Slashdot Mirror


'Yanny vs. Laurel' Reveals Flaws In How We Listen To Audio (theproaudiofiles.com)

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few days, you've probably heard about the controversy over "Yanny" and "Laurel." The internet has been abuzz over an audio clip in which the name being said depends on the listener. Some hear "Laurel" while others hear "Yanny." Ian Vargo, an audio enthusiast who spends most of his working hours of the day listening to and editing audio, helps explain why we hear the name that we do: Human speech is actually composed of many frequencies, in part because we have a resonant chest cavity which creates lower frequencies, and the throat and mouth which creates higher frequencies. The word "laurel" contains a combination of both which are therefore present in the original recording at vocabulary.com, but the clip that you most likely heard has accentuated higher frequencies due to imperfections in the audio that were created by data compression. To make it worse, the playback device that many people first heard the audio clip playing out of was probably a speaker system built into a cellular phone, which is too small to accurately recreate low frequencies.

This helpful interactive tool from The New York Times allows you to use a slider to more clearly hear one or the other. Pitch shifting the audio clip up seems to accentuate "laurel" whereas shifting it down accentuates "yanny." In summary, this perfect storm of the human voice creating both low and high frequencies, the audio clip having been subject to data compression used to create smaller, more convenient files, and our tendency to listen out of devices with subpar playback components lead to an apparent near-even split of the population hearing "laurel" or "yanny."

236 comments

  1. ProZD hears the truth. by Bonker · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:ProZD hears the truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear "Jerry" on my computer.

    2. Re:ProZD hears the truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My husband hears "yanny" and I hear "Laurel". But also he has a hard time hearing what I have to say sometimes. Are people who hear "yanny" just tone deaf in certain frequencies?

    3. Re:ProZD hears the truth. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but it could also be that they are using crappy little speakers that don't reproduce lower mids adequately.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:ProZD hears the truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have some hearing loss. I heard yerry.

    5. Re: ProZD hears the truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too- I hear yarry! Time to get my hearing checked too.

  2. I listened to it backward by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    And I heard “Turn me on, dead man” - but my wife swore she heard “Number nine”.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I listened to it backward by mentil · · Score: 5, Funny

      All I can hear is "ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Might be a resonance effect due to my speakers being pentacle-shaped. Or I just haven't cleaned out enough of the blood that oozes out of them periodically...

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:I listened to it backward by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Sometimes a phrase can be difficult to understand if spoken when your mouth is full of something.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:I listened to it backward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're supposed to leave the blood in, you insensitive clod!

    4. Re:I listened to it backward by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Hookers know it best.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  3. Another example by Knightman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Brain storm or Green needle:
    https://youtu.be/5pRY3wlKwm8

    Anticipate the word you want to hear and you will hear it.

    --
    --- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
    1. Re:Another example by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Informative

      I noticed that "hysteresis" effect, too. When you start at one end or the other, your brain locks onto one or the other sound and you keep recognizing that word past the "critical point" on the slider you lost it at in the other direction. Once you become accustomed to hearing one or the other you get biased to keep hearing it despite it trending in the other direction.

      That happened to me accidentally the other day, it was on some TV show I wasn't really paying attention to, and for the first time I heard "Laurel" distinctly, then my brain shifted to hearing "Yanny" and I rewound the DVR and all I could hear on replays was "Yanny".

      This is sort of similar to the optical illusion of the staircase that can be going up or down until you "flip" it by seeing it going the other way, or the 2 faces/vase silhouettes illusion, or the inside-out face, they all make your brain "click" or "flip" from one interpretation of the image to the other.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    2. Re:Another example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't they just trying to sell merchandice (I see ads for yanny and laurel shirts, etc.)

      CAP === 'ashman'

    3. Re:Another example by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Nope, that's just stupid. It's blatantly "brain storm" (or "grain stall", it is really bad quality), there is nothing even remotely resempling "needle" in there.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    4. Re:Another example by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      When I first listened to it I couldn't make sense of the sounds. It actually felt like multiple sounds at once. Then I heard Yanni and later Laurel.

    5. Re:Another example by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It is not really any of them. Both of the samples are so filled with noise that they leave your brain to fill in a LOT.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Another example by Mandrel · · Score: 2

      This gestalt flipping is due to the associative networks in the speech recognition section of your temporal cerebral cortex settling into two different low-energy states created by your fluency in English, one a word, and the other a word-like name.

      And the adaptation to each word is probably due to the short-tern strengthening of synapses between active neurons, widening and deepening the energy well for the recently-heard word.

      By moving the slider slowly enough, I can move the switch-over from close to one end to close to the other.

    7. Re:Another example by igot4eyes · · Score: 2

      Me too, it kept changing! Probably didn't help that I already knew what to listen out for as this story is EVERYWHERE

    8. Re:Another example by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, it's supposed to be brainstorm. Some kind of fantasy character, the clip came from this longer clip.

    9. Re:Another example by MTEK · · Score: 1

      Brain needle

    10. Re:Another example by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I hear three syllables, so "green nee-dle" is how I interpret it.

    11. Re:Another example by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Nope, that's just stupid. It's blatantly "brain storm" (or "grain stall", it is really bad quality), there is nothing even remotely resempling "needle" in there.

      ... I heard green needle. Played it back 10 times and I can't find brain storm in there anywhere.

    12. Re:Another example by muffen · · Score: 1

      Brain storm or Green needle

      If you try, "brain needle" and "green storm" also works!

    13. Re:Another example by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, but just like for those optical illusions, I am able to condition myself to see or hear either known alternatives. Anybody else?

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    14. Re:Another example by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I dunno....

      I guess I have been living under a rock this week...as that this is the first I've heard of it....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:Another example by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I noticed that "hysteresis" effect, too. When you start at one end or the other, your brain locks onto one or the other sound and you keep recognizing that word past the "critical point" on the slider you lost it at in the other direction. Once you become accustomed to hearing one or the other you get biased to keep hearing it despite it trending in the other direction.

      I was wondering about that was well. I first hear Yanny but when I went to slide it to Laurel I never clearly heard Yanny again, the close I came was "Garry" at the far right. Repeated tries yield the same result except I do not hear Yanny when I first open the NYT slider.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    16. Re:Another example by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Brain storm or Green needle:
      https://youtu.be/5pRY3wlKwm8

      Anticipate the word you want to hear and you will hear it.

