I attended a SynAudCon on 'How We Hear,' and one of the presenters was a Bell Labs engineer who actually attached electrodes to the cochlear nerves of a cat. He then exposed the cat to different noises and recorded the resulting nerve impulses. IIRC any specific nerve carried the impulses from a very narrow range of frequencies and it's amplitude was proportional to the loudness with a caveat below.
The cochlea functions as a tonotopic discriminator with a raw resolution of 1/230 of an octave, so the various nerve outputs are effectively frequency bins, perhaps similar to an FFT.
Finer frequency resolution is performed by interpolation between adjacent nerve activation by our auditory cortex as well as an active amplification system in the cochlea itself.
Apparently if we are actively listening to a specific part of the frequency range, the cochlea itself can increase it's discrimination via active feedback. I equate this to raising the gain and Q of a filter close to resonance. This can also cause sound to be back-radiated out of the ear as the basilar membrane resonates.
This variable Q aspect differentiates the cochlea from a microphone as an FFT input transducer.
If I find the study I will link to it, as I remember he had a really complex set of formulas describing aspects of the cortex processing as well.
Cheers,
Howie
This expands on that theory of place & explains the modern thinking (based on experimental evidence):
"Ultimately, as new methods of studying the inner ear came about, a combination of place theory and frequency theory was adopted. Today, it is widely believed that hearing follows the rules of the frequency theory, including volley theory, at frequencies below 1000 Hz and place theory at frequencies above 5000 Hz. For sounds with frequencies between 1000 and 5000 Hz, both theories come into play so the brain can utilize the basilar membrane location and the rate of the impulse.
As you can see, it uses place (tonotopic) for frequencies above 5KHz, pulse frequency/timing for sound beloe 1KHz & a combination for frequencies between 1KHz - 5KHz
Last edited:
I'll repeat "if Bruno has produced an amp that sounds better & yet all measurements suggest (according to objectivists) that it shouldn't (sound any different) where are you going to find the answer to this?"
That's what I thought you meant. What's wrong with my reply? He made an amp that measures better and supposedly it sounds better, where's the mystery?
I'm sure, we have mentioned it already (like the phase locking a couple of weeks ago), but the current model states not only that all mechanisms are used but that it is level dependent too.
@ scottjoplin,
assumed that there are controlled listening test results that corrobate the notion of better sound, then the mistery lies in the argument about the already sufficient sound quality (because better than what the hearing sense of all humans alive can resolve) of amplifiers that deliver measured numbers below the known thresholds of hearing.
To give an example, Putzey's "UCD" should have been - according to this hypothesis - transparent, the "ncore" should have been already transparent, although delivering better measurements, and overall and at the end the new generation should still be as transparent as the "UCD" - although giving better measured number - because more "transparent" than "transparent" is not possible.
@ scottjoplin,
assumed that there are controlled listening test results that corrobate the notion of better sound, then the mistery lies in the argument about the already sufficient sound quality (because better than what the hearing sense of all humans alive can resolve) of amplifiers that deliver measured numbers below the known thresholds of hearing.
To give an example, Putzey's "UCD" should have been - according to this hypothesis - transparent, the "ncore" should have been already transparent, although delivering better measurements, and overall and at the end the new generation should still be as transparent as the "UCD" - although giving better measured number - because more "transparent" than "transparent" is not possible.
Bob,
Yes he does, and is getting better by the hour ....... jolly hard work being an Internet dad.
I’m sorry you are having a difficult day, and my nuanced sarcasm has gently got the better of you.
Not to worry, it’s all good here.
ToS
It's better - many ways of measuring better, or pursuing technical perfectionism. But it's highly unlikely that there's an audible difference.
Thank you. I read a post recently, can't remember who, they said they had suffered for years but not anymore, that was good to read
Scott,
I come from a deaf family, and have suffered with tinnitus all my life. I deal with it by eating, sleeping and exercising properly - and - listening to music. Some days it can be pure misery, other days it disappears completely. The trick is to stop thinking about it, and like magic, it’s gone.
ToS
Yep, which I addressed here did I not?
Perhaps I expressed it in too simple a manner?
Read what I actually said. The 'atom' of a domain depends on the domain.mmerrill99 said:
When I do science I am seeking truth, not mere predictions. Your philosophy may be different. When I do maths I am handling truth.
Yes, I agree. With the proviso that we recognise that the time domain waveform is merely one way of representing the music. Some form of wavelet representation might be better, especially as we know that huge changes in the waveform which leave the frequency components largely unchanged (at least in amplitude) are almost inaudible while small changes in frequency components (which leave the waveform largely unchanged) can be very audible.
I haven't seen any published research claiming the conclusion you quote. Link?
Also, hard to believe you would accuse Daniel Kahneman of lazy thinking in his writings. It seems an absurd claim.
EDIT: Or, perhaps your meaning depends on your judgement of what is correct or incorrect? In that case you reserve the right to call anything 'lazy thinking' if it seems so to you?
Last edited:
It's not easy coming up with one-liners you know Jakob
One liners are great when they are funny - your one-liner just appeared to be dismissive & ignored the point being made.
Here's exactly what I'm talking about & you won't find that he is the only one
"It's better - many ways of measuring better, or pursuing technical perfectionism. But it's highly unlikely that there's an audible difference".
So do you not agree with this viewpoint? Agree with it but afraid to say so? Not care? Difficult to work out what is your viewpoint from one-liners
Appearances can be deceptive, I quoted you and addressed the point I quoted
Yes, thanks, I know what you mean. Do you find any particular type of music best?I come from a deaf family, and have suffered with tinnitus all my life. I deal with it by eating, sleeping and exercising properly - and - listening to music. Some days it can be pure misery, other days it disappears completely. The trick is to stop thinking about it, and like magic, it’s gone.
So how about answering this question I asked you in the post you selectively quoted?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.