Wrong assumption -> people who study audio electronics know very little about human hearing, but assume they know more about it then they really do.
I guess I wrongly assumed most people knew this information, but then decided this must be one of the main reasons so many people have disagreements about audio electronics. Here's the great revelation. Human hearing is incredibly sensitive. Even though a lot of our hearing apparatus is mechanical it is far superior to most electronics on the market, ie. our hearing can detect more flaws in the electronics then those who parrot electronic theory realize. Its well known that real electronic components differ from theoretical electrical theory used to teach it. Of course, some people may have better hearing than other people. I read about these incredible numbers in the links below in reference to human hearing years ago.
There also seems to be a number prejudice, ie. when someone sees .1 % THD or even .01 or .001 % THD those that know nothing about human hearing assume that those numbers are so small they must be insignificant.
Read the great truths here about human hearing that most of you never knew.
http://www.rle.mit.edu/avbs/documents/APROPOSALFORANRFCOCHLEA.pdf
---------------------------------------
Johns Hopkins Magazine - September 1996 Issue
There's more examples. Just use Google.
I guess I wrongly assumed most people knew this information, but then decided this must be one of the main reasons so many people have disagreements about audio electronics. Here's the great revelation. Human hearing is incredibly sensitive. Even though a lot of our hearing apparatus is mechanical it is far superior to most electronics on the market, ie. our hearing can detect more flaws in the electronics then those who parrot electronic theory realize. Its well known that real electronic components differ from theoretical electrical theory used to teach it. Of course, some people may have better hearing than other people. I read about these incredible numbers in the links below in reference to human hearing years ago.
There also seems to be a number prejudice, ie. when someone sees .1 % THD or even .01 or .001 % THD those that know nothing about human hearing assume that those numbers are so small they must be insignificant.
Read the great truths here about human hearing that most of you never knew.
http://www.rle.mit.edu/avbs/documents/APROPOSALFORANRFCOCHLEA.pdf
---------------------------------------
Johns Hopkins Magazine - September 1996 Issue
There's more examples. Just use Google.
Last edited:
Probably we never knew them because some of them are half-truths at best. The cochlea is rather useless when not combined with the brain in a recursive feedback system, which is rather more power hungry overall. That's just for starters... The idea that the cochlea does some kind of DSP is laughable. Shall I go on? Actually the rest of your quoted stuff is more reasonable.
I'd add that the statements should all have been prefaced by the words "At best..."
Any impressive capabilities in hearing are largely relics of history by the age of 30 or so - again, the result of 220 million years of evolution since 30 was around about hte average lifespan until very recently.
The quote about dropping chalk is telling - in an unrealistic situation involving an impossible set of circumstances you can theoretically acheive pretty much anything since its never going to be tested. Nor does the example relate to the real world EXCEPT to show that, no matter how theoretically capable the ear is, in practise it is fooled and abused to a point of very average performance by the situation it finds itself in.
Any impressive capabilities in hearing are largely relics of history by the age of 30 or so - again, the result of 220 million years of evolution since 30 was around about hte average lifespan until very recently.
The quote about dropping chalk is telling - in an unrealistic situation involving an impossible set of circumstances you can theoretically acheive pretty much anything since its never going to be tested. Nor does the example relate to the real world EXCEPT to show that, no matter how theoretically capable the ear is, in practise it is fooled and abused to a point of very average performance by the situation it finds itself in.
So precious. Problem is that an audio lunatic's mind isn't that good; it's plagued with many false preconceptions and stupid beliefs. So, in a sense, it's like throwing pearls to pigs. IMO, human hearing is better left alone when talking about audio gear - too far out of scope. On the other hand, audio electronics devices created by men are much more manegable and can be talked about in audio forums like this, keeping general frustration levels low. A golden or tin ear isn't that important anymore. Your ear may be defective, your mind is malfunctioning but, hey! that amp is working - it plays undistorted sounds. LOL. The rest is just speculation.
Translation:
Wrong assumption -> people who study audio electronics know very little about human hearing, but assume they know more about it then they really do.
I wouldn't say very little, more than an ordinary man but not enough to understand it completely. Everybody is far from knowing everything but they do what they can. Everybody assumes they know more than they really do, it's in our nature.
Hi,
I a agree with you, and you yourself also fit into the above. I know a lot
about human hearing from my work with compression algorithms, human
speech processing and QoS in speech telephony networks. Your examples
are not realistic and you cannot draw reasonable conclusions from them.
The human ear is very easy to fool and notoriously unreliable as an analytical
tool, trouble is proper double blind listening tests are hideously expensive.
e.g. I read of "burn-in" periods of e.g.100 hours for a cartridge during which
it is supposed to improve, fair enough, but any individual who says from
their experience this is true is talking nonsense, they simply do not know.
But long term the ear is not so easy to fool, hence upgraditis, the constant
changing of stuff, to try to keep the ear fooled, but it gets used to it and
the apparent "reality" reduces. The best bet is to for high quality stuff.
Shop demonstrations are usually not a good way to buy hifi IMO.
/Sreten.
What? Like the one you're trying so hard to provoke here? Doncha know we've all had a bellyful of quick-draw artists looking for a fight?
w
Hint: the way he stated the problem, you can use the inverse square law. Assume that from 1 meter, the SPL will be 80dB (chalk isn't very loud). 10 miles = 16,000 meters, roughly.
Hi,
No, not really. That have to know a lot about signal processing in general.
They would e.g. understand MP3 far better than most audio electronics buffs.
This especially applies to those who work in the hearing aid industry and
more generally the ear and mouth interface for telephony devices. How
many people understand all the speech processing in a mobile phone ?
(And its lots, and I mean lots.)
/Sreten.At ten miles a source of 80dB is completely inaudible, it is ridiculously below threshold.
Disagreements are not provoked, they just exist and if you don't like them I'd suggest you to stop reading threads like this, it will save you from reading my disagreement with you about comments like "looking for a fight" and "we've all had a bellyful".
I agree. The sound of a new amp may fool me for a day but not for a week. In that sense audio amps are a bit like women, you have to live with them to find out if they're any good. That's why diy audio works in the long term - you always end up finding something good enough for you.
Hydrogen atom:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.