 'twice as loud', regarding to the meters
of the mixing console!

As long as we aren't more royalist than the king, we should dogmatise
this as a rule of thumb.

It's good, when people do research to be more precise, don't get me
wrong, but I guess it needs more but mathematical knowledge and
knowledge how to program for Linux, to do research.

Really 2 Cents (and nothing more)

Ralf

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Charles Henry]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Ralf Mardorf
 wrote:
> Upgrade: You might be right, but ...
>
> with the exception for a non-life-threatening situation.
>
> Yes, one day some people would be able to do perfect 3D acoustics for
> music, but NOT FOR REPORTAGES. Imagine you are climbing an antenna mast.
> The recordings of the helmet camera and of the microphones is of of the
> context, no adrenalin etc..

True, there's still even further things that simply cannot be studied.
 For example, we know that 120dB acoustic sounds have their own
sensations different from softer sounds.  However, if we expose people
to sounds that loud we would cause hearing loss, which is unethical.
Same thing goes for investigating some effects like you describe--we
couldn't quantify those things mostly because we couldn't duplicate
real world situations and in many cases, it wouldn't be ethical to do
so.

To describe the things we can study ethically and scientifically, use
numbers.  For everything else, use words :)
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 12:14 -0500, Charles Henry wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Ralf Mardorf
>  wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 11:10 -0500, Charles Henry wrote:
> 
> >> Because psychoacoustics just hasn't been defined in a way to make hard
> >> numbers stick.  The tendency in psychoacoustic experimental design is
> >> to use discrete conditions (which gives better experimental power) in
> >> order to show that an effect exists.  But this way, any given
> >> experiment can't produce results that cover the whole space.
> >> Generalization and extrapolation are limited.
> 
> > Masking theories used by audio codecs to compress audio signals don't
> > work for people who are trained in listening, e.g. MP3 at any rate is a
> > PITA. Trained people (here where I do live) do always here a loss in
> > blind tests.
> 
> It's a problem for current models to accomplish compression without
> losing some part of the audio quality.  Do you think there could be a
> better (or best) basis for reducing the complexity and bitrate of
> sound?  or is it just plain impossible?

It's not impossible. I guess nobody is able to note, let's say, 10 000
pictures a second as single steps for a movie, of course you and I
aren't able to note it for just 30 pictures a second. But I don't
believe in digital audio math, on the niveau we reached until today.
Btw. I don't have knowledge of this math, I'm just listening and have
long time experience with doing analog recordings.


> 
> > Before the brain does "math", are there any other senses involved to the
> > interpretation of the input given by the ears? (Btw. I'm sure that math
> > is just part of nature and can't describe nature, because it's just a
> > part.)
> >
> > Regarding to the topic that there are two sound sources and you are
> > thinking about a relation, try to imagine people who are autistic or who
> > are 'normal', but having a panic attack, or try to remember a situation,
> > when you barely were able to escape an accident. The filtering is
> > completely different. Everybody of us is able to focus allegedly masked
> > "things".
> 
> I agree--but I'll put a little more on the table here.  A strong model
> is able to describe not only the big trends but the contextual,
> situational, and personal sources of variation.  A model of that kind
> of scope is very far off, in my mind.  I would be happy to have a
> weaker model that generalizes well first.

You could be right.

I didn't do research about the hearing and sense of balance, so the
following might be a stupid thought:

Let's say you doe a recording with a dummy head, where it's possible to
separate height differences (from ahead, from the ground). Will it be
possible to recognise those differences when you move your head up and
down?

Upgrade: You might be right, but ...

with the exception for a non-life-threatening situation.

Yes, one day some people would be able to do perfect 3D acoustics for
music, but NOT FOR REPORTAGES. Imagine you are climbing an antenna mast.
The recordings of the helmet camera and of the microphones is of of the
context, no adrenalin etc..

> 
> > Perception, the interpretation of the input by all senses will change,
> > regarding to the context, for audio even regarding to the tilting of
> > your head to the body.
> >
> > Recordings and digital audio virtualization always has the lack of the
> > experienced context. If it should be possible to completely gather
> > everything of nature by math for specific situations, there still will
> > be the context, a situation were everybody brains is able to count the
> > peas that drop to the ground, after the glass of peas fall down to the
> > ground.
> >
> > Remember your own experiences when you had or nearly had an accident.
> > Time seemed to be slower and silent, but important sounds (regarding to
> > your survival) become loud, while loud, but unimportant sounds become
> > silent.
> >
> >


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Charles Henry]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Ralf Mardorf
 wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 11:10 -0500, Charles Henry wrote:

>> Because psychoacoustics just hasn't been defined in a way to make hard
>> numbers stick.  The tendency in psychoacoustic experimental design is
>> to use discrete conditions (which gives better experimental power) in
>> order to show that an effect exists.  But this way, any given
>> experiment can't produce results that cover the whole space.
>> Generalization and extrapolation are limited.

> Masking theories used by audio codecs to compress audio signals don't
> work for people who are trained in listening, e.g. MP3 at any rate is a
> PITA. Trained people (here where I do live) do always here a loss in
> blind tests.

It's a problem for current models to accomplish compression without
losing some part of the audio quality.  Do you think there could be a
better (or best) basis for reducing the complexity and bitrate of
sound?  or is it just plain impossible?

> Before the brain does "math", are there any other senses involved to the
> interpretation of the input given by the ears? (Btw. I'm sure that math
> is just part of nature and can't describe nature, because it's just a
> part.)
>
> Regarding to the topic that there are two sound sources and you are
> thinking about a relation, try to imagine people who are autistic or who
> are 'normal', but having a panic attack, or try to remember a situation,
> when you barely were able to escape an accident. The filtering is
> completely different. Everybody of us is able to focus allegedly masked
> "things".

I agree--but I'll put a little more on the table here.  A strong model
is able to describe not only the big trends but the contextual,
situational, and personal sources of variation.  A model of that kind
of scope is very far off, in my mind.  I would be happy to have a
weaker model that generalizes well first.

> Perception, the interpretation of the input by all senses will change,
> regarding to the context, for audio even regarding to the tilting of
> your head to the body.
>
> Recordings and digital audio virtualization always has the lack of the
> experienced context. If it should be possible to completely gather
> everything of nature by math for specific situations, there still will
> be the context, a situation were everybody brains is able to count the
> peas that drop to the ground, after the glass of peas fall down to the
> ground.
>
> Remember your own experiences when you had or nearly had an accident.
> Time seemed to be slower and silent, but important sounds (regarding to
> your survival) become loud, while loud, but unimportant sounds become
> silent.
>
>
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 11:10 -0500, Charles Henry wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Jens M Andreasen
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 14:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> >
> >> It would be strange but funny if an estimate of sound A just about
> >> masking sound B would correspond to 'twice as loud'.
> >
> > Masking appears somewhere in the 30 to 40dB range - which is way beyond
> > "twice as loud".
> 
> Right.  The two are not related and they're in wholly different orders
> of magnitude.  I'd be reluctant to put a number on it, though...
> 
> Because psychoacoustics just hasn't been defined in a way to make hard
> numbers stick.  The tendency in psychoacoustic experimental design is
> to use discrete conditions (which gives better experimental power) in
> order to show that an effect exists.  But this way, any given
> experiment can't produce results that cover the whole space.
> Generalization and extrapolation are limited.
> 
> A psychoacoustic relationship is a map between a set of acoustically
> presented signals and a set of sensory experiences.  Loudness, pitch,
> timbre are the three terms used to describe sounds in psychoacoustics,
> which might lend one to think they are orthogonal or separable.  The
> problem of describing the non-linear psychoacoustic map is that
> relations don't apply the same way to different neighborhoods in the
> spaces involved.  With appropriate techniques and *lots* of data, we
> could come up with models that describe the curvature of those maps
> locally at each point in the space.  What we think of as loudness is
> just one way of assigning a scale to a path in the space which
> connects sounds of similar pitch and timbre.
> 
> Masking is an interesting effect to look at topologically.  Consider
> that points in the set of sensory experiences may be more or less
> distant from each other based on their degree of similarity.
> 
> Although acoustically, we can have a metric that separates all signals
> from each other, two sounds (psychological) may be in-distinguishable
> from each other.  The topology on this space is determined by a
> pseudo-metric in which d(p1,p2)=0 => p1 and p2 are indistinguishable
> from each other.  This generates a coarse topology with smallest open
> sets consisting of sounds that are indistinguishable from each other.
> 
> Describing the masking effect means finding the inverse image of the
> psychoacoustic map where a collection of distinct acoustic signals map
> onto points in the same open set.
> 
> Suppose we have two signals s1 and s2, and we construct a third sound
> s3=s1+a*s2.  For some range of values of a, s3 can be made
> indistinguishable from s1.  This describes just *one* local dimension
> along which s1 masks s2, as long as a*s2 also corresponds to a
> non-zero point in the psychoacoustic image.
> 
> Well, I just wanted to get a few ideas out there to have some fun with
> this discussion :)  I'm a late-comer since I had some other
> obligations to attend to last week.
> 
> Best,
> Chuck

Masking theories used by audio codecs to compress audio signals don't
work for people who are trained in listening, e.g. MP3 at any rate is a
PITA. Trained people (here where I do live) do always here a loss in
blind tests.

Even when using dummy heads for recordings, 3D psychoacoustic doesn't
work that good (even if the dummy head isn't that bad ;), e.g. there's
always a dependency for e.g. ahead and above.

So for the 'twice as loud' issue you should ask; "In wich way do we
listen and understand what we do listen too?"

Before the brain does "math", are there any other senses involved to the
interpretation of the input given by the ears? (Btw. I'm sure that math
is just part of nature and can't describe nature, because it's just a
part.)

Regarding to the topic that there are two sound sources and you are
thinking about a relation, try to imagine people who are autistic or who
are 'normal', but having a panic attack, or try to remember a situation,
when you barely were able to escape an accident. The filtering is
completely different. Everybody of us is able to focus allegedly masked
"things".

Perception, the interpretation of the input by all senses will change,
regarding to the context, for audio even regarding to the tilting of
your head to the body.

Recordings and digital audio virtualization always has the lack of the
experienced context. If it should be possible to completely gather
everything of nature by math for specific situations, there still will
be the context, a situation were everybody brains is able to count the
peas that drop to the ground, after the glass of peas fall down to the
ground.

Remember your own experiences when you had or nearly had an accident.
Time seemed to be slower and silent, but important sounds (regarding to
your survival) become loud, while loud, but unimportant sounds become
silent.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lis

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Charles Henry]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Jens M Andreasen
 wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 14:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
>
>> It would be strange but funny if an estimate of sound A just about
>> masking sound B would correspond to 'twice as loud'.
>
> Masking appears somewhere in the 30 to 40dB range - which is way beyond
> "twice as loud".

Right.  The two are not related and they're in wholly different orders
of magnitude.  I'd be reluctant to put a number on it, though...

Because psychoacoustics just hasn't been defined in a way to make hard
numbers stick.  The tendency in psychoacoustic experimental design is
to use discrete conditions (which gives better experimental power) in
order to show that an effect exists.  But this way, any given
experiment can't produce results that cover the whole space.
Generalization and extrapolation are limited.

A psychoacoustic relationship is a map between a set of acoustically
presented signals and a set of sensory experiences.  Loudness, pitch,
timbre are the three terms used to describe sounds in psychoacoustics,
which might lend one to think they are orthogonal or separable.  The
problem of describing the non-linear psychoacoustic map is that
relations don't apply the same way to different neighborhoods in the
spaces involved.  With appropriate techniques and *lots* of data, we
could come up with models that describe the curvature of those maps
locally at each point in the space.  What we think of as loudness is
just one way of assigning a scale to a path in the space which
connects sounds of similar pitch and timbre.

Masking is an interesting effect to look at topologically.  Consider
that points in the set of sensory experiences may be more or less
distant from each other based on their degree of similarity.

Although acoustically, we can have a metric that separates all signals
from each other, two sounds (psychological) may be in-distinguishable
from each other.  The topology on this space is determined by a
pseudo-metric in which d(p1,p2)=0 => p1 and p2 are indistinguishable
from each other.  This generates a coarse topology with smallest open
sets consisting of sounds that are indistinguishable from each other.

Describing the masking effect means finding the inverse image of the
psychoacoustic map where a collection of distinct acoustic signals map
onto points in the same open set.

Suppose we have two signals s1 and s2, and we construct a third sound
s3=s1+a*s2.  For some range of values of a, s3 can be made
indistinguishable from s1.  This describes just *one* local dimension
along which s1 masks s2, as long as a*s2 also corresponds to a
non-zero point in the psychoacoustic image.

Well, I just wanted to get a few ideas out there to have some fun with
this discussion :)  I'm a late-comer since I had some other
obligations to attend to last week.

Best,
Chuck
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Jens M Andreasen]

On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 14:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

> It would be strange but funny if an estimate of sound A just about
> masking sound B would correspond to 'twice as loud'.

Masking appears somewhere in the 30 to 40dB range - which is way beyond
"twice as loud".


-- 
eins, zwei ... tekno tekno??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEgbW1FxR78

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Tim E. Real]

On July 25, 2010 06:43:17 am Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 12:32 +0200, lieven moors wrote:
> > On 07/25/2010 09:31 AM, Tim E. Real wrote:
> > > Hey, you know that little triangular flap of skin that almost
> > >  covers the ear, just above the earlobe?
> > >
> > > Whaddya think if humans are (were?) to evolve that
> > >  little flap so it can be completely and tightly pressed
> > >  against the ear (like you can do now with your finger)
> > >  thus acting as an 'eyelid' for your ear in case things get
> > >  too loud ?
> > >
> > > I mean what the heck is it doing there now, eh?
> > >
> > > Tim.
> > > ___
> > > Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> > > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> > > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
> >
> > No need for that! I can already cover my ears completely
> > with my earlobes (that's why they're there, right?)
> > But I agree, it would be a little more comfortable...
> >
> > Lieven
>
> Just one question. Am I the only one who received a mail similar to this
>
> off-list:
> > > [ yet more irrelvant mindless crap! ]
> > >
> > > How does the external ear exactly work? Perhaps it's part of this
> > > function, to reflect sound.
> >
> > Absolutely nothing to do with Linux Audio Development Ralf, ... please
>
> desist.
>
> I sometimes receive mails off-list abusing me for mails other people did
> wrote.
> Here I did wrote this mail, but as a reply to this topic. So please, if
> you don't like me folks, abuse me for stuff that were my crime.

