No she read an article on "Swedish Death Planning", I said check our 23andme profiles again.
Do you mean gated after the aliasing filter but before the actual sampling and hold/quantisation?
Because if it is before, a proper filter meeting the requirement of the theorem(s) will assure that no violation will happen whatever (yes!) you throw at the system. No?
//
Seems like the issue is if you have a waveform that is say, the intermodulation of two sines, then it consists of 4 sines, the original two and the sum and difference frequency sines. The difference sine is the lower sideband frequency.
If the original two sines were two close-in-frequency HF sines that were modulated together, then if everything but the lower sideband frequency were filtered out, all that would be left would a lone LF signal that might be a lot more audible than it was before when it was part of a complex HF signal.
People with good pitch discrimination, IOW predominantly musicians, tend
to listen more to the musical content rather than dissecting the 'sound' apart.
When I was young I could tune a guitar to correct pitch without any tuner or reference. But that isn't perfect pitch.
Here's a great video on perfect pitch, how and when it is formed.
Rick's son is amazing. He has the ability to identify every note in very
complex chords purely by hearing them.
YouTube
Great channel for those interested in *music (not so much audio)
TCD
Yes I've watch a lot of his videos, very interesting, including that one. How about this?Great channel for those interested in *music (not so much audio)
YouTube
All this without ever having done a bias controlled, room acoustics controlled and aural memory span compensated listening test.
He was just expressing his feelings, you know, he felt that you & other members did x, y, z.
I remember wiki back in the day, this article is certainly a tad better. It is not too bad as a glossy overview. They could have used a few more references, it's pretty light on that..(270 references,
)Man, and I thought you and I had to live with some interesting terms and acronymns..
Note: ENV is envelope, TFS is temporal fine structure,EFR...god only knows...
""The most basic computer model of ENV processing is the leaky integrator model""
""AM applied to a given carrier can perceptually interfere with the detection of a target AM imposed on the same carrier, an effect termed modulation masking""
""modulation detection interference""
""The separation of a sound into ENVp and TFSp appears inspired partly by how sounds are synthesized and by the availability of a convenient way to separate an existing sound into ENV and TFS, namely the Hilbert transform. There is a risk that this view of auditory processing[93] is dominated by these physical/technical concepts, similarly to how cochlear frequency-to-place mapping was for a long time conceptualized in terms of the Fourier transform. ""
""Although sleeping infants and sedated adults show the same effect of modulation rate on EFR, infants’ estimates were generally poorer than adults""
"" moderate hearing loss (20-40 dB HL) induced by acoustic trauma.[232] Interestingly, developmental hearing loss reduces cortical responses to slow, but not fast (100 Hz) AM stimuli, in parallel with behavioral performance.[233] As a matter of fact, a transient hearing loss (15 days) occurring during the "critical period" is sufficient to elevate AM thresholds in adult gerbils""
Guinea pigs, mccaws, gerbils...man, a wide range of species...and even sedation was involved...my kind of research...
Thanks for the link. While indeed a glossy overview, the references are actually the gold mine..
cheers, jn
Last edited:
The only non audio listening thing I could think of is a point by point comparison of the analog output for full rate and after the filter. I bet the subtraction and it's spectra would be interesting, it could be looked at to see what audible content was removed by the brickwall.
jn
Last edited:
The extreme example of what I was driving at earlier, the psychoacoustics that we all share, where the serious unbiased study is.
I have never thought my musical family helped my hearing acuity but I guess it has. I had a sister who sang opera and mother who played piano. They would play together for hours day after day practicing. They had a few tuning forks to get spot on with. The piano was always kept in top tune. So, I just learned thru hearing tones so that I could tell you if your turn table was running slightly flat just from listening the LP being played. No one else ever noticd it. They would check with strobe and i was right. Musical instruments like a piano has many characteristics to the sound depending on how that note is played. I just have a learned sound in memory and you know when it is right or not.
Thx for the memories.
-Richard
Thx for the memories.
-Richard
Yep, same as everyone who has heard sounds, even Evelyn Glennie.
Any thoughts on the Ethan Winer video I posted earlier?
Why on earth should I take a victory lap if someone else prefers to fool himself again now and presumably in the future?
If you do not want to accept arguments and facts that are not compatible with your hypothesis it is a bit depressing as it means that you will repeat the incorrect assertion(s) ad nauseam.
Otoh, it is always amazing to note how far people (that seem reasonable otherwise) are able to go in their denial of realitiy (means if you are interested in social sciences).
Btw, a link to the debunking of Oohashi by SY (I guess it is complete and totally devastating) is still missing........
I thought so too. pretty humbling what we dont know and to think we only have a few engineering tools to work with - freq response, THD, IM and FFT tools and a few others. Geez if we just knew that subject inside and out plus what we do know now also, maybe we would know how to engineer that completely realistic sound some of us have been looking for. Unfortunately, I am going to miss that remarkable event far in some one else's future. But making small improvements add up in time and are worth while, too.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Amazing memory. I have watched similar feats of the mind on a NetFlix documentary with numbers; mental number crunchers. Amazing what some minds can do. I dont know where a DBLT would fit into those guys abilities.
I listen to the sound and from memory or direct comparison to in-room "live" instruments and repo systems can quickly listen now and get a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Its memory, I guess. A DBT is not needed if you have ability to know when pitch is perfect or not and if transients are right and if the envelope is accurate to real sound. Musicians do it as i do it from listening a lot to real instruments and not only just their play back systems at home.
-Richard
Last edited:
I've read similar a number of times but I've not read what is the correlation between psychoacoustics and music reproduction in your room other than the requirements on the acoustic side. Do you know of any sources of info?
Ok, admission of making a fool of myself, now and forever, for the future generation to know. Happy now?
No link for you, anybody with an interest can search for "Oohashi" by author "SY". on this forum. A search for "Oohashi" on any other audio related forum will quickly reveal your contributions about, and how they were received, since you are usually the only one stubbornly defending that paper.
I mean this YouTube He used a mic so we can hear, but I wondered if that might be a good idea anyway because it removes a variable?
As long as you as him questions he is compelled to respond, is that what you want? Don't answer that
@elektroj
At last I had the time to listen to your nice recordings, one 88,2/24 and the other a decimated version to 44.1/16 upsampled again to 88.2/24
I played them through JRiver with the R128 volume control switched on to prevent small level differences.
Both files where converted to 192/24 in my D/A.
Same overall setting, same hardware, same everything except these two files.
I have seriously listened to both without any prejudice and played them over and again, at least some 30 times.
To my regret I cannot hear any difference.
Thank you for having taken the trouble of preparing them.
Hans
At last I had the time to listen to your nice recordings, one 88,2/24 and the other a decimated version to 44.1/16 upsampled again to 88.2/24
I played them through JRiver with the R128 volume control switched on to prevent small level differences.
Both files where converted to 192/24 in my D/A.
Same overall setting, same hardware, same everything except these two files.
I have seriously listened to both without any prejudice and played them over and again, at least some 30 times.
To my regret I cannot hear any difference.
Thank you for having taken the trouble of preparing them.
Hans
- Status
- Not open for further replies.