The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 25th March 2014
  #1801
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Where is it stated? The only difference between a 10 kHz sine wave and a 10 kHz square wave is that the latter also contains sine waves at 30 kHz, 50 kHz, 70 kHz, and so on. So if you can hear a difference that isn't due to distortions caused by nonlinearities, it can only be because you are hearing 30 kHz.

Obviously neither you nor anyone else can hear 30 kHz, so if you do hear a difference, it is because your headphones are whatever are creating intermodulation distortion products in the audible range. In other words, if you had better equipment, you wouldn't hear a difference.
You left out 20k in your list.
10k 1st harmonic (fundamental)
20k 2nd harmonic (1st overtone)
30k 3rd harmonic (2nd overtone) etc.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1802
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21doors View Post
Do this test:
stream Youtube from your computer, listen through headphones.
Later listen to the same video on your phone's youtube app.
If you are as unlucky as me, you will discover some VERY strange stuff happening... like mono and phase shifts.
Is it due to wifi? 4G? Servers getting overloaded? Phone's battery too low? IDK
Aside from the fact the computers audio interface is completely different to the DA in your phone, it's most likely due to the mobile app streaming the video at a lower bitrate automatically. Youtube videos are selectable in quality rates (by clicking on the little cog symbol) stated as image resolution of 144p, 240p, 360p, 480p and then HD formats 720p and 1080p (assuming the video was uploaded in HD format in the first place). The higher this setting, the better quality both the video and audio streams are.

Whenever I try to watch a youtube vid on my ipad in browser it first starts playing it at 360, I have to click on little cog symbol to change it to 480 or higher if available. I don't actually have the app version installed so can't comment on whether that cog symbol is visible or not.
Old 25th March 2014
  #1803
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.F.F. View Post
You left out 20k in your list.
10k 1st harmonic (fundamental)
20k 2nd harmonic (1st overtone)
30k 3rd harmonic (2nd overtone) etc.
You're thinking of a saw wave, square wave is odd harmonics only, not the even harmonics (20khz would be an even harmonic for a 10khz fundamental)
Old 25th March 2014
  #1804
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
the study does identify an ultrasound mechanism/pathway that is a component in hearing.
It is not a component of hearing if we do not hear it. The term Ultrasound means exactly that: It is beyond sound. We have no reason to believe that we perceive it until there is any evidence that we do.

Quote:
It's apparent that ultrasound has an effect on the hearing mechanism & that's why I advocate further studies.
Ultrasounds being detected by measuring instruments does not mean they have an effect on the hearing mechanism.

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1805
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixerman View Post
Apparently, the secret handshake comes in the form of emails and phones calls, but THIS is pretty clear evidence that the tech industry has no problem colluding.
The tech industry indeed has no problem colluding. NO industry does. The music industry doesn't seem to mind it either.

I'm in the tech industry and the colluding over wages in the valley really ticked me off.

That hardly proves the tech industry is at fault for decreasing music prices...
Old 26th March 2014
  #1806
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
There are many problems with a low sample rate and you folks who cling to 44.1kHz are really just barking up the wrong tree here. There are many benefits to using a higher sample rate.
There really is only one benefit, the inclusion of higher frequencies outside the human hearing.

I haven't done a/b/x testing between an analog 10k square wave and one done in the digital domain at 44.1k. I don't have any way of doing so. But if you can hear the difference in a/b/x testing that would be interesting.

Please describe the details of the test, in particular, your success rate in picking out the offending digital one. Seriously interested...

I could easily do a 96k sampled 10k square wave and test that against 44.1k sampled 10k square wave. I would doubt if I can hear the difference. Have you done that test? Or have you only tested analog vs. 44.1?
Old 26th March 2014
  #1807
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
It is not a component of hearing if we do not hear it. The term Ultrasound means exactly that: It is beyond sound. We have no reason to believe that we perceive it until there is any evidence that we do.
I'm not asking you to believe anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...Ultrasounds being detected by measuring instruments does not mean they have an effect on the hearing mechanism.
Ultrasound contains information that the body detects; to not be consciously aware of it does not mean it has no effect. Consciousness is only the tip of the iceberg.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1808
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Ultrasound contains information that the body detects;
Not at music listening levels as far we are aware. The Tinnitus journal paper references the Oohashi et al studies. These studies were deeply flawed and, despite attempts, have never been successfully reproduced.

Also the paper makes some crazy claims like "Nonetheless, this sampling rate of 44.1 kHz introduces high-frequency distortions (i.e., quantizing granularity) detectable by some listeners,". There is no reference for this claim and it doesn't at all fit how digital audio works. It seems to be wholly made up.

