Hi Eric,
I am using Magic to create images of recorded songs. I want to get the most accurate image of what I hear as the music plays. I am using a waveform to drive several parallel threads of geometry, each the same except for frequency band. The result is an image that changes with the audio spectral content.
Each thread starts with a scale module, driven by the waveform output, which feeds the rest of that thread. I have two programs, each the same except for the way the scale module is set-up. The first program uses the same scale factor for each of the different frequency bands. The second program adds a multiplier in each scale module that is different for each frequency band. The multipliers are chosen to follow the log response of the ear, similar to the PITCH function, in that the low frequencies have a small multiplier vs, high frequencies with a high multiplier. The result is a significant visual difference in the images produced by the two programs using the same song. As you would expect, the straight scale factor program produces images with much greater low-frequency visibility, while the "ear compensated" program produces mainly mid & high frequency emphasis. So, is it correct to say that the first, straight-scale-factor, program creates an image that reflects the physical sound pressure level in the air, whereas the second, ear compensated, program creates an image closer to what is (theoretically) heard? OR...am I misunderstanding something?
If you like, I'll send you the set-ups, but I'd rather not post them.
Thanks!
/Jim
Volume vs. Pitch : seeing what is heard
Re: Volume vs. Pitch : seeing what is heard
Well, what I can generally say is that your "straight-scale-factor" setup would roughly correspond to the sensation that would be experienced by an average listener sitting at the recommended distance from top-quality full-range speakers which can accurately reproduce all frequencies in the range of human hearing 
.
The main problem is that most speakers can't accurately reproduce all frequencies, especially lower ones (bass). A speaker needs to be *really* big and have a really strong magnet (read: expensive) in order to produce a 20Hz tone at the same volume as higher-frequency tones. That's why you need a subwoofer if you want good bass. Most subwoofers don't even go down to 20Hz though.
My point is that if you did have an amazing set of speakers, it's likely that your "straight-scale-factor" setup would be sufficient for all your purposes. The low frequency visibility would actually correspond to how you are hearing the sound. You wouldn't need to have a separate "ear-compensated" setup. Make sense? In other words, when you say "ear-compensated", I think what you are actually saying is "speaker-compensated".
Many years ago I worked in a recording studio that had these big 18-inch speakers mounted in the walls. Something like this:
It was really a joy and a treat to listen to music on them. The difference was really quite amazing. I highly recommend it .
.The main problem is that most speakers can't accurately reproduce all frequencies, especially lower ones (bass). A speaker needs to be *really* big and have a really strong magnet (read: expensive) in order to produce a 20Hz tone at the same volume as higher-frequency tones. That's why you need a subwoofer if you want good bass. Most subwoofers don't even go down to 20Hz though.
My point is that if you did have an amazing set of speakers, it's likely that your "straight-scale-factor" setup would be sufficient for all your purposes. The low frequency visibility would actually correspond to how you are hearing the sound. You wouldn't need to have a separate "ear-compensated" setup. Make sense? In other words, when you say "ear-compensated", I think what you are actually saying is "speaker-compensated"
.Many years ago I worked in a recording studio that had these big 18-inch speakers mounted in the walls. Something like this:
- STUDIO2-400x300.jpg (41.13 KiB) Viewed 2753 times
.