On Dec 18, 2006, at 4:59 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Honestly, I doubt you could tell the difference between 4ms and 14ms in a blind test. There have been many studies on this. If you can detect such tiny differences in onset time, you would be superhuman.
For a tonal sound like a piano, humans perceive two sounds as one if they have an onset within 30ms of each other. Humans can perceive such tiny temporal details, but this is for timbral perception rather than onset perception.
So my guess as to what is happening is that you can recognize the differences and it is something that has been deemed a source of annoyance. But when it comes down to it, all of the studies I have seen clearly show that musicians can perform equally at latencies around 50ms versus much lower latencies.
people can perform equally, but they have to do this consciously. which is a problem, because they will fatigue more quickly.
obviously there are instruments and instruments when it comes to latency. violinist probably don't have much of a problem, but instruments with a hard attack are more likely to have. additionally, instruments where the sound is the only feedback you get, are heavily depending on low latencies. for example (i think i bring this example every time we discuss on this), we had a clarinetist here, who did not play clarinet but a wind-controller (a midi-box with a mouth-piece), controlling some hardware synthesizers. he is used to playing this instrument.
he keeps telling me (i just met him 3 days ago), that it was a pain to play with our pd-based system (which just _added_ another 15-25ms (cannot remember; it was not _very low_ though) to hist breath->midi converter latency, and hist hardware synth latency).
he gradually became louder in order to minimize the latency (with physical wind instruments this helps), and after 1 hour of playing he almost collapsed (ok, that's a bit exaggerated)
I don't doubt that it was fatiguing to play that instrument. But do you have any specific data that shows that the latency was the source of the problem? My guess is that the reduction of feedback is essential part of this. I think that a system with so little feedback will be fatiguing to play no matter how low the latency.
Back when I was a trumpetter, when playing a MIDI trumpet, the first and dominant thing I noticed was the feeling of numbness. I was used to a lot of physical feedback in my mouth and lips, but there was much, much less with the MIDI trumpet (no vibrating lips in the mouthpiece). I don't recall noticing latency at all.
Physical feedback has a much quicker feedback loop, and perhaps more importantly, a much lower cognitive load. In order to compensate for the lack of physical feedback, you have to put a lot of effort into focusing the auditory processing parts of the brain on smaller details on a smaller timescale than usual, and that would be undoubtedly fatiguing. Normally, the clarinetist would have lots of physical feedback, so the auditory portions of the brain can be focused more on a higher timescale.
.hc
m,gsdft IOhannes
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-ot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The arc of history bends towards justice. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.