Er, sorry maybe my fault on that one. I was commenting on the posts way 
 down this thread about loudness and hearing loss, but I kinda
 didn't want it to get lost in the mayhem so I started a new sub-thread.
If readers had not read those posts about hearing loss, then my post, 
 and the replies, would appear to be off the topic. 
My bad. Should have responded to those posts only.

Personally I don't mind if a thread which I started begins to wander off. 
It's all good. As long as someone learns something or some new tidbit 
 of useful info emerges, or we just have a good chuckle, I'm OK with it. 
Hope y'all are, too !
It's a pleasure to rap with all the people out there and read all the
 interesting ideas and opinions which come back.

But yeah, watch out for the CC'ing it's so easy to accidentally mess up the 
 intended replies depending on what mail client you use.
I try to only CC if the message is important or personal enough that the 
 targeted CC should see it as soon as possible, sooner than the list.

Tim.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Philipp Überbacher]

Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-25 13:57:00 +0200:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 01:32:01PM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> 
> > I had some more thoughts regarding masking.
> > If B masks A == B twice as loud?
> > Is it that simple?
> 
> No :-(
> 
> Masking depends on spectrum, timing, level, and maybe other factors.
> It's a complex thing and I don't think we have the full picture of
> it yet.
> 
> For simple cases (narrowband signals, simultaneous, same direction)
> the concept of 'critical bands' is used to describe masking.

Ok, as so often I wasn't clear enough.
I know that masking depends on a lot of things, and I only mentioned the
extreme timing cases in this mail. We can't judge loudness when one
signal actually masks the other, and it becomes increasingly difficult
as the time between sounds becomes longer. If there is a relation
between loudness and masking it's an estimation of the masking effect
one sound would have over another.
It would be strange but funny if an estimate of sound A just about
masking sound B would correspond to 'twice as loud'.
-- 
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 01:32:01PM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

> I had some more thoughts regarding masking.
> If B masks A == B twice as loud?
> Is it that simple?

No :-(

Masking depends on spectrum, timing, level, and maybe other factors.
It's a complex thing and I don't think we have the full picture of
it yet.

For simple cases (narrowband signals, simultaneous, same direction)
the concept of 'critical bands' is used to describe masking.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 13:28 +0200, Robin Gareus wrote:
> On 07/25/2010 12:43 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> 
> > Just one question. Am I the only one who received a mail similar to this
> > off-list:
> > 
> >>> [ yet more irrelvant mindless crap! ]
> >>>
> >>> How does the external ear exactly work? Perhaps it's part of this
> >>> function, to reflect sound.
> >>
> >> Absolutely nothing to do with Linux Audio Development Ralf, ... please
> > desist.
> > 
> > I sometimes receive mails off-list abusing me for mails other people did
> > wrote.
> > Here I did wrote this mail, but as a reply to this topic. So please, if
> > you don't like me folks, abuse me for stuff that were my crime.
> 
> 
> Hi Ralph,
> 
> Why are you writing to me? It might imply I did send you this email in
> the first place.

I only send it to the list, but nobody else. IMPORTANT. It's true Robin
isn't the author.

I read your whole mail Robin, but I just wish to clarify this right now.

Ralf

> Even though I did not, I concur with the original
> author although I'd like to phrase it differently:
> 
> Please ask only Linux audio hw/sw development related questions here.
> When answering, please stick to your expertise. Stop guessing,
> brainstorming and spreading FUD.
> 
> Joern formulated this once like this:
>   /* before sending mail */
>   if (i_know_what_im_talking_about()) {
> send();
>   } else {
> discard();
> sleep(3600);
>   }
> 
> Some of your comments or OT discussions would have been better on LAU
> (where most of the Devs are subscribed as well). I fail to see how you
> are involved in developing any linux-audio application, so please
> refrains from posting here.
> 
> As you can read on the description at http://linuxaudio.org/mailarchive/
> "The linux-audio developer (LAD) mailing list is the place to discuss
> and share in depth information concerning design, development and
> architecture of linux audio related Hard- and Software. It's a fun place
> to lure and learn. yet, take your time and think before posting there:
> This is not the list to report generic linux audio bugs to developers."
> 
> 
> Replying to your own emails N times and doing so quite often is not only
> very bad netiquette, but annoying to many serious contributors here. If
> you can't resist: write a blog.
> 
> Let me repeat an earlier advice which seems to have not sunken in:
> Please read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> in particular don't skip the "A wrong but authoritative-sounding answer
> is worse than none at all." section.
> and from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855 aka "Netiquette Guidelines":
> "If you are caught in an argument, keep the discussion focused on
> issues rather than the personalities involved."
> 
> 
> To answer your question:
> The list-admin for this email-list is Marc-Olivier Barre and he can be
> reached at linux-audio-dev-ow...@lists.linuxaudio.org
> If you want find out if an email went to the list, check the
> list-archive: http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
> 
> ..or simply the email-header because IIRC the list does not accept
> emails to it when it has been BCCed.
> 
> ciao,
> robin


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Philipp Überbacher]

Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-23 12:13:32 +0200:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> 
> > > > We could think about what makes judging twice the
> > > > loudness more difficult and maybe find a relation to another phenomenon
> > > > this way. The limits of hearing apply to everything, but what about
> > > > factors like the time between two sounds or the length of the sounds?
> > > 
> > > All of these affect both masking and loudness.
> > 
> > Yep, but maybe some of the other possible factors match one phenomenon
> > but not the other.
> 
> Indeed. As I said, this relation between 'loudness' and masking
> is pure conjecture, I have no hard arguments pro.

I had some more thoughts regarding masking.
If B masks A == B twice as loud?
Is it that simple?

The timing definitely plays a role in both cases.
When the masking actually happens, we can't tell that it is twice as
loud, we need the temporal distance.
We also can't tell when the time between the two sounds is too long.
Hence, we need a very specific time window to approximate the masking
effect of B with regards to A. Same is probably true for the loudness.
I didn't actually try to guess/judge a probable masking effect, but it
would be a nice experiment.

-- 
Regards,
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle 
Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Robin Gareus]

On 07/25/2010 12:43 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

> Just one question. Am I the only one who received a mail similar to this
> off-list:
> 
>>> [ yet more irrelvant mindless crap! ]
>>>
>>> How does the external ear exactly work? Perhaps it's part of this
>>> function, to reflect sound.
>>
>> Absolutely nothing to do with Linux Audio Development Ralf, ... please
> desist.
> 
> I sometimes receive mails off-list abusing me for mails other people did
> wrote.
> Here I did wrote this mail, but as a reply to this topic. So please, if
> you don't like me folks, abuse me for stuff that were my crime.


Hi Ralph,

Why are you writing to me? It might imply I did send you this email in
the first place. Even though I did not, I concur with the original
author although I'd like to phrase it differently:

Please ask only Linux audio hw/sw development related questions here.
When answering, please stick to your expertise. Stop guessing,
brainstorming and spreading FUD.

Joern formulated this once like this:
  /* before sending mail */
  if (i_know_what_im_talking_about()) {
send();
  } else {
discard();
sleep(3600);
  }

Some of your comments or OT discussions would have been better on LAU
(where most of the Devs are subscribed as well). I fail to see how you
are involved in developing any linux-audio application, so please
refrains from posting here.

As you can read on the description at http://linuxaudio.org/mailarchive/
"The linux-audio developer (LAD) mailing list is the place to discuss
and share in depth information concerning design, development and
architecture of linux audio related Hard- and Software. It's a fun place
to lure and learn. yet, take your time and think before posting there:
This is not the list to report generic linux audio bugs to developers."


Replying to your own emails N times and doing so quite often is not only
very bad netiquette, but annoying to many serious contributors here. If
you can't resist: write a blog.

Let me repeat an earlier advice which seems to have not sunken in:
Please read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
in particular don't skip the "A wrong but authoritative-sounding answer
is worse than none at all." section.
and from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855 aka "Netiquette Guidelines":
"If you are caught in an argument, keep the discussion focused on
issues rather than the personalities involved."


To answer your question:
The list-admin for this email-list is Marc-Olivier Barre and he can be
reached at linux-audio-dev-ow...@lists.linuxaudio.org
If you want find out if an email went to the list, check the
list-archive: http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

..or simply the email-header because IIRC the list does not accept
emails to it when it has been BCCed.

ciao,
robin
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 12:32 +0200, lieven moors wrote:
> On 07/25/2010 09:31 AM, Tim E. Real wrote:
> > Hey, you know that little triangular flap of skin that almost 
> >  covers the ear, just above the earlobe?
> >
> > Whaddya think if humans are (were?) to evolve that
> >  little flap so it can be completely and tightly pressed
> >  against the ear (like you can do now with your finger)
> >  thus acting as an 'eyelid' for your ear in case things get 
> >  too loud ? 
> >
> > I mean what the heck is it doing there now, eh?
> >
> > Tim.
> > ___
> > Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
> >   
> No need for that! I can already cover my ears completely
> with my earlobes (that's why they're there, right?)
> But I agree, it would be a little more comfortable...
> 
> Lieven

Just one question. Am I the only one who received a mail similar to this
off-list:

> > [ yet more irrelvant mindless crap! ]
> >
> > How does the external ear exactly work? Perhaps it's part of this
> > function, to reflect sound.
> 
> Absolutely nothing to do with Linux Audio Development Ralf, ... please
desist.

I sometimes receive mails off-list abusing me for mails other people did
wrote.
Here I did wrote this mail, but as a reply to this topic. So please, if
you don't like me folks, abuse me for stuff that were my crime.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[lieven moors]

On 07/25/2010 09:31 AM, Tim E. Real wrote:
> Hey, you know that little triangular flap of skin that almost 
>  covers the ear, just above the earlobe?
>
> Whaddya think if humans are (were?) to evolve that
>  little flap so it can be completely and tightly pressed
>  against the ear (like you can do now with your finger)
>  thus acting as an 'eyelid' for your ear in case things get 
>  too loud ? 
>
> I mean what the heck is it doing there now, eh?
>
> Tim.
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>   
No need for that! I can already cover my ears completely
with my earlobes (that's why they're there, right?)
But I agree, it would be a little more comfortable...

Lieven
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 03:31 -0400, Tim E. Real wrote:
> Hey, you know that little triangular flap of skin that almost 
>  covers the ear, just above the earlobe?
> 
> Whaddya think if humans are (were?) to evolve that
>  little flap so it can be completely and tightly pressed
>  against the ear (like you can do now with your finger)
>  thus acting as an 'eyelid' for your ear in case things get 
>  too loud ? 
> 
> I mean what the heck is it doing there now, eh?
> 
> Tim.

I'm asking for forgiveness because it's the second PS :S.

How does the external ear exactly work? Perhaps it's part of this
function, to reflect sound.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 03:31 -0400, Tim E. Real wrote:
> Hey, you know that little triangular flap of skin that almost 
>  covers the ear, just above the earlobe?
> 
> Whaddya think if humans are (were?) to evolve that
>  little flap so it can be completely and tightly pressed
>  against the ear (like you can do now with your finger)
>  thus acting as an 'eyelid' for your ear in case things get 
>  too loud ? 
> 
> I mean what the heck is it doing there now, eh?
> 
> Tim.

PS: No joke. Take a look at it's direction. It might be there as a wind
shield or dirt shield. Perhaps the wiki does know? I've got no time to
read it.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 03:31 -0400, Tim E. Real wrote:
> Hey, you know that little triangular flap of skin that almost 
>  covers the ear, just above the earlobe?
> 
> Whaddya think if humans are (were?) to evolve that
>  little flap so it can be completely and tightly pressed
>  against the ear (like you can do now with your finger)
>  thus acting as an 'eyelid' for your ear in case things get 
>  too loud ? 
> 
> I mean what the heck is it doing there now, eh?
> 
> Tim.

It's called tragus.
We still have it for piercings to increase our attractiveness? So it
might be used for conservation of the species? :D 

Btw. I guess the ears once were gills, at least it's one theory.

;)

Ralf

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Tim E. Real]

Hey, you know that little triangular flap of skin that almost 
 covers the ear, just above the earlobe?

Whaddya think if humans are (were?) to evolve that
 little flap so it can be completely and tightly pressed
 against the ear (like you can do now with your finger)
 thus acting as an 'eyelid' for your ear in case things get 
 too loud ? 

I mean what the heck is it doing there now, eh?

Tim.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[lieven moors]

On 07/24/2010 10:31 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 02:58:36PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:
>
>   
>> On 07/23/2010 10:23 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:42:11PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>   
 On 07/23/2010 06:29 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:

 
 
> Transporting this to the audio domain, given two similar
> sounds A and B with a B having a higher level than A, you
> could adjust a third one X so it appears to be 'halfway'
> between A and B. If you do this with A much smaller than
> B, would you expect X to be close to 'half a loud as B' ?
>
>   
>   
>   
 If A would be very close to silence, yes.
 
