Psycho Acooustic Effects

[terrybooth]

I thought I'd start a thread on this since this is always at the back of what we hear.

We tend to instinctively think of listening as a passive thing, but it isn't it isn't, you put something into what you hear. Or to put it another way, what you hear is always filtered by the brain, it isn't simply a product of mechanical transformation of energy.

One demonstration of this is the McGurk effect

[BBvideo 425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0[/BBvideo]

This is a very simple sound. How much more complicated is music.

We listen to music because we want it to have an effect on us: relax, excite, reach into our emotions, express something we can't quite, create a meditiative state, cause us to dance about etc etc. but there are other ways of doing all of those and the musical experience is not separate from those (indeed, the relationship if pretty fundamental).

A short introduction I know, but discuss...

[Fretless]

Studies have shown that listening to music stimulates more areas of the brain than any other form of activity except one - performing music.

Somehow music has the ability to communicate and stimulate emotional responses not only in people but also in animals (cows give more milk with Mozart) and plants grow better (or worse with heavy metal).

Could it be that there is an 'ingredient X' an emotional component that travels along with the sound wave from performer to audience? Often you might not understand the language of a song - but still understand perfectly what it is about.

[kimangelis]

Good thread. I'll have a think before joining in. But thank you, interesting.

[jammy395]

http://hifisubjectivist.org/viewtopic.p ... URK#p62274

[zebbo]

I don't really understand what you're getting at terrybooth, with no visual input there is no McGurk effect.

[Neilardo]

I don't really understand what you're getting at terrybooth, with no visual input there is no McGurk effect.

Hearing is a two part process (for the purposes of my response.)
Audio reception - is process of transferring the sound information from its source to the neurons in your brain.
Audio perception - is the process of interpreting the bio-electric information in your neurons into what you think of as sound.

the McGurk effect essentially shows that audio perception is affected by many things in this case visual input. The implication being that the way you feel/think about music (and your judgement of your hifi) is also subject to change depending upon many other factors, such as (but by no means limited to) mind-altering drugs, social interactions, environmental information, whether you think it ought to sound better if you've just spent £XXX on a new cable.

However I suspect Zebbo that your objection is yankin' our chains.

[Daniel Quinn]

I am not sure how the "mcgurk" effect informs hifi debtate , as it is essentially a language issue not a hearing issue .

The hifi debate can be distililled as - do you hear what I hear and if so what differences do we hear between components .

The mcgurk effect , does not alter in hifi terms the quality of the sound you hear , it merely alters the word . Indeed the mcgurk effect relies upon the sound being of lo fi and of a certain volume . It shows how our brains use all information available to us to process social situations . It is also the essence of lip -reading .

indeed it shows how our brains do not actually need sound to procees language , we can all read in our heads .

In mistaking the word in any mcgurk effect experiement , if listeners were asked to desribe in hifi terms the quality of the persons voice , there is no reason why they would not all agree .

As a means of explaining SQ issues between product in hifi and the disputes therein , it is a none starter , it is a language game not a hearing game .

[zebbo]

Objection?? I said I didn't understand what he was getting at. The McGurk effect shows that our perception of sound is affected by what we see at the same time, I see no other inference to anything else. The assumption that the sound we perceive is dependant on our mood, state of mind, environment etc is yours, and I would agree that it probably is indeed the case. I don't yank people's chains.

[Daniel Quinn]

Objection?? I said I didn't understand what he was getting at. The McGurk effect shows that our perception of sound is affected by what we see at the same time, I see no other inference to anything else. The assumption that the sound we perceive is dependant on our mood, state of mind, environment etc is yours, and I would agree that it probably is indeed the case. I don't yank people's chains.

As you see above I disagree, it does not show our perception of sound differs, it shows how the brain interpratates language . If Jammy did the mcguirk experiment , we would all mistake the word and we would all similarly describe his scottish brogue . If anything the mcgurk effect proves we are all the same .

[zebbo]

Sorry Dan, I was replying to Neilardo but your post slipped in between.