|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: RE: A "simple" objective test is in fact not so simple. posted by beppe61 on July 26, 2014 at 09:19:19:
Hey Beppe,
It's not a matter of one being more sensitive than the other. It's more about the capabilities of each. Our hearing system can do things which microphones can't, and microphones can measure things which we can't quantify by listening. The result is that we need to use both.
With regard to you hearing up to 16 KHz, that's quite good. Actually, even if you could hear "well" to 20 KHz, on a musical scale, that's only two whole steps higher (16K is approx. a musical note "B", 20K is approx. a "D#"). Keeping in mind that we're not talking about fundamental notes of any instrument, or even low order overtones, but rather extreme upper overtones, which are at significantly lower levels and typically buried in the ambient noise, I wouldn't worry about it. :)
However, it's well-known that, physiologically, we don't hear only with our ears. Our entire body responds to sound waves, notably our skull and sinus cavities. I have not studied this aspect of hearing to any serious extent, so I will only offer that bit of information as a point where you might start exloring. Given your obvious interest in what we hear, you seem to be a good candidate for learning about psychoacoustics - the science of how, what and why we hear what we hear. It's fascinating stuff!
This brings me to a comment you made:
"The real big first issue is that measurements are always carried out in standard conditions with purely resistive load, single tones ... conditions very far from reality"
There's a lot of territory to cover in that statement. So, I'll just say that that may be true in some cases, but there is also a large body of work where that isn't true. You just have to look in the right places. ASA is a good place to start. Many many studies have been done over the decades which don't fall into the category of that general comment.
It's essential to understand WHY tests are designed the way they are. Well-designed tests are intended to have at least half of a chance to isolate and measure something which is being explored. This requires a controlled environment. Sometimes, these test are flawed or poorly designed. Still, one cannot hope to gain an understanding of a particular aspect of sound or hearing without a controlled test, and isolating an event and then analyzing the results. Without this approach, we would be clueless, and wouldn't have the Fletcher-Munson contours of equal loudness, nor the head-related-transfer-function (HRTF), nor the time/level understanding of source directionality, all of which are fundamental to our understanding of why we hear what we hear.
:)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Ear vs. Microphone - Inmate51 14:02:05 07/26/14 (4)
- RE: Ear vs. Microphone - beppe61 02:38:58 07/27/14 (3)
- RE: Ear vs. Microphone - Inmate51 06:04:01 07/27/14 (2)
- " the ultimate test would always be to listen " - beppe61 22:23:34 07/27/14 (0)
- RE: Ear vs. Microphone - rick_m 08:33:22 07/27/14 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