The paper also makes claims like "even the human voice is capable of ultrasonic output if sufficient vocal effort is mustered (personal observation, 1990).". Personal observation? No explanation? Following this we get a mis-characterization of the Sohmer et al research (from memory I admit). This is looking less and less like science by the paragraph.

I stopped reading properly from this point on and just scanned because we were already too far from what I would consider science. The conclusion is mostly just speculation. The Abstract at the top is just made up from the speculation. So no, until any real evidence is given, ultrasonics are not in any way part of hearing and the body does not detect it at music listening levels.

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1809
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
... Ultrasound contains information that the body detects; to not be consciously aware of it does not mean it has no effect. Consciousness is only the tip of the iceberg.
Do you have any so far un-debunked evidence, from any credible source, that any part of the body detects (is affected by) the levels of ultrasound present in music played at a normal level on a system capable of reproducing that ultrasound? Yes (and present it) or no.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1810
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I'm not asking you to believe anything.

Ultrasound contains information that the body detects; to not be consciously aware of it does not mean it has no effect. Consciousness is only the tip of the iceberg.
I think you said you are a scientist, correct Arthur? Doesn't it work the other way.. i.e., until there is evidence that these ultrasonics have some kind of impact (rather than just existing or vibrating anatomy) you assume it has no impact?
Old 26th March 2014
  #1811
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixerman View Post
Apparently, the secret handshake comes in the form of emails and phones calls, but THIS is pretty clear evidence that the tech industry has no problem colluding.
Apparently, the secret handshake comes in the form of emails and phones calls, but THIS is pretty clear evidence that the music industry has no problem colluding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixerman View Post
... Don't be disrespectful to Bob. And if you don't know why, look him up. ...
Bob puts his trousers on one leg at a time like the rest of us.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1812
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
You're thinking of a saw wave, square wave is odd harmonics only, not the even harmonics (20khz would be an even harmonic for a 10khz fundamental)
Sorry, my mistake.
Somehow I had it in my head that square waves contain all harmonics but you're right it's only odd ones.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1813
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by auralart View Post
People should really stop putting all their eggs in the ABX test basket. One good example I can think of is audio quality of DVD vs Blu Ray. I think it's huge and man I loooove watching music docs on blue ray because the audio sounds amazing. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't DVDs 48khz and blu ray 192khz?
Bluray can offer up to 192 KHz sample rate. But you need to look carefully at your gift horse - most sound for film / video is recorded and processed at 24/48.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1814
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Bob puts his trousers on one leg at a time like the rest of us.
I understand there is a balance... I think we all really want people like Bob (and other well known names who hang out here) to stick around and provide serious value the way they do. I would trust Bob's ears a million times more than mine.

But it appears some people seem to be sacred cows who dare not be questioned or disagreed with, even when topics outside of their area of expertise are discussed. It's a fine line... I too have seen people who are extremely knowledgable be beaten down by newbies, and it's frustrating. I have also seen people who are musicians significantly overstate their knowledge in a different area.

I think people should be able to respectfully disagree, and I think that is exactly what happened in this thread with Bob.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1815
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I think people should be able to respectfully disagree, and I think that is exactly what happened in this thread with Bob.
Admittedly the first paragraph of my response was a bit snarky but I feel it was fully deserved. The pricing on CDs actually rose until digital downloads started taking over and obviously, not having manufacturing and physical distribution costs, the lower price of digital downloads doesn't need a conspiracy theory to explain it. (And that doesn't even take into account the vastly increasing choice for other entertainment sources competing for people's cash).

When it comes to fields outside of his area of expertise, Bob is just another random guy on the internet. Presenting things outside his area of expertise, and often plain wrong, the way Bob very often does, only serves to diminish his standing. When he does that, he just comes over as an old man out of touch with the realities of the modern world. It is no different than some random newbie coming on the forum and making wild unsubstantiated claims about audio. Such posts are rarely tolerated nor do they often escape ridicule on Gearslutz. Certain of Bob's posts shouldn't go unchallenged either and even at times deserve a bit of ridicule. On the other hand, if he writes about mixing or his extensive experience inside the music industry, I am all ears.

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1816
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
There is no ringing! That is just what a partial square wave looks like. And all square waves are partial because we would need an infinite number of harmonics to create a perfect square wave and, in the real world, we never have an infinite number of harmonics.

Here is an animation of adding harmonics to a sine wave to create a square wave:



Each time you add another harmonic, you get closer to a square wave.

I sincerely suggest you read this thread: Digital Audio and Sampling Rates

Alistair
Of course all square waves are partial. And increasing the sample rate increases the fidelity of the square wave because you capture higher harmonics. This is exactly my point.

