Ahhah.
Just delegate to something miraculous functions and relax.
Let's stop, otherwise I will start demanding the explanation of gravitation, in details. I don't mean explanations that Sir Isaac Newton long time ago gave; I mean explanations of what he admitted can't be explained by physics built upon his model.
So, what do we know about time delays, frequencies, and and sound pressures human beings can perceive?
Q: So with typical background noise levels and the hearing acuity of a 57 year old...should I be able to hear a piece of dropped chalk at 16 or 16,000 meters? Inquiring minds demand to know!!!
A: My wife would attest that my chances of hearing it at 16 meters are vanishing, since I have been known to not respond to her voice from 1 meter away.
I'm highly confident I could catch it at 16 meters but I wouldn't bet a beer on 160! I know for damn sure that whether I heard it or not, the known principles of Physics, Thermodynamics, Chemistry, Biology and any other Science (caps distinguishing these from social science, management science, etc.) would be adhered to and preserved. For those of you who debated whether reality exists many posts ago - test it by stepping in front of the next car that whizzes by you - the mess will confirm that reailty is indeed...real.
A: My wife would attest that my chances of hearing it at 16 meters are vanishing, since I have been known to not respond to her voice from 1 meter away.
I'm highly confident I could catch it at 16 meters but I wouldn't bet a beer on 160! I know for damn sure that whether I heard it or not, the known principles of Physics, Thermodynamics, Chemistry, Biology and any other Science (caps distinguishing these from social science, management science, etc.) would be adhered to and preserved. For those of you who debated whether reality exists many posts ago - test it by stepping in front of the next car that whizzes by you - the mess will confirm that reailty is indeed...real.
Possibly some answers hereAhhah.
Just delegate to something miraculous functions and relax.
Let's stop, otherwise I will start demanding the explanation of gravitation, in details. I don't mean explanations that Sir Isaac Newton long time ago gave; I mean explanations of what he admitted can't be explained by physics built upon his model.
So, what do we know about time delays, frequencies, and and sound pressures human beings can perceive?
No, you invoke miraculous functions - qm.
Why is it necessary to invoke quantum level mechanism to explain macro level physical and and chemical processes? Only should those explanatory models fail, then yes - lets go one step deeper.
The necessity to explain gravitation in "fine structure" came only when there was an attempt to unify the forces in light of the expansion of the universe and the subsequent separation of a hypothetical unified force into a multitude.
Maybe unification is not possible. So far Einsteins geometric model works well as far as I can understand.
If you don't respond it does not mean you don't hear her voice, right?
Speaking of sciences... Does quantum physics prove that quantum effects happen only and only in special laboratory conditions? Never. So, it is normal to accept them by default, since they had been discovered and experimentally proved. They do exist, why we have to deny them speaking of live cells? Use Okkam's razor and cut off heavy complex mechanistic explanations, that's it.
Now, experiments with emotional reactions on sound and pictures that yet have to be randomly chosen by computer prove that reactions do not follow after direct mechanical impact, so they are not necessary caused by vibrating molecules that kick something inside of the ear. So, we may accept experimental data about hearing phenomena and adjust our requirements to audio equipment according to what we know, even if we can't tell for sure how it works.
Speaking of sciences... Does quantum physics prove that quantum effects happen only and only in special laboratory conditions? Never. So, it is normal to accept them by default, since they had been discovered and experimentally proved. They do exist, why we have to deny them speaking of live cells? Use Okkam's razor and cut off heavy complex mechanistic explanations, that's it.
Now, experiments with emotional reactions on sound and pictures that yet have to be randomly chosen by computer prove that reactions do not follow after direct mechanical impact, so they are not necessary caused by vibrating molecules that kick something inside of the ear. So, we may accept experimental data about hearing phenomena and adjust our requirements to audio equipment according to what we know, even if we can't tell for sure how it works.
Last edited:
It could mean: I didn't hear her; I didn't choose to respond; or this thread was so damn interesting that I was oblivious to all but its latest post.
Quantum Physics is as real and proven as traditional statics and dynamics, but my sense is that it is dominant at the sub-angstrom scale (dare we raise that metric again) and statistically washed away here in the world of solids, liquids and gases.