      I was pretty sure I would hear "Laurel", and expected to hear "Laurel" because I heard the explanation about why people hear different things. I ended up hearing something I didn't expect to hear. Neither "Laurel" or "Yanni" but "Yenny". I do not hear the first vowel as an "a" at all but rather an "e".

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    17. Re: Another example by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      At first I hear both at the same time. Then my brain automatically fills in "Ell"-"A"-" You"-"Are"-"E"-"Ell"---"laurel".
      I think CMU has a JavaScript implementation of their text to speech engine that resembles the Speak'N Spell.

    18. Re:Another example by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      I noticed that "hysteresis" effect, too. When you start at one end or the other, your brain locks onto one or the other sound and you keep recognizing that word past the "critical point" on the slider you lost it at in the other direction. Once you become accustomed to hearing one or the other you get biased to keep hearing it despite it trending in the other direction.

      That happened to me accidentally the other day, it was on some TV show I wasn't really paying attention to, and for the first time I heard "Laurel" distinctly, then my brain shifted to hearing "Yanny" and I rewound the DVR and all I could hear on replays was "Yanny".

      This is sort of similar to the optical illusion of the staircase that can be going up or down until you "flip" it by seeing it going the other way, or the 2 faces/vase silhouettes illusion, or the inside-out face, they all make your brain "click" or "flip" from one interpretation of the image to the other.

      I noticed this as a simple result of having the volume low on my computer speaker system. At low volume the bias is to hear the higher pitches and I heard Yanny. At higher volume, the bass is given a bigger sound stage and it was then that I was able to hear Laurel. My thought is that what you hear has more to do with the speaker quality, volume, and sound range than anything else.

    19. Re:Another example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm a native English speaker and one time several years ago I heard English just for what it sounds like without my brain interpreting anything. Just for a very short time, but my what an experience! Hasn't happened before or since that moment. I wonder what that could be explained by?

    20. Re:Another example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or some adult named Laurel hit you as a child.

    21. Re:Another example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I definitely hear a "ssst" sound. I'm not saying you aren't hearing "green needle", but it would be interesting to match up which part of your "green needle" matches up with my "ssst".

    22. Re:Another example by epine · · Score: 1

      At the 75% "yammy" position, I can mentally prime myself to hear either one, so long as my mental prime is right at the beginning.

      Once I got the hang of it, I alternated hearing Laurel/Yammy without fail several dozen times in a row. Using hysteresis and moving in small increments, I even managed to hear "Laurel" a few times at the 95% Yammy position (but it was weird and growly). Laurel is way dominant for me.

      At the 80% position (after sliding up from Laurel-ville) ,during transition from Laurel to Yammy, I can even manage to hear most of both (equally distorted) at the same time for a couple of iterations, before Yammy prevails. Once Yammy prevails at 80%, I can't get Laurel back without moving the slider down.

      Note: I'm still using small but heavy Altec Lansing speakers (with a large sub) purchased along with a Dell Pentium Pro box circa 1996. They've held up surprisingly well.

      This is a world class demonstration of how our phonetic perception is self-reinforcing on early subconscious categorization.

      It's been long known in the neurolinguistic community that once a phoneme is recognized, accurate musical assessment of pitch and timber basically goes out the window (except perhaps in odd cases like synesthetes, who are fundamentally wired differently).

    23. Re:Another example by Mips+the+Cat · · Score: 1

      I dunno....

      I guess I have been living under a rock this week...as that this is the first I've heard of it....

      Make that two of us, rock bottoners.

    24. Re:Another example by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the odd cases where neural networks break down and reveal surprising problems with their ability to accurately discern what they are shown. You know, where the machine is shown a bunch of pixels and responds with 85% accuracy "This is a cat."

      https://www.wired.com/2015/01/...

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    25. Re:Another example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear rain storm or gray needle, but never brain storm or green needle.

    26. Re:Another example by Reziac · · Score: 1

      With Yanno vs Laurel, first time I heard Yanno, second time I heard Laurel, which became clearer upon repeat. I would have expected immediate total-Laurel bias since I live in a town named Laurel, but it didn't happen that way.

      With Brainstorm vs Green Needle, I found with a little effort I could just as easily hear Brain Needle or Green Storm.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    27. Re: Another example by sh00z · · Score: 1

      My daughter played it for me, with her iPhone connected to the car stereo. I heard Laurel clear as anything, but she heard Yanny in the same listening environment and playback hardware. Back at the hotel where we were staying, I played it on my phone and heard Yanny. Got home yesterday, and pulled it up on my laptop (MacBook Air). Every new refresh of the page seemed like randomly one or the other. I discovered that if I concentrate properly, I can focus on one, the other, or hear both simultaneously. Once I get warmed up, I can alternate back and forth between the two any time, but it still takes about three repetitions to get back to being able to pick up both.

  4. Re:Fake News by BeauHD+(5) · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Shut up.
    Seriously..
    shut up.

  5. It's official: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to TFS, I've been living under a rock. Or, perhaps, not everyone spends the entire day browsing Facebook and Buzzfeed.

    1. Re:It's official: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to TFS, I've been living under a rock. Or, perhaps, not everyone spends the entire day browsing Facebook and Buzzfeed.

      Yeah, I hadn't seen/heard this before either, but then I don't give a shit about any of those sites either.

    2. Re:It's official: by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Honestly it's fucking everywhere. I first heard about it on the radio during my commute, then it was in the news the next morning. The dress thing was almost interesting but this just feels like society has too much free time on their hands.

    3. Re:It's official: by MaryannG · · Score: 2

      One of the few occasions I'm glad my rock sometimes has sporadic access to the intarwebz.

      --
      Social Media Handywoman at Texas Boys Balloo
  6. This explains it all by rainmouse · · Score: 1

    Sorry for it being a crapbook video link :( https://www.facebook.com/phros...

    1. Re: This explains it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a faggot. Not even funny.

    2. Re:This explains it all by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      Ok the obligatory rickroll, it was bound to happen

  7. I have been living under that rock by gweihir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or maybe I just do not care about these things. Like at all. No, not even a bit.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet you cared enough to comment and criticize.