To say there is no ringing is nonsense. You can see it even in your animation? What are you trying to refute?
Old 26th March 2014
  #1817
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
The Gibbs phenomenon was discovered in the 19th century, a hundred years before digital audio. Gibbs got his name attached to it when he wrote about the phenomenon and gave it its first mathematical treatment, sometime in the 1940s I think, but well before digital audio.

It is a necessary result of trying to make a square wave with sinusoids -- try it using a graphing calculator: sin(x) + sin(3x)/3 + sin(5x)/5 + ... No matter how many sines you add, you will always have the ringing and it will never fall below a certain amplitude.

This is a mathematical result and has nothing to do with signal processing. In the Wikipedia article you quoted, they give a DSP "interpretation", but DSP is much more recent than the Gibbs phenomenon. The ringing you seem to be alluding to -- the convolution of a signal with an ideal low-pass filter -- leads to the sinc function, which has an entirely different kind of ringing. This most definitely is a DSP thing, but it's not the Gibbs phenom.
I think you are getting close to understanding. It has to do with the number of samples you are taking with your FFT (sinusoidal components) which represents the maximum fidelity you can achieve with a limited sample rate and has the resultant Gibb's phenomenon ringing.

I can create a digital filter that shows ringing which has NOTHING to do with the minimum fidelity. It can be a 10kHz LP filter on a 44.1kHz file and it will show ringing. It has nothing to do with the Gibb's phenomenon.

I can also create a digital filter that shows no ringing whatsoever (a kernel shaped like a gaussian function) and this will show no ringing.

The ringing of a digital filter has to do with the sync function of course because you are in effect taking the FFT of a square window (the sharp cutoff in the frequency domain) and using that as the kernel - and yes it has ringing - and yes it causes ringing in the filtered signal. (Multiplication in the frequency domain is convolution of the inverse transforms in the time domain.) And NO it has nothing to do with the minimum number of terms we use to represent the signal, because we choose the filter where we want the cutoff to be and because of the nature of digital filtering it is usually a spike with a ringing decay on either side and because of the way digital filtering works it will cause a ring in the output signal.

Oy vey.

I'm done with this.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1818
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Where is it stated? The only difference between a 10 kHz sine wave and a 10 kHz square wave is that the latter also contains sine waves at 30 kHz, 50 kHz, 70 kHz, and so on. So if you can hear a difference that isn't due to distortions caused by nonlinearities, it can only be because you are hearing 30 kHz.

Obviously neither you nor anyone else can hear 30 kHz, so if you do hear a difference, it is because your headphones are whatever are creating intermodulation distortion products in the audible range. In other words, if you had better equipment, you wouldn't hear a difference.
You are speaking of a mathematical ideal that has never been represented in the audio world. A square wave driving a speaker at 10kHz does not have spikes that occupy only one frequency at all odd harmonics.

But you refuse to try listening - you can maintain your belief. That is fine. Just don't spend more than $1000 on a stereo system.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Not at music listening levels as far we are aware...
Yes as far as we are aware....but that isn't the same as saying that ultrasound is not relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...The Tinnitus journal paper references the Oohashi et al studies. These studies were deeply flawed and, despite attempts, have never been successfully reproduced.
I've not personally referenced Oohashi et al in this thread; that Lenhardt does in no way invalidates the study...in fact he's following the standard method of citing related studies and tests the hypothesis against this. The reference to Oohashi has no bearing on the outcome of the study in relation to the eye being a ultrasound pathway to the ear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...Also the paper makes some crazy claims like "Nonetheless, this sampling rate of 44.1 kHz introduces high-frequency distortions (i.e., quantizing granularity) detectable by some listeners,". There is no reference for this claim and it doesn't at all fit how digital audio works. It seems to be wholly made up.
It's not usual protocol to cite all references in the Abstract...maybe one or two main ones if the hypothesis directly relates to a previous study e.g. Oohashi et al.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...The paper also makes claims like "even the human voice is capable of ultrasonic output if sufficient vocal effort is mustered (personal observation, 1990).". Personal observation? No explanation?...
If the paper isn't properly referenced then I won't defend that but it's not illegal to cite personal observation: I wouldn't be at all surprised if unique individuals were capable of producing ultrasound in some way (though obviously not using the larynx alone).

