@ janneman,
the abstract is a bit short in this point, but the strength of the approach was the combination of more objective measurements like PET scans and EEG and listening tests as well.
Well worth a second reading.
Further results were published in:
Oohashi et al, The role of biological system other than auditory
air-conduction in the emergence of the hypersonic effect, breainresearch 1073-1074 (2006) 339-347
The first presentation of the idea was presented 1991 at the AES Convention:
Oohashi et al, High-Frequency Sound Above the Audible Range Affects Brain Electric Activity and Sound Perception,
The data presented don´t seem to support the interference theory, but in any case i´d wish that more studies in audio would provide such a thought-out concept and documentation.
@ Steve_Eddy,
it´s surely not perfect (still humans doing the research), but if that already is enough to call something "sloppy research" then the AES should be closed.
the abstract is a bit short in this point, but the strength of the approach was the combination of more objective measurements like PET scans and EEG and listening tests as well.
Well worth a second reading.
Further results were published in:
Oohashi et al, The role of biological system other than auditory
air-conduction in the emergence of the hypersonic effect, breainresearch 1073-1074 (2006) 339-347
The first presentation of the idea was presented 1991 at the AES Convention:
Oohashi et al, High-Frequency Sound Above the Audible Range Affects Brain Electric Activity and Sound Perception,
The data presented don´t seem to support the interference theory, but in any case i´d wish that more studies in audio would provide such a thought-out concept and documentation.
@ Steve_Eddy,
it´s surely not perfect (still humans doing the research), but if that already is enough to call something "sloppy research" then the AES should be closed.
Jakob,
You have a very friendly way to tell me that I should read better but I'll do it
jd
Let me know if you have trouble getting copies of the papers. You'll find them interesting, but perhaps in a way not intended.
janneman,
friendliness of an also erroneous mind.
Discussed to death? Mhm, must have missed something because i really don´t remember any arguments.
BTW, i think my answer got lost .....
"As said before both DUTs measured well and quite similar (not unintentionally as that was a design goal ) .
That means frequency response error was below +- 0.02dBr, Hum and noise around -106dBr unweigthed ref. 1V (BW22kHz), THD+N ~ 0.0009% (BW80kHz) @47kOhm/1V/10Hz-20kHz, IMD<0.001%, crosstalk -90dBr .
Both units were dc-coupled with servos; we were not able to find two identical responding alps potentiometers, so the balance error was 0.11dB in one unit and 0.18dB in the other.
Of course there are differences if i dig a bit deeper, but correlation does not necessarily mean causality. "
So i was not able to find any differences above the established hearing threhsholds, but after the blind test i could reject the null hypothesis on SL=0,05, actual p=0,032).
friendliness of an also erroneous mind.
Discussed to death? Mhm, must have missed something because i really don´t remember any arguments.
BTW, i think my answer got lost .....
"As said before both DUTs measured well and quite similar (not unintentionally as that was a design goal ) .
That means frequency response error was below +- 0.02dBr, Hum and noise around -106dBr unweigthed ref. 1V (BW22kHz), THD+N ~ 0.0009% (BW80kHz) @47kOhm/1V/10Hz-20kHz, IMD<0.001%, crosstalk -90dBr .
Both units were dc-coupled with servos; we were not able to find two identical responding alps potentiometers, so the balance error was 0.11dB in one unit and 0.18dB in the other.
Of course there are differences if i dig a bit deeper, but correlation does not necessarily mean causality. "
So i was not able to find any differences above the established hearing threhsholds, but after the blind test i could reject the null hypothesis on SL=0,05, actual p=0,032).
Last edited:
@ Steve_Eddy,
it´s surely not perfect (still humans doing the research), but if that already is enough to call something "sloppy research" then the AES should be closed.
Why? It was never published as a Journal article and so never underwent formal peer review.
se
Yes, 100's of Watts of ultrasound to excite the nonlinearity of air as well as a mass of DSP to make the demodulated audio a reasonable quality. It makes a great demo, I don't know how one could get high SPL's at bass frequencies.
Of course it has other uses. http://ultra-hyperspike.com/
Last edited:
The real point here is that 'research' put forth in an acceptable way will be 'dismissed' by those who don't want to accept it, if it implies that humans are effected by reasonable worst-case emissions of ultrasonic energy.
For some, the world ends at 20KHz, and in practice, especially with CD reproduction it does, today. However, in the past with high speed analog recording, where we used B&K 1/2 inch mikes that went to 40 KHz, and today with SACD and 24/96K or greater, we again have a chance to potentially add another 'dimension' to audio quality.
