Psychoacoustics

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/guy-invented-system-boost-volume-without-pissing-your-neighbours-off-101

if it's patented that means the contents of the patent are avaible online. That means you can see what it does. Anybody good at searching patent libraries?

hey

yeah exactly what I was gonna say. It sounds like he's trying to talk around what it actually does with lots of jargon and buzz words to make it sound new and revolutionary, but at the end of the day it seems to be for rolling off the bass and filling it in with harmonics.....

....which most notably has been done by Waves Maxxbass among many other companies. Think there's definitely examples of prior art and his patents may be a bit dubious lol  (which he maybe knows, hence why he's trying to be so vague about it.)

k

Psychoacoustic psychobabble.     

Typical for the studio engineers down here. Met too many of them already. 




Edited by Earplug - 14 April 2015 at 6:38pm

hmmmm! Don't people want to feel bass not just hear it. 

audiomik wrote: In thre 1950's and later, the standard method of listening to music was on a 'Record Player'. These had similar to a 3Watt single output Valve with an 8" single elliptical ;Speaker built in. Now the level and contents of the distortion of these products, usually without sufficient SPL to directly disturb neighbours, made them appear to sound very loud when close by. Same with many Radios of the same period. I just don't understand what is new in this thread from the above to what happened in the '50s! Mik PS: I was there at the time so I remember this well. Edit: schpellling

You're right in a way, in terms of the technology you could indeed argue that it's a similar effect: Adding a form of distortion/harmonics/change to the sound to make it appear louder.

The big difference though is the audience side, the expectation of the audience, and the pressures this causes.

At the Beatles concerts of old for example, there are many anactdotal stories of how the band could all but not hear each other at all, and the crowd could hardly hear anything, because the sound systems (while the height of technology at the time) weren't capable of overcoming the crowd noise.

Not exactly something people would stand for today. Sound system technology even at a consumer/home level as well as concert/PA level is such that people have a much higher expectation than ever before. Venues/promoters/clubs are then left in the unenviable position of trying to satisfy their customers while at the same time not pissing off the neighbours, and often this becomes an impossible battle to win.

Whether this technology is simply a repackaging of things that are already done or not, if it helps tip things a little more in the venues favour and maybe saves a few places from going under or being closed down then it can only be a good thing at the end of the day.

As always, most of the public will be unaware of what's happening anyway and won't know any different, and the few that do have enough experience to tell the difference (like most of us on the forum) will just have to accept that having a less than pure reproduction of the music is a worthwhile price to pay as long as it's used sensibly and sparingly.

Not an ideal situation by any means, but I suppose for venue's that are on the sore end of regular noise complaints and getting close to the edge, it's better than no music at all.

k














 



Edited by kevinmcdonough - 19 April 2015 at 6:35pm