effect of noise on perception of music

Sometimes one has to stir people up as a prelude to getting any cooperation at all.

Actually, just asking a sensible question in a way that can be understood from the outset is a better way...  

I'm still mystified. I observe the results but I don't understand. The question is stated in the last two paragraphs of my first post. I don't see how the question could be meaningful without some background information, thus the preceding paragraphs.

How or why what I ask isn't a sensible question escapes me. Perhaps it is the 'can be understood' part that fell on its face? Again, I don't understand why.

Most people wanted to tell me what they would do about the noise. It is understandable people like to share sometimes, but I don't see how I communicated that I needed or wanted such help -- while completely obscuring what I did want.

[How or why what I ask isn't a sensible question escapes me.]

How or why what I ask isn't a sensible question escapes me. Perhaps it is the 'can be understood' part that fell on its face? Again, I don't understand why.

Most people wanted to tell me what they would do about the noise. It is understandable people like to share sometimes, but I don't see how I communicated that I needed or wanted such help -- while completely obscuring what I did want.

Andy, I'm afraid that the bit in bold is a self-evident truth. It is one of those unfortunate things in life that in order to be understood, one has to ask questions not in one's own terms, but in terms that mean things to other people. This was expressed very eloquently by Osmo Wiio a long time ago as a law of communication - the heart of it being a simple statement:

"If communication succeeds, you can guarantee that it does

not succeed in the way in which you intended it to" [/list:u]
You won't find the statement in quite this form on the website - this is how he put it succinctly in a very amusing lecture I attended many years ago.

If we could not rely on some reasonable principles, the common advice given to many of this forum's practitioners of arcane arts -- "learn to trust your ears" -- would be most ridiculous. What could it matter what your ears tell you if everyone lives in their own highly idiosyncratic universe?

But we do, and we have to deal with it.  

Taking the noise issue: different people's ability to perceive the noise will vary; different people's response to that perception will vary; the same person's perception and response will both vary on different occasions.  Some people can't tolerate listening to 78s because of the noise; others dislike noise-reduced 78s because they feel it harms the music.

When setting up to record, I trust my own ears for balance as far as they can hear - but my son, being much younger, has another half-octave on which he can make a judgement and I can't.  He defers to me in general, but can also pinpoint issues that pass me by; we make a great team.  I had a friend at university who could hear over 23kHz (using the usual static measurement methods) - his judgement of sound was often at odds with that of the rest of us with more normal hearing.  Even awareness of directionality is partly learned, which is why there is such continuing disagreement between adherents of single-point recording and the users of spaced mics - they are actually hearing differently.

But usually we have to make decisions on our own, and have to learn to trust our ears (within their limits) and our taste and to adapt to our customers' requirements.  There are no simple answers.

Paul

This forum has provide a large impetus for me to work on my writing skills over the past two and a half years. I don't know if it has done any good, in general, but I keep trying.

This particular situation has nothing to do with whether people would accept, like, dislike, or care in any way about the noise. I strongly suspect that if a largish group of forum members could be induced to do the specified ABX testing on the two samples, the results would be highly skewed to either the ‘can definitely distinguish' or the ‘can not distinguish' side -- "yes" or "no". Of course I don't know which. I guess I'm just stubborn.

The 'stir the pot' would have been supported by my initial impulse to approach what I perceived to be the core of the original question, not from a mag tape recording perspective but to try to provide some functional commentary from even more elemental examples, pre-DAW, even pre midi synthesis experience.  While DAW's did exist (Synclaviar and Fairlight) they tended to be out of price range.  But computers were used for analysis, basic number crunching almost from my earliest experiments.  The mini moog was balanced by a 64k computer connected via a 'game port' bus to a rube goldberg arrangement of six independent oscillators plus a noise (several flavors) generator.  This was actually a better lab aid for understanding synthesis then the moog.  One of the things we ran into and have never adequately explained was that an additive synth 'patch' triggered from a mechno-electric trigger introduced a square wave partial transient that was not inherently there if the same patch were triggered solely via software.  My guess then (and now) was that this was an artifact of the specific system we used (and somewhere around '92 or '93 we were able to finally, effectively, analyze that partial and duplicate via software . . .  but even then we were modeling a perceived artifact and not generating it via a heuristic algorithm.  And needless to say there were still people who claimed to hear a difference between hard and soft triggers.  (that claim, which of course could not go undisputed, led to, an in retrospect only, amusing post midnight coming up on deadline where one of four collaborators (the one who refused to 'hear' the difference . . .  which I was not 'sure' I could hear either) sitting, arms crossed facing the corner rather sullenly for about 3 hours).  Where this actually became applicable (though perhaps not directly) was that the square wave was not merely a click artifact but was related and modulated by the complexity of the waveform.  And the 'artifact' persisted through more then one system . . .  though it's sensory impact on the synthesized event was never other then subtle.