Why not, at least consider it? Why can't we just discuss it, without being 'discredited'? Enquiring minds need to know. ;-)
For some, the world ends at 20KHz, and in practice, especially with CD reproduction it does, today. However, in the past with high speed analog recording, where we used B&K 1/2 inch mikes that went to 40 KHz, and today with SACD and 24/96K or greater, we again have a chance to potentially add another 'dimension' to audio quality.
Why not, at least consider it? Why can't we just discuss it, without being 'discredited'? Enquiring minds need to know. ;-)
Who's stopping you from discussing it?
Are you saying that any opinions that a research program is badly flawed should be censored?
SY, why this thread? Why not a thread that likes to criticize audio 'craziness'? Are there not enough threads available? You appear to attempt to quash discussion even before it starts, on this thread. I would encourage more links that keep us informed of some the the latest audio testing, rather than dismiss it.
Yes, it never appeared in the JAES. I wouldn´t rely too much on the peer review process, but more if a published work meets the standards for scientific work.
And if the reader does not like the results of any study then the review board made something wrong, see for example SY´s comment.
Otoh i simply can´t understand why someone complains about Oohashis work but likes the ´famous´ Meyer/Moran (just an example) which has passed the `scrupulous´ review board of the JAES (makes me think sometimes what the ´relevant´ areas might be overthere
)Dismission due to missing peer review would be a deplorable replacement for content related arguments.
And of course there are some points to argue about in these papers.
Last edited:
I would like to talk about 'politically correct' audio research.
Once, long ago, the AES was formed by interested engineers and audio manufacturers to give an outlet for audio engineers to present their findings at yearly meetings and even the chance, if sufficiently interesting, to be put in a journal published by the society.
Instead of JUST PhD professors having yet another place to 'publish, rather than perish', regular design engineers were encouraged to write a paper and give their findings in front of an audience of their 'peers' with questions and answers.
If this proved successful, the paper could be submitted to the 'journal' but before it would be published, it would be 'peer reviewed' by people in the audio industry. Then, with a few, usually minor modifications, it would probably appear in the JAES at some point.
To even give a paper was a reasonably daunting task. Not only did you have to write a paper and make appropriate measurements, but you had to make slides or transparencies in order to show and explain your measurements, and often, graphs.
I have done it and it is a real effort, unless this is a part of what you do for a living, like some professors, who must do this, and are paid by their university to attend these meetings, in interesting places like San Francisco, New York, London, Paris, etc.
Of course, if you are just a design engineer, working on your own, or for a small company, you have to pay for it all, yourself. Still, many of us in the old days, more than 30 years ago, still did this, because we loved audio as a hobby as well as an avocation and wanted to contribute to the 'art'. Well, that was then. What appears to happen now, in a future installment.
Once, long ago, the AES was formed by interested engineers and audio manufacturers to give an outlet for audio engineers to present their findings at yearly meetings and even the chance, if sufficiently interesting, to be put in a journal published by the society.
Instead of JUST PhD professors having yet another place to 'publish, rather than perish', regular design engineers were encouraged to write a paper and give their findings in front of an audience of their 'peers' with questions and answers.
If this proved successful, the paper could be submitted to the 'journal' but before it would be published, it would be 'peer reviewed' by people in the audio industry. Then, with a few, usually minor modifications, it would probably appear in the JAES at some point.
To even give a paper was a reasonably daunting task. Not only did you have to write a paper and make appropriate measurements, but you had to make slides or transparencies in order to show and explain your measurements, and often, graphs.
I have done it and it is a real effort, unless this is a part of what you do for a living, like some professors, who must do this, and are paid by their university to attend these meetings, in interesting places like San Francisco, New York, London, Paris, etc.
Of course, if you are just a design engineer, working on your own, or for a small company, you have to pay for it all, yourself. Still, many of us in the old days, more than 30 years ago, still did this, because we loved audio as a hobby as well as an avocation and wanted to contribute to the 'art'. Well, that was then. What appears to happen now, in a future installment.
Last edited:
now john,
we all know that human hearing falls off at more than 2,000db/oct starting at 18khz
it's impossible to hear past 20KHz
now john,
we all know that human hearing falls off at more than 2,000db/oct starting at 18khz
it's impossible to hear past 20KHz
That confirms what I suspected, all those folks who demonstrate ability above that are alien imposters!
Hmmm... I have often felt, or had the vague feeling that perhaps I am not of a species native to this planet. Or alternately that many of you are alien interlopers that have "taken over" by over-running the surface of the planet with your kind. (maybe akin to a plague of RATs??) Another theory is that symbiants have invaded your bodies and control you from within...
??
_-_-bear
??
_-_-bear
- Status
- Not open for further replies.