Hi, I don't have Blauert handy unfortunately, so perhaps someone could enlighten me about how the study mentioned was conducted - real whisperers or recordings? It pretty well has to be recordings - because otherwise a whisper at 9 metres would pretty well be inaudible (that being the whole point of whispering) - and amplified ones at that, so doesn't this kind of make the whole thing pointless as the experimental subject would be getting similar physical cues for the distance and the close sounds.....enlighten me!
Dave On 26 February 2013 11:58, etienne deleflie <[email protected]> wrote: > In Blauert's Spatial Hearing (1997, p.45-46), he mentions a study, > conducted in an anechoic chambre, where listeners consistently appraise the > sound of a whispering voice to be much closer than it physically is. When > the whispering is 9m away, the perception is that it is no more than 3m > away. Distance of speakers using normal speech is consistently judged > accurately. It is not the recognition of certain qualities within the sound > of the whispering (cant be because it is actually 9m away), but rather the > identification of the sounding object itself that creates the impression of > proximity. Again, that's a Peircian index. It follows that when you hear > someone whispering, they are close to you. Its a logical association, not > one of similarity. > -- As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this disclaimer is redundant.... These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer Dave Malham Ex-Music Research Centre Department of Music The University of York Heslington York YO10 5DD UK 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio' _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
