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 26th March 2014
  #1831
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
the study demonstrates the mechanisms and pathways by which ultrasound is a component of the hearing process.
Wrong. The study does demonstrate the "pathways" by which ultrasound travels through the hollow skull and soft tissues of human beings. But the "hearing process" must involve the awareness - conscious or subconscious - of the human being that sound is occurring. That's what the word "hearing" means. Since ultrasound's absence goes just as unnoticed as its presence, it is not a "component" of anything.

Scientists can demonstrate that electromagnetic radiation such as cellphone transmissions are also passing through your skull at any given moment! Would you claim that radio waves are part of the "seeing process" because they are merely present in your skull? Radio is not a "component" of vision even if there is a 'pathway'. Too much microwave radiation could damage your retina. There is a "pathway" there, the radio waves are in your skull, but YOU ARE STILL NOT "SEEING" RADIO WAVES.

Citing this study as evidence that you can Hear ultrasound is like saying that getting a suntan means that you can "see ultraviolet" It is having an effect, sure, a physiological effect even. But you still don't see the ultraviolet. You don't even get the tan until the next day.

Quote:
Perception is a red-herring that you've repeatedly thrown in when presented with data which contradicts your position.
Perception is not a red herring. It is the core of the argument. How can we "need" ultrasonics in our audio IF WE CAN'T HEAR THEM? You wish it to be a red herring because you are stymied at this point. You can't show perception. Not one tiny bit. You have no data which contradicts my "position". My position is simply that all the studies agree on about 20kHz.
Quote:
I wrote that ultrasound is a component in hearing...where does the study show the opposite?
From the study:
Quote:
The threshold for hearing at 25 kHz is approximately 125 dB SPL [17], and the present stimulus was inaudible, but the induced head vibration was recordable.
Quote:
The point you've again failed to acknowledge is that science is an ongoing and contested field of endeavour...not a rigid set of 'rules'
Only you have no contesting information! There is a large body of data that shows the upper limit of human hearing is 20kHz. There is, however, a singular LACK of data showing any higher value! That is the part of science you are conveniently ignoring! You are not only willing to entertain the alternate hypothesis, you are eager to entertain it and you already prefer it to the one that has all the evidence. This is not only biased and unscientific- it is anti-scientific. It is Audio Creationism.
Quote:
those experiments are not not designed to measure the effects of sound which the subject cannot consciously perceive.
Many studies went after "unconscious" perception. You are clearly unaware of the types and extents of the studies conducted. This ignorance is probably deliberate, since I have already enumerated them in addressing you directly on multiple occasions.

Question: What do you call a form of perception which:
1- produces no conscious reaction in the subject
2- causes no statistical preference to emerge over a long series of trials
3- is not detectable in a musical context
4- produces no electrical impulses in the brain like other hearing does
5- is not missed when it is removed
that is not called "unconscious perception" - that is called "no perception"
I don't "believe" in anything, but as a scientific person, I feel obligated to accept the overwhelming data and the inevitable conclusions until such time as new compelling data that says otherwise emerges, if it ever does. And let's be honest here, MOST of the time, the facts DON'T change.

Which do you think is more likely? That people will continue to understand that the Earth is roughly spherical in shape or that "someday" New Science will suddenly 'appear' to show that the Earth is flat after all? In the vast meantime between now and the coming age of New Flat Earth, which position do you think it is more "scientific" to stick with?

Should we call for "more research" into the Flat Earth idea because some people WANT it to be true?

Quote:
I think you misunderstand and misuse science. Science isn't a shield to defend a chosen theory it is field of dreams in which the thinkers can move human understanding beyond the confines of dogma.
It is not dogma, it is data. You are rejecting scientific data that clearly shows the absence of any hearing over 20k but you are clinging to the idea that it is happening anyway. Without any data. People who deny the evidence, and believe only what they find warm and fuzzy do not "move science forward". They move it backwards - they are Creationists.

Quote:
my perspective it is you who has a phobia of ultrasound or that it should play any part in human perception or hearing.
it is not a phobia. I am simply sick to death of the Audio Creationists using non-existent phenomena to justify their Placebos.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1832
@joeq - I'm not going to bother responding to your post. You have your opinion; I have mine...Research into ultrasound is a good thing and entirely reasonable. I think we should return the thread to Pono. Have a good day
Old 26th March 2014
  #1833
Lives for gear
 

Playing chess with pigeons gets tiring after a while, but is unfortunately still necessary.

My cat can speak seven languages. I refuse to provide evidence of this, but I expect you to believe me anyway.

Chris

Last edited by Chris93; 26th March 2014 at 03:35 PM.. Reason: Spelling only.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1834
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
@joeq - I'm not going to bother responding to your post. You have your opinion; I have mine...
You HAVE no response. What he posted is not opinion.

Chris
Old 26th March 2014
  #1835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris93 View Post
You HAVE no response. What he posted is not opinion.

Chris
Why troll the issue? I have a response but don't want to take up thread space with what I think is by now a pointless argument; every point joeq makes I've addressed previously in the thread.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1836
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Why troll the issue? I have a response but don't want to take up thread space with what I think is by now a pointless argument; every point joeq makes I've addressed previously in the thread.
Pointless for you maybe, but maybe not for readers who browse this thread later.

You are making extraordinary claims which you are failing to support with extraordinary proof.

Those who post claims which agree with the prevailing science do not need to provide proof, as that has already been very well established by math and empirical data.

When you decide to offer notions which oppose the prevailing science, you cannot expect support from those who adopt the scientific method unless you can supply proof your claims are valid.

With regard to so called "subconscious" hearing, have you and the other posters pursuing these ideas considered why we can hear at all?

Go back in time to before ears existed, then follow the progress of ear development by Natural Selection over hundreds of millions of years.

It seems as if the people who believe in notions Alistair calls Audio Creationism are just as deluded regarding the method of human hearing as Creationists are deluded about the origins of the universe.

Look around at our fellow mammals and other animals with two ears. Consider these points:

1. All mammalian ears have evolved from the same original source, with three middle ear bones (ossicles).

2. Natural Selection has very gradually (over tens of millions of years) endowed mammals with differing hearing specifications in accordance with the needs of each species.

3. In each case where a mammal has 'better hearing' than humans, science can easily identify the structures which enabled 'better hearing'. Bats don't magically perceive higher frequencies, their senses hear them. Echo location is always supported by biological structures which allow very fast echo location. And so on...

4. What would be the reason for humans to perceive sounds above 20kHz? If this is needed, why haven't we evolved the same structures as mammals which DO benefit greatly from hearing higher frequencies? If we needed to hear ultrasonic frequencies, Natural Selection would have selected such traits. It hasnt happened.

5. From a Natural Selection perspective, humans only need to avoid predators, be successful hunters, interpret surroundings/weather and (most importantly) understand speech. The biggest advantage humans have to compete is LANGUAGE, not our senses. We really didnt progress much until we developed language capabilities (approx. 7 million years ago), but since language emerged our auditory system has focused on speech, which 20kHz easily accommodates. The human sensory organs havent evolved much at all since language came along, because language gave us game, set and match. Once language started to emerge, the brain really evolved quickly (again, via Natural Selection) to enhance our skills from the same incoming data i.e. our senses didn't improve, but our processing markedly improved. Brains evolve faster than ears (for example).

6. Our brains have become very good at face recognition, speech and related skills, but all this comes with a stiff price: our brains need lots of electricity to do this work, and this is in short supply. In order to devote processing resources to things that are paramount, our brains are very good at discarding data we don't need. That's why perceptual coding works so well.

So that leaves the question: why do we need to hear beyond 20kHz?

Wishful thinking does not make it so.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1837
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
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.
There is no difference within the audible band and that is all that counts!

Quote:
To say there is no ringing is nonsense. You can see it even in your animation? What are you trying to refute?
It isn't filter ringing. It is just what happens when you stack sine waves of a certain ratio over each other. The important factor here is that your ear works as a low-pass filter so even if you have a greater bandwidth in your recording of the square wave, what you actually hear is EXACTLY the same as if you didn't have those extra harmonics.

Forget what it looks like. That is just making you jump to the wrong conclusions.

