At 11:17 PM +0000 2/24/11, Microscopica wrote:
>Audio mapping is more complex than merely comparing amplitude
>levels, rig arrangements and playback systems. Everyone's brain is
>unique and complex, utilising both amplitude and temporal
>information to locate sound sources. Forgetting all the external
>influences affecting the original recording; it is accepted that
>below approx. 700Hz the brain makes use of the temporal element and
>above approx 1500Hz the amplitude element, between the two it makes
>use of both sets of information. Listeners' audio mapping systems
>are infinitely variable and also unique, dependant not only upon
>their particular surroundings, audio systems used etc., but
>importantly the listener's age, facial features and acuity of
>hearing! I woud not therefore be unduly concerned where you are
>making the comparison or whether or not you have a trained or
>untrained ear, as every listener will hear the playback completely
>different from both yourself and every other listener - just work on
>the premise that 'if y ou like what you hear then that is good
>enough'
>
>Best of luck!
>
>
Hi--
What you write and perception and subjectivity is very true and its a
big part of why comparison testing is used rather than numbers or
scientific measurement.
Just as wild animals use their ears to discern "significance," so can
sound recordists. No claims of universality are being made in this
approach, but perceptions do match well enough to make the results
very useful.
Taking some time to test or confirm various gear combinations and
sharing the results has enabled us, as recordists, to make better and
better decisions over time. We always make decisions that are
specific to our individual goals. That said, when we specify the
monitoring we are using in stating outcomes, our conclusions usually
line up pretty nicely. Rob D.
--
|