 
>>> I'd be *very* surprised if that would turn out to be true.
>>>
>>> I bet that if B is A + 40 dB, X would turn out to be
>>> close to A + 20 dB. And if B is A + 60 dB, X will be
>>> close to A + 30 dB. In both cases A is very small 
>>> conpared to B (at most 1/1 in power).
>>>
>>> Ciao,
>>>
>>>   
>>>   
>> Let's put it differently. If you only had sound B, and you
>> were asked to position a similar sound X halfway between
>> total silence, and the level of sound B, wouldn't that be the
>> same as asking that sound X has half the loudness of sound
>> B, or as asking that sound B has double the loudness of
>> sound X?
>> 
> So with e.g. A = B - 60 dB we could end up with X at
> B - 30 dB (two steps of 30dB which are supposed to be
> near equal subjectively), 
That is assuming that our experience of loudness
corresponds to the continuous logarithmic scale
with which we measure SPL's. I suspect that this
is not the case. Our ears have minimum and
maximum SPL values they can observe/tolerate,
and I think that this range is the 'unconscious'
reference for measurement of loudness.
So we might have to adapt the 'steepness' of the
logarithmic curve to that range.
> while with A = silence we would
> have X somewhere between -6 and -10 dB relative to B
> (these are the extremes of common values for 'twice as
> loud'). How low can A be before this inconsistency turns
> up ? Or more important: how reliable is such an idea of
> 'halfway' ?
>   
I would say it's the only reliable thing in this context,
because it's the very thing we want to measure.
> The simple fact is that on a logarithmic scale the whole
> concept of 'half' or 'double' is **meaningless**. That is 
> because such a scale depends on an arbitrary reference
> value, and changing that value shifts the whole scale by
> a constant amount without changing the underlying reality.
> Two levels that are e.g. 10 and 20 on one scale (hence the
> second is 'double' the first) could be as well be 80 and 90
> just by changing the reference value for the log scale.
>   
Yes, but changing the base does change the underlying
reality.
> Of course half/double still makes sense in the original
> domain. But if the perceptual scale is logarithmic, they
> are perceived as a constant difference, not as a ratio.
>   
I think we are aware of the original domain, in de sense
we are approaching the limits of our hearing. What
we interpret as half/double as loud depends on the
position within that range.

regards,

Lieven

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 22:31 +0200, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 02:58:36PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:
> 
> > On 07/23/2010 10:23 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:42:11PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:
> > >
> > >   
> > >> On 07/23/2010 06:29 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>> Transporting this to the audio domain, given two similar
> > >>> sounds A and B with a B having a higher level than A, you
> > >>> could adjust a third one X so it appears to be 'halfway'
> > >>> between A and B. If you do this with A much smaller than
> > >>> B, would you expect X to be close to 'half a loud as B' ?
> > >>>
> > >>>   
> > >>>   
> > >> If A would be very close to silence, yes.
> > >> 
> > > I'd be *very* surprised if that would turn out to be true.
> > >
> > > I bet that if B is A + 40 dB, X would turn out to be
> > > close to A + 20 dB. And if B is A + 60 dB, X will be
> > > close to A + 30 dB. In both cases A is very small 
> > > conpared to B (at most 1/1 in power).
> > >
> > > Ciao,
> > >
> > >   
> > Let's put it differently. If you only had sound B, and you
> > were asked to position a similar sound X halfway between
> > total silence, and the level of sound B, wouldn't that be the
> > same as asking that sound X has half the loudness of sound
> > B, or as asking that sound B has double the loudness of
> > sound X?
> 
> So with e.g. A = B - 60 dB we could end up with X at
> B - 30 dB (two steps of 30dB which are supposed to be
> near equal subjectively), while with A = silence we would
> have X somewhere between -6 and -10 dB relative to B
> (these are the extremes of common values for 'twice as
> loud'). How low can A be before this inconsistency turns
> up ? Or more important: how reliable is such an idea of
> 'halfway' ?
> 
> The simple fact is that on a logarithmic scale the whole
> concept of 'half' or 'double' is **meaningless**. That is 
> because such a scale depends on an arbitrary reference
> value, and changing that value shifts the whole scale by
> a constant amount without changing the underlying reality.
> Two levels that are e.g. 10 and 20 on one scale (hence the
> second is 'double' the first) could be as well be 80 and 90
> just by changing the reference value for the log scale.
> 
> Of course half/double still makes sense in the original
> domain. But if the perceptual scale is logarithmic, they
> are perceived as a constant difference, not as a ratio.
> 
> Ciao,
> 

I had this discussion for the Richter scale. I don't have knowledge of
math. Isn't it possible to give a value, e.g. for physics (electrics and
optics) there's a value of square root 2. Isn't there such a similar
simple value for log scales?

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 02:58:36PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:

> On 07/23/2010 10:23 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:42:11PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> On 07/23/2010 06:29 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >>> Transporting this to the audio domain, given two similar
> >>> sounds A and B with a B having a higher level than A, you
> >>> could adjust a third one X so it appears to be 'halfway'
> >>> between A and B. If you do this with A much smaller than
> >>> B, would you expect X to be close to 'half a loud as B' ?
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>   
> >> If A would be very close to silence, yes.
> >> 
> > I'd be *very* surprised if that would turn out to be true.
> >
> > I bet that if B is A + 40 dB, X would turn out to be
> > close to A + 20 dB. And if B is A + 60 dB, X will be
> > close to A + 30 dB. In both cases A is very small 
> > conpared to B (at most 1/1 in power).
> >
> > Ciao,
> >
> >   
> Let's put it differently. If you only had sound B, and you
> were asked to position a similar sound X halfway between
> total silence, and the level of sound B, wouldn't that be the
> same as asking that sound X has half the loudness of sound
> B, or as asking that sound B has double the loudness of
> sound X?

So with e.g. A = B - 60 dB we could end up with X at
B - 30 dB (two steps of 30dB which are supposed to be
near equal subjectively), while with A = silence we would
have X somewhere between -6 and -10 dB relative to B
(these are the extremes of common values for 'twice as
loud'). How low can A be before this inconsistency turns
up ? Or more important: how reliable is such an idea of
'halfway' ?

The simple fact is that on a logarithmic scale the whole
concept of 'half' or 'double' is **meaningless**. That is 
because such a scale depends on an arbitrary reference
value, and changing that value shifts the whole scale by
a constant amount without changing the underlying reality.
Two levels that are e.g. 10 and 20 on one scale (hence the
second is 'double' the first) could be as well be 80 and 90
just by changing the reference value for the log scale.

Of course half/double still makes sense in the original
domain. But if the perceptual scale is logarithmic, they
are perceived as a constant difference, not as a ratio.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 12:33 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday, July 24, 2010 12:31:32 pm Renato did opine:
> 
> > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:15 -0400
> > 
> > Gene Heskett  wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 24, 2010 12:02:40 pm Ralf Mardorf did opine:
> > > > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:22 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday 24 July 2010 16:22:29 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:07 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > > I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music
> > > > > > > was too loud.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > OT, but anyway: This is a big problem in Germany. I only visit
> > > > > > night clubs when a girlfriend 'force' me to do it and I always
> > > > > > wear hearing protection. Now it becomes topic again: At those
> > > > > > high levels, I don't have any feeling for what could be half as
> > > > > > loud. I only have an idea of 'half as loud', when the acoustic
> > > > > > pressure doesn't hurt.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is because your ear shuts down with a bone bending to protect
> > > > > itself to anything above. That bending is what hurts...
> > > > > So you hearing goes into saturation for anything above that level.
> > > > > Which makes it quite hard to determine "half as loud" when you
> > > > > don't know how loud it really is...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Have fun,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Arnold
> > > > 
> > > > So, without being aware of it, I know that I don't know the real
> > > > loudness. Is it the same for everybody or just for people who have
> > > > the feeling to protect their ears, resp. to get out of this
> > > > loudness hell?
> > > > 
> > > > A lot of people 'join' this hell. What's about those people?
> > > 
> > > I think many of them use it as an anesthetic.
> > 
> > yes, especially if coupled with drugs which seems to me to be an
> > increasing trend
> > 
> > renato
> 
> And that, in and of itself, is a scathing indictment of our society today.  
> People should not have to reduce themselves to an un-thinking, alcohol or 
> drug addled state in order to 'have fun'.


This is very OT, but weed and alcohol could make people survive, assumed
that they are able to stop it, resp. some very known guys were able to
handle heroin + alcohol a whole live, e.g. William S. Burroughs,
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Burroughs1983_crop_b.jpg&filetimestamp=20080810122043.

"He says: You know, I can see two tiny pictures of myself
And there's one in each of your eyes. [...]" from a Lauri Anderson
album, but much more funny is "the advice to young people" from a
Material album :).

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 09:28 -0700, James Warden wrote:
> > Does my brain guess the loudness is or could be endless
> > high? Half of an
> > endless value would be anyway an endless value, right?
> 
> by endless, you mean "infinite" ?
> 
> J.

Yes ... translation is a PITA.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday, July 24, 2010 12:31:32 pm Renato did opine:

> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:15 -0400
> 
> Gene Heskett  wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 24, 2010 12:02:40 pm Ralf Mardorf did opine:
> > > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:22 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 24 July 2010 16:22:29 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:07 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music
> > > > > > was too loud.
> > > > > 
> > > > > OT, but anyway: This is a big problem in Germany. I only visit
> > > > > night clubs when a girlfriend 'force' me to do it and I always
> > > > > wear hearing protection. Now it becomes topic again: At those
> > > > > high levels, I don't have any feeling for what could be half as
> > > > > loud. I only have an idea of 'half as loud', when the acoustic
> > > > > pressure doesn't hurt.
> > > > 
> > > > That is because your ear shuts down with a bone bending to protect
> > > > itself to anything above. That bending is what hurts...
> > > > So you hearing goes into saturation for anything above that level.
> > > > Which makes it quite hard to determine "half as loud" when you
> > > > don't know how loud it really is...
> > > > 
> > > > Have fun,
> > > > 
> > > > Arnold
> > > 
> > > So, without being aware of it, I know that I don't know the real
> > > loudness. Is it the same for everybody or just for people who have
> > > the feeling to protect their ears, resp. to get out of this
> > > loudness hell?
> > > 
> > > A lot of people 'join' this hell. What's about those people?
> > 
> > I think many of them use it as an anesthetic.
> 
> yes, especially if coupled with drugs which seems to me to be an
> increasing trend
> 
> renato

And that, in and of itself, is a scathing indictment of our society today.  
People should not have to reduce themselves to an un-thinking, alcohol or 
drug addled state in order to 'have fun'.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
New Hampshire law forbids you to tap your feet, nod your head, or in
any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or cafe.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 18:16 +0200, Renato wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:15 -0400
> Gene Heskett  wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, July 24, 2010 12:02:40 pm Ralf Mardorf did opine:
> > 
> > > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:22 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 24 July 2010 16:22:29 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:07 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > > I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music
> > > > > > was too loud.
> > > > > 
> > > > > OT, but anyway: This is a big problem in Germany. I only visit
> > > > > night clubs when a girlfriend 'force' me to do it and I always
> > > > > wear hearing protection. Now it becomes topic again: At those
> > > > > high levels, I don't have any feeling for what could be half as
> > > > > loud. I only have an idea of 'half as loud', when the acoustic
> > > > > pressure doesn't hurt.
> > > > 
> > > > That is because your ear shuts down with a bone bending to protect
> > > > itself to anything above. That bending is what hurts...
> > > > So you hearing goes into saturation for anything above that level.
> > > > Which makes it quite hard to determine "half as loud" when you
> > > > don't know how loud it really is...
> > > > 
> > > > Have fun,
> > > > 
> > > > Arnold
> > > 
> > > So, without being aware of it, I know that I don't know the real
> > > loudness. Is it the same for everybody or just for people who have
> > > the feeling to protect their ears, resp. to get out of this
> > > loudness hell?
> > > 
> > > A lot of people 'join' this hell. What's about those people?
> > 
> > I think many of them use it as an anesthetic.
> 
> yes, especially if coupled with drugs which seems to me to be an
> increasing trend
> 
> renato

Before I enter a night club, forced by a girlfriend, I do smoke some
green tobacco cigarettes myself and I anyway can't stand this insane
loudness. Without smoking this kind of tobacco first, I would kill the
DJ + bouncers. I wounder about the German regulatory agency, they should
close all those night clubs.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[James Warden]

> Does my brain guess the loudness is or could be endless
> high? Half of an
> endless value would be anyway an endless value, right?

by endless, you mean "infinite" ?

J.


  
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Renato]

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:15 -0400
Gene Heskett  wrote:

> On Saturday, July 24, 2010 12:02:40 pm Ralf Mardorf did opine:
> 
> > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:22 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > > On Saturday 24 July 2010 16:22:29 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:07 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music
> > > > > was too loud.
> > > > 
> > > > OT, but anyway: This is a big problem in Germany. I only visit
> > > > night clubs when a girlfriend 'force' me to do it and I always
> > > > wear hearing protection. Now it becomes topic again: At those
> > > > high levels, I don't have any feeling for what could be half as
> > > > loud. I only have an idea of 'half as loud', when the acoustic
> > > > pressure doesn't hurt.
> > > 
> > > That is because your ear shuts down with a bone bending to protect
> > > itself to anything above. That bending is what hurts...
> > > So you hearing goes into saturation for anything above that level.
> > > Which makes it quite hard to determine "half as loud" when you
> > > don't know how loud it really is...
> > > 
> > > Have fun,
> > > 
> > > Arnold
> > 
> > So, without being aware of it, I know that I don't know the real
> > loudness. Is it the same for everybody or just for people who have
> > the feeling to protect their ears, resp. to get out of this
> > loudness hell?
> > 
> > A lot of people 'join' this hell. What's about those people?
> 
> I think many of them use it as an anesthetic.

yes, especially if coupled with drugs which seems to me to be an
increasing trend

renato
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday, July 24, 2010 12:02:40 pm Ralf Mardorf did opine:

> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:22 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 July 2010 16:22:29 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:07 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music was
> > > > too loud.
> > > 
> > > OT, but anyway: This is a big problem in Germany. I only visit night
> > > clubs when a girlfriend 'force' me to do it and I always wear
> > > hearing protection. Now it becomes topic again: At those high
> > > levels, I don't have any feeling for what could be half as loud. I
> > > only have an idea of 'half as loud', when the acoustic pressure
> > > doesn't hurt.
> > 
> > That is because your ear shuts down with a bone bending to protect
> > itself to anything above. That bending is what hurts...
> > So you hearing goes into saturation for anything above that level.
> > Which makes it quite hard to determine "half as loud" when you don't
> > know how loud it really is...
> > 
> > Have fun,
> > 
> > Arnold
> 
> So, without being aware of it, I know that I don't know the real
> loudness. Is it the same for everybody or just for people who have the
> feeling to protect their ears, resp. to get out of this loudness hell?
> 
> A lot of people 'join' this hell. What's about those people?

