If the ear were as nonlinear as claimed by some recent research (Heerens, De Ru) even before any neuronal action takes place, then it would by quite obvious that brickwalling at 20kHz of complex signals that go higher would cause different intermodulation floors which then could cause both different neuronal activity as well as percieved difference.
I for one could reliably determine in ABX whether a crash cymbal recorded at 96kHz SR (with a 40kHz B&K mic) was brickwalled (pure sinc) or not -- on speakers that reach 50kHz without problems (the brickwalled sounding less airy) --, even though my hearing ceases above 17kHz with pure sines as stimulus. That may not prove anything to anybody else than me, but for me the issue of 20kHz++ audibility is settled...
I for one could reliably determine in ABX whether a crash cymbal recorded at 96kHz SR (with a 40kHz B&K mic) was brickwalled (pure sinc) or not -- on speakers that reach 50kHz without problems (the brickwalled sounding less airy) --, even though my hearing ceases above 17kHz with pure sines as stimulus. That may not prove anything to anybody else than me, but for me the issue of 20kHz++ audibility is settled...
Wally,
Perhaps it is the person that is stating the question or supplying the proof to something that they think is incorrect that needs to provide the proof. To me a null result is not the end of many arguments. I will again use a simple analogy that someone may find flaws with. If we say that all cars have four wheels and an engine and get you from point A to B and if they both get you to the final destination then there is not difference between them, a null result, we are only looking at a small portion of the overall function. The same here in audio We can say that most amplifiers will produce from 20hz to 20Khz flat and therefore that is a null result and all amplifiers are fine for any application that they have enough power to drive. But I don't think that you will find one person here who will take that result as a final result. It is too broad a null to be accurate. It really comes down to the accuracy of the questions asked and the scope of the question.
Perhaps it is the person that is stating the question or supplying the proof to something that they think is incorrect that needs to provide the proof. To me a null result is not the end of many arguments. I will again use a simple analogy that someone may find flaws with. If we say that all cars have four wheels and an engine and get you from point A to B and if they both get you to the final destination then there is not difference between them, a null result, we are only looking at a small portion of the overall function. The same here in audio We can say that most amplifiers will produce from 20hz to 20Khz flat and therefore that is a null result and all amplifiers are fine for any application that they have enough power to drive. But I don't think that you will find one person here who will take that result as a final result. It is too broad a null to be accurate. It really comes down to the accuracy of the questions asked and the scope of the question.
Surely there must exist, by now, bio scanners that can scan a human brain and can see the individual neurons and their interconnections, and the axons and dendrites etc, or whatever they're called these days. And maybe even some information about chemical content and electrical activity at that level of detail could also be determined.
My point is that if we had the data from such a scan, then relatively-simple computer software could automatically create a working simulation model of the whole network, i.e. the brain.
Maybe ears and their interface would be a tiny bit more difficult to simulate, because they include mechanical parts. But with detailed scan data it should be relatively simple to have software automatically create a finite-elements type of model of the mechanical parts.
One of the key ideas, there, is that by using software that would create the model from the scan data, all of the "hard parts" of the whole process would be fully automated. And since we know how each neuron can be modeled, the needed software would probably not be very complex (at least not for the initial "simple" deterministic version).
Then we could "run" simulations with the models and find out everything we might want to know.
I was just now thinking that it might be difficult to figure out what the "conscious perception" would be like, just from the simulation. But then I realized (doh!) that we could simply ASK it to tell us! (And that opens up even more experimental areas.)
(I remember throwing out the brain scanning and simulation-model creation idea in the hallway, in the EE building at Purdue, probably around 1977 or 78 (but 75-80, for sure). I think that I later saw that there was a Ph.D. thesis about it, from someone there; maybe by someone who was working under Dr. King-Sun Fu (K.S. Fu), if I remember his name correctly. I was talking with some graduate students who were waiting outside of his office, at the time.)
