23 Jul
2010
23 Jul
'10
4:04 p.m.
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 12:13 +0200, fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Philipp
Überbacher wrote:
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.
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.
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. 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,