So the original post did get me to think about that, review info and possible explanations, consider how that might relate not merely to mag tape recording, but to the 'new' system of mag tape to digital via an analog platter.

But ultimately the better part of valor appeared to be to answer, briefly the question asked. That answer was amended succinctly (not by me though internally my response leaned in the direction of the added codicil, I would not, at that time, have been able to distill the couple of pages of examples and caveats to the pristine:) '. . . but perceptually no.'

Your apparent belief that you're 'stirring the pot'  is challenged by the reality that the stick you use is frequently larger then the container.  The issue you might or might not have been attempting to raise is not trivial, but there is no sense you grasped either fundamentals or existing commentary (which is not particularly difficult to uncover).  Your assertion

This forum has provide a large impetus for me to work on my writing skills over the past two and a half years. I don't know if it has done any good, in general, but I keep trying.

 also fails to be supported by the evidence.  Throughout your posts a common thread is 'don't record', 'don't use CEP/AA', 'don't have access to XP'; from these pinnacles of (self proclaimed) ignorance you still present empowered commentary.  This is a common human, gregarious function, it is not something of which I'm free. In some ways the more I 'know' about something the less comfortable I am commenting/discussing it.  (My 6hrs+6days experience with AA2 causes me to believe I have valuable insight, a contention that might legitimately be challenged by someone with Steve's actual experience. . . .  one of the nice things about the forum is that I can use my ignorance as a tool to improve awareness).  Unfortunately my interpretation of the evidence is that you tend to use the promontory of ignorance as location to fly a flag heralding the uniqueness of your mental powers.  It seems that maintaining that uniqueness is far more important then sifting available information to refine the pot crushing club into a more flexible and efficient kitchen aid.

You seem to find it important to visualize the constraints of the issues you address. Since I function pretty comfortably in the figurative world I can recognize the usefulness of that approach, but it is, inherently, pre-Newtonian.  Nor is it, even in throes of synaesthesic ecstasy, particularly functional to attempt any one to one map of auditory to visual.  (transforming from frequency to amplitude can help with the math but that is a slightly different issue).  Far more importantly, you seem to start with a hypothesis then routinely exclude all data that does not agree with your visualization.  This is, perhaps needless to mention, the polar opposite to Newton's: "Hypotheses non fingo."  While I have no doubt that rigorous alternatives to Western European thought exist happily in this universe, this list pretty much accepts Newtonian wave mechanics as the foundation (pretty much by fiat as the software that is it's sole reason for existence does).  Attempting to conflate pre-Newtonian with post is not, probably ever, going to improve your chances of  communication.

. . . first caveat in this is that I'm not targeting 'Andy', the human, in any way.  I don't believe I have enough information to construct a 'picture' of the human.  Nor am I specifically challenging the forum 'persona' the human (or humans) have created.  What I'm addressing, commenting on, is my interpretation of the evidence provided (in the nature of such things it actually provides far more information about me then about the thing addressed).  Which leads to the final thought.

I probably would have been able to keep my mouth shut if this thread, once again, were not such a wonderfully recursive, fractal representation of the very thing Andy might have been raising with the first post.  That there is doubt concerning what he was raising (though he theoretically resolved that doubt in successive posts, some of the responses leave that in doubt), as to how well the image maps the issue is of course part of the entertainment.  A bit thin but pertinent to the broader issue of the efficacy of distance communication in general. (and in some ways this is my commentary on the 'validity of OT' poll . . . but suspect that mentioning that makes the recursiveness here a bit dense).