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1838
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
We really didnt progress much until we developed language capabilities (approx. 7 million years ago)
i'd like some reference on this fact. how is this approximate date arrived at? what are your sources?

EDIT. i am not a creationist. this just seems like an incredible claim saying when language capabilities developed in humans. i'd like to know where the proof comes from.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1839
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
The study demonstrates a pathway and mechanism by which ultrasound enters the body and becomes a component of the hearing apparatus.
No it does not. It just shows that ultrasounds can pass through the head and physically stimulate the head. That doesn't make them "a component of the hearing apparatus" in the same way that neutrinos passing through the body don't make them "a component of the hearing apparatus" or shining light into your ear and measuring it doesn't make light "a component of the hearing apparatus".

Quote:
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.
I am discounting the abstract and conclusions because they have no bearing to what was actually measured. That is my issue with this paper. It is the same issue I have with your interpretation of the measurements.

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1840
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
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.
It is interesting but considering they are using a 0.5 Mhz frequency to stimulate the brain region, it isn't very relevant to the discussion of audio or music.

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1841
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
every point joeq makes I've addressed previously in the thread.
No you have not. You lack the ability to think logically so you believe you have addressed the points joeq makes but you have done no such thing. You are a believer. Not a scientist.

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1842
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
i'd like some reference on this fact. how is this approximate date arrived at? what are your sources?

EDIT. i am not a creationist. this just seems like an incredible claim saying when language capabilities developed in humans. i'd like to know where the proof comes from.
I think it is less than 7 million years ago. Well Wikipedia gives this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language
The time range for the evolution of language and/or its anatomical prerequisites extends, at least in principle, from the phylogenetic divergence of Homo (2.3 to 2.4 million years ago) from Pan (5 to 6 million years ago) to the emergence of full behavioral modernity some 150,000 - 50,000 years ago. Few dispute that Australopithecus probably lacked vocal communication significantly more sophisticated than that of great apes in general,[31] but scholarly opinions vary as to the developments since the appearance of Homo some 2.5 million years ago. Some scholars assume the development of primitive language-like systems (proto-language) as early as Homo habilis, while others place the development of symbolic communication only with Homo erectus (1.8 million years ago) or Homo heidelbergensis (0.6 million years ago) and the development of language proper with Homo sapiens less than 200,000 years ago.
Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1843
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
@joeq - I'm not going to bother responding to your post. You have your opinion; I have mine...
You have an opinion. joeq has facts. HUGE difference!

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1844
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I think it is less than 7 million years ago.
Alistair
Yep.

I specifically said language capabilities, not languages. "Language capabilities" also includes communication of complex ideas, mathematical aptitude etc. First we had to learn to think using the framework language relies upon.

It took us a LONG time to develop those capabilities via natural selection, but it is the main reason humans have been so successful. Once we started down that path the game was really on.

Regardless of the timeframe, I've yet to see a convincing argument identifying why we need to hear above 20kHz.
,
Old 26th March 2014
  #1845
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
@diggo.
you made this statement, You are making extraordinary claims which you are failing to support with extraordinary proof, then proceeded to do exactly the same thing in the very same post.

i specifically challenged you assertion, without quoting scientific sources, about when humans developed language capabilities.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1846
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I think it is less than 7 million years ago. Well Wikipedia gives this:

