Different representation of the same thing (frequency domain and time domain). One just has to be educated and experienced to understand both. However this forum pub-like discussion of a group of amateurs would hardly help to better understanding and hardly makes any sense, except for wasting of time.
DF96 statement makes no sense to me as we can't "experience" just the frequency domain - maybe you have some suggestion how this can be achieved?
"If our early experiences in life were mainly frequency domain instead of time domain we might be having the opposite argument: you would be saying that the sine waves were the only reality, that a time-based waveform was just a model, and that our ears do not use Inverse FFT."
And yet you waste your time here while complaining about wasting time here? 🙂
It always amuses me when people complain about what people post. I'm often reminded of this quote when people complain about what they've read
Quote by Jeanette Winterson: “Quoting her mother: The trouble with a book is ...”
You get those too? What a waste of forum bandwidth. I've gotten some before I turned off PM. Some people have too much free time on hand. 🙄
Isn't that what this whole thread is about - your post is a case in point?
Irony is always .... ironic 😀
Really I mean when people say words to the effect of "shut up and go away" which Dan has done here, (which is fine because it's on a public forum and the hypocrisy is evident) and in PM which I consider beyond the pale. Disagreeing is another thing entirely IMHO 🙂
I missed this originally, sorry
Nope, I said that at the eardrum, on a moment to moment basis, it's just compression & rarefaction of air molecules that hits, & to auditory perception, it's not sinewaves
I'll repeat my question - Where are the sinewaves in random noise?
Random noise is made up of lots and lots of tiny little sine waves all fighting with each other for attention.
I hope that is clear.
Last edited:
"The EB says it, I believe it, that settles it!"
The ear as a Fourier transform is more of an analogy that happens to (mostly) work.
The ear is a large number of resonant filters with each one activating a nerve ending. The frequency detection spacing is geometric, rather than (as in a DFT/FFT) linear. It's easy to hear the difference between 60Hz and 61Hz, but a lot harder to hear the difference between 1000Hz and 1001Hz.
People (and encyclopedias) say "the ear" when discussing this type of thing but I have no doubt it's the hearing area of the brain that recreates and "hears" a fundamental when only the harmonics exist.
Mapping the source to compare with the processed/amplified result.
I’m assuming that’s a real world application?
Edit..... I just watched the u tube hiten posted for spectral audio editing that is exactly what I meant by ‘real world application’
Now if they could get all that into the dsp processing real time.....that’d be something!
Last edited:
The most mathematically beautiful derivation of sqrt(2qI) for the noise of a current I is based on Fourier theory.
OK, thanks
Auditory perception doesn't break down this noise into lots & lots of tiny sinewaves - far, far too much inefficiency in this approach for biological processes - if anything defines biological development of the senses, it's efficiency using the resources available. In fact there is research & evidence that it processes noise completely differently - "evidence that the auditory system summarizes the temporal details of sounds using time-averaged statistics"
This applies to sound texture & is thought to be part of the techniques used by auditory perception in processing all sound.
Summary statistics in auditory perception
Hi Richard,
I think Scott has nailed it with his comment
"since a difference is often perceived as an improvement, it would be more useful to do the comparison again"
I all the years I have been working with audiophiles, this is probably the most significant error made and hence the endless quest for improvement by most audiophiles. The lack of an established base line and the lack of repetitive comparisons to establish the improvement or lack of. Most audiophiles totally ignore this fact ad end up chasing their tails.
A sad state of affairs but governed by human nature.
Jam
I think Scott has nailed it with his comment
"since a difference is often perceived as an improvement, it would be more useful to do the comparison again"
I all the years I have been working with audiophiles, this is probably the most significant error made and hence the endless quest for improvement by most audiophiles. The lack of an established base line and the lack of repetitive comparisons to establish the improvement or lack of. Most audiophiles totally ignore this fact ad end up chasing their tails.
A sad state of affairs but governed by human nature.
Jam
No problem, the discussion has diverged from comparing DAC's and the "music is not sine waves" stuff is old and tired.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.