    2. Re:I have been living under that rock by BeauHD+(5) · · Score: 0

      If you don't have something positive to say then you don't say it. K?

    3. Re:I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a millenial that misuses and overuses the word "like"?
      We can help.

    4. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starting with "Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few days," might suggest something important/relevant, and I too find it very exaggerated. The comment is not a criticism, and slashdots is about commenting...

    5. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting to see gweihir is now posting anonymously to defend himself...

    6. Re:I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only heard about it because it hit a (local) news site I read yesterday.

      The Internet being "abuzz with" something does not mean it'll reach every single site on the interwebs.

      Also, I don't live in the anglosphere and am not a native English speaker so whatever the audio clip is supposed to say is kind of irrelevant to half of the world. I guess half of the world lives under a rock.

    7. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That half of the world needs to die off.

    8. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes you a great candidate to... ...wait for it... ...suck my DAMN balls.

    9. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should anyone care that you don't care? Like another commenter said, you're an attention whore.

    10. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the FUCK did this shitpost get modded up as insightful? There are clearly some dipshit moderators here.

    11. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to leave if you don't like this story. Also, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    12. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one cares what you think, either, asshole.

    13. Re: I have been living under that rock by jouassou · · Score: 1

      Or someone else just agrees with him? For the record, I've been living under a rock too.

    14. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beau, you're an insufferable twat.

    15. Re:I have been living under that rock by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      It helps to illustrate what a difficult problem voice recognition is, and the problems we will undoubtably face as these algorithms become more ubiquitous.

      Consider the case of medical transcription. Did the the doctor say you have "cancer" or "herpes"? It's important we get this right.

    16. Re:I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, so cool and edgy! /sarcasm

    17. Re: I have been living under that rock by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      Listen people,

      Love, love, love.

      Be excellent,

      Relax

    18. Re: I have been living under that rock by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      Jeeeesuuz,

      Time for a nap

    19. Re:I have been living under that rock by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Or maybe I just do not care about these things. Like at all. No, not even a bit.

      I hope you're not an engineer. The way the result of some design affects the minds of those people who will use it should matter to you a lot. It can mean the difference between a paycheck and a lawsuit. Anyone who's job it is to create something for someone should at least take a marginal interest in how the brain can turn their work against them.

    20. Re:I have been living under that rock by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Or maybe I just do not care about these things. Like at all. No, not even a bit.

      You should probably care a little bit, since this is a legitimate scenario where two people hear different things, and might act differently as a result. I'm not going to stay awake at night over this, but it is a little bit interesting given that "yanny" and "laurel" should not sound at all alike.

      I don't particularly blame you for not paying attention to twitter, near as I can tell only people who live under rocks actually deal with the twitters.

    21. Re:I have been living under that rock by skam240 · · Score: 1

      It's funny, I dont think you see the contradiction in what you just said.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    22. Re:I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      electrons

    23. Re:I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe I just do not care about these things. Like at all. No, not even a bit.

      I hope you're not an engineer. The way the result of some design affects the minds of those people who will use it should matter to you a lot. It can mean the difference between a paycheck and a lawsuit. Anyone who's job it is to create something for someone should at least take a marginal interest in how the brain can turn their work against them.

      An Audio "Engineer" might care, but as a real Engineer I don't care about this as I deal in math, something that is not up to interpretation.

    24. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny because speech synthesis is an inverse Fourier transform, or basicallbpire math.

    25. Re:I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, thanks for sharing...

    26. Re:I have been living under that rock by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Then why are you on Slashdot? It doesn't get much more nerdy than discussing the intricacies of audio compression and how the brain processes auditory input.

    27. Re:I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it is a little bit interesting given that "yanny" and "laurel" should not sound at all alike.

      And they don't. The clip was quite clearly "Laurel" and TFA claimed that it was meant to be Laurel. If someone I knew thought it was "yanny", I would assume they needed to see an audiologist.

    28. Re: I have been living under that rock by Falos · · Score: 1

      chemotherapy doesn't "validate" cancer

    29. Re: I have been living under that rock by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      He cared enough to virtue signal. I bet he also doesn't watch television and is a vegetarian. On second thought, probably not since he didn't mention either of those things.

    30. Re: I have been living under that rock by 14erCleaner · · Score: 2

      Do people still brag about not watching TV, or is that irrelevant now that everybody has a smart phone?

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    31. Re:I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "something that is not up to interpretation"

      Apparently everything is up for interpretation in recent times. Including something as objective as crowd size. SAD!

    32. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be lazy. Nap like a millenial.

    33. Re: I have been living under that rock by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Hahahaha, half right. But I will keep you guessing!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    34. Re:I have been living under that rock by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I am a very senior engineer and also a scientist. And my paycheck is rock solid. Incidentally, this is not about "the brain", this is about how the auditory subsystem does error correction. That is a bit different and not in any way related to my work.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    35. Re:I have been living under that rock by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Let me check....no, still do not care. The thing is, people may hear exactly the same words and still understand completely different things and that already is a much, much larger problem than this non-story here. Many people are so disconnected from reality that you can explain things carefully, in different ways and with proof, and they will still understand the stupid thing they think is right. The problem in the audio-path is _minor_ compared to what people themselves do to the date they are given.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    36. Re:I have been living under that rock by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Let me paraphrase what you just said: "You disagree with me on something, why are you here? I want no one disagreeing with me in my nice, cozy in-group! You are polluting my safe space!". So, why are _you_ here?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    37. Re: I have been living under that rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, and plenty of comments from him just for this article and thread alone. What he cares for even more is what people think of him.

  8. Anybody hear "Yarry"? by jtgd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One thing I haven't heard anyone mention is a third hearing for the word. When I listen to the 'Yanny' version what it sounds like to me is 'Yarry' (starts with Y, rhymes with 'Larry').

    Does anyone else hear it that way?

    --
    J
    1. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what I hear too when I move the slider all the way to the right. Maybe "Yawry" . Or something.

      Between the last two steps on the right, I hear something that sounds more like "Laurie".

      Everything to the left, unambiguously Laurel.

      Never hear Yanny anywhere.

    2. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by Apostalypse · · Score: 1

      I hear something like "yowie". I don't hear any consonants in it at all.

