C'est toute la question...
Très bien cette illustration, cela sort d'où ?
Ça m'intéresse
Passion débat : Objectivisme, Subjectivisme...
- DaveStarWalker
- 1 euros par message, Stax me voilà!
- Messages : 9186
- Inscription : 15 janv. 2015 08:48
http://web.archive.org/web/201010152347 ... laudio.htm, image d'un site fermé http://www.zainea.com/multidimensionalaudio.htm
(mais pour le moment, web.archive.org est inaccessible, je ne sais pas pourquoi ? édit : ça re-fonctionne à nouveau !)
(mais pour le moment, web.archive.org est inaccessible, je ne sais pas pourquoi ? édit : ça re-fonctionne à nouveau !)
12. Conclusion
Audio is easily and meaningfully perceived by the "global" subjective human mind, and comprehended simultaneously. A similar "meaning" can be obtained in the objective world of measurements if - as in the human mind - a reasonable amount of "local" objective measurements are simultaneously considered and weighted. No single measurement is sufficient.
Most of the "dimensions" in this paper are literally very old, but if they are viewed from a higher dimension a meaning might be seen. So far, we have all been "flat animals" in the Audio domain. However, today six measuring domains seem to strongly correlate to the subjective perception of Audio. If a multidimensional viewpoint is adopted we might be able to measure and interpret what it is all about - good sound.
- DaveStarWalker
- 1 euros par message, Stax me voilà!
- Messages : 9186
- Inscription : 15 janv. 2015 08:48
Je me le suis imprimé car vraiment cela m'intéresse, et cet article est, je pense, intéressant.
Merci pour ce lien
Merci pour ce lien
C'est pas facile de trouver de la documentation sur le sujet c'est clair !
Faut que je prenne le temps de potasser la bibliographie que j'ai linké sur l'autre topic et voir sur le net si je retrouve de l'info....
Faut que je prenne le temps de potasser la bibliographie que j'ai linké sur l'autre topic et voir sur le net si je retrouve de l'info....
- DaveStarWalker
- 1 euros par message, Stax me voilà!
- Messages : 9186
- Inscription : 15 janv. 2015 08:48
C'est vraiment très intéressant.
En gros, l'idée est de savoir comment déterminer ce que d'aucuns appelleront un "bon son", d'un point de vue "subjectif" et/ou "objectif", et de possiblement pouvoir faire un rapprochement entre les 2 (l'idéal étant le "et" : donc cela pose la question de la correspondance, entre les mesures et les ressentis).
Il y a quelque temps (1 an peut-être ?), j'avais rapidement expliqué comment j'écoutais un produit que je ne connais pas.
J'ai retrouvé :
Et justement, dans ce document, ce passage m'a évidemment tout de suite interpellé :
'' (...) It is essential to note that none of the local parameters - let's call them one-dimensional - around "good sound" are important alone, because they are only describing a limited part of the global totality that consists of all the subjective domains as well as all the objective domains. "Good sound" must be a simultaneous combination of, in principle, an infinite number of onedimensional domains into a multidimensional meaning.
It may sound rather complex, but really it is remarkably simple since this is precisely how the human mind operates. It takes virtually no time to decide whether a sound is good, since everything is perceived and comprehended simultaneously - just like the impression of the girl
What is required is, as indicated by Richard Heyser (Ref.1), a localglobal mapping. This is a mathematical transformation from each "onedimensional" parameter to all the others. Fortunately, most people make this transformation many times every day without using a bit of mathematics. (...)''
et :
"(...) Obviously, this global-local mapping is of extreme importance and has broad applications outside Audio. It could be considered as a law of nature or a philosophy as further described in section 10 about "Apodization".
