Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Playback Listening
In the Thread: The “Implied Sound” in Audio.
Post Subject: Active Implied sound and DistortionPosted by drdna on: 7/25/2008
The idea that Romy brings up is a very interesting way of looking at the audio reproduction of music, by raising questions about human response to situations in which we are compelled to actively participate in the audio process. Old live recordings are a blaring example, but this is probably an active process to some degree in all listening.
It has of course been well demonstrated that people provided with a test audio signal of various harmonics will "hear" the fundamental because the brain will "fill in the gap." Likewise this happens every day as soon as we open our eyes, as the brain "fills in the gap" of the blind spot of the retina.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cuius/idle/percept/blindspot.htm
As I see it, the concept of Active Implied Sound is that the brain will add (and perhaps subtract) missing bits to create a "better" sound. This idea is complementary to something I brought up a while back, my view of the audio reproduction equipment as having additive and subtractive distortions/variances from the original signal. That is, all audio systems will add some distortion/noise not present in the original signal: the additive error. All audio systems fail to fully reproduce the original signal; the part that is missing is the subtractive error.
The concept of Implied Sound completes a piece in the puzzle of why people have different musical preferences.
By applying this concept, we can create a spectrum of human responses to music. Looking at two polar examples:
1. The listener with a preference for euphony. This person's brain deals poorly with audio "blind spots"/subtractive error and cannot fill in the gap as well. Conversely, this listener's brain may be better able to process additive error. Consequently, this listener is more willing to accept distortions and colorations in audio, so long as more of the original signal is also transmitted intact along with any added distortions.
2. The listener with a preference for dry, analytical sound. This person's brain is very good with subtractive error or not very good with additive error. They cannot process colorations well, but can fill in the missing gaps in musical signals well. Thus, they prefer audio with more subtractive error: audio which has minimal added distortions, even if this means more of the original signal is truncated as well.
The implication of this is that ALL listeners may truly seeking the same subjective experience. When we listen to some other audiophile's system and think they must have potatoes for ears, it may turn out that they are not actually morons! This disparity in the subjective listening experience may simply reflect the variable neurophysiology of our individual brains.
The last component of the audio chain is not the loudspeaker or even the room. It is the brain. Perhaps what we have been doing in creating so many different types of audio components is simply trying to match our brains to the rest of the audio chain, the same way you might try to match impedence for optimal power transfer.
Does this mean may need to rethink our disdain for the "audiophool?"
Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site