Thank you for displaying the real extent of your knowledge.
The inner ear actually performs a transformation of the time domain into the frequency domain.
Sound waves picked up by the ear drum are sorted by the inner ear into frequency selective bins, where intensity and phase are decoded. If something looks like a biological implementation of a Fourier transform, two of them are left and right, and about two inches behind, of where you should smack yourself on the forehead.
Your auditory reality is not in the time domain but in the frequency domain and that is hardwired into your brain. All audio processing by the brain takes place in the frequency domain.
Last edited:
If you look back at my posts, I was talking about this from the perspective of what impinge son the eardrums.
Take a point in time, what arrives at the eardrums is a mixture of compressed & rarefied air particles - is this a sinewave? No, that requires a time series of such impulse mixtures. Out of that pattern auditory processing doesn't say "oh that's a sinewave" - it really doesn't give a damn. it does however, establish if in the series of impulses, it analyzes a pattern. This pattern could be a sinewave, again it really doesn't give a damn - the pattern is what is important.
So from the perspective of auditory perception, sinewaves are of no consequence, patterns are - sinewaves would be just one example of a regular pattern. Does auditory processing break down every pattern into a subset of interlocking sinewaves - no it doesn't - that if Forurier series & Fourier Transforms
This is Audio Science(tm). It is not Investigation or Analysis, it is Observation(tm).
Sorry, but no. It takes place (constantly) in both domains.
Ohm was allegedly the inventor of the theory (pure frequency analysis), but already Helmholtz knew (reportedly, I'm not that old) that the modelling of the human auditory apparatus as pure frequency analzer is not correct.
In the current model obviously the time based analysis is incorporated, as, for example, neither localization nor auditory scene analysis can be explained based solely on frequency domain analysis.
But more important, a couple of weeks ago these mechanisms were discussed at length wrt to high frequency hearing loss and the related perception of "bass attacks" . You know, all the talk about temporal fine structure and spectral decomposition, mhm?
So it would be great if, at least, the members participating already back then use their memory and refrain from the fruitless "lack of knowledge allegation" discussion style.
Last edited:
No it doesn't. moment to moment the inner ear simply causes a resonance along the basilar membrane based on a transformation between the pressure in the air, causing the tympanic membrane to be moved, which is transmitted (& amplified?) via a number of articulated bones ( ossicles – malleus, incus and stapes) into a pressure wave in the fluid in the cochlea - the stapes bone vibrates a membrane which transmits this pressure to the cochlear fluid so we have a transformation of a pressure from one medium, air to another medium cochlear fluid. See this video
This is where some of the confusion starts - the cilla are not "tuned" to particular frequencies (if you remove one intact you can see it respond to all frequencies (see video of dancing hair cell), it doesn't just respond to one frequency - it is the shape of the cochlea that creates the tonotopic response to the pressure in the cochlear fluid
Simplistic & wrong, I'm afraid - it's far more complex than this & it's not the inner ear that does this analysis
Sorry, so wrong it just doesn't even compute but I think your opening words are ironic "Thank you for displaying the real extent of your knowledge."
Oh dear, there is more to how auditory processing works & to sound than sinewaves, please!!
Unintelligibletry again.
Unintelligible to you, maybe but if you actually try to overcome your bias against all I say you may hear something of value?
Again, I'm not understanding your post, Scott - this is not a criticism, just a fact & I'm not playing dumb - I can't really grasp what you post until you explain it further.
But I just used that for shorthand - don't take that as established, scientific fact - it's just a theory (called the place theory). there are other, equally plausible theories, temporal theory, volley theory which attempt to explain how sound, the basilar membrane & nerve impulses are generated & analyzed
Science's a bitch, really, isn't it? 😀
Cool some things never change, shall we say if I expounded on perceptual testing without having an understanding of the basics you might complain. You can't fool me though, you knew exactly what I meant.
Honestly it's painful to read the gross misunderstandings of basic signal processing and information theory that have been posted here this week.
When I looked into it I was surprised at the number of theories. Still, the BM does appear to perform like a spectrum analyser 🙂
Do you think they are here to learn something or teach useful facts on audio reproduction?
"just a theory"
This word has several meanings, one in plain English, and a very different one in relation to science. The wrong one is being used here. I've seen this misuse (whether accidental or intentional) before.
biology sticker just a theory - Google Search
I nearly called them "models" - nobody disagrees that BM functioning appears tonotopic but that doesn't mean the "reality" is that it does FFTs. Again, I'll say trying to shoehorn FFT analysis as the only way to describe auditory processing or as the only reality is a leap of faith (& not very scientific)
While we can go ahead and admit we dont still know enough to be able to model the brain and how it perceives and interprets and figures things out ---- we can do better than say you cannot detect small amounts of differences which we might call from distortion.
So, we measure - Oh, say .001% THD when the D.U.T is at fiull rated ouitput. And we measure S/N and dynamic range etc from full rated output levels.
But, lets say we are good audiophiles and listen in near field. Low signal power can create fairly high enough SPL at listeners ears when up close and personal in listening.
But then we are now closer to the noise floor and s/n is not so good. Amp bias/cross-over distortion is more prominant also. DAC artifacts maybe a higher percentage of signal level also. All these "live" listening could allow for audible differences to be heard. But,it does Not mean you can hear way way better than .001THd (fs). In fact at the level actually used in listening and the speaker sens - listener distance -- etal... could be much worse than the specs would lead you to believe.
THx-RNMarsh
So, we measure - Oh, say .001% THD when the D.U.T is at fiull rated ouitput. And we measure S/N and dynamic range etc from full rated output levels.
But, lets say we are good audiophiles and listen in near field. Low signal power can create fairly high enough SPL at listeners ears when up close and personal in listening.
But then we are now closer to the noise floor and s/n is not so good. Amp bias/cross-over distortion is more prominant also. DAC artifacts maybe a higher percentage of signal level also. All these "live" listening could allow for audible differences to be heard. But,it does Not mean you can hear way way better than .001THd (fs). In fact at the level actually used in listening and the speaker sens - listener distance -- etal... could be much worse than the specs would lead you to believe.
THx-RNMarsh
Everything you say is unintelligible to to anyone with a basic understanding of language. So far you have shown no real credible knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, electronics, art history or theory. Apart from an astonishing ability to cut and paste, I have nothing much to learn from you, but I do learn from those who do correct you - constantly.
Changing the subject, I’m expecting a delivery of an Apple Lightening 3.5mm headphone DAC tomorrow. Cost me £9. 😱 Hoping for a bit more signal output to hit the electronics - might sound a bit more musical - might not. Not feeling the thrill of anticipation, but at least it will be a benchmark of sorts. Let’s wait and see, you never know.
No, you'd need an infinite number of "bins" 🙂 BTW, I'm wondering, in your universe, if sound is not made up of sine waves, what is it made up of?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.