Foreknowledge and "apodization" are essential for meaningful human evaluations as well as for relevant measurements. That we can understand things in a "global fashion" is only because just a few "bits" are required to complete an already preprogrammed picture. We could not, for instance, tell if there is distortion in a Hi-Fi system by listening if we did not know what music was supposed to sound like. (...)
et enfin :
"(...) Future instruments might, therefore, also be preprogrammed with information about the object they are supposed to measure. A further step would be to make adaptive instruments whose ability to measure will improve with age and experience. Actually it would be reasonable if the Hi-Fi measuring device spent a few months in the concert hall listening to live music before it was used. (...)"
Il décrit exactement la manière dont je procède et la manière dont j'ai éduqué mon écoute critique au fil du temps (en gros 20 ans et plus), quand je découvre un nouveau produit.
Bref lecture passionnante je trouve, très instructive... mais en anglish...
En gros, l'idée est de savoir comment déterminer ce que d'aucuns appelleront un "bon son", d'un point de vue "subjectif" et/ou "objectif", et de possiblement pouvoir faire un rapprochement entre les 2 (l'idéal étant le "et" : donc cela pose la question de la correspondance, entre les mesures et les ressentis).
Il y a quelque temps (1 an peut-être ?), j'avais rapidement expliqué comment j'écoutais un produit que je ne connais pas.
J'ai retrouvé :
Source : http://www.tellementnomade.org/forum/vi ... r&start=30 (on notera que j'ai - vraiment - une bonne mémoire )DaveStarWalker a écrit :Je vais te mettre à l'aise.kookaburra a écrit :
(en quelques petites heures d'écoute seulement, en plus : chapeau l'artiste )
Avec le recul (25 ans d'idophilie, p*taing ! :$ ) il ne me faut en principe que quelques secondes pour caractériser ce que j'entend.
Et le pire ? c'est qu'ensuite, c'est gravé :mrgreen:
Mais sérieusement, j'ai remarqué que les premières secondes sont cruciales. Ensuite, on déroule, on précise les choses, mais pas "plus" finalement. Plutôt "mieux", en isolant, comparant...
J'ai aussi toujours en référence la sonorité de quelques plages avec mon système sédentaire. C'est un excellent point de repère, pour la définition, les sensations, l'équilibre..; et pour repérer les super prises de son quand je suis dans un trip audiophile :headphone:
Et justement, dans ce document, ce passage m'a évidemment tout de suite interpellé :
'' (...) It is essential to note that none of the local parameters - let's call them one-dimensional - around "good sound" are important alone, because they are only describing a limited part of the global totality that consists of all the subjective domains as well as all the objective domains. "Good sound" must be a simultaneous combination of, in principle, an infinite number of onedimensional domains into a multidimensional meaning.
It may sound rather complex, but really it is remarkably simple since this is precisely how the human mind operates. It takes virtually no time to decide whether a sound is good, since everything is perceived and comprehended simultaneously - just like the impression of the girl
What is required is, as indicated by Richard Heyser (Ref.1), a localglobal mapping. This is a mathematical transformation from each "onedimensional" parameter to all the others. Fortunately, most people make this transformation many times every day without using a bit of mathematics. (...)''
et :
"(...) Obviously, this global-local mapping is of extreme importance and has broad applications outside Audio. It could be considered as a law of nature or a philosophy as further described in section 10 about "Apodization".
Foreknowledge and "apodization" are essential for meaningful human evaluations as well as for relevant measurements. That we can understand things in a "global fashion" is only because just a few "bits" are required to complete an already preprogrammed picture. We could not, for instance, tell if there is distortion in a Hi-Fi system by listening if we did not know what music was supposed to sound like. (...)
et enfin :
"(...) Future instruments might, therefore, also be preprogrammed with information about the object they are supposed to measure. A further step would be to make adaptive instruments whose ability to measure will improve with age and experience. Actually it would be reasonable if the Hi-Fi measuring device spent a few months in the concert hall listening to live music before it was used. (...)"
Il décrit exactement la manière dont je procède et la manière dont j'ai éduqué mon écoute critique au fil du temps (en gros 20 ans et plus), quand je découvre un nouveau produit.
Bref lecture passionnante je trouve, très instructive... mais en anglish...