Lower-Q resonances are more audible than high-Q ones despite seeming better-damped
Evidence
The key idea being communicated in Figure 4.10 is that neither the amplitude of the peak in the frequency response nor the duration of ringing is a reliable clue to the audibility of the resonances, at least above the transition frequency. It is counterintuitive. Adding damping reduces the Q, and therefore the ringing. It also reduces the amplitude of the peak in the frequency response, all of which would seem to be good. But the peak is now much wider and is therefore more frequently energized by components of the program. This means that it will be more often heard; the threshold ends up being lower—this well-damped resonance is easily heard. In contrast, the Q = 50 resonance is energized only when a musical component is precisely at the right frequency and remains there long enough to allow it to accumulate energy—to build up—which is easily seen in the center column of data. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 385
In the audibility of resonances it turns out that high-Q resonances, as revealed in frequency response measurements, are less audible than lower-Q phenomena. High-Q resonances are the ones that produce narrow spikes in curves and that energetically ring on after the driving signal has stopped. They show up as prominent features of the attractive “waterfall” diagram measurements, but they are not as bothersome to our ears as our eyes might suggest. Damping a resonance changes it, but may not eliminate it as an audible factor. Intuition failed us, but there is an explanation (Section 4.6.2). — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 503
Categorization
- DEEPTHINKING: A genuinely counterintuitive perceptual mechanism: conventional engineering intuition (more damping = less audible) is inverted by how the wider peak gets energized more often by program content. Dense enough to sit with.
- XREF: Connects to the standing theme about how technical measurements relate to actual perception — same territory as the ‘perceived loudness vs. physical intensity’ noted corrections in earlier soundscape chapters. — connects to: Quantum corrals have cavity Q of 2 or 3, like a dead acoustic room; Resonant power dissipation actually grows when damping decreases; Too much outcoupling kills resonance just as too little silences it (+12 more)
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 385; , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 503
Related
- Well-damped low-Q resonances are easier to hear than high-Q ones. (similarity 0.92)
- Adding damping to a resonance paradoxically makes it more audible by widening its bandwidth (similarity 0.91)
- High-Q resonances are rarely heard but catastrophically audible when music hits their exact frequency (similarity 0.90)
- Resonant power dissipation actually grows when damping decreases (similarity 0.90)
- Higher-Q resonances become less audible because music rarely energizes them (similarity 0.90)
- Resonance Q reductions below about 16 are subjectively imperceptible (similarity 0.90)
- Low-Q subwoofer resonances are audible mainly as spectral balance shifts (similarity 0.89)
- Broad, low-Q resonances are the most audible transducer defects (similarity 0.89)
- Low-Q resonance detection thresholds are remarkably low, making tonal changes easily audible. (similarity 0.89)
- Reverberation masks high-Q ringing but amplifies low-Q resonances (similarity 0.88)
- Reflections increase sensitivity to low and mid-Q resonances in reproduced sound (similarity 0.88)
- After Q oscillations the amplitude falls to 4% and energy to 0.19% of original (similarity 0.86)
- Quantum corrals have cavity Q of 2 or 3, like a dead acoustic room (similarity 0.86)
- Partition sound attenuation rises with frequency except at coincident resonances, which damping reduces (similarity 0.86)
- High-Q resonances are rarely heard but intensely annoying when triggered. (similarity 0.86)