I will remain wedded to the macro universe where cause preceeds effect and the noise from a dropped piece of chalk is not heard until it hits the ground!!
Quantum Physics is as real and proven as traditional statics and dynamics, but my sense is that it is dominant at the sub-angstrom scale (dare we raise that metric again) and statistically washed away here in the world of solids, liquids and gases.
I will remain wedded to the macro universe where cause preceeds effect and the noise from a dropped piece of chalk is not heard until it hits the ground!!
Yes, I agree about "some" AND "possibly".
But such a model fails to explain everything about hearing. That means, it is at least incomplete.
back to the beginning:
and here what they really said:
http://www.hhmi.org/senses/c110.html
Where does it say that this movement is translated into hearing? Nothing but bad science reporting.
The noise level of the receiving environment is likely much higher than the minimal threshold, so for all practical purposes such a small signal has no bearing on anything.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1794/833.abstract
The localization of sound had probably a higher survival value than actual frequency range and sensitivity, although they helped likely to identify very quietly approaching predators
or helped to detect prey from a greater distance.
When I hunt my hearing in the first stages are much more important than my eyes - considering the terrain I hunt in, dense bush.
and here what they really said:
The Goal: Extreme Sensitivity and Speed
http://www.hhmi.org/senses/c110.html
Where does it say that this movement is translated into hearing? Nothing but bad science reporting.
The noise level of the receiving environment is likely much higher than the minimal threshold, so for all practical purposes such a small signal has no bearing on anything.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1794/833.abstract
The localization of sound had probably a higher survival value than actual frequency range and sensitivity, although they helped likely to identify very quietly approaching predators
or helped to detect prey from a greater distance.
When I hunt my hearing in the first stages are much more important than my eyes - considering the terrain I hunt in, dense bush.
Last edited:
Sure, but designing audio systems we may consider that all our models are limited, and go from facts rather from explanations, right?
yes, but it seems "facts" have different interpretations according to who is reporting.
See my posting at 188. Measurements alone tell not the whole picture - as in cables.....(waiting for bullets)... The question is: can you translate those measurements into an audible signal.
The cilia might trigger a signal - but the processing following in the brain likely will filter out those signals that from experience (learning) or even inheritance (genetic) qualifies as noise.
Last edited:
Certainly that's the way I'm proceeding in my own designs. To me, an audio 'fact' is a well described result of a listening experiment - doesn't need to be blind or anything particularly controlled but the conditions do need to be in the report. I then work to correlate theory with fact by developing new methods of measuring, and update theory accordingly to contribute to the evolution of my design.
AES E-Library: Audibility of Linear Distortion with Variations in Sound Pressure Level and Group Delay
that name is familiar.....
just to remind that the receiver itself is likely to distort the signal.
The question then is: how much source distortion is actually audible?
I don't mean interpretation. I mean consideration. However, it is my right to have some variants of interpretations that silence down my curiosity, but when I hear that for example THD does not correlate with perception of distortions I chose perception over THD and try to minimize errors that add unnatural colorations.
I'm more interested in, "How close is distortion profile to what the receiver can't recognize as distortions".
And how about blurring of electronic picture so rough sharp edged pixels are unrecognizable?
Last edited:
Yes, and under what listening conditions - like musical styles and production methods (intensity stereo or 'real'). An important secondary question is - is the distortion objectionable, relatively neutral or potentially euphonic?
A practical approach that gets away from the pure numbers game.
It requires however research on when the distortion profile becomes unrecognizable.
What is important for reproducing audio to me: come to a point where a suite of non amplified instruments heard live is indistinguishable from the electronic reproduction.
Remembering hearing my last concert by the Vancouver Symphony in a not very good venue - a gym - and then listening at home to not too shabby system - kef speakers, bryston amps - hammered this point home again.
We are far from reproducing sound of an orchestra at home, and because of room restriction might never be able to. Even the reproduction of smaller musical groupings - quartets and sextets - are not very close to the life sound.
To me however it is not so much the electronics - it is the sound transducers that have seen very little real progress, and that progress actually might never come, when one observes the mostly non hifi listening habits at present.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.