My point is that if we had the data from such a scan, then relatively-simple computer software could automatically create a working simulation model of the whole network, i.e. the brain.
Maybe ears and their interface would be a tiny bit more difficult to simulate, because they include mechanical parts. But with detailed scan data it should be relatively simple to have software automatically create a finite-elements type of model of the mechanical parts.
One of the key ideas, there, is that by using software that would create the model from the scan data, all of the "hard parts" of the whole process would be fully automated. And since we know how each neuron can be modeled, the needed software would probably not be very complex (at least not for the initial "simple" deterministic version).
Then we could "run" simulations with the models and find out everything we might want to know.
I was just now thinking that it might be difficult to figure out what the "conscious perception" would be like, just from the simulation. But then I realized (doh!) that we could simply ASK it to tell us! (And that opens up even more experimental areas.)
(I remember throwing out the brain scanning and simulation-model creation idea in the hallway, in the EE building at Purdue, probably around 1977 or 78 (but 75-80, for sure). I think that I later saw that there was a Ph.D. thesis about it, from someone there; maybe by someone who was working under Dr. King-Sun Fu (K.S. Fu), if I remember his name correctly. I was talking with some graduate students who were waiting outside of his office, at the time.)
Last edited:
Not that it really matters, but this is flawed. You cannot prove a negative, but it is indeed legitimate to ask for a proof of a (in particular, outstanding) statement.
Now, if you chose to
then so be it, it's your choice.JC said:
Me, back to lurk mode...
Waly,
Point well taken about proving a negative. But at the same time I don't have it in my DNA to just accept something on faith...... If I was one of those I guess the world should have ended a couple of days ago! But I will always question any statements, that is just the way I see anything. I take little on faith. I also will go back to lurking as I can not add to the technical aspects of this discussion. But I will continue to read what is said and hopefully get some insights.
Steven
Point well taken about proving a negative. But at the same time I don't have it in my DNA to just accept something on faith...... If I was one of those I guess the world should have ended a couple of days ago! But I will always question any statements, that is just the way I see anything. I take little on faith. I also will go back to lurking as I can not add to the technical aspects of this discussion. But I will continue to read what is said and hopefully get some insights.
Steven
You might be interested in this. Kiryu and Ashihara “Detection of Threshold for tones above 22kHz.” – Convention paper 5401 presented at the 110th Convention, May 12-15 2001, Amsterdam.
The authors presented 13 subjects with a test signal consisting of a 2kHz tone combined with odd order harmonics, both sonic and ultrasonic.
The ultrasonic harmonics were switched on and off at a 2Hz rate.
ALL subjects could discriminate the ultrasonics when the combined signal was presented through a single loudspeaker.
NONE of the subjects could discriminate the ultrasonics when each ultrasonic harmonic was reproduced from a separate speaker.
The eventual conclusion is that the ultrasonics in and of themselves are not audible. If you don't use a perfect transducer there is no experiment, separation of the simple removal of the highs from the existance of transducer IM when they are there is not possible.
Speakers that reach 50kHz without problems, does that include launching acoustic waves without moving? BTW the microphone is one transducer for the entire frequency range and it is not immune to the physics of the situation.
Last edited:
It's highly amusing to see all this discussion about the significance of above 20kHz audio, when a high percentage of systems do such a miserable job of reproducing the content below that frequency. I've heard so many examples of where the musical content is guaranteed to have nothing above 10kHz encoded, let alone 20kHz, sound very, very impressive, yet setups which are aiming for the stratosphere in terms of flatness and extension of frequency response are almost unlistenable to.
In audio, implementation is 95% of the battle, the incorporation of elements derived from conclusions of sophisticated theories of what is "correct", and necessary is 5%, if you're lucky ...
Frank
In audio, implementation is 95% of the battle, the incorporation of elements derived from conclusions of sophisticated theories of what is "correct", and necessary is 5%, if you're lucky ...
Frank
Agreed, but then it would be fair not to ask anybody to have faith in your ears. Be prepared to respond to challenges coming from the Unfaithful.
