Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

Honk if You Can Answer This


SpondonBassed

Recommended Posts

'Honk' is not at all subjective. It's onomatopoeic, a sound as of the cry of a wild goose. A car 'honking' its horn has this same sound, as does a saxophone. It's easy enough to recognise; just watch and see how many wild geese are attracted or repulsed by the sound. :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

But so what?

How else do you explain what its sounds like to someone who hasn't got a Fourier analyser and the knowledge to use it?

Go on; you're having a laff, Shirley..? Who doesn't have a Fourier analyser and associated Knowledge these days, eh..? Wake up, lad; it's the 21st Century now, remember..? 9_9

...

:lol: :P

Edited by Dad3353
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

But so what?

How else do you explain what its sounds like to someone who hasn't got a Fourier analyser and the knowledge to use it?

By using the frequencies in the chart shown earlier? @Dood has just proven that using subjective terms can easily lead to misunderstanding, which is the point I am trying to make. Even the chart of subjective terms refers to the frequency in hertz, I get the impression that you are just being deliberately obtuse. We can't even get a consensus in this thread despite having a chart to cross reference against, yet there is a perfectly acceptable and universally recognised scale to refer to which you seem unreasonably averse to using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BreadBin said:

By using the frequencies in the chart shown earlier? @Dood has just proven that using subjective terms can easily lead to misunderstanding...

... whereas using frequencies, one is easily led into incomprehension. It depends to a great extent, I'd say, on both context and one's interlocuter. Nothing's been 'proven'. 9_9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BreadBin said:

By using the frequencies in the chart shown earlier? @Dood has just proven that using subjective terms can easily lead to misunderstanding, which is the point I am trying to make. Even the chart of subjective terms refers to the frequency in hertz, I get the impression that you are just being deliberately obtuse. We can't even get a consensus in this thread despite having a chart to cross reference against, yet there is a perfectly acceptable and universally recognised scale to refer to which you seem unreasonably averse to using.

No I have no averseness to using Hertz, but I applaud the use of subjective explanations to help people understand what that means in the real world - after all the aim of the diagram is to relate real world instruments and perceptions to objective frequency bands.

I'm just befuddled by the suggestion that the use of a subjective approach in order to aid understanding and make the subject accessible is wrong by default.

The Beaufort scale, Mohs hardness scale, most market research and a large part of medical research into areas like pain, physical disability and mental health all depend on subjective scales and  there is a huge literature on how effective such approaches can be and where they fall down.

All that's missing here, I feel, is the research to validate the subjective descriptions. Perhaps you could give people a vocabulary to choose from (ordered randomly) then play them (randomly ordered) pieces of music and individual sounds and ask them to choose the word that applies to each. Done well and carefully controlled, this would give an objective idea of what subjective terms people associate naturally with different frequencies.

It's worth noting that colour descriptions have a strong cultural bias (some rainforest people make no strong differentiation between 'blue and green'. Newton's 'blue and indigo' were closer to what we call cyan and blue) so essentially they are learnt even though we tend to think red and blue (for example) are pretty objective concepts.

I suspect it would be much easier to 'train' your ear to associate a given frequency band with a mnemonic like 'honk' than directly with a range of frequencies, the relation between mnemonic and frequency can then be learned to facilitate the use of things like graphic equalisers and parametric equalisers. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this is the way it works already - we don't instinctively recognise 'honk'* but we develop an understanding of it by listening to others use words describe sounds.

 

 

*Actually a poor choice because I think true 'honk' suggests a mid-range sound that varies in harmonic content, dynamics and maybe even base frequency.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...