Interesting reading..............................

on saying what's impossible, as opposed to those whose curiosity leads to investigations of possiblities), it's nice to be able to discuss these things without ridicule.

I've seen information on ultra-high music sounds before, and have always believed that frequencies above ear-phone audiometry testing can affect what we hear.

That's why, even as age reduces my high-frequency direct hearing, I still want an audio system with reasonably flat response to 20KHz or more. It would be interesting to see what various types of HF drivers (domes, electrostatics, ribbons, ion gas, etc.) do with any ultra HF harmonics on well recorded 24/96 discs.

Another sound quality that seldom gets investigated is the "ease" of sound that Jack G. likes so much in his Galante Buckinghams. I remember that same wonderful unforced quality from horns and big, efficient bass-reflex systems from many years ago, although those systemms had other serious flaws by today's standards. Many closed-box systems with SS amps sound "constipated" to me, as if the music really has to struggle to get out unless many hundreds of watts are behind it.

Dave VH

JJ Blinks and squints (nt), posted on March 28, 1999 at 18:51:31
jj	I thought I said (NT). :_)

Re: Interesting reading.............................., posted on March 28, 1999 at 19:09:28
nataraj	I've read a paper (I don't remember the source ... will search ) which published studies conducted about hig frequency hearing abilities of humans. While higher frequencies can't be heard on their own, apperently, two sounds which differ only in ultr-sonic frequcies were heard as different.

Actually, I expected some comments from you regarding..., posted on March 28, 1999 at 23:51:27

Dave VH

general audio/scientific perspectives on the two phenomena I mentioned. I cannot believe that they are as controversial as wire vs. wire. (And I'm sure you have done more than blinking and squinting to hold your tongue on the wire and certain other threads here at the Asylum that have at the most, very tenuous support by the audio scientific community.)

I always appreciate your scientific insights, and your contributions on less controversial issues.

Dave VH

Not a really easy subject to discuss, posted on March 29, 1999 at 07:54:56

jj

In working with "ultrasonic" frequencies, there are lots of traps. One is that many (most) transducers do things you don't expect, and move signal down into audible frequency ranges.

Another is frequency shaping left over from some pole or something in a system, that, while the POLE may be "out of band" the frequency shaping or phase response isn't.

Finally, while all the signal above 20kHz lands on the same first mm of the basilar membrane, which is usually destroyed by the time you're about 6 years old in the modern world, that doesn't prove complete inaudibility, only that something is mostly audible. Thing is, downward spread of energy is NOT very substantial on the cochlea, so it's not very likely that that's what is going on, but there are some very interesting FILTER issues, that perhaps I can finally resolve some day, we'll see.

Re: Without any science luddites here (i.e., those who focus..., posted on March 29, 1999 at 12:42:44
john curl	I remember being able to hear over 20KHz when I was in my 20's. I first thought that I had a notch at 19KHz, then I tested my tweeter and found the notch there. We usually don't resolve ultra high frequencies from test tones, but we seem to be sensitive to risetime changes. This probably has to do with IM in the inner ear.

didn't JG Holt discuss this once in Stereophile?, posted on March 29, 1999 at 16:28:02
petew	seems I remember someone from the mag wrote about the problem of age onset hearing loss and audiophile reviewers. He talked about some hearing phenomina that explained why one may still have acute listening skills even though a standard hearing test might say otherwise. If it only worked that way with memory.

I've no idea, sorry (nt), posted on March 29, 1999 at 18:11:05
jj	(nt)

My Opinion on Wire, posted on March 29, 1999 at 18:15:40

jj

Any wire that does ONLY what a wire that is appropriate for that usage does, and nothing else, should sound absolutely no different than any other wire that does exactly what it should in the same application.

Now that I've said that, you WILL note that it does not say that "no wire makes any difference", it simply takes a position on wire-as-signal-processor.

Wow, not even flamed yet! :-), posted on March 29, 1999 at 18:20:24

jj

Btw, that's always been my position on wire.

Just goes to show you can't always believe what someone else told you.

Why! :-), posted on March 29, 1999 at 20:43:12

Rod M

Seems that everyone agrees that wire should do what it was designed to do ;)

Okay. You said "should".(NT), posted on March 30, 1999 at 00:05:20
Paul Willie	nt

Re: didn't JG Holt discuss this once in Stereophile?, posted on March 30, 1999 at 02:13:35
abc	Dr Matti Ottala wrote an article in Stereo Review explaining how persons with less than perfect hearing scores in standard tests could actually 'hear' better than most.

Re: didn't JG Holt discuss this once in Stereophile?, posted on April 4, 1999 at 19:35:16

Monty

With age comes hearing loss. Distortion is a "hearing loss". A youngster
can actually put up with more distortion because his hearing is more
acute.

For us oldsters, the distortion robs us of the "intelligence" of the signal. WE NEED LESS DISTORTION than you young pups!

Distortion is INFORMATION loss, posted on April 4, 1999 at 21:57:13

jj

And as we get older this thing called 'recruitment' means we're less able to recover the remaining information.

Basically, "recruitment" was thought to mean that inner hair cells (part of the organ of Corti) were being recruited from around the "dead" one. This turns out to be wrong, but the name remains.

What it does mean is that sensation/loudness starts at a higher intensity (SPL) than "normal" and grows much faster to "normal" loudness.

(Loudness is internal variable, intensity external variable. Their relationship is rather more complex than a few words expresses.)

Basically, recruitment means that you can use less of the signal for understanding speech, for instance.

There is also bandwidth loss in hearing, which also eventually looses information.

It's far from a simple subject. Perhaps a thread started at the top of the page would be good if you care?

General Asylum

Interesting reading..............................

165.247.206.15