I think many of them use it as an anesthetic.
> 
> - Ralf
> 
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev


-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Ain't nothin' an old man can do for me but bring me a message from a young 
man.
-- Moms Mabley
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:46 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:44 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:22 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > > On Saturday 24 July 2010 16:22:29 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:07 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music was too
> > > > > loud.
> > > > 
> > > > OT, but anyway: This is a big problem in Germany. I only visit night
> > > > clubs when a girlfriend 'force' me to do it and I always wear hearing
> > > > protection. Now it becomes topic again: At those high levels, I don't
> > > > have any feeling for what could be half as loud. I only have an idea of
> > > > 'half as loud', when the acoustic pressure doesn't hurt.
> > > 
> > > That is because your ear shuts down with a bone bending to protect itself 
> > > to 
> > > anything above. That bending is what hurts...
> > > So you hearing goes into saturation for anything above that level. Which 
> > > makes 
> > > it quite hard to determine "half as loud" when you don't know how loud it 
> > > really is...
> > > 
> > > Have fun,
> > > 
> > > Arnold
> > 
> > So, without being aware of it, I know that I don't know the real
> > loudness. Is it the same for everybody or just for people who have the
> > feeling to protect their ears, resp. to get out of this loudness hell?
> > 
> > A lot of people 'join' this hell. What's about those people?
> > 
> > - Ralf
> 
> join should be enjoy ... sorry, broken English

Sorry for this PS, I try to learn not to write such a high amount of
mails :(, but it could be important.

Does my brain guess the loudness is or could be endless high? Half of an
endless value would be anyway an endless value, right?

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:44 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:22 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > On Saturday 24 July 2010 16:22:29 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:07 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music was too
> > > > loud.
> > > 
> > > OT, but anyway: This is a big problem in Germany. I only visit night
> > > clubs when a girlfriend 'force' me to do it and I always wear hearing
> > > protection. Now it becomes topic again: At those high levels, I don't
> > > have any feeling for what could be half as loud. I only have an idea of
> > > 'half as loud', when the acoustic pressure doesn't hurt.
> > 
> > That is because your ear shuts down with a bone bending to protect itself 
> > to 
> > anything above. That bending is what hurts...
> > So you hearing goes into saturation for anything above that level. Which 
> > makes 
> > it quite hard to determine "half as loud" when you don't know how loud it 
> > really is...
> > 
> > Have fun,
> > 
> > Arnold
> 
> So, without being aware of it, I know that I don't know the real
> loudness. Is it the same for everybody or just for people who have the
> feeling to protect their ears, resp. to get out of this loudness hell?
> 
> A lot of people 'join' this hell. What's about those people?
> 
> - Ralf

join should be enjoy ... sorry, broken English
> 
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 17:22 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> On Saturday 24 July 2010 16:22:29 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:07 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music was too
> > > loud.
> > 
> > OT, but anyway: This is a big problem in Germany. I only visit night
> > clubs when a girlfriend 'force' me to do it and I always wear hearing
> > protection. Now it becomes topic again: At those high levels, I don't
> > have any feeling for what could be half as loud. I only have an idea of
> > 'half as loud', when the acoustic pressure doesn't hurt.
> 
> That is because your ear shuts down with a bone bending to protect itself to 
> anything above. That bending is what hurts...
> So you hearing goes into saturation for anything above that level. Which 
> makes 
> it quite hard to determine "half as loud" when you don't know how loud it 
> really is...
> 
> Have fun,
> 
> Arnold

So, without being aware of it, I know that I don't know the real
loudness. Is it the same for everybody or just for people who have the
feeling to protect their ears, resp. to get out of this loudness hell?

A lot of people 'join' this hell. What's about those people?

- Ralf

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Arnold Krille]

On Saturday 24 July 2010 16:22:29 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:07 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music was too
> > loud.
> 
> OT, but anyway: This is a big problem in Germany. I only visit night
> clubs when a girlfriend 'force' me to do it and I always wear hearing
> protection. Now it becomes topic again: At those high levels, I don't
> have any feeling for what could be half as loud. I only have an idea of
> 'half as loud', when the acoustic pressure doesn't hurt.

That is because your ear shuts down with a bone bending to protect itself to 
anything above. That bending is what hurts...
So you hearing goes into saturation for anything above that level. Which makes 
it quite hard to determine "half as loud" when you don't know how loud it 
really is...

Have fun,

Arnold


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:08:34 am Ralf Mardorf did opine:

> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:37 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> > > On 07/22/2010 11:44 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> > > > Extrapolating a bit, that is one of the reasons why an
> > > > unamplified singer in an opera theatre can have a dramatic
> > > > effect that is much stronger than someone yelling into a
> > > > microphone and being amplified to 130 dB SPL. By which I
> > > > don't want to imply that amplified music is wrong in any
> > > > sense.
> > > 
> > > *anything* at 130 dB SPL is wrong in any sense. :p
> > 
> > No, I wish to listen to the opera at the other mountaintop. Regarding
> > to the German wiki about SPL, the pain threshold is at 134 dB at the
> > ear. Assumed the opera house is at another mountaintop or in the
> > valley, even 130 dB could be a little bit to less power. ;D
> 
> I know it's idiotic, OTOH when do we ever wish to have knowledge about
> objective 'twice as loud'? Did anybody ever thought 'shit, I need to mix
> the snare objectively half as loud, but I don't know what's the correct
> level'?

I wondered about that myself.  I got stuck mixing for KISS one labor day in 
the late 70's.  All I got for tutorial was which mic/instrument was which 
knob on the snakes panel that Gene brought to the me in the control room at 
KIVA-TV in Farmington NM, telling me which jack to get my air audio from.  
That snake panel was about as homemade as could be.  And Gene said if it 
sounded good to me, it probably was.  So I set the axe & drums to hit zero 
to plus 2, the voices and guitar at about -2 to 0.  I recorded about 10 
minutes worth and invited Gene into listen to the air check during the NBC 
portion of the telethon and he was pleased.  They were on the road, between 
shows and had a few hours to kill, so they stopped and volunteered to play 
music during the local break times for about 4 hours.  All were in the 
famous KISS war paint, which was a little streaked because the local temps 
were in the low 100's and their bus had no air conditioning.  And badly in 
need of a shower from the BO standpoint, but they did make some fine music 
for Jerry's Kids that day.

Yeah, I mixed for KISS once.  NBD.  But it does make a nice line on my 
resume. ;-)

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you can never fool your Mom.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:07 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music was too 
> loud.

OT, but anyway: This is a big problem in Germany. I only visit night
clubs when a girlfriend 'force' me to do it and I always wear hearing
protection. Now it becomes topic again: At those high levels, I don't
have any feeling for what could be half as loud. I only have an idea of
'half as loud', when the acoustic pressure doesn't hurt.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 11:25 +0200, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:58:44AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Apart from that studying this reveals a lot of how
> our hearing system might actually work, which is an
> interesting subject in itself.

That's true.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday, July 24, 2010 09:56:32 am Jörn Nettingsmeier did opine:

> On 07/22/2010 11:44 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> > Extrapolating a bit, that is one of the reasons why an
> > unamplified singer in an opera theatre can have a dramatic
> > effect that is much stronger than someone yelling into a
> > microphone and being amplified to 130 dB SPL. By which I
> > don't want to imply that amplified music is wrong in any
> > sense.
> 
> *anything* at 130 dB SPL is wrong in any sense. :p

My personal limit is about 120.  If its loud enough to hurt, it is hurting, 
and I have gotten up and left many a night club because the music was too 
loud.  I wore out the first 3 rifle barrels at the target range before one 
could buy decent ear muffs, and most of whats on the market today don't have 
the protection required.  I consider 30db a minimum.

So now, 45 years later I have what are called Carhart Notches in my 
hearing, 120 db deep at 4 khz.  I blew the hearing tester away when she was 
checking me a while back, she was at full scale with the test tone at 4 khz 
but all I could hear was the circuits white noise.  Which I heard quite 
easily.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."
-- Vince Lombardi, football coach
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[lieven moors]

On 07/23/2010 10:23 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:42:11PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:
>
>   
>> On 07/23/2010 06:29 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> Transporting this to the audio domain, given two similar
>>> sounds A and B with a B having a higher level than A, you
>>> could adjust a third one X so it appears to be 'halfway'
>>> between A and B. If you do this with A much smaller than
>>> B, would you expect X to be close to 'half a loud as B' ?
>>>
>>>   
>>>   
>> If A would be very close to silence, yes.
>> 
> I'd be *very* surprised if that would turn out to be true.
>
> I bet that if B is A + 40 dB, X would turn out to be
> close to A + 20 dB. And if B is A + 60 dB, X will be
> close to A + 30 dB. In both cases A is very small 
> conpared to B (at most 1/1 in power).
>
> Ciao,
>
>   
Let's put it differently. If you only had sound B, and you
were asked to position a similar sound X halfway between
total silence, and the level of sound B, wouldn't that be the
same as asking that sound X has half the loudness of sound
B, or as asking that sound B has double the loudness of
sound X?

Greetings,

Lieven
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:58:44AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

> I know it's idiotic, OTOH when do we ever wish to have knowledge about
> objective 'twice as loud'? Did anybody ever thought 'shit, I need to mix
> the snare objectively half as loud, but I don't know what's the correct
> level'?

You're looking at it from the limited perspective of 
someone wanting to mix a recording.

Asking what means 'twice as loud' is probably the wrong
question. But we need to know the subjective effect of
sound in order to:

- develop efficient techniques for correcting noise
related problems without overdoing it at gigantic cost,

- draw up sensible legislation about noise pollution,

- aid diagnosis or hearing problems,

- etc. etc.

Apart from that studying this reveals a lot of how
our hearing system might actually work, which is an
interesting subject in itself.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:52 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:37 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> > On 07/22/2010 11:44 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> > 
> > > Extrapolating a bit, that is one of the reasons why an
> > > unamplified singer in an opera theatre can have a dramatic
> > > effect that is much stronger than someone yelling into a
> > > microphone and being amplified to 130 dB SPL. By which I
> > > don't want to imply that amplified music is wrong in any
> > > sense.
> > 
> > *anything* at 130 dB SPL is wrong in any sense. :p
> 
> No, I wish to listen to the opera at the other mountaintop. Regarding to
> the German wiki about SPL, the pain threshold is at 134 dB at the ear.
> Assumed the opera house is at another mountaintop or in the valley, even
> 130 dB could be a little bit to less power. ;D

I know it's idiotic, OTOH when do we ever wish to have knowledge about
objective 'twice as loud'? Did anybody ever thought 'shit, I need to mix
the snare objectively half as loud, but I don't know what's the correct
level'?


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 10:37 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> On 07/22/2010 11:44 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> 
> > Extrapolating a bit, that is one of the reasons why an
> > unamplified singer in an opera theatre can have a dramatic
> > effect that is much stronger than someone yelling into a
> > microphone and being amplified to 130 dB SPL. By which I
> > don't want to imply that amplified music is wrong in any
> > sense.
> 
> *anything* at 130 dB SPL is wrong in any sense. :p

No, I wish to listen to the opera at the other mountaintop. Regarding to
the German wiki about SPL, the pain threshold is at 134 dB at the ear.
Assumed the opera house is at another mountaintop or in the valley, even
130 dB could be a little bit to less power. ;D

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 07/22/2010 11:44 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:


Extrapolating a bit, that is one of the reasons why an
unamplified singer in an opera theatre can have a dramatic
effect that is much stronger than someone yelling into a
microphone and being amplified to 130 dB SPL. By which I
don't want to imply that amplified music is wrong in any
sense.


*anything* at 130 dB SPL is wrong in any sense. :p
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:42:11PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:

> On 07/23/2010 06:29 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
>
> > Transporting this to the audio domain, given two similar
> > sounds A and B with a B having a higher level than A, you
> > could adjust a third one X so it appears to be 'halfway'
> > between A and B. If you do this with A much smaller than
> > B, would you expect X to be close to 'half a loud as B' ?
> >
> >   
> If A would be very close to silence, yes.

I'd be *very* surprised if that would turn out to be true.

I bet that if B is A + 40 dB, X would turn out to be
close to A + 20 dB. And if B is A + 60 dB, X will be
close to A + 30 dB. In both cases A is very small 
conpared to B (at most 1/1 in power).

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Albert Graef]

lieven moors wrote:
> On 07/22/2010 11:25 PM, Albert Graef wrote:
>> lieven moors wrote:
>>   
>>> ...continuation of truncated mail (does anyone know why this happens?)
>>> 
>> Probably it's the second "From" line; looks like your mail client is
>> confused by this.
>>
>> Concerning your question: As other have remarked, that is a very
>> intricate question which is studied in psychoacoustics, so one of the
>> requisite textbooks on the subject (like Roederer's "Psychophysics")
>>   
> Thanks for the pointer. I'll see if I can find a copy...

That's the one that I mean (most recent edition):
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Psychophysics-Music-Introduction/dp/0387094709/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

If nothing else, it should point you to the original literature that's
relevant to your question and see how these people went about their
experiments.

> Do you think there is a direct connection between frequency-specific
> sensitivity, and the SPL range the ear can tolerate for specific
> frequencies?