    3. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1, Troll

      Indeed. I only hear 'Yelly' or 'Yarry' when the slider is on the far right. 'Laurel' everywhere else.
      The only possible, objective conclusion is that people hearing "Yanny" are complete morons.

    4. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Probably means you're an old guy with little sensitivity to higher frequencies, or that you have a really cheap computer. Unless it's both.

      What's annoying me is that I suggested the slider approach before I heard that the NY Times had created one. They should provide a numeric scale that you can use to compare your hearing to other people's or to compare one sound system to another.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    5. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have fairly high end audio equipment, actually, good enough for recording harpsichord, which I play, an instrument with plenty of high frequencies.
      Old is relative, I'm 41.

    6. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by rikkards · · Score: 1

      If I slowly move through the slider on the page in the summary, I hear yarry as I move it to the right. I predominantly hear laurel all the time when slowly sliding but if just jump from the left to the right then I hear it.

    7. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always hear "laurel" until it's shifted down. Then I hear "yearly". How anyone hears "yanny" I can't understand.

    8. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by locofungus · · Score: 1

      I can hear yanny across the entire range. But if I think 'laurel' while it's to the left then I can hear laurel.

      I had to pause it, wait, and then restart to hear laurel at all to start with. Now with the slider half way to the left I can switch between the two at will.

      I used to have good HF hearing - the 15kHz whistle from CRT TVs used to annoy me. Obviously that was many years ago and I be amazed if I could still hear those frequencies.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    9. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      I hear "Yalie", as spoken by Ned Gerblansky

    10. Re: Anybody hear "Yarry"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are old. Iâ(TM)m 36 and Iâ(TM)m old

    11. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      All I heard was noise and compression artifacts. I tried to make sense of it but it was too hazy and indistinct to come up with a word out of it. I do hear a 'Y' type sound at the beginning, barely.

      When a coworker showed this to me, I failed to appreciate it. It was just nonsense really. I imagine there are millions of sounds that can be made that can appear to sound one way or the other when trying to make sense of it.

      TL;DR, some people, when looking at clouds, see a rabbit while someone else looking at the same cloud might see a tree. *shrug* Where is the big deal?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    12. Re: Anybody hear "Yarry"? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are old. Iâ(TM)m 36 and Iâ(TM)m old

      I'm over 50 but at least I can post a fucking apostrophe.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The average full-range harpsichord tops out at around F6, or 1396Hz (while an 88-key piano can reach 4KHz+). Human hearing, on average, can hear up to around 15KHz-20KHz at your age.

      tl;dr Experience with a harpsichord has nothing on this range of frequencies. Neither does owning high-end audio equipment if your hearing is failing.

    14. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      One thing I haven't heard anyone mention is a third hearing for the word. When I listen to the 'Yanny' version what it sounds like to me is 'Yarry' (starts with Y, rhymes with 'Larry').

      Does anyone else hear it that way?

      I hear "Yammy".

    15. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Okay, serious question. Is W not considered a consonant in English? I know you have issues with how to classify Y, but W?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    16. Re: Anybody hear "Yarry"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, when I played this for my wife without telling her what she should hear, she insisted the recording was saying âoeYarryâ.

    17. Re: Anybody hear "Yarry"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But still an insufferable douche with half his life wasted. Your almost dead. LUL

    18. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      me too. But I also hear Laurel in the native recording. Maybe I'm mispronouncing Yanny in my head. I think of that musician - so would expect to year "yawn-ee" or even "ye-ann-e" (Like Danny but starting a Yee). Yee - Annie.?! It's an italian name :-)

      Nothing has sounded like Yanny yet. I hear what you hear - and requires imagination at that.

      But I don't get the "controversy" I've ignored it all week as it didn't seem interesting. This like "are these two colors the same?!" Yes.

    19. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by jtgd · · Score: 1

      Good guess. I'm 65 and my hearing rolls off at 12kHz.

      --
      J
    20. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      W is definitely a consonant. There is an occasional very weird thing where some people mistakenly think there's a rule about W, but it's not so.

      My two best guesses for this are:
      1) extending the sometimes-Y rule to W
      2) mis-remembering that W can be a vowel in Welsh and applying it to English

    21. Re:Anybody hear "Yarry"? by Agronomist+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. That cloud is obviously a duck. Look at his bill!

      --
      -DwS
  9. Twatter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Twatter is now the go-to site for posting audio clips?

  10. From underneath the rock by SciCom+Luke · · Score: 1

    Ah, so *that* is what it was about...

    1. Re:From underneath the rock by Barny · · Score: 1

      Hey! Lower the rock. You're letting all the pop-memes in!

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  11. Hanna vs Laurel reveals how stupid memes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    propagate everywhere, like can't get away from it, and the number one culprit spreading this spam is magazine editors hoping the meme boosts readership

  12. Live under a rock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Unless you haven't been living under a rock (AKA your mom's basement) for the past few days, you've probably heard about the controversy over "Yanny" and "Laurel."

    There. Fixed that for you.

    1. Re:Live under a rock? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Given it's received national media coverage in multiple countries, not hearing about it means you've failed to keep track of current affairs.

      Which is fine, that's a personal choice. It does though suggest you're in no fucking position at all to be mocking people that do.

    2. Re:Live under a rock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given it's received national media coverage in multiple countries, not hearing about it means you've failed to keep track of current affairs.

      Which is fine, that's a personal choice. It does though suggest you're in no fucking position at all to be mocking people that do.

      And yet somehow haven't seen it mentioned even once even on Google News for the past few days? Some coverage.

      Didn't even see this silliness on Facebook.

    3. Re: Live under a rock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in utardistan you insensible clod.

    4. Re: Live under a rock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live under a rock. I can't name a single movie in theatres but I've heard of this Laurel/Yanny nonsense.

    5. Re:Live under a rock? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Given it's received national media coverage in multiple countries, not hearing about it means you've failed to keep track of current affairs.

      Well if it's mentioned in passing on the web site of the Daily Express in England and Scotland, I suppose that's technically "national media coverage in multiple countries".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Live under a rock? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that barely known regional publication the New York Times gets read by nobody at all. Much like this niche website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/w...

  13. If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 4, Informative

    Maybe if you have some horrible laptop with no base and crackly highs you might hear Yanny.

    1. Re:If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And if dictated by a Pakistani doctor working at a Chilean hospital, it will sound like "Pklujghuyghjdf".

