On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 01:43:33PM -0700, Kim Cascone wrote: > >And let me add that psychoacoustics is not the same as > >subjectivism - > > you are correct in that they are not the same > but psychoacoustics does study the _subjective_ human perception of auditory phenomena > not the _objective_ human perception of auditory phenomena It studies both. From basic perception (e.g. determining the limits of what can be heard) to scene analysis which concerns how those things that can be heared are used to reconstruct a mental picture (e.g. detection of patterns). > and while there are acoustic phenomena common to all healthy > hearing/neurology which can be measured you are glossing over > two factors involved in psychoacoustics which render most > scientific generalization sort of dicey: emotional state and > cultural bias Researchers in this field are not as stupid as to 'gloss over' these factors. They are very well aware of them. If there is any problem in this area it is with those who have heard some bells ringing and think they understand it all. > and anyway my post was referring to the claim that if a property > of a mix can't be scientifically measured then it doesn't exist > -- which we all know is poppycock because 'music mastering' is > NOT a science - it is pure sonic voodoo While in general I do agree with the idea that you put forward (because perception of music is not the same as perception of sound), something doesn't have to be science to be studied by science. Even religion can be a *subject* of science, while clearly it is not science itself. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte ! _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
