Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Olhsson]

Have you asked any animals about this? We only assume mammals having the appropriate physical mechanism can hear above 20kHz. based on the fact that we don't have that mechanism!

Doing things to inaudible frequencies often creates audible artifacts. It's all really just that simple.

[Romy The Cat]

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 11:48

we are mammals. a lot of mammals can hear way above 20 KHz. the ear is interpreted.

Well,

I understand that the interpretation of the subjective perception is not the subject of this forum, furthermore Dan Lavry explicitly asked in his introduction to this forum to “dance” only around what might be registerable with currently existing (and currently developed already) park of the objective semi-scientific devised of acknowledgment. I perfectly understand his position but the given there is one of the evidences of the position limitations.

The fact that we human can or can’t not register the above 20kHz is absolutely irrelevant. Our perception is not a Boolean and to pile up a bunch of the musically ignorant hoodlum and ask them during a DBT if they can “hear” the UHF is similar to training to feed a Feline with a vegetarian food and then conclude that that vegetarian is against the mammals nature.

It is well know that for a proper music reproduction b the higher range of 13K-14K is perfectly sufficient. Can we hear above it? Of course we can! So what? The fact that we learn how to measure the UHF and that we can recognize them with out hearing is not necessarily means that the UFH has any beneficial value for out perception of musicality. Do MUSICAL ANALYSES (not a foolish DBT!!!) of the UHF’s benefits and you will/might confide that the UHFs are irrelevant for music reproduction….

Some might disagree, suggesting that the UHF distortions are very much affect the way in whish we perceive Music. Yes, it is true but there is a “thing” in there… Humans are not able to head distortions. (I know, I know…breathe in, breathe out…) all that we hear are the results of the distortions or the alien signatures of the mechanisms that created distortions. So, considering that the UHF is superbly difficult to reproduce and that UHF usually are not the UHF themselves but a severs contamination of UHF phase anomalies then what we “hear” as the UHF are juts the signatures of the electronic pollution of bandwidth at the UHF….

Make up you further conclusion…
Romy the caT

[danlavry]

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 11:48

Quote: You are right I am 45. Anyhow I think you are missing a fundamental factor here. Each neuron can only discharge a pulse at a rate of 1Khz maximum. If the frequency is higher than that then the second neuron takes over etc. if I am remembering right. If not please correct me. Now if that rate does not increase (which it does not, in fact gets worse in time) then there is no way your brain is going to perceive sounds outside audio frequencies through your hearing system. That has got to come through another way and that is why Bob indicated that he "feels" rather than "hears". In the case of low frequencies yes one can feel them and that is why we are discussing it now. But in the case of high frequencies of course it is a load of BS. BR you'll find that the ear is similar in mammals. we are mammals. a lot of mammals can hear way above 20 KHz. the ear is interpreted. the eye's nerves are interpreted.. we do not see our blind spot, we react instinctively and very quickly to objects that potentially could come into contact with our eyes and cause harm etc.

I can accept that some mammals can hear above 20KHz, but I believe we are dealing with music for people, not for dogs. Does your camera capture infrared and ultra violet? There are animals that react to those wavelength, people do not.

You say the ear interprets, as does the eye. You can interpret what "comes into the brain", but you can not interpret what does not. We can not interpret what our senses can not sense...

Regards
Dan Lavry
www,lavryengineering.com

[Sahib]

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 11:48

Quote: You are right I am 45. Anyhow I think you are missing a fundamental factor here. Each neuron can only discharge a pulse at a rate of 1Khz maximum. If the frequency is higher than that then the second neuron takes over etc. if I am remembering right. If not please correct me. Now if that rate does not increase (which it does not, in fact gets worse in time) then there is no way your brain is going to perceive sounds outside audio frequencies through your hearing system. That has got to come through another way and that is why Bob indicated that he "feels" rather than "hears". In the case of low frequencies yes one can feel them and that is why we are discussing it now. But in the case of high frequencies of course it is a load of BS. BR you'll find that the ear is similar in mammals. we are mammals. a lot of mammals can hear way above 20 KHz. the ear is interpreted. the eye's nerves are interpreted.. we do not see our blind spot, we react instinctively and very quickly to objects that potentially could come into contact with our eyes and cause harm etc.

