22 Jul
2010
22 Jul
'10
11:49 p.m.
Excerpts from fons's message of 2010-07-22 23:13:45 +0200:
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
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:50:58PM +0200, Philipp
Überbacher wrote:
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.
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,