I'm not sure what much of that was about except perhaps that you would like to vote me out of further participation in this forum. Certainly it was not closely related to the topic of this thread, but it seems like this thread might have been that last straw. There are a few minor statements however, clear enough I think, to which I take some exception.

How ignorant I may be on any number of subjects is surely totally irrelevant as to how clearly, or poorly, I manage to express whatever I write. How can it in any way be evidence that I have not made continual efforts to get my ignorantly held opinions into words, within a reasonable grammatical structure, that most people might be able to comprehend?

I don't often have any awareness that I might be ‘stirring things up'; that isn't my intention.  In this thread that antic was limited to making one statement in one post; it certainly was not the purpose or thrust of the thread. Do you actually find evidence that it seems to be one of my major strivings?

I definitely think the constraints are generally important. It is usually difficult to get to any useful answer if one has to include the entire universe of possibilities in every scenario. F=ma, plus a few constants, will get you to most answers in physics or mechanical engineering, but without the constraints of any particular question, what practical application does it have?

A couple years ago, in the Syntrillium forum, during a discussion of Waveform view vs Spectral View for declicking, one person popped in with a brief description of his process. He claimed he did not make use of correlating sound with either. He wrote that he located clicks totally by sound, narrowing the position from both directions until he knew more when than where to apply ‘fill single click now' -- without looking at the screen.

I was amazed. Perhaps this person was blind; this was then a significant accomplishment. Otherwise it was an incredible waste of time and resources. The GUI, the displays, the graphs, are all about visualizing, within reasonably defined parameters, aspects of audio that we wish to manipulate. It is ultimately important to remember that the symbol isn't the thing itself, but the symbols make much of the activity a darn sight easier and I see nothing to apologize for in using them.

… to answer, briefly the question asked …  but perceptually no.'

No doubt it is a fault of my writing, but I often enough receive responses that focus on a small segment of my post, a single sentence or even a single phrase. An answer is given to that more or less completely out of context sliver from my post that has little meaning as far as my topic goes. So seemed your reply. Thus my request for clarification. As far as this thread goes, an actual answer may be unattainable without running the experiment, but a reply to that effect does not require an exposition on the whole of physics and perception.

After my very first (or maybe second) post on the Syntrillium forum I received an e-mail attacking it. The proposition of this missive was that I was clearly (to the writer) posing as something I was not, asking questions to which I already knew the answers simply to ‘stir things up.' It would be much better for everyone if I just went away. While it had to come from someone who had read the post, the e-mail address did not identify anyone I could relate to a forum ID.

Obviously I ignored its admonitions. Since I was in fact completely new to computer audio and had no more experience with digital audio than putting a CD into a CD player, I wanted a source for information on the questions that started as soon as I began playing with these things. The strange thing to me is that anything about my posts beyond their subject matter (other than perhaps their awkwardness) has ever caught anyone's attention. No doubt we all present some image of ourselves, however incomplete, but I would never have guessed this image could generate so much passion. Now this post can be used as evidence that my writings are actually all about me, not really about the topics I purport to address.

I'm not sure what much of that was about except perhaps that you would like to vote me out of further participation in this forum.

categorically, and as clearly asserted, short of engraved invitation, as possible, not

(my intent)

attempting to address 'noise' without clear indication which definition you're using, with no reference to the issues surrounding noise perception (what are a-wighted vs. ITU-R 468 really?) is doubtful to be of much rigorous use

more then one person pretty gently attempted  to steer you in some productive directions . . . it has never been your 'ignorance' that is an issue for me (nor I think for most of the posters on this forum)

noise is a significantly important topic in all audio work.  The traditionally dialectic approaches to recording music are in many ways derived from distinct theories concerning how to control noise

and while there are similarities among definitions for noise from acoustic, electric and information theories they are not congruent

Iwithin a reasonable grammatical structure, .

yet again this has, directly nothing to do with what I was saying, is in fact evidence to support my contention

and admittedly this has fallen into PM range . . .  except for its figurative, recursive connection with noise

I definitely think the constraints are generally important. It is usually difficult to get to any useful answer if one has to include the entire universe of possibilities in every scenario. F=ma, plus a few constants, will get you to most answers in physics or mechanical engineering, but without the constraints of any particular question, what practical application does it have?