That's in the F/M curves as well. There have also been experiments to
identify the ranges that are relevant to language and music. Indeed
there has been *lots* of scientific work done in this area since the
1960s. Of course all these results are statistical as they relate
objective physical measures with subjective levels of stimuli, but that
doesn't mean that it's all hogwash. ;-)

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  dr.gr...@t-online.de, a...@muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
WWW:http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Folderol]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
James Warden  wrote:

> > We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
> > the meaning of that word by association.  But do we
> > 'see'
> > the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.
> 
> I would tend to say yes, for if I was in your brain to check, I would be you 
> :)
> 
> J.

Ha!
Hmmm. You're not a politician or lawyer by any chance :)

-- 
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 02:20:02PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:

> But if two people talking is power because their talking is uncorrelated 
> (even 
> if they speak about the same thing:), then making a PA louder (twice as loud 
> as before) would be an amplitude thing as it is correlated. No?

Assuming you can find some gain factor that your test listeners
would agree on to call 'double', then that will correspond to
some amplitude ratio R and a power ratio R^2. It doesn't matter
wich one you use. The important thing here is that your test is
measuring the subjective loudness effect of playing back the
*same* sound at different levels, as opposed to increasing the
level by adding other sounds. 

I guess that if you ask people to adjust the levels of two
similar sounds until one seems 'double as loud' as the other,
what they do is choose some ratio that they feel comfortable
with calling 'double' in everyday parlance. I doubt very much
if such a choice would be consistent with their choice for
other (bigger) loudness ratios.

For example if you find that for the your listeners 'twice
as loud' means +10dB, and then you'd play two sounds with a
difference of 40dB, would they experience that as '16 times
as loud' ? I doubt if they would even be able say if it is
8 or 32 times. 

There is another consequence of calling some dB difference
'twice as loud'. If the result is consistent (in the above
sense), it means that our perception of loudness is *not*
logarithmic as it is often described to be: if it were,
a change of a fixed number of dB would correspond to a 
constant subjective *difference*, and not to a constant
ratio such as 2:1. For example, the classical +10dB for
double loudness means that L = c * P^0.3, L = loudness,
P sound power, and c some constant. This is a power law,
not a logarithmic one.

If 'twice as loud' would correspond to +6dB, that would
actually mean that loudness is a *linear* function of
sound pressure...
 
All this makes me think that the whole concept of 'twice
as loud' is meaningless, and where it has been used it
is a bad name for something else. 

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[lieven moors]

On 07/23/2010 06:29 PM, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:28:37PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:
>
>   
>> I don't think this is easy. Imagine a ruler lying on your desk, and
>> try to imagine the point where the ruler would become twice as
>> long. I think you will find that your brain is continually adjusting
>> that distance, and that it requires significant effort.
>> 
> True, but it will be somewhere between say 1.8 and 2.2.
> Not 1.5, not 3. The problem here is just one of precision.  
> For sound this is quite different. Except by imagining or
> remembering '2 of the same' there seems no way to even just
> define what 'twice as loud' is supposed to mean. 
>
>   
>> This is how it could work for example:
>> ...
>> Now, if we would halve the range again, we would be unable
>> to distinguish x from that point, and we have some kind of
>> measuring
>> stick:  |  
>>  | |  |  |
>> 
> Transporting this to the audio domain, given two similar
> sounds A and B with a B having a higher level than A, you
> could adjust a third one X so it appears to be 'halfway'
> between A and B. If you do this with A much smaller than
> B, would you expect X to be close to 'half a loud as B' ?
>
>   
If A would be very close to silence, yes.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Florian Faber]

On 07/23/10 18:29, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:

> For sound this is quite different. Except by imagining or
> remembering '2 of the same' there seems no way to even just
> define what 'twice as loud' is supposed to mean. 

Brightness and color temperature would be a better analogy than
distance, as the human perception continuosly adapts to changes.


Flo
-- 
Machines can do the work, so people have time to think.
public key DA43FEF4  x-hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:28:37PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:

> I don't think this is easy. Imagine a ruler lying on your desk, and
> try to imagine the point where the ruler would become twice as
> long. I think you will find that your brain is continually adjusting
> that distance, and that it requires significant effort.

True, but it will be somewhere between say 1.8 and 2.2.
Not 1.5, not 3. The problem here is just one of precision.  
For sound this is quite different. Except by imagining or
remembering '2 of the same' there seems no way to even just
define what 'twice as loud' is supposed to mean. 

> This is how it could work for example:
> ...
> Now, if we would halve the range again, we would be unable
> to distinguish x from that point, and we have some kind of
> measuring
> stick:  |  
>  | |  |  |

Transporting this to the audio domain, given two similar
sounds A and B with a B having a higher level than A, you
could adjust a third one X so it appears to be 'halfway'
between A and B. If you do this with A much smaller than
B, would you expect X to be close to 'half a loud as B' ?

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[lieven moors]

On 07/22/2010 11:25 PM, Albert Graef wrote:
> lieven moors wrote:
>   
>> ...continuation of truncated mail (does anyone know why this happens?)
>> 
> Probably it's the second "From" line; looks like your mail client is
> confused by this.
>
> Concerning your question: As other have remarked, that is a very
> intricate question which is studied in psychoacoustics, so one of the
> requisite textbooks on the subject (like Roederer's "Psychophysics")
>   
Thanks for the pointer. I'll see if I can find a copy...
> might be helpful. Conventional wisdom (based on psychoacoustic
> experiments) has it that a 10 phon increase (i.e., 10dB SPL, corrected
> for frequency-specific sensitivity using the Fletcher/Munson curves or
> some variation of that) means double loudness for many people (on the
> average).
>   
Do you think there is a direct connection between frequency-specific
sensitivity, and the SPL range the ear can tolerate for specific
frequencies?
> But of course that doesn't mean that you can just add signals until you
> achieve a 10 phon increase and get something twice as loud. If you're
> adding signals then you also have to consider masking effects
> (basically, spectral components hitting the same critical band on the
> Cochlea), so you'll need a psychoacoustic model (same as what gets used
> for lossy compression) to get it sorted out.
>
> Albert
>
>   
Yes, the ear is a wonderfully complex thing...

Greetings,

Lieven
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 17:37 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 17:31 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 11:13 +0100, Frank Smith wrote:
> > > Hi All
> > > I was under the impression that every 3 db increase doubled the volume
> > > and you needed to increase the power needed by a factor of 3 . Things
> > >  could have changed by now but this is what I use.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Cheers
> > > Bob
> > 
> > And ... 1 KHz sine wave vs music @ the same dB ... the basis has to be
> > noise, representing the frequency spectrum regarded to the sensitivity
> > of the human ear?! Or to usual music, usual speaking? ... dB is some
> > artificial thingy itself.
> > 
> > A paradox, dB for audio claims to be related to the human ear.
> > 
> > I heard about 3 dB, 6 dB and 10 dB as twice as loud.
> > 
> 
> I experienced 9 dB and 12 dB as twice as loud, but exactly 10 dB.
> 
> 3 dB, 6 dB, "9 dB and 12 dB, instead of 10 dB" ... for my emotions there
> is a math pattern.
> 

Regarding to digital meters (dBfs) and analog meters (VU), I never
measured the acoustic pressure at the position of my ears.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 17:31 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 11:13 +0100, Frank Smith wrote:
> > Hi All
> > I was under the impression that every 3 db increase doubled the volume
> > and you needed to increase the power needed by a factor of 3 . Things
> >  could have changed by now but this is what I use.
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Bob
> 
> And ... 1 KHz sine wave vs music @ the same dB ... the basis has to be
> noise, representing the frequency spectrum regarded to the sensitivity
> of the human ear?! Or to usual music, usual speaking? ... dB is some
> artificial thingy itself.
> 
> A paradox, dB for audio claims to be related to the human ear.
> 
> I heard about 3 dB, 6 dB and 10 dB as twice as loud.
> 

I experienced 9 dB and 12 dB as twice as loud, but exactly 10 dB.

3 dB, 6 dB, "9 dB and 12 dB, instead of 10 dB" ... for my emotions there
is a math pattern.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 11:13 +0100, Frank Smith wrote:
> Hi All
> I was under the impression that every 3 db increase doubled the volume
> and you needed to increase the power needed by a factor of 3 . Things
>  could have changed by now but this is what I use.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Bob

And ... 1 KHz sine wave vs music @ the same dB ... the basis has to be
noise, representing the frequency spectrum regarded to the sensitivity
of the human ear?! Or to usual music, usual speaking? ... dB is some
artificial thingy itself.

A paradox, dB for audio claims to be related to the human ear.

I heard about 3 dB, 6 dB and 10 dB as twice as loud.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Philipp Überbacher]

Excerpts from Ralf Mardorf's message of 2010-07-23 16:04:17 +0200:
> On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 12:13 +0200, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> > 
> > > > > We could think about what makes judging twice the
> > > > > loudness more difficult and maybe find a relation to another 
> > > > > phenomenon
> > > > > this way. The limits of hearing apply to everything, but what about
> > > > > factors like the time between two sounds or the length of the sounds?
> > > > 
> > > > All of these affect both masking and loudness.
> > > 
> > > Yep, but maybe some of the other possible factors match one phenomenon
> > > but not the other.
> > 
> > Indeed. As I said, this relation between 'loudness' and masking
> > is pure conjecture, I have no hard arguments pro.
> > 
> > > May I ask why you used 10*log(2/1) in your two person example?
> > 
> > You mean why power and not amplitude ? Two persons talking would
> > produce twice the power, since the signals are not correlated.
> > So if our idea of 'twice as loud' would be determined by such
> > experiences (but it clearly isn't), it would refer to power.
> > 
> > > Do nearfield effects matter?
> > 
> > Probably yes, but don't ask me how !
> > 
> > Joern's remark that the phrase 'twice as loud' doesn't make
> > sense is to the point. We only accept it because it is 'well-
> > formed' at the language level. But there is no a priori 
> > numerical value for loudness (indeed we are trying to find
> > one !), so 'doubling' it is in fact undefined.
> > 
> > Ciao,
> > 
> 
> If parents want their children to play the music half as loud, the
> parents usually have a perfect idea of what half as loud is, it quiet
> often differs to the idea of the children.

That is a very nice example indeed. I guess in many cases the parents
would use a different wording, which would add the inaccuracy of natural
languages to the problem.
-- 
Regards,
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle 
Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 12:13 +0200, f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> 
> > > > We could think about what makes judging twice the
> > > > loudness more difficult and maybe find a relation to another phenomenon
> > > > this way. The limits of hearing apply to everything, but what about
> > > > factors like the time between two sounds or the length of the sounds?
> > > 
> > > All of these affect both masking and loudness.
> > 
> > Yep, but maybe some of the other possible factors match one phenomenon
> > but not the other.
> 
> Indeed. As I said, this relation between 'loudness' and masking
> is pure conjecture, I have no hard arguments pro.
> 
> > May I ask why you used 10*log(2/1) in your two person example?
> 
> You mean why power and not amplitude ? Two persons talking would
> produce twice the power, since the signals are not correlated.
> So if our idea of 'twice as loud' would be determined by such
> experiences (but it clearly isn't), it would refer to power.
> 
> > Do nearfield effects matter?
> 
> Probably yes, but don't ask me how !
> 
> Joern's remark that the phrase 'twice as loud' doesn't make
> sense is to the point. We only accept it because it is 'well-
> formed' at the language level. But there is no a priori 
> numerical value for loudness (indeed we are trying to find
> one !), so 'doubling' it is in fact undefined.
> 
> Ciao,
> 

If parents want their children to play the music half as loud, the
parents usually have a perfect idea of what half as loud is, it quiet
often differs to the idea of the children.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 11:13 +0100, Frank Smith wrote:
> Hi All
> I was under the impression that every 3 db increase doubled the volume
> and you needed to increase the power needed by a factor of 3 . Things
>  could have changed by now but this is what I use.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Bob

I guess this was an old radio ratio for music and speaker and yes, it
was interpreted as "twice as", also 6 dB, but if you mix music it can be
9 dB or 12 dB since you get this impression. So I guess 10 dB is most
common. For math it might be 6 dB, regarding to twice as far to the
sound source, what not really must result in half as loud.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[drew Roberts]

On Friday 23 July 2010 07:21:00 Florian Faber wrote:
> On 07/23/10 00:06, drew Roberts wrote:
> > Is some pepper dish twice as hot as another?
>
> If you define 'hot' as 'amount of capsaicine', there is the Scoville scale.

I know of the scale, but does doubling the amount of capsaicin double 
the "heat"?

You can measure lots of things wrt sound and say one sound has double X units 
of the other, but does that make the loudness double?
>
>
> Flo

drew
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Arnold Krille]

On Friday 23 July 2010 12:13:32 f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> > May I ask why you used 10*log(2/1) in your two person example?
> You mean why power and not amplitude ? Two persons talking would
> produce twice the power, since the signals are not correlated.
> So if our idea of 'twice as loud' would be determined by such
> experiences (but it clearly isn't), it would refer to power.

But if two people talking is power because their talking is uncorrelated (even 
if they speak about the same thing:), then making a PA louder (twice as loud 
as before) would be an amplitude thing as it is correlated. No?

Arnold


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[lieven moors]

On 07/22/2010 03:36 PM, Fons Adriaensen-2 wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:31:09PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:
>
> > Hi Fons, I'm a fool to even try to answer this question.
> > But I couldn't resist...
>
> :-)
>  
>
> > Let's suppose we have two sounds A and B,
> > and sound B has been measured as being twice as loud as A,
> > by somebody. In order to be able to say that, that person needs
> > some kind of reference measurement unit, the equivalent of a
> > measurement stick. That unit has to satisfy two requirements.
> > It has to be big enough, so that people can agree some difference
> > is being measured, and it has to be small enough, so that a multiples
> > of that unit fit into a realistic range. There is a requirement of
> maximum
> > precision (the smallest value we can measure), and a requirement of
> > minimum precision. The question is, what kind of measurement stick
> > is being used by that person.
>
> Not really. If A is 'twice' B, either A or B can act as the reference.
Yes, but we can never agree that A is twice B, unless we agree on
how precise the measurement could/should be.