    2. Re:If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a $3000 speaker system, and it was "Yanny" for me the first time (though, on a different site, if that matters).Then Laurel here in the tool. I move the slider I can keep hearing Yanny ant the middle. It probably has more to do with the recording than the output device. (nice tool by the way)

    3. Re:If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I listened to it first on my phone's crappy speaker, and still heard Laurel. So I posted on my friend's facebook that I heard Yanny, just to troll her. I figured everyone else who "heard" Yanny was doing the same.

      Even with the NYT slider, I just hear it getting distorted until right up the end it is so distorted that the L sounds at either end disappear. To me it sounds more like "Gary" than "Yanny"

      .

      On the second of the two times he says it, I hear some distinct noise in the high frequencies that comes just before the start of the word. I imagine it is the timing of that that causes some people with narrow bandwidth hearing to lock in on the high frequencies and mishear the word.

    4. Re:If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have $5 used Sennheisers and it was Laurel. I tried to use the tool on my desktop, but apparently you have to permit spammers to track you so I can't use it there, so I had to do it on my cellphone, invalidating the comparison.

      Regardless, on my cellphone (Moto G 2nd) I went to the tool and it was Laurel, until I moved the slider to about the two-thirds-right position. But then I was able to drag the slider back some way and still hear yanny, almost to the midpoint — until I tried to hear laurel again.

      I wish I could use the tool on my desktop without being spied upon, but since I can't... enjoy bending over for the NYT, suckers

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re: If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't you use your head phones on your cellphone? Are you too brave or something?

    6. Re:If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't even know about this whole thing and a friend came up and played it without telling me anything then asked what I heard. I heard no words, just a crappy distorted blob of a noise. Then they asked me if I heard "laurel" or "yanny", to which I replied, "I distinctly hear an 'i' sound at the end, so I guess 'yanny'". After listening to it for a few minutes on repeat, I started to say "laurel" in my head while listening, and now I mostly just hear "laurel".

    7. Re: If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why can't you use your head phones on your cellphone? Are you too brave or something?

      They are Sennheiser HD420s, which are high-impedance. My cellphone can't drive them without an external amplifier, which I don't have. I use them connected to a Mobile Pre USB which is plugged into a filtered USB port on my G1 Gaming MB.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re: If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh, 600-ohm headphones.

      I thought 50 ohms was high impedance. My mobile phone can drive one of those just fine.

    9. Re:If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by jittles · · Score: 2

      Maybe if you have some horrible laptop with no base and crackly highs you might hear Yanny.

      I honestly thought that it was a trick the first time I listened. I had my device on cellulary service and, with pretty decent headphones heard “Yanny”. A few minutes later I was inside and on Wi-FI (with a different IP address, obviously), and it was so clearly Laurel I thought it was a completely different clip. So now I wonder if perhaps there was some issue with my cellular provider recompressing the audio or something. I have no idea.

    10. Re:If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by nwaack · · Score: 1

      Umm, no. This has everything to do with computer synthesized speech and a whole host of complicated ways our brains interpret language, and practically nothing to do with the speakers themselves. And yet this is modded information, ugh.

    11. Re:If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      It has plenty to do with the speakers, as well as the compression used. The fact that it is a computer synthesized speech has almost nothing to do with the issue. Listening to a non-compressed, non-mangled version of the computer synthesized voice has no problem discerning the word as being "laurel". People have even tracked it back to a specific site which created the synthesized voice, and discerned what software created it. The problem has everything to do with digital compression, digital to analog converters and output speakers.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    12. Re: If you have good speakers it's always Laurel. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I thought 50 ohms was high impedance. My mobile phone can drive one of those just fine.

      Well, these are higher. If you're driving them with a stereo system, it's not a problem. Some headphone amplifiers will drive them, some won't. They are supposed to improve sound quality substantially, with less distortion. However, I bought them at a yard sale not knowing any of that, for five bucks needing new foam. I refoamed 'em for about fifteen bucks. Used sets start around $100 on eBay so I figured I win. They're super duper light and comfortable.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be lenient on him, he's very likely suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and auditory misperceptions and hallucinations are among the typical symptoms of the disease. He probably also tends to believe that people are talking about him when people talk in a low voice that is barely intelligible. These people need psychotherapy, criticisms like yours just draw them more into their fantasy world.

  15. So it's the Blue/White Dress in audio form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yaaay who fucking cares

  16. yeah-aye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear "yeah-aye"

  17. It's Blue! by rizole · · Score: 1

    No! It's Gold! No, white.... doh!

  18. Both and neither by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I heard Yanny and Laurel, but after a while I heard Jelly.

    1. Re:Both and neither by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      I'm 76 years old, and I hear "Yarrow".

    2. Re:Both and neither by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first time I heard it, I thought it was "Yelly," so I can see both your points. After watching the video, I now can hear "Laurel," but still never really heard "Yanny" yet.

    3. Re:Both and neither by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      76? How the hell do you know how to use a computer? Next thing you'll tell me is your VCR ISN'T blinking 12:00. And yes, you do have a VCR still in your entertainment center. It's a really nice Sony that you bought brand new back in 1991, ya know back before the war. You also still drive your second car, a 92 Corolla with barely 52,000 miles, garage kept and nearly mint. No wait, that's not mint, it's Bengay.

  19. I hear Yammy or Laurel depending on... what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No yanny... just yammy or laurel. The clicks during the clip are interesting artefacts.
    Once I hear yammy, it locks that way for awhile. If I come back I get laurel and it locks onto that for awhile.

    Interesting audio clip. I may be going deaf...

  20. People can't hear two voices at a time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One hears two distinct voices. One Says "Laurel", one says "Yanny". Why does everybody argue?

  21. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll tell you the truth about 9/11, and I hope it doesn't offend your sensibilities.

    The towers were not built to spec. That's why they fell down so easily. Anything from bad concrete to bad steel. Just look at the Brooklyn Bridge, it's full of rotten steel some crooked vendor tried to fob off.

    So there you go. Your American pride may be hurt by the realisation that your infrastructure is crumbling away, but it's not too late to turn it all around. Just don't do it via WWIII.

  22. I hear "moron" by aglider · · Score: 0

    What does this mean?