Alistair
so they do not know with any accuracy. then comes along diggo, with his rigid scientific methodology, quoting 7 million years. please excuse me for calling him out on it. it seems like double standards.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1847
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
Pointless for you maybe, but maybe not for readers who browse this thread later...
If they read the thread they'll be aware that I've already addressed joeqs points; besides IMO he forfeited any right to a response when he started 'name-calling'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
You are making extraordinary claims which you are failing to support with extraordinary proof...
What extraordinary claims have I made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
...Those who post claims which agree with the prevailing science do not need to provide proof, as that has already been very well established by math and empirical data...
Lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
When you decide to offer notions which oppose the prevailing science, you cannot expect support from those who adopt the scientific method unless you can supply proof your claims are valid...
I need proof to advocate further research? What rule book is this from or are you making it up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
...It seems as if the people who believe in notions Alistair calls Audio Creationism are just as deluded regarding the method of human hearing as Creationists are deluded about the origins of the universe.
It's a very bad metaphor: we know that ultrasound is ubiquitous...it can be proven - whereas the existence of God has not been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
3. In each case where a mammal has 'better hearing' than humans, science can easily identify the structures which enabled 'better hearing'. Bats don't magically perceive higher frequencies, their senses hear them. Echo location is always supported by biological structures which allow very fast echo location. And so on...
So which structures have been identified within the range of primates that differ from humans? As per point 1.
Primate auditory diversity and its influence on hearing performance. | Callum Ross - Academia.edu
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
4. What would be the reason for humans to perceive sounds above 20kHz?
Communication; hearing signals. The same reasons other animals use ultrasound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
If this is needed, why haven't we evolved the same structures as mammals which DO benefit greatly from hearing higher frequencies?
Humans have very similar structures; being mammals, being primates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
If we needed to hear ultrasonic frequencies, Natural Selection would have selected such traits. It hasnt happened.
Incorrect. The studies I linked to in earlier posts demonstrate that humans respond to ultrasound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
...5. From a Natural Selection perspective, humans only need to avoid predators, be successful hunters, interpret surroundings/weather and (most importantly) understand speech...
Most importantly understand speech? I think avoiding being eaten, eating and procreating would rank higher than conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
So that leaves the question: why do we need to hear beyond 20kHz?
That's a good question: my guess is that we evolved from the same ancestor and shared the same environment as mammal 'relatives' who still inhabit environments where ultrasonic hearing is selected for. It's probably not a trait currently selected for in humans but no doubt it would have it's advantages in some human environments still. Humans obviously respond to ultrasound which indicates we've always had that ability.

You've contradicted yourself in making spurious claims without providing supporting evidence (a 'just-so' story): I don't think we are going any further with this reasoning. Better done in a science forum. My preference is to return the thread to discussion about Pono. Thank you

@undertow - I made my comments clear in my last post to you...enough said. I don't see any point in spamming the thread with pointless arguments.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1848
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
so they do not know with any accuracy. then comes along diggo, with his rigid scientific methodology, quoting 7 million years. please excuse me for calling him out on it. it seems like double standards.
Errr... this is an audio forum. Don't lose the big picture! Also one is easily measurable (audibility of ultrasonic frequencies). The other is mostly speculation and not easily measurable.

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1849
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
What extraordinary claims have I made?
Here are a few:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
I dislike the loss of definition/quality/"soul" incurred converting music from 24 to 16-bit for publishing to current media formats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Let's face it mp3's are like junk food
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Does anyone not hear a difference in quality (particularly in representation of bass) when converting from 24 to 16-bit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
higher-quality audio is a good thing and personally I base my opinion on istening to the difference between a 24 and 16-bit mix. I don't think there is any valid reason to criticise that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
2/ Some people (listeners/musicians/producers) think CD/mp3 quality is good enough for the enjoyment of music - some people think higher-quality would provide a better experience of music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Some science papers demonstrate that the ears are not the only part of the body involved in 'hearing.' The science behind this is good enough that at least one 'name' company has patents on the application of these technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort
...Or are you suggesting that ultrasonic information is a qualitative factor in music enjoyment?
That's what the scientific studies suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
In theory there may be no apparent difference between 16/24-bit; in practice there is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Stone View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by playon
I read recently that frequencies above 20k are sensed with the eyes!
It's true.
And on and on he goes...

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1850
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
so they do not know with any accuracy. then comes along diggo, with his rigid scientific methodology, quoting 7 million years. please excuse me for calling him out on it. it seems like double standards.
What a weird thing to focus on. You do agree that language capability evolved at some point, right? Would it have made his argument any different had it been 1 million years ago, or 50 million years ago?
Old 26th March 2014
  #1851
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
What a weird thing to focus on. You do agree that language capability evolved at some point, right? Would it have made his argument any different had it been 1 million years ago, or 50 million years ago?
to be honest, it could have been any statement that demonstrated double standards. he chose to put a figure on when the capability for language appeared in humans, albeit an approximate. i just asked for the scientific evidence to substantiate the statement, just like he was demanding of others. it is hardly critical to the discussion, but if we are going to be accurate in our science...