>
> I'm pretty sure that if you'd do the experiment to find out when
> people think that an object B is twice as big as another object A
> (without introducing optical illusions), you'd find that it's quite
> close to a factor of 2. This is because we can easily imagine two
> A's side by side, which would be 'twice as big' as one A.

I don't think this is easy. Imagine a ruler lying on your desk, and
try to imagine the point where the ruler would become twice as
long. I think you will find that your brain is continually adjusting
that distance, and that it requires significant effort.
It also occurs to me, that by doing this, I am actually
determining the smallest observable difference, and that this
distance is proportionate to the length of the ruler.

>
> Can we do something similar with 'loudness' ? As I wrote, the
> only option I see is to consider two equal sources to be 'twice
> as loud' as one of them, but that doesn't work out.

It could work if we would agree on it. But apparently our brains
have made up their own mind :-)
That's why I propose to reconsider how we look at measurement.
The process of measuring might not be as simple as we think.

>
> Given this, what you write does make sense - there must be some
> 'stick' rather than a real comparison of A to B. But what is it
> based on ? If most people do agree on some value for 'twice as
> loud', even with a large variation, there must be some physical
> ground for this. But what is it ? And a related question: iff
> there is some 'unit' even a variable one depending on frequency
> etc., why can't we imagine that unit ? Why don't we 'see' the
> stick ?

When we see the length of something, we don't see the stick either.
The only thing we see is that one thing is longer than the other.
The stick is just a short thing, which we can compare to all other
things. But even when you agree on such a reference, you still have to
go through the process of measuring.
The problem of 'twice as loud', shows us that we can measure things
even without an agreed-on unit. Somehow we are able to dynamically
create that unit when we need it.

This is how it could work for example:

we have a range, and something within that range:   | x
|

we try to cut the range in halves and keep the part with x:| x |
The precision of cutting in halves is based on the smallest
observable difference between the two halves, and is
proportionate to the size of the range. (yes I know this is
a problematic statement, I have to think more about this)
We do the same thing
again:| x  |
Now, if we would halve the range again, we would be unable
to distinguish x from that point, and we have some kind of
measuring
stick:  |  
 | |  |  |


> > First of all, we can assume that the length of that stick will be
> depend
> > on the range of possible input values that we observe, and that we want
> > to measure. If we want to measure the size of a road, we will probably
> > use kilometers, instead of meters. In the same way, when our ears want
> > to measure the amplitude of a sound, our ears will use smaller or
> bigger
> > units, depending on the ranges observed. What are the ranges we
> observe?
> > Let's assume that humans are perfect, and observe everything that we
> > can observe with SPL meters. We could do a statistical investigation
> > on a number of people, and make charts of everything they hear.
> > In these charts we would see what frequencies they are exposed to,
> > and what the minimum and maximum SPL's are for that frequencies.
> > After more analyses, we would have one chart that could be
> > representative for most people.
>
> This is basically what has been done more than 50 years ago, with
> the known results: the objective ratio

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Florian Faber]

On 07/23/10 00:06, drew Roberts wrote:

> Is some pepper dish twice as hot as another?

If you define 'hot' as 'amount of capsaicine', there is the Scoville scale.


Flo
-- 
Machines can do the work, so people have time to think.
public key DA43FEF4  x-hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

> > > We could think about what makes judging twice the
> > > loudness more difficult and maybe find a relation to another phenomenon
> > > this way. The limits of hearing apply to everything, but what about
> > > factors like the time between two sounds or the length of the sounds?
> > 
> > All of these affect both masking and loudness.
> 
> Yep, but maybe some of the other possible factors match one phenomenon
> but not the other.

Indeed. As I said, this relation between 'loudness' and masking
is pure conjecture, I have no hard arguments pro.

> May I ask why you used 10*log(2/1) in your two person example?

You mean why power and not amplitude ? Two persons talking would
produce twice the power, since the signals are not correlated.
So if our idea of 'twice as loud' would be determined by such
experiences (but it clearly isn't), it would refer to power.

> Do nearfield effects matter?

Probably yes, but don't ask me how !

Joern's remark that the phrase 'twice as loud' doesn't make
sense is to the point. We only accept it because it is 'well-
formed' at the language level. But there is no a priori 
numerical value for loudness (indeed we are trying to find
one !), so 'doubling' it is in fact undefined.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Frank Smith]

Hi All
I was under the impression that every 3 db increase doubled the volume and
you needed to increase the power needed by a factor of 3 . Things  could
have changed by now but this is what I use.

Cheers
Bob




On 22 July 2010 20:14, lieven moors  wrote:

>  On 07/21/2010 07:24 PM, Fons Adriaensen-2 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:05:01AM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
>
> > I think the word loudness is a problem here. Afaik it usually refers to
> > how it is perceived, and twice the amplitude doesn't mean twice the
> > perceived loudness. It may mean twice the sound pressure level, energy,
> > or intensity (if we ignore analogue anomalies, as you wrote in some other
>
> > answer).
>
> Subjective loudness is a very complex thing, depending on the
> spectrum, duration, and other aspects of the sound, and also
> on circumstances not related to the sound itself.
>
> For mid frequencies and a duraion of one second, the average
> subjective impression of 'twice as loud' seems to correspond
> to an SPL difference of around +10 dB.
>
> I often wondered what criterion we use to determine which
> objective SPL difference sounds as 'twice as loud'. We don't
> have any conscious numerical value (there may be unconscious
> ones such as the amount of auditory nerve pulses, or the amount
> of neural activity), so what it this impression based on ?
>
> The only thing I could imagine is some link with the subjective
> impression of a variable number of identical sources. For example
> two people talking could be considered to be 'twice as loud' as
> one. But that is not the case, the results don't fit at all (it
> would mean 3 dB instead of 10).
>
>
> Hi Fons, I'm a fool to even try to answer this question.
> But I couldn't resist...
>
> Let's suppose we have two sounds A and B,
> and sound B has been measured as being twice as loud as A,
> by somebody. In order to be able to say that, that person needs
> some kind of reference measurement unit, the equivalent of a
> measurement stick. That unit has to satisfy two requirements.
> It has to be big enough, so that people can agree some difference
> is being measured, and it has to be small enough, so that a multiples
> of that unit fit into a realistic range. There is a requirement of maximum
> precision (the smallest value we can measure), and a requirement of
> minimum precision. The question is, what kind of measurement stick
> is being used by that person.
>
> First of all, we can assume that the length of that stick will be depend
> on the range of possible input values that we observe, and that we want
> to measure. If we want to measure the size of a road, we will probably
> use kilometers, instead of meters. In the same way, when our ears want
> to measure the amplitude of a sound, our ears will use smaller or bigger
> units, depending on the ranges observed. What are the ranges we observe?
> Let's assume that humans are perfect, and observe everything that we
> can observe with SPL meters. We could do a statistical investigation
> on a number of people, and make charts of everything they hear.
> In these charts we would see what frequencies they are exposed to,
> and what the minimum and maximum SPL's are for that frequencies.
> After more analyses, we would have one chart that could be
> representative for most people.
>
> From that chart we could get an estimate of the size of the measurement
> unit. Frequencies with with bigger SPL variations would be measured
> with bigger units, and visa versa. And from this we could deduce what
> the minimum precision is for a certain frequency, when we say it is twice
> as loud. To satisfy the requirement of maximum precision, we should
> take into account the smallest observable differences for every frequency
> in the spectrum.
>
> now you can kill me :-)
>
> Greetings,
>
> Lieven
>
>
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>
>
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Philipp Überbacher]

Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-23 00:18:59 +0200:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49:03PM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> 
> > Interesting idea. From the little I read about masking it is a complex
> > thing as well, frequency, SPL, time between sounds, all that and
> > possibly more matters.
> 
> Which makes perceptual coding an interesting domain...
> 
> > We could think about what makes judging twice the
> > loudness more difficult and maybe find a relation to another phenomenon
> > this way. The limits of hearing apply to everything, but what about
> > factors like the time between two sounds or the length of the sounds?
> 
> All of these affect both masking and loudness.
> 
> Ciao,

Yep, but maybe some of the other possible factors match one phenomenon
but not the other.

May I ask why you used 10*log(2/1) in your two person example?

Do nearfield effects matter?
-- 
Regards,
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle 
Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Philipp Überbacher]

Excerpts from James Morris's message of 2010-07-23 10:25:44 +0200:
> On 23 July 2010 08:37, Arnold Krille  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thursday 22 July 2010 23:53:14 Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> >> Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-22 23:24:24 +0200:
> >> > We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
> >> > the meaning of that word by association.  But do we 'see'
> >> > the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.
> 
> We all agree on what red means; red is red; we agree that red is red.
> 
> Redness is not reducible to anything else, apparently:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

I didn't know it had a name. It definitely is a worthy problem.
-- 
Regards,
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle 
Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

On 07/22/2010 09:14 PM, lieven moors wrote:

On 07/21/2010 07:24 PM, Fons Adriaensen-2 wrote:

Subjective loudness is a very complex thing, depending on the
spectrum, duration, and other aspects of the sound, and also
on circumstances not related to the sound itself.



Let's suppose we have two sounds A and B,
and sound B has been measured as being twice as loud as A,
by somebody.


a very interesting thread!
i guess the basic problem is the unfortunate combination of the words 
"twice as", which implies a mathematically precise ratio, and "loud", 
which is a very individual, psychoacoustic criterion.


not that it doesn't make sense to discuss inter-individual metrics, but 
in case anyone gets frustrated in the process: try to discuss "twice as 
green" on some designer list, or "twice as harmonic" among 
musicologists. or while you're at it, "twice as beautiful"...


in comparison, the audio level problem is a lot more tractable ;)

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[James Morris]

On 23 July 2010 08:37, Arnold Krille  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 22 July 2010 23:53:14 Philipp Überbacher wrote:
>> Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-22 23:24:24 +0200:
>> > We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
>> > the meaning of that word by association.  But do we 'see'
>> > the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.

We all agree on what red means; red is red; we agree that red is red.

Redness is not reducible to anything else, apparently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia



>> This however is a thing I did wonder about. The general question of
>> whether perception is the same for every human, whether colors are the
>> same and so on. It most likely is hard to impossible to verify, but I
>> have to assume it is at least similar. It's a very nice question for
>> sure.
>
> The problem is that if you 'ask' people to describe what they see and feel,
> they all use the same words and meaning because they where taught since
> childhood.
>
> I think one way to 'verify' is to let people express their reception of
> something in an artistic way. Be it words in literature or colors and shapes
> in arts or melodies in music.
> Only problem is that you have to interpret that again;-)
>
> Have fun,
>
> Arnold
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Arnold Krille]

Hi,

On Thursday 22 July 2010 23:53:14 Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-22 23:24:24 +0200:
> > We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
> > the meaning of that word by association.  But do we 'see'
> > the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.
> This however is a thing I did wonder about. The general question of
> whether perception is the same for every human, whether colors are the
> same and so on. It most likely is hard to impossible to verify, but I
> have to assume it is at least similar. It's a very nice question for
> sure.

The problem is that if you 'ask' people to describe what they see and feel, 
they all use the same words and meaning because they where taught since 
childhood.

I think one way to 'verify' is to let people express their reception of 
something in an artistic way. Be it words in literature or colors and shapes 
in arts or melodies in music.
Only problem is that you have to interpret that again;-)

Have fun,

Arnold


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 23:53 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-22 23:24:24 +0200:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:56:41PM -0700, James Warden wrote:
> > 
> > > > This is
> > > > probably closer to the object size comparison.
> > > > I wonder how well we can judge something like twice the
> > > > brightness.
> > > 
> > > or smelling a perfume twice stronger :)
> > 
> > A very nice analogy, taking us even deeper into fuzzy territory...
> >  
> > > It reminds me a little about intensive and extensive variables
> > > in physics. That may well be unrelated though ...
> > 
> > I don't think it is directly related to that particular
> > difference. But it certainly is related to a more general
> > form of it - seeing each 'unit' in its own domain, and
> > some domains being fully isolated from others.
> > 
> > We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
> > the meaning of that word by association.  But do we 'see'
> > the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.
> > 
> > Ciao,
> > 
> > -- 
> > FA
> 
> This however is a thing I did wonder about. The general question of
> whether perception is the same for every human, whether colors are the
> same and so on. It most likely is hard to impossible to verify, but I
> have to assume it is at least similar. It's a very nice question for
> sure.

Most people have the same emotions, e.g. red = warm, blue = cold, even
if others might 'see' red as green instead of red. Btw. for colours
there were made tests, at what point the smallest visible difference to
the 'next' nuance is. The question about the colour is often asked by
children, at least by gifted children. And indeed we need to learn how
the colours are named. We much earlier have an impression of twice as
loud, perhaps we need to learn this too, but I guess most people, me
too, don't remember that this happened. We do know what 'twice as' is,
before we know what fractional arithmetic is.
In fact people do think different, simplified there are right and left
brained thinking people, artists often are left-hander, dyslexics etc.,
also there is the difference between people who think 'verbal' or
'nonverbal' e.g. by colours. But emotions are most of the times equal,
even thoughts are most of the times equal. How often do we read
something on a mailing list and did thought the same? We can assume that
our brains 'see' 'red' as similar the same colour. And most of us will
'hear' twice as loud for 'usual' loudness and 'usual' music, speech
around 10dB, but e.g. 6dB, even if 6dB is measurable for twice as near
to a sound source, IIRC.
For children it's natural to think about, that other people might see
colours etc. very different, for adults this is more common for people
who guess that they are much different than other people.
Most of us IQ 80 or IQ 140 do have the same impressions, not the same
interests and taste, but yes, red seems to be red and twice as loud
seems to be twice as loud for most of us.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:09:13PM -0700, James Warden wrote:

> I do think it has something to do with intensive vs extensive in the 
> following way:
> 
> when we talk about sound waves, temperature, smell, brightness, etc, these 
> are macro-observables representing a statistically huge number of 
> micro-states. This is how our human senses make sense of these huge sets (cf. 
> statistical physics founded by Boltzmann that explains classic 
> thermodynamics). It is therefore difficult for our brain to strictly quantify 
> variations of these huge sets that our senses can only approach "roughly" by 
> statistical "reduction".
> 
> On the other hand, any discreet observable that our senses can reach directly 
> (e.g. volume of an object of the same size order as our own body) is easily 
> quantifiable.
> 
> Just a guess ...