As an example of what a decent system should do, just found these yesterday; these are excellently recorded, capturing what the game is all about -- puts the the rubbishy sound clips from high end shows to shame, and just using relatively low cost gear ...
Stereo Tube System playing "Rock" Style - YouTube
Stereo Tube System playing "Jazz" Style - YouTube
Kingpin's Tube System plays CLASSICAL
Frank
Last edited:
I've never said Double Blind ABC Listening Tests produce only NULL results. I've spent nearly half a lifetime (bla bla ala JC) trying to refine Blind Listening Tests to make them more discriminating.
The real answer as Frank says is ..
_________________
On audibility of frequencies above 20kHz.
I've conducted Double Blind bla bla on this using music and sure enough, some people can and some people can't.
But of the small number of people who could, ie the true golden pinnae, they ALL preferred the Band Limited signal.
As a speaker & microphone designer, I can pontificate at length on why .. but this is an experiment anyone with the inclination can repeat with some effort to check on the results.
At least it puts the importance of ultra HF into perspective.
_______________________
I'm sure many here BELIEVE JC and shall henceforth be saved.
JC has miraculous skills to astound & amaze the unwashed masses .. I mean intelligent hard headed Yankee customers.
eg simply by looking at the 'evil 4558' label on the OPAs in a device, he is able to predict the outcome of a Sighted Listening Test.
Through long practice at being a pseudo Blind Listening Test guru in my previous life, I too have a not dissimilar skill. By looking at the circuit topology and also the results of certain esoteric tests, eg Hirata, I can predict the results of certain Listening Tests.
But my tests being Blind, the prediction has an accuracy which is far below JC's miraculous 100% record. Hence the NULL prediction on most of JC's stuff vs evil 4558. This is of little or no interest to this august forum.
However, Blowtorch, JC's masterpiece is special and I confidently predict some of my true golden pinnae can reliably distinguish between Blowtorch and an evil 4558 device in a properly conducted ABC Double Blind Listening Test.
THEN we ask these true golden pinnae which they prefer.
Surely this is of interest to BELIEVERS and unbelievers alike?
I'm disappointed no one has offered any true golden pinnae to take part in this test ... if it ever happens. Please suggest even remote possibilities. The ABC test will weed out the deaf ones.
Of course such a test is a major undertaking. But JC has pontificated at length on the importance of simpler tests some of which he has test equipment for.
Sadly, he declines to put his own product through these same tests. And when he has, the results must remain secret in case they confuse the FAITHFULL.
By grace ye are saved through FAITH ...
In nomine patri et fili et spiritus sancti
The real answer as Frank says is ..
- some people can't tell the difference
- some people can
_________________
On audibility of frequencies above 20kHz.
I've conducted Double Blind bla bla on this using music and sure enough, some people can and some people can't.
But of the small number of people who could, ie the true golden pinnae, they ALL preferred the Band Limited signal.
As a speaker & microphone designer, I can pontificate at length on why .. but this is an experiment anyone with the inclination can repeat with some effort to check on the results.
At least it puts the importance of ultra HF into perspective.
_______________________
I'm sure many here BELIEVE JC and shall henceforth be saved.
JC has miraculous skills to astound & amaze the unwashed masses .. I mean intelligent hard headed Yankee customers.
eg simply by looking at the 'evil 4558' label on the OPAs in a device, he is able to predict the outcome of a Sighted Listening Test.
Through long practice at being a pseudo Blind Listening Test guru in my previous life, I too have a not dissimilar skill. By looking at the circuit topology and also the results of certain esoteric tests, eg Hirata, I can predict the results of certain Listening Tests.
But my tests being Blind, the prediction has an accuracy which is far below JC's miraculous 100% record. Hence the NULL prediction on most of JC's stuff vs evil 4558. This is of little or no interest to this august forum.
However, Blowtorch, JC's masterpiece is special and I confidently predict some of my true golden pinnae can reliably distinguish between Blowtorch and an evil 4558 device in a properly conducted ABC Double Blind Listening Test.