7 million will have entered someone's brain as an associated fact. it is speculation. i thought you were interested in facts.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1852
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
it is hardly critical to the discussion
Great that you are keeping up!

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1853
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
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.

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?

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?
So it appears the original issue here is completely lost. I made a comment that higher sample rates have value. I gave an example of what happens to a 10kHz square wave when sampled at 44.1kHz. I then showed that digital filtering has the effect of putting a "ringing" effect on the waveform. People told me I was confused and that this is a Gibb's effect. My point was that if we choose any kind of digital filter - ringing will occur (if limiting high frequency) and not just the Gibb's effect (which shows that ringing occurs when you represent a function with less than infinite terms). Gibbs does explain why ringing occurs because you are limiting the bandwidth.

Read up on an apodising (causal) filter and how it is used in audio to eliminate pre-ringing of a signal and take a look at the effect an apodizing filter has on a square wave. This is a completely different kind of ringing than Gibb's effect shows by limiting terms. The ringing occurs because of the nature of the filter kernel that is required.

That was my only point - ringing occurs because of the digital filtering. There are many kinds of digital filters that can cause different kinds of ringing. That's all.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1854
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
I wonder if there will be a Black Lion mod?
Old 26th March 2014
  #1855
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkorten View Post
So it appears the original issue here is completely lost. I made a comment that higher sample rates have value. I gave an example of what happens to a 10kHz square wave when sampled at 44.1kHz. I then showed that digital filtering has the effect of putting a "ringing" effect on the waveform. People told me I was confused and that this is a Gibb's effect. My point was that if we choose any kind of digital filter - ringing will occur (if limiting high frequency) and not just the Gibb's effect (which shows that ringing occurs when you represent a function with less than infinite terms). Gibbs does explain why ringing occurs because you are limiting the bandwidth.
Third time I ask the question... have you done a/b/x testing to see if you can reliably tell the difference between a 10k square wave via analog signal generator and a 10k square wave output at 44.1/16?
Old 26th March 2014
  #1856
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

I never said some in the record industry aren't corrupt but the fact remains that CD prices were set by retail stores and there is no evidence that lower prices were a factor that increased sales even in the same mall.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1857
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
Let's take that "Should I assume ultrasound has no impact?" a talking point at a time...
  • Given the nature of the Pono/HQ audio debate
    Based on the debate here and the 'best reasoning' presented by Pono true believers, I see no credible reason to think that one more store offering the same high-sample rate files available previously or the addition of one more mid-priced portable player is offering anything that wasn't already available; maybe the Pono player will be more advanced and technically a better player than more expensive, high end players -- a better mousetrap at a cheaper price is always welcome.
  • the anecdotal reports from listeners
    They are anecdotal reports. We've read all sorts of nonsensical anecdotal reports in this forum where we are supposedly recording 'engineers' -- not just lay people -- but that doesn't raise the credibility of many of these anecdotes above facepalm level.
  • the 'missing element' in audio reproduction
    What missing element is that?
  • the ability of mammals (including primates) to perceive ultrasound
    Is anyone arguing that cats and bats can't hear a few octaves above the scientifically arrived at upper thresholds of human perception? No. Why? Because scientists following the Scientific Method have run fairly rigorus scientific studies of bats' and cat's hearing. That said, human hearing has been studied in FAR greater depth and detail. No smoking gun. Not even a whisp of cordite.
  • the synaptic creation of ultrasound
    What? Like this: Ultrasound-induced changes in synaptic processes with different transmitters in smooth muscles - Springer
    Or this: Reduction of dopamine synaptic activity: degr... [Behav Neurosci. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
    These are studying bombarding the body with ultrasound (sort of like we do with radiation in radiotherapy) and seeing what effects it has on muscular synapses for the potential treatment of various pathologies, such as in attempting to disrupt synaptic processes related to various pathologies. Fascinating stuff -- but far, far from directly pertinent to what we are discussing and not even suggestive of the straws you appear to be grasping at. Maybe I'm missing something?
    - EDIT: I missed this link in one of your posts: Ultrasound directed to the human brain can boost sensory performance -- ScienceDaily
    Again, bombarding the brain with ultrasound to see what happens. Is this ultrasound at NATURAL occurring amplitudes? Of course not. Any sensible person reading the article can see the study has nothing to do with ultrasound components in environmental audio: "It seems paradoxical, but we suspect that the particular ultrasound waveform we used in the study alters the balance of synaptic inhibition and excitation between neighboring neurons within the cerebral cortex," Tyler said. "We believe focused ultrasound changed the balance of ongoing excitation and inhibition processing sensory stimuli in the brain region targeted and that this shift prevented the spatial spread of excitation in response to stimuli resulting in a functional improvement in perception." The focused ultrasound into the brain DISRUPTED some brain function, appearing to 'unmask' other sensory data; none of which had any direct bearing on the human hearing apparatus. It's fascinating stuff, but its pertinence to hearing is little and there's no evidentiary support AT ALL for the notion that humans can perceive the sorts of frequencies used for these experiments -- even at the high levels used.
  • studies which demonstrate pathways and mechanisms
    Links?
  • patents on ultrasound technologies by corporations
    In the US, in this period, it is extremely easy to get a patent. The USPTO gives them out for not much more than paying money and filling out paperwork. It is in DEFENDING patents that the real intellectual property soldiering goes on. Patents, today, are 'proof' of almost nothing -- except that one has filed the paperwork and deposited the fees.