I need to think about this... It's 00:20 here, so that will be
for toworrow.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49:03PM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

> Interesting idea. From the little I read about masking it is a complex
> thing as well, frequency, SPL, time between sounds, all that and
> possibly more matters.

Which makes perceptual coding an interesting domain...

> We could think about what makes judging twice the
> loudness more difficult and maybe find a relation to another phenomenon
> this way. The limits of hearing apply to everything, but what about
> factors like the time between two sounds or the length of the sounds?

All of these affect both masking and loudness.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[James Warden]

> > It reminds me a little about intensive and extensive
> variables
> > in physics. That may well be unrelated though ...
> 
> I don't think it is directly related to that particular
> difference. But it certainly is related to a more general
> form of it - seeing each 'unit' in its own domain, and
> some domains being fully isolated from others.
> 

I do think it has something to do with intensive vs extensive in the following 
way:

when we talk about sound waves, temperature, smell, brightness, etc, these are 
macro-observables representing a statistically huge number of micro-states. 
This is how our human senses make sense of these huge sets (cf. statistical 
physics founded by Boltzmann that explains classic thermodynamics). It is 
therefore difficult for our brain to strictly quantify variations of these huge 
sets that our senses can only approach "roughly" by statistical "reduction".

On the other hand, any discreet observable that our senses can reach directly 
(e.g. volume of an object of the same size order as our own body) is easily 
quantifiable.

Just a guess ...

J.

  


  
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:57:36PM -0700, James Warden wrote:

> > We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
> > the meaning of that word by association.  But do we
> > 'see'
> > the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.
> 
> I would tend to say yes, for if I was in your brain to check, I would be you 
> :)

Touché.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[drew Roberts]

On Thursday 22 July 2010 17:24:24 f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
> the meaning of that word by association.  But do we 'see'
> the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.

Been asking people the above at least since I was a youngish teenager.

here is another to go along with sound, light, and smell...

Is some pepper dish twice as hot as another?

drew
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[James Warden]

> We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
> the meaning of that word by association.  But do we
> 'see'
> the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.

I would tend to say yes, for if I was in your brain to check, I would be you :)

J.




  
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:37:23PM +0100, Folderol wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:24:24 +0200
> f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:
> 
> > We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
> > the meaning of that word by association.  But do we 'see'
> > the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.
> 
> This brings back memories of long arguments amongst my friends (when
> we were all young and spotty).
> 
> We thought we'd pinned it down when someone suggested that the only way
> to be sure, would be if humans developed telepathy - a whole 'nother
> arguing point :)
> 
> That got shot down when someone suggested that the brain would have to
> do some form of translation to telepathic 'waves' and how could we be
> sure that everyone would translate the same way :) 

Yes. This was pointed out by Wittgenstein some 0.75 centuries
ago - you can't prove consciousness.

Even if you torture someone and he's screaming like hell, you
can always say "it's a robot progranmed to act like this when
given the stimuli we are giving it", and there's no way to
disprove that.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Philipp Überbacher]

Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-22 23:24:24 +0200:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:56:41PM -0700, James Warden wrote:
> 
> > > This is
> > > probably closer to the object size comparison.
> > > I wonder how well we can judge something like twice the
> > > brightness.
> > 
> > or smelling a perfume twice stronger :)
> 
> A very nice analogy, taking us even deeper into fuzzy territory...
>  
> > It reminds me a little about intensive and extensive variables
> > in physics. That may well be unrelated though ...
> 
> I don't think it is directly related to that particular
> difference. But it certainly is related to a more general
> form of it - seeing each 'unit' in its own domain, and
> some domains being fully isolated from others.
> 
> We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
> the meaning of that word by association.  But do we 'see'
> the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.
> 
> Ciao,
> 
> -- 
> FA

This however is a thing I did wonder about. The general question of
whether perception is the same for every human, whether colors are the
same and so on. It most likely is hard to impossible to verify, but I
have to assume it is at least similar. It's a very nice question for
sure.
-- 
Regards,
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle 
Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Philipp Überbacher]

Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-22 23:13:45 +0200:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:50:58PM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> 
> > We may be comparing the wrong thing when we compare with the size of
> > objects to loudness.
> 
> Indeed. I did not mention the visual analogy to suggest
> that the two domains are similar - rather to point out
> they are not. Something that works for one of them does
> not for the other.

What I tried to say is that there might be different cases in each
domain, some of which may be similar to a case in another domain.

> > I wonder how well we can judge something like twice the
> > brightness.
> 
> Same problem. I gues we can't. Or that whatever value
> of 'double' we arrive at will be without meaning.
> 
> My guess so far, but I have *NO* scientific evidence at
> all to support it, just some intuition, is that human
> perception of loudness of a sound is somehow related to
> the extent that a particular sound does prevent us to
> detect other known sounds, i.e. to masking effects. 
> 
> CIao,

Interesting idea. From the little I read about masking it is a complex
thing as well, frequency, SPL, time between sounds, all that and
possibly more matters. We could think about what makes judging twice the
loudness more difficult and maybe find a relation to another phenomenon
this way. The limits of hearing apply to everything, but what about
factors like the time between two sounds or the length of the sounds?
-- 
Regards,
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle 
Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:57:41PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:

> one little side problem with this is that our sensitivity to both
> loudness and brightness is adaptive. this means that although one
> could do some experimental work to determine the ratios that lead most
> people to judge one sound 2x as loud as another, as soon as you leave
> the experimental context, it becomes pretty meaningless in any
> practical sense. what you judge as quiet or loud (or bright or dim)
> depends an awful lot on what you've just been listening to. given that
> our sensitivity to volume is non-linear, it only takes some
> pre-exposure to a very quiet or very loud environment to totally skew
> the part of the curve that we're on when we try to establish how loud
> something is.
> 
> to be clear, i'm not suggesting that its not possible to come up with
> some useful and interesting numbers by measuring this sort of thing. i
> just want to note that they have to be viewed as deeply fuzzy because
> of the effect of the pre-listening environment in setting sensitivity
> levels.

Absolutely true. 

Extrapolating a bit, that is one of the reasons why an 
unamplified singer in an opera theatre can have a dramatic
effect that is much stronger than someone yelling into a
microphone and being amplified to 130 dB SPL. By which I
don't want to imply that amplified music is wrong in any
sense.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Folderol]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 23:24:24 +0200
f...@kokkinizita.net wrote:

> We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
> the meaning of that word by association.  But do we 'see'
> the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.
> 
> Ciao,

This brings back memories of long arguments amongst my friends (when
we were all young and spotty).

We thought we'd pinned it down when someone suggested that the only way
to be sure, would be if humans developed telepathy - a whole 'nother
arguing point :)

That got shot down when someone suggested that the brain would have to
do some form of translation to telepathic 'waves' and how could we be
sure that everyone would translate the same way :) 

10 GOTO 10

-- 
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:56 -0700, James Warden wrote:
> > This is
> > probably closer to the object size comparison.
> > I wonder how well we can judge something like twice the
> > brightness.
> > -- 
> 
> or smelling a perfume twice stronger :)

Because the impression of loudness is a mix of 'taste' and something
that is measurable. A jackhammer might become easier double as loud as a
enjoyable tune.

When do we feel having sex twice as good? Measurable by hormone release?

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Albert Graef]

lieven moors wrote:
> ...continuation of truncated mail (does anyone know why this happens?)

Probably it's the second "From" line; looks like your mail client is
confused by this.

Concerning your question: As other have remarked, that is a very
intricate question which is studied in psychoacoustics, so one of the
requisite textbooks on the subject (like Roederer's "Psychophysics")
might be helpful. Conventional wisdom (based on psychoacoustic
experiments) has it that a 10 phon increase (i.e., 10dB SPL, corrected
for frequency-specific sensitivity using the Fletcher/Munson curves or
some variation of that) means double loudness for many people (on the
average).

But of course that doesn't mean that you can just add signals until you
achieve a 10 phon increase and get something twice as loud. If you're
adding signals then you also have to consider masking effects
(basically, spectral components hitting the same critical band on the
Cochlea), so you'll need a psychoacoustic model (same as what gets used
for lossy compression) to get it sorted out.

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  dr.gr...@t-online.de, a...@muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
WWW:http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:56:41PM -0700, James Warden wrote:

> > This is
> > probably closer to the object size comparison.
> > I wonder how well we can judge something like twice the
> > brightness.
> 
> or smelling a perfume twice stronger :)

A very nice analogy, taking us even deeper into fuzzy territory...
 
> It reminds me a little about intensive and extensive variables
> in physics. That may well be unrelated though ...

I don't think it is directly related to that particular
difference. But it certainly is related to a more general
form of it - seeing each 'unit' in its own domain, and
some domains being fully isolated from others.

We all agree on what 'red' means. Because we have learned
the meaning of that word by association.  But do we 'see'
the same thing ? AFAIK, that is impossible to verify.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:50:58PM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

> We may be comparing the wrong thing when we compare with the size of
> objects to loudness.

Indeed. I did not mention the visual analogy to suggest
that the two domains are similar - rather to point out
they are not. Something that works for one of them does
not for the other.

> I wonder how well we can judge something like twice the
> brightness.

Same problem. I gues we can't. Or that whatever value
of 'double' we arrive at will be without meaning.

My guess so far, but I have *NO* scientific evidence at
all to support it, just some intuition, is that human
perception of loudness of a sound is somehow related to
the extent that a particular sound does prevent us to
detect other known sounds, i.e. to masking effects. 

CIao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Paul Davis]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Philipp Überbacher
 wrote:

> We may be comparing the wrong thing when we compare with the size of
> objects to loudness.
> It's relatively easy to say that the interval between sound B and C
> is twice as long as the interval between A and B (given the
> interval and the length of the sound is in a certain range). This is
> probably closer to the object size comparison.
> I wonder how well we can judge something like twice the
> brightness.

one little side problem with this is that our sensitivity to both
loudness and brightness is adaptive. this means that although one
could do some experimental work to determine the ratios that lead most
people to judge one sound 2x as loud as another, as soon as you leave
the experimental context, it becomes pretty meaningless in any
practical sense. what you judge as quiet or loud (or bright or dim)
depends an awful lot on what you've just been listening to. given that
our sensitivity to volume is non-linear, it only takes some
pre-exposure to a very quiet or very loud environment to totally skew
the part of the curve that we're on when we try to establish how loud
something is.

to be clear, i'm not suggesting that its not possible to come up with
some useful and interesting numbers by measuring this sort of thing. i
just want to note that they have to be viewed as deeply fuzzy because
of the effect of the pre-listening environment in setting sensitivity
levels.

--p
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[James Warden]

> This is
> probably closer to the object size comparison.
> I wonder how well we can judge something like twice the
> brightness.
> -- 

or smelling a perfume twice stronger :)

It reminds me a little about intensive and extensive variables in physics. That 
may well be unrelated though ...

J.


  
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Philipp Überbacher]

Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-22 22:36:58 +0200:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:31:09PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:
> 
> > Hi Fons, I'm a fool to even try to answer this question.
> > But I couldn't resist...
> 
> :-)
>  
> > Let's suppose we have two sounds A and B,
> > and sound B has been measured as being twice as loud as A,
> > by somebody. In order to be able to say that, that person needs
> > some kind of reference measurement unit, the equivalent of a
> > measurement stick. That unit has to satisfy two requirements.
> > It has to be big enough, so that people can agree some difference
> > is being measured, and it has to be small enough, so that a multiples
> > of that unit fit into a realistic range. There is a requirement of maximum
> > precision (the smallest value we can measure), and a requirement of
> > minimum precision. The question is, what kind of measurement stick
> > is being used by that person.
> 
> Not really. If A is 'twice' B, either A or B can act as the reference.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that if you'd do the experiment to find out when
> people think that an object B is twice as big as another object A
> (without introducing optical illusions), you'd find that it's quite
> close to a factor of 2. This is because we can easily imagine two
> A's side by side, which would be 'twice as big' as one A. 
> Can we do something similar with 'loudness' ? As I wrote, the 
> only option I see is to consider two equal sources to be 'twice
> as loud' as one of them, but that doesn't work out.
> 
> Given this, what you write does make sense - there must be some
> 'stick' rather than a real comparison of A to B. But what is it
> based on ? If most people do agree on some value for 'twice as
> loud', even with a large variation, there must be some physical
> ground for this. But what is it ? And a related question: iff 
> there is some 'unit' even a variable one depending on frequency
> etc., why can't we imagine that unit ? Why don't we 'see' the
> stick ?
> 
> > First of all, we can assume that the length of that stick will be depend
> > on the range of possible input values that we observe, and that we want
> > to measure. If we want to measure the size of a road, we will probably
> > use kilometers, instead of meters. In the same way, when our ears want
> > to measure the amplitude of a sound, our ears will use smaller or bigger
> > units, depending on the ranges observed. What are the ranges we observe?
> > Let's assume that humans are perfect, and observe everything that we
> > can observe with SPL meters. We could do a statistical investigation
> > on a number of people, and make charts of everything they hear.
> > In these charts we would see what frequencies they are exposed to,
> > and what the minimum and maximum SPL's are for that frequencies.
> > After more analyses, we would have one chart that could be
> > representative for most people.
> 
> This is basically what has been done more than 50 years ago, with
> the known results: the objective ratio corresponding to 'twice as
> loud' depends on frequency, absolute level, etc.  
> 
> > From that chart we could get an estimate of the size of the measurement
> > unit. Frequencies with with bigger SPL variations would be measured
> > with bigger units, and visa versa. And from this we could deduce what
> > the minimum precision is for a certain frequency, when we say it is twice
> > as loud. To satisfy the requirement of maximum precision, we should
> > take into account the smallest observable differences for every frequency
> > in the spectrum.
> 
> 'Smallest observable difference' has been measured as well. It should 
> relate in some way to 'twice as loud', but I haven't verified this.
> OTOH, knowing the smallest observable difference does not help to 
> define what 'twice as loud' is supposed to be.
> 
> Another poster mentioned that he found it quite difficult to work
> out what 'twice as loud' means for him - and I do believe that is
> touching on the real problem: if you start *thinking* about it 
> rather than just following your 'gut feeling', how sure can you
> still be of your impression of 'twice as loud' ? How stable is it
> in the face of doubt ?
> 
> Keep on thinking !