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...This is looking less and less like science by the paragraph.
You've cherry-picked a couple of points which don't detract from the ultrasound pathway/mechanism via the eye. The correct way to criticise the study is to repeat it and see if the results agree or contradict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...I stopped reading properly from this point on and just scanned because we were already too far from what I would consider science...
So you read no further than the Abstract properly then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...The conclusion is mostly just speculation. The Abstract at the top is just made up from the speculation.
Actually there are conclusions: one of which is that eye conduction of ultrasound exists (that's clear in the data); that's the conclusion that interests me and was relevant to the thread at that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
...So no, until any real evidence is given, ultrasonics are not in any way part of hearing and the body does not detect it at music listening levels...
For a start I don't claim that the study does this; you are projecting that. The study demonstrates a pathway and mechanism by which ultrasound enters the body and becomes a component of the hearing apparatus.

I appreciate your criticisms of the study - I have a few of my own; but the only way the study can be scientifically-discounted is either by repeating the experiment and obtaining different results or citing other papers which offer alternative explanations for the phenomena observed in this one.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1820
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
I think you are getting close to understanding. It has to do with the number of samples you are taking with your FFT (sinusoidal components) which represents the maximum fidelity you can achieve with a limited sample rate and has the resultant Gibb's phenomenon ringing.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, nor do I have any idea why you're suddenly invoking FFTs. You seem to think that the Gibbs phenom has something to do with fidelity, as if more samples = less Gibbs. This is false and belies a misunderstanding of the entire subject.

Quote:
I can also create a digital filter that shows no ringing whatsoever (a kernel shaped like a gaussian function) and this will show no ringing.
I'm not a filter expert, but my understanding is that a gaussian kernel is not useful in audio (though very useful in image processing because of its blurring property). But why are we talking about filters?

Quote:
The ringing of a digital filter has to do with the sync function of course because you are in effect taking the FFT of a square window (the sharp cutoff in the frequency domain) and using that as the kernel - and yes it has ringing - and yes it causes ringing in the filtered signal. (Multiplication in the frequency domain is convolution of the inverse transforms in the time domain.) And NO it has nothing to do with the minimum number of terms we use to represent the signal, because we choose the filter where we want the cutoff to be and because of the nature of digital filtering it is usually a spike with a ringing decay on either side and because of the way digital filtering works it will cause a ring in the output signal.
You're repeating what I said, but in a sloppy way. So you agree with me that filter ringing (e.g., the infinite lobes of a sinc function) is a different thing than the Gibbs phenom?
Old 26th March 2014
  #1821
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
You are speaking of a mathematical ideal that has never been represented in the audio world. A square wave driving a speaker at 10kHz does not have spikes that occupy only one frequency at all odd harmonics.

But you refuse to try listening - you can maintain your belief. That is fine. Just don't spend more than $1000 on a stereo system.
I asked you if you have done an abx test. You haven't reported the details...or even if you have done a test.

It you haven't then any differences you claim to have heard could very well be confirmation bias.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1822
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
You are speaking of a mathematical ideal that has never been represented in the audio world. A square wave driving a speaker at 10kHz does not have spikes that occupy only one frequency at all odd harmonics.
Really? Then please educate me: what are the signal components in a 10 kHz square wave? What exactly are you hearing?

Quote:
But you refuse to try listening - you can maintain your belief. That is fine. Just don't spend more than $1000 on a stereo system.
What is there to listen to? If I hear a difference between a 10 kHz sine wave and a 10 kHz square wave, it is obviously because of nonlinearities in my playback system. The only alternative is that I can hear 30 kHz, which is absurd. Suggesting that my ears are somehow at fault is simply laughable.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Do you have any so far un-debunked evidence, from any credible source, that any part of the body detects (is affected by) the levels of ultrasound present in music played at a normal level on a system capable of reproducing that ultrasound? Yes (and present it) or no.
No. Does that mean ultrasound is irrelevant? IMO no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I think you said you are a scientist, correct Arthur? Doesn't it work the other way.. i.e., until there is evidence that these ultrasonics have some kind of impact (rather than just existing or vibrating anatomy) you assume it has no impact?
Well, science is in part about the replicability of known data: for example, students will replicate well-known experiments and confirm or refute the data; beyond the basics many scientists will research a field of interest and develop hypotheses which contest, validate or develop further understanding...even experiments which 'fail' provide valuable data.
In some subjects e.g. physics & chemistry there are quite fixed immutable 'laws;' in others e.g. anthropology & neuroscience there tends to be more room for development as greater understanding occurs. Many of the human sciences rely on data that cannot be directly perceived through normal testing - only when something goes wrong e.g. a particular part of the brain is damaged and that reveals a flaw in functioning (The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat). For this reason, the 'ultrasound/ sampling rate' topic is interesting: it involves hard science and little researched and less-understood aspects of neuroscience.