Hi Max,

I am an engineer and my engineering discipline tells me that I have to stick to the facts of science when I am dealing with an issue. Now, hearing means hearing. If you hear above 20Khz then you do if you don't then you don't and there are no interpretations there. This does not mean that one is not entitle to interpret, yes he/she is but that does not go beyond being a claim. In order for a claim to be a fact it has to be proven mathematically and/or in a lab test. I may have to refresh my knowledge on this issue but what I believe is that the audio range stops at 20Khz unless it is proven otherwise scientifically.

Regards,

Cemal

[maxdimario]

MY audio range stops at 16 KHz.

technical explanations of what we hear don't necessarily help.
being technically proficient doesn't mean understanding in full.

[Augustine Leudar]

Is this a trick question ?

[danlavry]

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 23:22

MY audio range stops at 16 KHz. technical explanations of what we hear don't necessarily help. being technically proficient doesn't mean understanding in full.

I do not think there is a single issue (in or out of audio) that we "understand in full". There is always something new to learn.

But being highly technically proficient sure beats not being technically proficient, when the subject matter is technical, which is what this forum is about.

Just because one does not know everything, does not open a door to question one knows very well.

Regards
Dan Lavry
www.lavryengineering.com

[Pingu]

get to Know what we do not know.

The more we know the more we know we dont know.

[kraster]

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 19 January 2006 23:22

MY audio range stops at 16 KHz. technical explanations of what we hear don't necessarily help.

The technical explanations of the ear and what we hear were not generated out of thin air. They were accumulated by analysis of the physiology and real world performance of the ear in a myriad of experiments. I don't think that the performance of the ear and the technical data are mutually exclusive. One merely describes the other. And the better the description the better the basis for the design of the equipment used to capture what we hear.

[Plectra]

the vast majority of people DO react to frequencies above 20 kHz; describing it as hearing is where you might come unstuck.  We have been doing (and still are therefore no details just yet) a major R&D project on audio processing.  We were amazed at some of the results.  It is very easy to prove using otoacoustics but more amazingly there was a Japanese study which showed that most test subjects could identify human voice pitched into ultra sonic range through a contact transducer and many could even make out what was being said!

Apart from that (and other stuff I'll not talk about at this stage) very wide band equipment/material nearly always sounds miles better even taking into account converters which can't perform as efficiently at higher sample rates.

[Sahib]

Plectra wrote on Mon, 23 January 2006 14:57

the vast majority of people DO react to frequencies above 20 kHz; describing it as hearing is where you might come unstuck.

Is there any credible  scientific paper on this? How do they react? What response do they give?

Quote:

We have been doing (and still are therefore no details just yet) a major R&D project on audio processing.  We were amazed at some of the results.

I look forward to reading your results one day.

Quote:

It is very easy to prove using otoacoustics but more amazingly there was a Japanese study which showed that most test subjects could identify human voice pitched into ultra sonic range through a contact transducer and many could even make out what was being said!

That is where the problem is. We are regularly hearing claims saying it is very easy to prove but a scientifically credible paper is yet to be seen. In terms of that Japanese test I am now kicking myself for not keeping that particular article which discredited this test. Do you have a copy of this test handy, or can you give me a name or anything so that I could do an internet search.

Regards,

Cemal

[Plectra]

yes there is plenty of good papers that seem to go ignored.  I'll get a list of some that we used as background.  I must stress that we never took anything as gospel and there is the main point; forget papers! get a super tweeter, set up a blind test and use your own ears.  It doesn't matter what any paper says.  The real world rules... rule.

[PookyNMR]

Plectra,

If you have evidence for you claims, please share it.  I like to read it.

thanks.

[Plectra]

as I said. I'll get some of the research when I'm back in but more importantly test yourself.  We have not had one test subject (and yes this research will also be availible in time, ultra sonic is not actually the main thrust, but essential research for the project)that did not react to the wideband, and 100% (very few out of the subjects were anything like audio engineers) choose the wideband as being the superior recordings.  Tannoy have a basic paper to support their supertweets you'll get that from the site (though it is basic).  the best thing is to go out and get a towshed maximum supertweeter, paired with a earthworks sigma 6.3 (or another good speaker) and TRY IT YOURSELF; you know you have to  

[Plectra]

do you like my use of  ( )s ?  I just can't help myself