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  23. Dumb people hear Yanny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've tested everyone I know on this, ranging from potato-tier (family) to smart people (friends) and only the dumb ones hear Yanny.
    No surprise they have sub-par sound analysis too. Makes sense since these are the kind of retards that think speaking loudly to someone makes them understand you, even if they don't know your language, and the ones that complain about heavy accents.
    I can understand heavy accents I don't hear regularly as long as they use actual English words and not dumb shit like y'all (of course, I do know what that is from experience).

    Try it with people you know. Maybe sound-blindness is a real thing and alarmingly common.

    1. Re:Dumb people hear Yanny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      confirmed.

  24. No and no by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    This country is fucked. It's YARY!

  25. People listening together and disagreeing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These articles talk about the variation in how it physically sounds due to various speakers, compression, etc to make it sound more like "laurel" or like "yanny"... but that doesn't explain why people hearing it simultaneously from the same speaker, i.e. both people hearing the SAME physical sound waves, disagree on what the word was.

    1. Re:People listening together and disagreeing? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      You stop hearing higher frequencies with age. Presumably, some people can also be genetically predisposed to hear higher or lower frequencies better. If you shift the pitch in one direction or the other you can get both groups to hear "laurel" or "yerry".

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  26. Move to somewhere else by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Okay, I know that you like to watch sattelite falling into the ocean from very close, but maybe you should start mooring your observering barge a little bit further away from Point Nemo.

    I'm sure it's going to solve your speakers problem.

    Just saying.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  27. if you hear yanny then your speakers are fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's very simple. If you hear "yanny" then your speakers or playback system are fucked up. It has nothing to do with human hearing.

    This whole thing is like if you're in a soundproof room and can't hear someone outside it say "laural". Oh! So Weird!

  28. I don't live under a rock by aglider · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nonetheless I don't spend time in this foolish stuff. Just slashdot.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:I don't live under a rock by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Understanding how someone can react differently to different things is not foolish, it's due diligence.

  29. Auditory illusions are frequency based !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it semis the brain always dedicate some acoustic frequencies to specific letters or words, and later interpret them so. It basically like a custom acoustic dictionary for sounds.

    Thatâ(TM)s of course not mentioning McGurk Effect which actually is visual illusion messing with auditory sense of the brain

  30. Clever marketing by GungaDan · · Score: 2

    For Yanni's new album, "Laurel."

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  31. Wow! The "internet" is buzzing about it! by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    The "internet" is stupid.

    What's next, an optical illusion that looks like a vase, no, wait, it looks like two faces, no wait, it looks like a vase...

  32. i can get it to "yerry", but not to yenny by superwiz · · Score: 1

    By using the simple built-in sound effects of the sound card, I can get it to drop the "L" sound, so it becomes "yerry". It works by simply downshifting pitch by -4. But the pink noise from the "r" doesn't disappear under any effects that I tried adding. There is about 20 different environmental effects and 15 different equalizer effects. None give me "yanny" -- only "yerry". If I shift the pitch up by +4, then it's always "laurel".

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:i can get it to "yerry", but not to yenny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same. Probably depends on your sound system. I'm listening to it on calibrated studio headphones, and there is never anything resembling an "n" sound. Even "yerry" is stretching it a bit, and I would not have spelled it that way if I hadn't been "primed" by being told in advance to listen for "yenny". I played it to a few people who had not seen it written, and they said "laurel", "yorrel" and "yerrel". Not a single "yenny" or any other word with an "n" in it.

  33. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  34. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

    And then I get people insist they can tell the difference between high-encoding-bitrate MP3s and raw audio.

    1. Re:Sigh. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And then I get people insist they can tell the difference between high-encoding-bitrate MP3s and raw audio.

      And I can... on exactly one MP3 I've tried so far. One particular sound effect used goes all crunchy, and sounded much better on the original CD. Even using lame. To me, that's a fairly acceptable record, since I don't have unlimited storage space.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you can't doesn't mean others can't. In some lab, we did an experiment where a pure sine wave around 1KHz was mixed with pink noise. The idea was to see how far down the sine wave could be pulled until it was no longer audible. Basically to show how a spectrum analyzer works. I don't remember exacts but I was significantly better than my lab partners, to the point of their disbelief. So they made me turn around so I could not see the switch. We kept going to lessor and lessor values. We stopped because of time. I was over 20dB better than the numbers they clocked when we stopped. My vision sucks, but do I think others can see 20/20 or even a tad better, sure I can. What can't hearing be the same?

    3. Re:Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 1

      It is.

      But there is no way on Earth that everyone who claims they can hear the difference I stated actually does. It's a standard "Oh, yeah, I can see the 8K from here" bollocks line.

      There are people who can remember every single detail of every day of their lives. There are people who can recognise a face in a crowd of millions given only a five second glance at a photo. These things are all possible.

      But 99.9% of people do not exhibit such skills, whether they claim to or not. And MP3 vs raw audio is one of those things that's been double-blind tested a thousand times over and people can't tell.

      I pity you if you can. It means your music will NEVER sound right. It's as simple as that. But similarly, why should I have to enter into the argument every time it's mentioned when I - and the other 99.9% of the population - can't tell the difference.

    4. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No person who claims this ability can successfully demonstrate it on an ABX test. Even my buddy who's a sound engineer with $10,000 studio speaker setup couldn't ABX a 192 kbps MP3 from the 16-bit FLAC. The trick is to give them no way to know which is which by decoding both into a WAV file. Don't let them load them in an audio editor to inspect the spectrum, but let them play both back and forth as much as they want. They can't do it.

    5. Re:Sigh. by umdesch4 · · Score: 1

      192 kbps? Are you kidding? I can tell the difference almost instantly, and I've proven it in blind tests over and over. Now, I'll admit, I'm only very slight better than pure chance at guessing 320 kbps, but even then, I know that if I ever accidentally load up an album in mp3 instead of FLAC, about 10 - 15 minutes into listening to it, I'll start to feel like something's not quite right about the sound, and I'll end up checking and realizing what happened. OGG at Q10 (variable bitrate that goes up to 640 kbps, averaging 500), I've never been able to discern, except once my ears caught a tiny artifact on something where the original source had tape hiss and a high pitched shaker in the percussion.

