On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 12:13 +0200, [email protected] wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:34:43AM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > > > > > We could think about what makes judging twice the > > > > loudness more difficult and maybe find a relation to another phenomenon > > > > this way. The limits of hearing apply to everything, but what about > > > > factors like the time between two sounds or the length of the sounds? > > > > > > All of these affect both masking and loudness. > > > > Yep, but maybe some of the other possible factors match one phenomenon > > but not the other. > > Indeed. As I said, this relation between 'loudness' and masking > is pure conjecture, I have no hard arguments pro. > > > May I ask why you used 10*log(2/1) in your two person example? > > You mean why power and not amplitude ? Two persons talking would > produce twice the power, since the signals are not correlated. > So if our idea of 'twice as loud' would be determined by such > experiences (but it clearly isn't), it would refer to power. > > > Do nearfield effects matter? > > Probably yes, but don't ask me how ! > > Joern's remark that the phrase 'twice as loud' doesn't make > sense is to the point. We only accept it because it is 'well- > formed' at the language level. But there is no a priori > numerical value for loudness (indeed we are trying to find > one !), so 'doubling' it is in fact undefined. > > Ciao, >
If parents want their children to play the music half as loud, the parents usually have a perfect idea of what half as loud is, it quiet often differs to the idea of the children. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