to participate in what might or might not have been the topic of your post I did inquire about how your perceived your constraints . . . the posted and repeated info . . . pertained to some response you sought but had not yet received . . . this attempt was ignored . . . no big deal . .  . if you'd replied I would have had to review noise 'equations' . . . perhaps gotten into some mental debate concerning Fletcher-Munson vs. Robinson and Dadson 40 phon curves (which by and large would not have applied directly but that research  would help me clarify my understanding (which is always the purpose of my posts) (the sites Steve suggested would have also been helpful for me) . . .  but it's not like I 'have' to do this to get through the day . . .  typing this and the other half dozen posts while mixing a trio (bass, strat, djembe, well they're vocal as well) at a low rent coffee house with a crowd of fifty . . . it isn't indifference to the task that lets me post . . . rather it's awareness that here are times when it's better not to adjust the dials . . . so I'm monitoring stuff to respond when Murphy rears his head but other then that I'm just trying to capture as 'clean' as possible . . . all other decisions will wait until the trio reviews the tape (so to speak) and my primary negotiation will be with their manager anyway . . .  so checking into the forum is a way to keep from doing something (live) I'll regret later (and I'm old enough to know the cost of those regrets)) .. . . . . .)  but I was not ascribing  any more 'stirring' then you claimed for yourself . . .  yet again: you either said it or you didn't . . . you either meant it or you didn't . . . my reply made no claim to decide which or what . . . merely, merely, and again merely responded to 'information' (and in information theory 'noise' is still informative) you provided . . . and attempted to be as clear as possible that I was not addressing the individual about which I was attempting to suspend judgment, but addressing but I believed to be fair game: what you actually said.

yet, yet, yet . . . 'noise' is an important topic for individuals delving into audio, on any level, to approach theoretically as well as practically . . . responded without imposing my speculation about what you might be asking to head off the ensuing posts .  . .  it simply isn't effective to use chop sticks to select among grains of sand or tweezers (in their standard loo kit form) among rhinoceroii

in my final utterance in this I am going to break with the not always successful struggle to address the issue not the individual . . . it isn't your grammar Andy, you quite simply don't 'listen' , which in a non personal way is what the first long post sought to indicate . . .  you didn't listen to it and it's doubtful you'll listen to this . .  (oh,  the syntrillium personal email you mention doesn't sound, to me, like me and I certainly would not 'conceal' identity . . . in fact I have no sense that my 'label' on this forum is any less revealing then my phone number, would certainly expect that the phone number should be able to be located from the forum label as I've done nothing to forestall that . . . address is, of course, much less useful since I think my frequently frustrated land miles topped 30k last year . . . specifics are at accountant (alt min tax raises it's head yet again) . . . but if by chance I am the author of that initial post (you reference) I do apologize for it . .  . I might suspect that you are an undergard student on a research project but I don't think, on my better days, I'd ever concretely suggest . . . certainly not in private as opposed to public . . . that you not participate . . . nor is it my intent now . . .  but if you actually want functional response to your posts it actually helps to 'listen' every once in awhile (for the record . . . i will admit to being guilt of glibly missing the import of things said on this forum . . . it is not infrequently a 'humbling' experience . . .  I will at times post stuff not definitively researched because the speed and acuity of response can puncture things I'd like to believe but just might not be true.  (I am still hoping someone can puncture my doubts about AA2 . . . that it will not mirror my experience with Photoshop, but that as they say is another story)

Andy: posting an 'average' dB quantity from CE's 'generate statistics' is neither necessary, nor sufficient to cross the threshold of 'constraint' in your original post (that's more definite then I'm usually comfortable with, but it's true . . . arithmetically your definitions of 'constraint' might have some validity, but noise and human perception are not fundamentally arithmetic (don't remember if CE2K included the convolution module but if it does you might enjoy some deconvolving/convoling 'tests') so all of the first dozen posts dealt directly with your question based on the 'constraints' provided . . . rather then understanding that and refining your question you rejected the response . . . that approach is 'information', defining things I addressed in the first longish post

anyway trio's on break I have to smuse [sic, probably] . . .

don't want you to go away don't really want you to change your approach, but don't want your approach to scare others from inquiring about the same issues (admittedly my posts might be far more guilty of that then yours)