John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#17,784
Wow! I bought my Tasco in 1966, Peekskill, NY 😀
I still have it.

My memories of 1966
 

Attachments

  • seeger.jpg
    seeger.jpg
    75.8 KB · Views: 250
  • niagara.jpg
    niagara.jpg
    51 KB · Views: 244
Last edited:
#17,799
jcx said:
I meant IATD as an additional example of "unexpectedly" small time resolution numbers that people naively want to use to imply 100-200 kHz "hearing"
Click to expand...

Ah, ok - i misunderstood it in that context.

Kunchur's models don't require modifying "conventional" psychoacoustic understanding of high frequency sensitivity - he is ascribing the increased time resolution to the result of a convolution like process from phase locking of frequency content totally within conventional < 20 kHz human hearing limits

His explanation of filtered 7 kHz square wave results do appeal to possible 21 k
Hz nonlinear mixing, 14 kHz in band IMD – but not to direct sensitivity of hearing the 21 kHz fundamental
Click to expand...

Isn´t that exactly what Kunchurs data imply?
AFAIR he measured the upper frequency limit of his participants and even those listeners with a quite limited frequency range could detect a variation in the ~5-6µs region.

But in the production of music content- do we have another chance to enhance the temporal resolution as to raise the sampling frequency?

On the Slot ref – “sharpness” in psychoacoustics is correlated with increased high frequency content – rising sensitivity with frequency above ~ 3 kHz
So sharpness sensitivity to filter order for corner frequencies below our upper frequency hearing limit is “conventional” psychoacoustics – care to post what filter corner frequencies he was citing?
Click to expand...

I don´t have that in my archive- Thorsten L. and John Curl cited from the book.

Let me add a point to the sample size and inference statistics. It just deals with probabilities and it is more likely that a random sample is located somewhere around the mean of the underlying distribution in the population than in the extreme ends.

It is normally unusual in psychoacoustic studies to have sample groups that are really representative and sufficient large.

That explains sometimes (furthermore complicated by different test signals, presentation and so on) why the variance between different studies is often quite large, see for example the evolution in the case of "contours of equal loudness" :

Full Revision of International Standards for Equal-Loudness Level Contours (ISO 226)

So, we have to be careful; due to the physiological mechanism the overall function is similar but the the interindividual variation can be substantial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom