hi, I'm going to "stick my thought knife right into this subject", it's bee=
n boggling my mind for ages as I've read lots of posts here from some very =
well educated thinkers.
As I hear it, I'm always listening to a full combine of sound energy. I've =
tried differentiating between "thresholds" of induced noise levels, and I'v=
e tried separately being mathematical about it too, I really have.
My problem with the educated logic I've heard so far is that as I see it, w=
hen I'm listening to the energy entering my ears, I'm only aware of=A0 the =
total additive mass of=A0 it.
For me, noise masking is an academic dead end. I understand, from the princ=
iples of 'data reduced' audio storage formats, that there are psychoacustic=
factors that can be bundled up into theoretical sumations of reproduction =
perception.=A0 I get the idea that we can be fooled.
I also get the idea that I'm sick and fed up of being fooled, too.
I can't, for the life of me, see how a "noise" threshold level, at any meas=
ure below any other threshold level, can just be dismissed as incalculable.=
For me, that's academic idiocy.
If you can hear it, it noise.
The fact that there are other noises in the spectrum, doesn't mask anything=
. It's additive. If an orchestra of "noises" played together, would you ign=
ore all but the loudest=A0 component ?
I don't think so.
norman.
|