John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier

Status
Not open for further replies.
scott wurcer said:


Sorry missed that, though it is strange they don't give much attention to the subjective tests. And yes, there are contradictory findings between here and elsewhere.

I find the loudspeaker issues in both studies are difficult to deal with. It would be hard to find a speaker that eliminates the intermodulation issues that would be a normal commercial component for home use.

The somewhat more objective measurement through PET and EEG was the exciting new part of this paper. :)

Quite a bigger effort than usual, so that may be the explanation why they didn´t write more about the subjective evaluation of the experiment, especially as there was correlation between PET/EEG scans and the subjective evaluation.

The design of the speaker used was done by Oohasihi, one of the authors, intermodulation can be avoided, but the interference between super tweeter and tweeter is a severe problem. The study covered this, but it´s still not obvious to me which filter configuration was used in the psychological evaluation; was it the 26kHz version whith 170db slope to avoid interference below 20 kHz or the other, which probably suffered from interference?
 
Member
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Without having seen the article I would ask if the supertweeter was in a meaningful phase relationship to the main signal. If it was significantly separated it may become disconnected from the primary event in the hearing process.

I am aware of some unpublished work indicating very fast response, on the order of 10 uS, to acoustic stimulous. This is in the acoustic nerve before processing. Not having references I don't want to make any further implications about the work I'm mentioning, but if true it would suggest that ultrasonic information may be processed before the normal processing we call hearing happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.