      I find it's psychological. Whenever I've demonstrated the "impossible ability", I've always described what I heard as the dead-giveaway that I'm listening to an mp3. The other people around will suddenly hear it to and go "oh my god, I hear what you're talking about! How did I never notice that before?! It's awful!"

  35. Priming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's far more interesting to ask people what they hear without priming them (i.e., without giving them two predetermined options). I did that with a few people, using calibrated, flat-response studio headphones, and they said "laurel", "lorrow", "yorrel", "yerrel" and "yarrow". Not a single "yenny" or any other word with an "n" in it.

    Maybe it sounds different through shitty speakers? Either way, priming people with two options poisons the results (as seen with other similar "experiments").

  36. Are we sharing the same rock ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Stupid social media controversy is stupid. "Do you hear yanny or laurel ?" my answer : "it is blue and gold" ;).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  37. One does not exclude the other by aepervius · · Score: 1

    His comment is more a general comment about the inanity of those stupid controversy. People just discovering the mystery of audio compression BFD - yay ! One can care & comment on the inanity *in general* of such non-troversy, without being interrested into that particular yanny/laurel one.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:One does not exclude the other by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Thanks for demonstrating that an actually smart person has no trouble understanding what I said.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:One does not exclude the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart persons are recognizing the stupid things that you're saying and the dumb ways you're saying things. You're welcome.

      "Actually smart person"
      "Like"

  38. Tell me about it by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Tell me about it. "Unless you've been living under a rock" gets used in horrible contexts similarily to "common sense". "My political view, which half the population disagrees with, is just common sense"

    In this case, hearing about an odd audio file is something society is near universally aware of (which is what "unless you've been living under a rock..." is supposed to imply)? Some how I really doubt that.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  39. resting laurels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do you hear "Xiomi" or "showme"?
    dou you hear "Wow-way" or "huawei"?

    are chinese bad at spelling english or deliberately undermining our (english) language?

  40. It's due to audio hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On my computer I hear Laurel
    On my mobile I hear Yanni
    Same link for both

  41. Starbucks name slider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need a slider to assess what that barista at Starbucks heard. With all of that noise from the blenders, the frequency changes can really make it hard to understand names.

    Beaner..............Pedro
          ----------+---------

  42. Internet(population) IS Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The internet(population) is stupid, massively so.

    This is a repeat of the dress color argument from a few years ago.

  43. I Hear Blue and Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Hear 'Blue and Black'

  44. Re:Wow! The "internet" is buzzing about it! by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    The most amusing thing I've seen about this was actually a picture of some loose cursive text that could be read as either Yanny or Laurel.

  45. Not giving a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been hearing this Yanny vs Laurel thing, but not giving a fuck about it; and still not giving a fuck about it.

    I find it as interesting as 2 girls and a cup.

  46. Vocabulary.com by Thelasko · · Score: 1
    I went to the Vocabulary.com site for Laurel, and the clip there sounds totally different than the one circulating the internet. As the summary notes:

    ...the clip that you most likely heard has accentuated higher frequencies due to imperfections in the audio that were created by data compression.

    Basically, the clip was manipulated.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  47. Normies Can't Hear by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

    The only way you would've heard "yanny" is if you have no idea what shitty audio compression sounds like. You can use this thing and slide it all the way over to "yanny" and if you're familiar with this sort of thing it still sounds like "laurel" with awful compression.

  48. What the summary really should have said by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few days

    FTFY

    Addicted to social media

  49. Re:Maybe that explains something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would be interesting to check if the Democrats here "Yanny," which is objectively false since the recording is of the word "Laurel."

  50. Meanwhile at the White House ... by thadtheman · · Score: 1
  51. gibberish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only thing I hear is gibberish.

  52. Re:Wow! The "internet" is buzzing about it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the dress blue or is it brown?

  53. Re:Wow! The "internet" is buzzing about it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the vase names Yanny with black and gold stripes, or are the faces named Laurel with white and blue stripes?

  54. "Flaw" by nine-times · · Score: 1

    I don't think I'd agree that this phenomenon "reveals flaws in how we listen to audio". "Flaw" is the wrong word. It's more that this reveals that "listening" is not an objective process, to people who didn't already know that.

    When you hear things, you are never hearing a sound that exists in the world. There are "sound waves", i.e. vibrations in air, that exist in the world, but your perception of a sound is not a perfect, immediate, or objective experience of those vibrations. The vibrations hit your body and the various components of your ears, and the structure of those organs respond to certain qualities of the vibration. If the structure is different, the response is different. Then that response triggers an effect in your nervous system, which gets fed to the brain. The brain then filters and interprets those effects, and converts it to basic auditory perception. Then still other parts of your brain try to interpret that perception for meaning.

    So it's not quite that there are sounds in the world that we hear, more or less as they are. It's more like, there are things happening in the world that hit our ears, and we create the sounds in our brain.

    To put it into computer terms (which aren't a perfect analog), think about Siri (or other phone assistants). it's not like there are WAV files floating around in the air, and the mic on your phone just downloads the WAV file out of the air and stores it on the hard drive with perfect fidelity, and then Siri just understands what you're saying because the language is embedded in the WAV file. No, the design of the microphone will only pick up certain frequencies and volumes of sound, and it was designed specifically to pick up speech. The input from the mic is then converted into digital electrical signals, which are already different from the actual sound in the world. The computer then puts it through some filters to clean the audio up and remove noise, and algorithms are used to identify features and quality of the sound, looking for specific patterns that might be speech. Information about those patterns are then processed and sent to an AI that tries to interpret those patterns into words, and then in turn interpret an intended meaning from the words.

    And in this example, even by the time you pass information to the AI, that information is so processed that, if you could just "play it back" as audio, it wouldn't sound like what the mic picked up. In a similar way, what things "sound like" to us is not a precise representation of the reality of sound waves.

    And before someone jumps in with a technical objection, like, "Actually, Siri doesn't use the sort of pre-processing that you're describing," I don't care. It's a metaphor, and not intended to be a entire and correct scientific explanation of what's going on.

  55. Not pitch shifting by omnichad · · Score: 1

    I have no idea why the summary/article calls the slider "pitch shifting":

    Pitch shifting the audio clip up seems to accentuate "laurel" whereas shifting it down accentuates "yanny."

    It's EQ shifting. Sliding to the left is a low-pass filter, while sliding to the right is a high-pass filter.