Arthur Stone, you say you're a scientist. What is your field? Do you currently work in your field of training?

[Me, I'm a uni dropout; never declared a major; took what interested me across the arts and sciences; have a little over 3 years of uni and later went through a couple recording programs at community colleges simultaneously while moonlighting in studios. Not that anyone cares. But I'm no scientist. Just a science consumer. ]
Old 26th March 2014
  #1858
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
On a completely different note, some argued that the whole Kickstart thing is just a marketing thing rather than the Pono team actually needing the money to launch the player, shop and desktop application. Do any agree? And if so, wouldn't it be much to early to create so much hype? Wouldn't most people have forgotten by the time October comes?

Alistair
Old 26th March 2014
  #1859
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
On a completely different note, some argued that the whole Kickstart thing is just a marketing thing rather than the Pono team actually needing the money to launch the player, shop and desktop application. Do any agree? And if so, wouldn't it be much to early to create so much hype? Wouldn't most people have forgotten by the time October comes?

Alistair
Speaking strictly in general terms, you would typically lay out a marketing campaign in stages; you build a foundation, introducing product names and explaining 'new' concepts and demonstrating the 'need' for the new product/product class/service, you send out carefully constructed campaign materials, swag, and, of course, other considerations to the media you hope to persuade to glow about or at least mention your product. Every mention, even many that are overtly negative negative, can be seen as a plus, in early stages of a campaign when the marketing framework you're trying to build in people's minds is still relatively unformed. This is why company's fight to 'own' a product class or niche.

Even though the notion of marketing ladders and 'repositioning' competitors by strategic market subversion go back to the 1960s and 70s, it's clear the practices have become central to contemporary tech product marketing.

Redefining your competitors to your advantage is one of the central concepts of such marketing tactics. And one of the central approaches is redefining your competitors as belonging to an outmoded paradigm.
Old 26th March 2014
  #1860
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Third time I ask the question... have you done a/b/x testing to see if you can reliably tell the difference between a 10k square wave via analog signal generator and a 10k square wave output at 44.1/16?
Well I am alone, alas. I can press the two buttons until I forget which is which but I need a third person. It is easy to hear the difference as the square wave sounds "richer".

At 44.1kHz 16 bit - absolutely not! The square wave becomes a sinewave - so it will sound identical to the sine wave of the signal generator. I have no doubt about that.

My claim was that I can hear the difference between a sine and square wave played through an analog system (a signal generator will even drive a pair of headphones directly for this test).

So... I ask in return, have you tried to hear the difference between an analog square wave and an analog sine wave at 10kHz?

I will do my best to recruit a second subject for an ABX testing per your request, tonight.
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