THEN we ask these true golden pinnae which they prefer.
Surely this is of interest to BELIEVERS and unbelievers alike?
I'm disappointed no one has offered any true golden pinnae to take part in this test ... if it ever happens. Please suggest even remote possibilities. The ABC test will weed out the deaf ones.
Of course such a test is a major undertaking. But JC has pontificated at length on the importance of simpler tests some of which he has test equipment for.
Sadly, he declines to put his own product through these same tests. And when he has, the results must remain secret in case they confuse the FAITHFULL.
By grace ye are saved through FAITH ...
In nomine patri et fili et spiritus sancti
Last edited:
most of the cotroversy is that some belive that unlike other humans they can simply decide that they are using their ears only - without controls, Blinding, level matching
in fact some even stipulate that they can't hear the difference under these contorlled conditions - established in psychoacoustics ase needed - and still want us to value their opinons
in fact some even stipulate that they can't hear the difference under these contorlled conditions - established in psychoacoustics ase needed - and still want us to value their opinons
kgrlee,
I have never heard the Blowtorch myself and don't expect that this is going to happen, so I have not even considered that in the discussions about the circuit designs talked about here. I may not like it at all, but what is the point of that argument? I have stated that I don't take anything on faith, whether it is John's word or anyone else. As far as Golden Ears are concerned that goes the same there. Just because someone is supposed to be able to discern small differences or not does not tell me I would like what they do. They may have very different criteria than I or many others do about what we are listening to. I have personally listened to systems that are supposed to be the cats meow and I thought you have to be kidding me. A blind test will tell if you do indeed have fair hearing or not, but doesn't mean that what you think is correct I agree with, just that you can discern that there is a difference. I have my own opinion on upper frequency response myself but that doesn't mean I am correct. Not to many devices can get up there and most that do are just noise and have nothing to do with the original signal. That is one reason that I have come to despise titanium, much to much resonance and that some think is accurate sound. But that is only my opinion. I guess the thread is titled Blowtorch but that is not what I am reading here most of the time. Circuit design and how and why things are done and how that is implemented is what I am reading this thread for, not so I can make a judgement on the Blowtorch preamp. Besides, even if I decided I liked it, it is unobtainum anyway.
I have never heard the Blowtorch myself and don't expect that this is going to happen, so I have not even considered that in the discussions about the circuit designs talked about here. I may not like it at all, but what is the point of that argument? I have stated that I don't take anything on faith, whether it is John's word or anyone else. As far as Golden Ears are concerned that goes the same there. Just because someone is supposed to be able to discern small differences or not does not tell me I would like what they do. They may have very different criteria than I or many others do about what we are listening to. I have personally listened to systems that are supposed to be the cats meow and I thought you have to be kidding me. A blind test will tell if you do indeed have fair hearing or not, but doesn't mean that what you think is correct I agree with, just that you can discern that there is a difference. I have my own opinion on upper frequency response myself but that doesn't mean I am correct. Not to many devices can get up there and most that do are just noise and have nothing to do with the original signal. That is one reason that I have come to despise titanium, much to much resonance and that some think is accurate sound. But that is only my opinion. I guess the thread is titled Blowtorch but that is not what I am reading here most of the time. Circuit design and how and why things are done and how that is implemented is what I am reading this thread for, not so I can make a judgement on the Blowtorch preamp. Besides, even if I decided I liked it, it is unobtainum anyway.
I love the belief that scientists have that they have full control over the impartiality of "controlled" tests. I would like do an experiment, of such "controlled" tests, where the subjects are purely random, but the people who are running the experiments are carefully selected; at a higher level, they are the "true" subjects. And of course one group of experimenters hold strong, personal beliefs about what the outcome "should" be, in one direction, and the other group, contrary.
What odds will you give that the results of these "scientific" tests will match ...
Frank
- Status
- Not open for further replies.