  56. Re:Wow! The "internet" is buzzing about it! by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Neither choice was correct. The dress was black and blue, but with an orange color cast due to it being taken with outdoor white balance and overexposed. Objective reality is Laurel and blue/black. Yanny or white/gold is a signal vs. noise.

  57. Re:Wow! The "internet" is buzzing about it! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    What's next, an optical illusion that looks like a vase, no, wait, it looks like two faces, no wait, it looks like a vase...

    Well we all know that one and it was a well understood phenomenon. This on the other hand..., please show me a long history of materials going back through the ages of how these two words can be misheard.

  58. Re:Maybe that explains something by omnichad · · Score: 1

    It's not a recording at all. It just illustrates the imperfection of speech synthesis.

  59. sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    arry.

  60. My rock is quite comfortable by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    so yes I live under it and enjoy it.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  61. Best tested with no prior knowledge of the test by thegreatbob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My roommate tried showing this to me, and given the context, my brain went into hyper-analytical mode. On the first listen, it sounded very much like both of the words played in different tonalities and relatively coherent modulation (as though they were rendered with some sort of speech synth), though Laurel was more understated on the speakers in use (internal TV speakers). If I had not been tainted by assumptions of what to expect, I'd most likely have heard Yanny or Ronny or similar. Psychoacoustics is fun :3, and I'm curious to how they produced the sound byte (may already be known, but I haven't had a chance to follow up on it)

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    1. Re:Best tested with no prior knowledge of the test by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      After looking into it, it seems my assumptions were completely ill-founded, and it was produced from a recording of the word laurel. Neat stuff.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    2. Re:Best tested with no prior knowledge of the test by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Also interesting that if I actually attempt to focus on the word itself, I perceive laurel very readily. If not paying attention, yanny comes through sharply.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  62. Imperfect speakers? I have imperfect ears! by zarmanto · · Score: 2

    And than there are those of us (like me) who have largely lost the ability to hear certain frequencies, over the years. From my childhood and into at least my teen years, I could hear a constant high-pitched whistle emitting from any CRT screen from the very second it was flipped on, and until it was powered down again. Loud and clear. From another room. Across the entire damned house. It was actually quite annoying... but I'm pretty sure my parents didn't entirely believe me, because, well, they couldn't hear it. Fast forward to today, and I have to move over to within inches of an old television to hear that same noise. (But, like the skeleton, "I remember...")

    So really, I view this "Yanny/Laurel" thing as just a slight variation on the old Mosquito noise trick based on that same premise, that teens sometimes used as adult-proof ringtones and adults sometimes use to drive away annoying kids. Kind'a makes me wonder how long it'll be before people start making even more sophisticated "Mosquito" messages, which say one thing to adults and something else entirely to kids... High pitched poop jokes, maybe? Directives to get-off-my-lawn?

    Yes-siree, the future sure is bright...

    1. Re:Imperfect speakers? I have imperfect ears! by twosat · · Score: 1

      But, like the skeleton, "I remember..."

      Are you referencing this scene? https://youtu.be/aV--HzX9__I?t...

    2. Re:Imperfect speakers? I have imperfect ears! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      From my childhood and into at least my teen years, I could hear a constant high-pitched whistle emitting from any CRT screen from the very second it was flipped on, and until it was powered down again. Loud and clear. From another room. Across the entire damned house.

      I still have this, although it's getting hard to find CRTs, and I'm in my 40s. It's still annoying when it happens, it feels like pressure in my head.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  63. Re:Maybe that explains something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure it *is* an actual recording

  64. Neither by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear "redrum".

  65. Re:Maybe that explains something by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Apparently you're right, but at 128kbps even on the site it sounds so mechanical and fake:

    Yes, by an opera singer! We've collaborated with New-York based opera singers to pronounce every word in our dictionary.

    https://www.vocabulary.com/dic...

  66. Re:Wow! The "internet" is buzzing about it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks like a vase, no, wait, it looks like two faces, no wait, it looks like a vase...

    Put down the bong.

  67. BS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is such a crappy commercial tactic.

  68. Speaker/headset test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you hear Yanny then your headset/speakers are shit.

  69. I hear something differnt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear Yarrey. Go Figure

  70. Environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the same device I hear laurel in a quiet area and yanni in a loud server room.

  71. Listen to audio? by c10 · · Score: 1

    What else would we listen to?

  72. I didn't hear either. by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

    Instead, I quite distinctly heard "YALLERL".

  73. My real life version by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    Venezuela / Minnesota

  74. The lesson is, you can feel certain and wrong... by BobSteinVisiBone · · Score: 1

    ...at the same time.

    We need to get used to this kind of disappointment.

    --
    Bob Stein, http://bobste.in
  75. tiger or breeze? by geowash01 · · Score: 1

    The tease indicates that this is a flaw, and I tuned in to see how is this is a flaw. Sounds to me like one of those random evolutionary differences that make one person hear the tiger when someone else only hears the wind.

  76. Middling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard a sound that didn't fit anything else I have ever heard. I can't remember what it was, but it was nowhere near yanny or laurel, came in sort of between, almost like "yaweigh". That came from the iphone X of my coworker who was dumb enough to buy that overpriced junk; no idea what an actual speaker set puts out but I imagine a much different perspective from people who are familiar with acoustic aberrations.

  77. I hear no evil, see no evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear no evil, see no evil

  78. Yanny, Yarrel, Yourrel, Laurel by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    That's what I heard.

  79. wrong by mcswell · · Score: 1

    "...we have a resonant chest cavity which creates lower frequencies, and the throat and mouth which creates higher frequencies." This description is simply wrong. The fundamental frequency comes from the vocal cords (for voiced sounds, like vowels, nasal consonants, and the /l/ and /r/, as well as /v/ and /z/ and some other sounds); the chest does not contribute to this frequency. The mouth (and some other parts of the vocal track) filters (or emphasizes) harmonics of the fundamental frequency. Read all about it in the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

    "The word "laurel" contains a combination of both". As does virtually any other word. (Sounds like "pst!" don't have any "voiced" sounds, hence no fundamental frequency; whispered speech also lacks a fundamental frequency. A few languages also have some ordinary words that lack voiced sounds.)

  80. My name is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call +8-090-4444-4444