Comparing Ear and Mic
The first big difference to notice is that the microphone has a single input and output. It has only one diaphragm, and one mike cable. Right off, by comparison, we have two ears. A big part of what goes on in the brain before the neurological information is presented to our consciousness is the integration of the data from
both ears into a
single illusion. This is, of course, why stereo recording has worked out so wonderfully! But even two microphones don't do the trick, because the mixing console isn't a brain, in case you hadn't noticed. And there's more: each microphone has a single output - a single electrical waveform traveling down a wire. Each basilar membrane has about 30,000 outputs! Each of those is a nerve that is carrying pulse data (i.e. like digital signals) about a specific audible frequency. What is happening is that the basilar membrane varies in thickness and tension along its length, and as a result different frequencies cause different areas of the basilar membrane to vibrate. The 30,000 or so nerve endings are spread out across the membrane, so that each nerve ending ends up representing a different frequency, sort of. This is (in part) how we can discriminate pitch and harmonies. Visualize the microphone with a filter that divides the incoming signal into 30,000 different sine waves and transmits the loudness (and phase of low frequency signals) of each such sine wave down a separate cable to the console! Some filter. Some cable! Some console!!!
But let's go back through the ear a little. The equivalent part to the microphone diaphragm in the ear is the eardrum, or
tympanum. It is at the inner end of a tunnel coming in through the skull from the outside world. The eardrum is a thin membrane stretched across the end of the tunnel. Past it is the middle ear, a hollow cavity. Like the microphone diaphragm, it vibrates in response to sound waves coming into the ear. Unlike the microphone diaphragm, it doesn't just sit there and take it. Instead, it contracts or relaxes (it actually is supported by a muscle) in response to signals from the brain regarding how loud the music is, effectively turning up or down the intensity of sound reaching the basilar membrane. Meanwhile, the brain compensates for this level adjustment so that we don't consciously hear this compensation taking place. (This was another little cutie I noticed on my little drugged-out medical misadventure - sudden loud sounds were a whole lot louder, I mean, like painful!).
And there's more: in the middle ear three interconnected bones (the so-call hammer, anvil and stirrup) mechanically transmit sound from the tympanum to the inner ear (the cochlea). The motion of these bones adds some mechanical advantage to the motion, so that the bone structure can be thought of as a mechanical amplifier pumping about 20 dB of gain into the mechanical signal. But, when the mechanical motion becomes too large, the elastic cartilage holding the bones together begins to stretch, causing the motion to be limited, so this mechanical amplifier also is a peak limiter, with some rather short time constants (rapid attack and release times, to you propeller heads), in comparison to the comparatively slow integration time of the muscle operating the tympanum.
COMMENTS
Staten Island, NY Jun 10, 2006 11:36 PM
These articles are amazing, genius.... i can't wait to read all of them and then re-read all of them again... - Christopher
USA Mar 12, 2010 03:46 AM
The article seems to miss that whether a mic/speaker or direct sound is emanating, the ear is going to be used and all its cool features and the brain processes inherent in that, unless we are talking about robots enjoying music. The comparison should instead be the sound that enters the ear in each instance. You would not want a mic to do the processing the ear does because the processing would be doubled with, no doubt, strange results.
Also, even though light moves faster than sound the brain take more, not less time to process vision. Watching the other musician instead of listening is probably not the best choice unless you can perceive the changes more clearly with vision than sound.
I also seriously doubt that we can tell what direction sound is coming from with one ear other than by moving our heads or already knowing how loud a sound should be if we were aimed at it optimally.
I have some hearing loss in one ear. If I put a hearing plug that ear, that mutes it by an additional 33DB, I am pretty close to deaf in that ear in that situation (which I have to do some times because the muscle he was talking about goes nuts sometimes). When that is the case I truly can't tell what direction sound is coming from with my good ear. My guess is that you are picking up some small bit of sound in the covered ear that is providing you with its direction. One ear direction I say is a total myth. Memory of a sound as it changes typically going around ones head may give cues we pick up, but if there is no relative movement history of the sound, I say I highly doubt any direction can be discerned.
mindbreaker
Sydney, Australia Dec 13, 2011 09:42 PM
mindbreaker is quite right; this article shows a complete misunderstanding of the way the acoustic recording/playback system works.
We would want the microphone to be similar to the ear if we were going to bypass the ear of the listener and insert electric signals directly into his nervous system, but this is, of course, not what we intend.
The role of the microphone is to capture information that is 'encoded' in air pressure fluctuations and convert it into a forma that can be stored. The loudspeaker is then called upon to convert this information back into its original form. Of course, there are many problems with this system, mostly at the loudspeaker end, but what matters at the microphone end is the completeness of the information-capture, not the exact mechanism.
Suppose, in an analogous case, that we take a page of handwriting, scan it into a computer, and then print it back into a new but almost identical page. It makes no difference that the scanner works in a totally different way from that in which the eye does, we just want it to capture as much information as possible.
Tim Smith
Groton, MA Dec 14, 2011 09:44 AM
Without spending a lot of time on this, there IS other research suggesting how single-ear localization happens. Further, I was startled by how robust I found that localization to be, even subject to its limitations. I'm not able to comment on mindbreaker's personal experience. My experience remains anecdotal, but easily, if fuzzily, repeatable. Thanks for writing, mindbreaker!
Groton, MA Dec 18, 2011 12:24 PM
Tim Smith makes some really good points in his post (although I disagree about my completely misunderstanding how acoustic recording/playback works – actually, I think I DO understand it).
Anyway, in this article I was comparing the ear to the microphone to illuminate various things about each of them, and also to show some places where we typically get confused. Tim isn't confused – he's got a really good handle on it.
The problems he doesn't get to have to do with where errors accrue in the capture of information at the microphone. We lose a lot there. Take a look at:
www.moultonlabs.com/weblog/more/we_want_really_accurate_recordings
Anyway, thanks, Tim, for an excellent and thoughtful post.
Best regards,
Dave