Should I assume ultrasound has no impact? Given the nature of the Pono/HQ audio debate; the anecdotal reports from listeners; the 'missing element' in audio reproduction; the ability of mammals (including primates) to perceive ultrasound; the synaptic creation of ultrasound; studies which demonstrate pathways and mechanisms; patents on ultrasound technologies by corporations...given that, my gut instinct is that this needs more research and should not be discounted. As a scientist I'd need to see much more research before drawing strong conclusions.

This article covers some of the latest neuroscience/ultrasound research: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0112190729.htm
Old 26th March 2014
  #1824
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar

Last edited by Arksun; 26th March 2014 at 05:21 AM.. Reason: Going round in circles
Old 26th March 2014
  #1825
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Should I assume ultrasound has no impact? Given the nature of the Pono/HQ audio debate; the anecdotal reports from listeners; the 'missing element' in audio reproduction; the ability of mammals (including primates) to perceive ultrasound; the synaptic creation of ultrasound; studies which demonstrate pathways and mechanisms; patents on ultrasound technologies by corporations...given that, my gut instinct is that this needs more research and should not be discounted. As a scientist I'd need to see much more research before drawing strong conclusions.

This article covers some of the latest neuroscience/ultrasound research: Ultrasound directed to the human brain can boost sensory performance -- ScienceDaily
Oh I'm not denying more research would be great.

But.. the anecdotal opinions above though really should have zero impact, once we consider expectation bias. Seriously...

Add in the AES a/b/x testing that showed even golden ears couldn't tell a difference between 96/24 and 44.1/16 and then you have at least a baseline.

Again, I'm not a scientist, but I'd think you'd start with the known. The known is there has been no evidence to prove higher frequencies make a difference in humans. Go with the best science until better science proves it wrong.

Burden of proof is, it appears to me, on the person trying to disprove existing science.

The article you posted is interesting stuff BTW.. thanks for posting it.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1826
Lives for gear
 

Arksun, I thought the post you just removed was a very good easy to understand summation of the issue at hand.

Chris
Old 26th March 2014
  #1827
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixerman View Post
...the tech industry has no problem colluding
...as does the record industry

Labels pay to settle price-fixing suit - CNET News

Antitrust Suit Against Record Companies Reinstated - WSJ.com

Major labels to face price-fixing lawsuit | Music | theguardian.com

The central conundrum of Pono is why Neil Young and his traditionally anti-establishment posse of pop-stars haven't sought to use the launch of their new music service as a means of distancing themselves from the time-honoured, music industry corporate greed and dishonesty in evidence above.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1828
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
...Again, I'm not a scientist, but I'd think you'd start with the known....
I do start with the known...everything that is known and not just that part of it which supports a particular viewpoint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
...The known is there has been no evidence to prove higher frequencies make a difference in humans...
Ultrasound makes 'a difference' in humans..that is known. There is evidence in the article I linked to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
...Go with the best science until better science proves it wrong....
...or until it broadens our understanding. The development of science doesn't mean it is mutually exclusive to what has been found before...it can modify it too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
...Burden of proof is, it appears to me, on the person trying to disprove existing science.
I agree - but personally I'm not trying to disprove anything. I am suggesting there needs to be more ultrasound research before it can be discounted and that's entirely reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
The article you posted is interesting stuff BTW.. thanks for posting it.
Thanks - the article is relevant as it demonstrates that ultrasound affects human perception. I can't access the original paper but if blind-testing was conducted it would demonstrate that humans do not have to be consciously aware of the ultrasound for an effect to occur. Of course it's not the same as saying that music played from a hi-fi will do the same thing...it's an experiment and the context is different...but it is relevant.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1829
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Of course it's not the same as saying that music played from a hi-fi will do the same thing...it's an experiment and the context is different...but it is relevant.
...that last part is where I come from.

It's one thing to say higher frequencies are somehow perceived by the brain. It's something else to say they can be picked up in a/b/x testing as part of an audio listening experience, and it's something else entirely to suggest they can be picked up in music playback through speakers and influence the experience.

I think the existing science, as of now, is clear... it has not been proven higher frequencies above the limits of human hearing have any impact on the listening experience. So burden of proof is on those trying to suggest the opposite.

As I said though, more research would be grand.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1830
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
...I think the existing science, as of now, is clear... it has not been proven higher frequencies above the limits of human hearing have any impact on the listening experience. So burden of proof is on those trying to suggest the opposite.

As I said though, more research would be grand.
That's more or less what I've been saying all along - but I wouldn't see it in terms of opposites, more as, 'co-processes'...IMO ultrasound shouldn't be discounted until more about it's interaction with the body is understood and properly tested for .
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump