Marcus,
Thanks for sharing the 'side note'
The reason I found this so interesting is related to an experience I'm
having with new speakers in a brand new (to me) quite reverberant room. To
wit, I bought new speakers and brought them to a new house. The first time =
I
listened to them I was quite aware of the 'character' the room was adding t=
o
the sound coming from the loudspeakers. I was concerned as to how I would
'remediate' it. The next time (one week later) I heard the room/speaker
combo, the effects were much less pronounced, and subsequent times, even
less. Fast forward, and now, after many weekends of listening in this
formerly new environment, I can barely discern this 'character' that was so
apparent when first I heard it.
I hope you don't mind, I took the liberty of posting about the study on a
forum I frequent called Computer Audiophile. If you're serious about
wanting to get out the word on proper (i.e. high quality) recording, you'd
reach a different, but no less sympathetic audience there, albeit focused o=
n
listening to the recordings of others.
Thanks again,
Clay
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Marcus Buick <> wrote:
>
>
> An interesting side note: a paper written by Eugene Brandewie and Pavel
> Zahorika, in the JASA titled, Prior listening in rooms improves speech
> intelligibility, indicates that acoustic effects of a single re=EF=AC=82e=
ction are
> perceptually suppressed after repeated exposure to a particular
> con=EF=AC=81guration of
> source and re=EF=AC=82ection.
>
> Results from14 listeners indicate that with prior room exposure, masked
> speech
> reception thresholds were on average 2.7 dB lower than thresholds without
> exposure, an improvement in intelligibility of over 18%.
>
> This effect, which is shown to be absent in anechoic space and greatly
> reduced
> under monaural listening conditions, demonstrates that prior binaural
> exposure
> to reverberant rooms can improve speech intelligibility, perhaps due to a
> process of perceptual adaptation to the acoustics of the listening room.
>
> I believe this effect is also present when listening to music or any
> complex
> recording, and the inverse of this seems to be true as well, i.e. that wi=
th
>
> repeated exposure to any recording process, the listener=E2=80=99s ears h=
ear more
> of
> what they want their mics to capture, than everything the mics actually
> =E2=80=98hear=E2=80=99.
> Basically what you said Rob, that a recordist gets "better" at processing
> the
> "cues" provided by the arrays she/he uses.
>
>
>
>
|