We may be comparing the wrong thing when we compare with the size of
objects to loudness.
It's relatively easy to say that the interval between sound B and C
is twice as long as the interval between A and B (given the
interval and the length of the sound is in a certain range). This is
probably closer to the object size comparison.
I wonder how well we can judge something like twice the
brightness.
-- 
Regards,
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle 
Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:55:40PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:

> ...continuation of truncated mail (does anyone know why this happens?)

No such problem here.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[fons]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:31:09PM +0200, lieven moors wrote:

> Hi Fons, I'm a fool to even try to answer this question.
> But I couldn't resist...

:-)
 
> Let's suppose we have two sounds A and B,
> and sound B has been measured as being twice as loud as A,
> by somebody. In order to be able to say that, that person needs
> some kind of reference measurement unit, the equivalent of a
> measurement stick. That unit has to satisfy two requirements.
> It has to be big enough, so that people can agree some difference
> is being measured, and it has to be small enough, so that a multiples
> of that unit fit into a realistic range. There is a requirement of maximum
> precision (the smallest value we can measure), and a requirement of
> minimum precision. The question is, what kind of measurement stick
> is being used by that person.

Not really. If A is 'twice' B, either A or B can act as the reference.

I'm pretty sure that if you'd do the experiment to find out when
people think that an object B is twice as big as another object A
(without introducing optical illusions), you'd find that it's quite
close to a factor of 2. This is because we can easily imagine two
A's side by side, which would be 'twice as big' as one A. 
Can we do something similar with 'loudness' ? As I wrote, the 
only option I see is to consider two equal sources to be 'twice
as loud' as one of them, but that doesn't work out.

Given this, what you write does make sense - there must be some
'stick' rather than a real comparison of A to B. But what is it
based on ? If most people do agree on some value for 'twice as
loud', even with a large variation, there must be some physical
ground for this. But what is it ? And a related question: iff 
there is some 'unit' even a variable one depending on frequency
etc., why can't we imagine that unit ? Why don't we 'see' the
stick ?

> First of all, we can assume that the length of that stick will be depend
> on the range of possible input values that we observe, and that we want
> to measure. If we want to measure the size of a road, we will probably
> use kilometers, instead of meters. In the same way, when our ears want
> to measure the amplitude of a sound, our ears will use smaller or bigger
> units, depending on the ranges observed. What are the ranges we observe?
> Let's assume that humans are perfect, and observe everything that we
> can observe with SPL meters. We could do a statistical investigation
> on a number of people, and make charts of everything they hear.
> In these charts we would see what frequencies they are exposed to,
> and what the minimum and maximum SPL's are for that frequencies.
> After more analyses, we would have one chart that could be
> representative for most people.

This is basically what has been done more than 50 years ago, with
the known results: the objective ratio corresponding to 'twice as
loud' depends on frequency, absolute level, etc.  

> From that chart we could get an estimate of the size of the measurement
> unit. Frequencies with with bigger SPL variations would be measured
> with bigger units, and visa versa. And from this we could deduce what
> the minimum precision is for a certain frequency, when we say it is twice
> as loud. To satisfy the requirement of maximum precision, we should
> take into account the smallest observable differences for every frequency
> in the spectrum.

'Smallest observable difference' has been measured as well. It should 
relate in some way to 'twice as loud', but I haven't verified this.
OTOH, knowing the smallest observable difference does not help to 
define what 'twice as loud' is supposed to be.

Another poster mentioned that he found it quite difficult to work
out what 'twice as loud' means for him - and I do believe that is
touching on the real problem: if you start *thinking* about it 
rather than just following your 'gut feeling', how sure can you
still be of your impression of 'twice as loud' ? How stable is it
in the face of doubt ?

Keep on thinking !

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 21:31 +0200, lieven moors wrote:
> On 07/21/2010 07:24 PM, Fons Adriaensen-2 wrote: 
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:05:01AM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: 
> > 
> > > I think the word loudness is a problem here. Afaik it usually
> > refers to 
> > > how it is perceived, and twice the amplitude doesn't mean twice
> > the 
> > > perceived loudness. It may mean twice the sound pressure level,
> > energy, 
> > > or intensity (if we ignore analogue anomalies, as you wrote in
> > some other 
> > > answer). 
> > 
> > Subjective loudness is a very complex thing, depending on the 
> > spectrum, duration, and other aspects of the sound, and also 
> > on circumstances not related to the sound itself. 
> > 
> > For mid frequencies and a duraion of one second, the average 
> > subjective impression of 'twice as loud' seems to correspond 
> > to an SPL difference of around +10 dB. 
> > 
> > I often wondered what criterion we use to determine which 
> > objective SPL difference sounds as 'twice as loud'. We don't 
> > have any conscious numerical value (there may be unconscious 
> > ones such as the amount of auditory nerve pulses, or the amount 
> > of neural activity), so what it this impression based on ? 
> Sorry to post this twice, but I think the mail got truncated.
> 
> Hi Fons, I'm a fool to even try to answer this question.
> But I couldn't resist...
> 
> Let's suppose we have two sounds A and B, 
> and sound B has been measured as being twice as loud as A,
> by somebody. In order to be able to say that, that person needs 
> some kind of reference measurement unit, the equivalent of a 
> measurement stick. That unit has to satisfy two requirements. 
> It has to be big enough, so that people can agree some difference 
> is being measured, and it has to be small enough, so that a multiples
> of that unit fit into a realistic range. There is a requirement of
> maximum 
> precision (the smallest value we can measure), and a requirement of 
> minimum precision. The question is, what kind of measurement stick 
> is being used by that person.
> 
> First of all, we can assume that the length of that stick will be
> depend 
> on the range of possible input values that we observe, and that we
> want 
> to measure. If we want to measure the size of a road, we will
> probably 
> use kilometers, instead of meters. In the same way, when our ears want
> to measure the amplitude of a sound, our ears will use smaller or
> bigger
> units, depending on the ranges observed. What are the ranges we
> observe?
> Let's assume that humans are perfect, and observe everything that we 
> can observe with SPL meters. We could do a statistical investigation
> on a number of people, and make charts of everything they hear.
> In these charts we would see what frequencies they are exposed to, 
> and what the minimum and maximum SPL's are for that frequencies.
> After more analyses, we would have one chart that could be 
> representative for most people.
> 
> >From that chart we could get an estimate of the size of the
> measurement 
> unit. Frequencies with with bigger SPL variations would be measured 
> with bigger units, and visa versa. And from this we could deduce what 
> the minimum precision is for a certain frequency, when we say it is
> twice 
> as loud. To satisfy the requirement of maximum precision, we should
> take into account the smallest observable differences for every
> frequency
> in the spectrum.
> 
> now you can kill me :-)
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Lieven

For microphones there usually are -10 dB pad and a lot of engineers feel
around -6 dB half as loud. I guess this are usual values regarding to
experiences by audio engineers. So even audio engineers can hardly say
what their subjective feeling is. If you take a lot of people and you do
lab tests, I guess the results will be very confusing.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[lieven moors]

...continuation of truncated mail (does anyone know why this happens?)

>From that chart we could get an estimate of the size of the measurement
unit. Frequencies with with bigger SPL variations would be measured
with bigger units, and visa versa. And from this we could deduce what
the minimum precision is for a certain frequency, when we say it is twice
as loud. To satisfy the requirement of maximum precision, we should
take into account the smallest observable differences for every frequency
in the spectrum.

Greetings,

Lieven
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] twice as loud

[lieven moors]

On 07/21/2010 07:24 PM, Fons Adriaensen-2 wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:05:01AM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
>
> > I think the word loudness is a problem here. Afaik it usually refers to
> > how it is perceived, and twice the amplitude doesn't mean twice the
> > perceived loudness. It may mean twice the sound pressure level, energy,
> > or intensity (if we ignore analogue anomalies, as you wrote in some
> other
> > answer).
>
> Subjective loudness is a very complex thing, depending on the
> spectrum, duration, and other aspects of the sound, and also
> on circumstances not related to the sound itself.
>
> For mid frequencies and a duraion of one second, the average
> subjective impression of 'twice as loud' seems to correspond
> to an SPL difference of around +10 dB.
>
> I often wondered what criterion we use to determine which
> objective SPL difference sounds as 'twice as loud'. We don't
> have any conscious numerical value (there may be unconscious
> ones such as the amount of auditory nerve pulses, or the amount
> of neural activity), so what it this impression based on ?
Sorry to post this twice, but I think the mail got truncated.

Hi Fons, I'm a fool to even try to answer this question.
But I couldn't resist...

Let's suppose we have two sounds A and B,
and sound B has been measured as being twice as loud as A,
by somebody. In order to be able to say that, that person needs
some kind of reference measurement unit, the equivalent of a
measurement stick. That unit has to satisfy two requirements.
It has to be big enough, so that people can agree some difference
is being measured, and it has to be small enough, so that a multiples
of that unit fit into a realistic range. There is a requirement of maximum
precision (the smallest value we can measure), and a requirement of
minimum precision. The question is, what kind of measurement stick
is being used by that person.

First of all, we can assume that the length of that stick will be depend
on the range of possible input values that we observe, and that we want
to measure. If we want to measure the size of a road, we will probably
use kilometers, instead of meters. In the same way, when our ears want
to measure the amplitude of a sound, our ears will use smaller or bigger
units, depending on the ranges observed. What are the ranges we observe?
Let's assume that humans are perfect, and observe everything that we
can observe with SPL meters. We could do a statistical investigation
on a number of people, and make charts of everything they hear.
In these charts we would see what frequencies they are exposed to,
and what the minimum and maximum SPL's are for that frequencies.
After more analyses, we would have one chart that could be
representative for most people.

>From that chart we could get an estimate of the size of the measurement
unit. Frequencies with with bigger SPL variations would be measured
with bigger units, and visa versa. And from this we could deduce what
the minimum precision is for a certain frequency, when we say it is twice
as loud. To satisfy the requirement of maximum precision, we should
take into account the smallest observable differences for every frequency
in the spectrum.

now you can kill me :-)

Greetings,

Lieven

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

[LAD] twice as loud

[lieven moors]

On 07/21/2010 07:24 PM, Fons Adriaensen-2 wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:05:01AM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
>
> > I think the word loudness is a problem here. Afaik it usually refers to
> > how it is perceived, and twice the amplitude doesn't mean twice the
> > perceived loudness. It may mean twice the sound pressure level, energy,
> > or intensity (if we ignore analogue anomalies, as you wrote in some
> other
> > answer).
>
> Subjective loudness is a very complex thing, depending on the
> spectrum, duration, and other aspects of the sound, and also
> on circumstances not related to the sound itself.
>
> For mid frequencies and a duraion of one second, the average
> subjective impression of 'twice as loud' seems to correspond
> to an SPL difference of around +10 dB.
>
> I often wondered what criterion we use to determine which
> objective SPL difference sounds as 'twice as loud'. We don't
> have any conscious numerical value (there may be unconscious
> ones such as the amount of auditory nerve pulses, or the amount
> of neural activity), so what it this impression based on ?
>
> The only thing I could imagine is some link with the subjective
> impression of a variable number of identical sources. For example
> two people talking could be considered to be 'twice as loud' as
> one. But that is not the case, the results don't fit at all (it
> would mean 3 dB instead of 10).
>

Hi Fons, I'm a fool to even try to answer this question.
But I couldn't resist...

Let's suppose we have two sounds A and B,
and sound B has been measured as being twice as loud as A,
by somebody. In order to be able to say that, that person needs
some kind of reference measurement unit, the equivalent of a
measurement stick. That unit has to satisfy two requirements.
It has to be big enough, so that people can agree some difference
is being measured, and it has to be small enough, so that a multiples
of that unit fit into a realistic range. There is a requirement of maximum
precision (the smallest value we can measure), and a requirement of
minimum precision. The question is, what kind of measurement stick
is being used by that person.

First of all, we can assume that the length of that stick will be depend
on the range of possible input values that we observe, and that we want
to measure. If we want to measure the size of a road, we will probably
use kilometers, instead of meters. In the same way, when our ears want
to measure the amplitude of a sound, our ears will use smaller or bigger
units, depending on the ranges observed. What are the ranges we observe?
Let's assume that humans are perfect, and observe everything that we
can observe with SPL meters. We could do a statistical investigation
on a number of people, and make charts of everything they hear.
In these charts we would see what frequencies they are exposed to,
and what the minimum and maximum SPL's are for that frequencies.
After more analyses, we would have one chart that could be
representative for most people.

>From that chart we could get an estimate of the size of the measurement
unit. Frequencies with with bigger SPL variations would be measured
with bigger units, and visa versa. And from this we could deduce what
the minimum precision is for a certain frequency, when we say it is twice
as loud. To satisfy the requirement of maximum precision, we should
take into account the smallest observable differences for every frequency
in the spectrum.

now you can kill me :-)

Greetings,

Lieven

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev