Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

In message
Arny Krueger ) claimed:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Is gooogle lying to you again?


gooogle never lies to me.


Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine, Arny Krueger made the following statement on this subject
in message :
"dave weil" wrote in message

I'm not posturing. You claimed that my first mention of you was in
2001, according to your google skills. This turned out to be off by,
what was it? Oh, I remember. TWO YEARS!


Explained in another post. Google lied to me and I didn't catch the
lie.


Seems clear enough to me. Arny Krueger did, in fact, state that Google
"lied" to him.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #2   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

John Atkinson wrote:
In message
Arny Krueger ) claimed:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Is gooogle lying to you again?


gooogle never lies to me.


Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,


Horsefeathers. Typical of Atkinson's inability to discern the true facts. I
know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I mean "google" I write
"google".

John I'm sorry to hear that don't have anything better to do with your time
than to get involved defending S888wheel's functional illiteracy.


  #3   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,


Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".


I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #4   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,


Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".


I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?


Asked and answered. You deleted my answer, and I'm not going to tell you
twice.

The real shame Atkinson is that you obsessing over this trivia, and missing
a big chunk of audio content related to the perception of infrasonic musical
sounds elsewhere, in the same thread you picked this up from. It's
distracted behavior like this that convinces me that you really don't care
about audio.


  #5   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:35:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,

Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".


I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?


Asked and answered. You deleted my answer, and I'm not going to tell you
twice.

The real shame Atkinson is that you obsessing over this trivia, and missing
a big chunk of audio content related to the perception of infrasonic musical
sounds elsewhere, in the same thread you picked this up from. It's
distracted behavior like this that convinces me that you really don't care
about audio.


Apparently he learned something from Mr. Wheeler about trying to
discuss such critical audio matter such as 6 hz tones.


  #6   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

On 18 Apr 2004 17:11:36 -0700, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,


Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".


Of course, we know that this is a "flase claim". Of course, maybe he
wasn't referring to Google when he wrote this:

From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Retraction
View: Complete Thread (161 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2004-02-23 16:58:55 PST
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Haven't you noticed that
your own reduced presence here speaks volumes?


Reduced presence?

Goggle suggests that I've made about 688 posts here since 1/1/2004
Goggle suggests that I made about 572 posts here between 1/1/2004 and
2/23/2003
Goggle suggests that you've made about 93 posts here since 1/1/2004

I see that you're as truthful and factual as ever, Marc Phillips.

NOT!
-----------------

Or this:

From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Atlantic Technology advice sought
View: Complete Thread (111 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2003-11-25 11:14:21 PST
snip
Or he

"Goggle says that its an estimate. The specific wording is uses is
"about". It's too bad that sockpuppet wheel doesn't know what "about"
means in this context, but in general he's a very ignorant dude. You
don't seem to know either Weil, and part of that is ignorance and part
is hatred".
-----------------

I wonder WHAT he was writing about...

I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Mr. Atkinson, he was just parroting Scott Wheeler's misspelling of
"google".

  #7   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Krueger really is a pathological liar.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,

Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".


I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?


Asked and answered. You deleted my answer, and I'm not going to tell you
twice.

Unbelievable.
Krueger is a pathological liar.
I knew he was off balance, but I was unaware of the extent.


  #8   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Krueger was talking about geese!

This is all nonsense.
For once, I am compelled to come to the rescue of beleaguered Arny Krueger.

What he actually intended to type is "gaggle". From Hyperdictionary:

Definition: 1.. [n] a flock of geese
2.. [v] cackle like a goose"Cackling geese"


See Also: cackle, flock, goose


But why Mr. Krueger would find it necessary or desirable to consort
with geese is beyond my comprehension.

Further analysis is solicited from the group.



"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On 18 Apr 2004 17:11:36 -0700, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine,

Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I
mean "google" I write "google".


Of course, we know that this is a "flase claim". Of course, maybe he
wasn't referring to Google when he wrote this:

From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Retraction
View: Complete Thread (161 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2004-02-23 16:58:55 PST
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Haven't you noticed that
your own reduced presence here speaks volumes?


Reduced presence?

Goggle suggests that I've made about 688 posts here since 1/1/2004
Goggle suggests that I made about 572 posts here between 1/1/2004 and
2/23/2003
Goggle suggests that you've made about 93 posts here since 1/1/2004

I see that you're as truthful and factual as ever, Marc Phillips.

NOT!
-----------------

Or this:

From: Arny Krueger )
Subject: Atlantic Technology advice sought
View: Complete Thread (111 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Date: 2003-11-25 11:14:21 PST
snip
Or he

"Goggle says that its an estimate. The specific wording is uses is
"about". It's too bad that sockpuppet wheel doesn't know what "about"
means in this context, but in general he's a very ignorant dude. You
don't seem to know either Weil, and part of that is ignorance and part
is hatred".
-----------------

I wonder WHAT he was writing about...

I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Mr. Atkinson, he was just parroting Scott Wheeler's misspelling of
"google".



  #13   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

John Atkinson wrote:

Regarding Mr. Krueger's complaint that I did not offer any comment on
his comment that 6Hz tones are audible, I first would like him to
clarify what spound pressure levels are required for 6Hz to become
audible.


No spound levels were involved.

On the chance that this was just another one of Atkinson's many careless
mistakes...

The sound levels involved were not extreme in any way. I did most of the
listening with Sony 7506 headphones and FSI IEMs. The signal source clips at
about 1.5 volts RMS, which sets a reasonably low natural limit.

It's also true that SPLs of many natural infrasonic sounds look pretty crazy
on paper.

For example, most people are pretty amazed the first time they measure SPLs
in a car traveling down an interstate at legal speeds, if they turn the
normal weighting curve off.

When people talk about 70 dB SPL noise levels in a car, that usually means
70 dB A-weighted. A-weighting is something like 50 dB down at 20 Hz, and
falling off at the rate of about 40 dB/decade or 12 dB/octave. So, at 2 Hz,
its more like 90 dB down, 78 dB down at 4Hz, 66 dB down at 8 Hz and so on.

70 dB A-weighted SPL could translate into something like 136 dB at 8 Hz.
That's extreme, but it shows the trend. More than 100 dB are not unusual
IME.

This in turn begs the question of how an audio system can possibly reproduce
low frequency sound, that loud or louder. There's a tendency for a closed
room to transition to a bass-boost mode of operation below some low
frequency, depending on the size and construction of the room.

This is one reason why car audio tends to be so bassy - the extreme levels
of bass common in car audio are not all that impractical to generate,
because the *room* is so small. A living room act like a bigger closed
space with similar bass boost. There will be a lower transition frequency.

The bass boost due to the room's size and the fact that it is a closed space
tends to naturally be about 12 dB/octave. If you have a subwoofer that is
flat down to your room's transition frequency, and falls off below that at
12 dB/octave, then the merger of the room response and the speaker response
can approximate flat response, at least down to the next lower cut-off
frequency.

My findings about the audibility of subsonic cut-offs can relate to this
next lower cut-off frequency, when the room and the subwoofer are
well-matched. Or, it can relate to the rapidly-expanding population of
people who are listening using certain common kinds of personal listening
devices. I've seen it have audible effects with both IEMs and normal
headphones.

This makes the point that a subwoofer with an extremely low cut-off point
can easily sound boomy in a too-small room. The room's transition frequency
can overlap the roll-off of the subwoofer leading to a range with boosted
response. There can be substantial boominess due to this overlap.


  #14   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
dave weil wrote in message
. ..
On 18 Apr 2004 17:11:36 -0700,
(John Atkinson) wrote:
So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

Mr. Atkinson, he was just parroting Scott Wheeler's misspelling of
"google".

That's what I had assumed.

So what's your problem, Atkinson?

Why aren't you showing a little concern for the rather significant
audio issue raise in that thread?


You snipped the part where he did.


Roger.


That makes yours a nice question.

Doesn't sound quality mean anything to you?


He's the test guy at Stereophile. Maybe you've seen his work.


A lot of it is irrelevant to sound quality. He has a nasty tendency that he
shows in this thread - which is to obsess over things that are meaningless
in the larger scheme of things.


Like 6 Hz musical content?

Atkinson, is it your position that the corruption of musical timbres
by infrasonic cut-offs is OK? Should it should be tolerated, and
even glorified if vinyl-playback and tubed equipment evidences this
audible coloration to a greater degree?


No loaded words there...


Want me to list out the loaded words in the posts I was responding to? It
makes a nice study in the one-sided nature of your posts, Stephen.


That doesn't seem possible. While it is an improvement over your
reflexive flaming ("one-sided nature" my eye), your game of answering
misspellings literally is tedious and noisy.
  #15   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:
dave weil wrote in message
. ..
On 18 Apr 2004 17:11:36 -0700,
(John Atkinson) wrote:
So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean
"Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to?

Mr. Atkinson, he was just parroting Scott Wheeler's misspelling
of "google".

That's what I had assumed.

So what's your problem, Atkinson?

Why aren't you showing a little concern for the rather significant
audio issue raise in that thread?


You snipped the part where he did.


Roger.


That makes yours a nice question.


It makes it a non-issue at this time.

Doesn't sound quality mean anything to you?


He's the test guy at Stereophile. Maybe you've seen his work.


A lot of it is irrelevant to sound quality. He has a nasty tendency
that he shows in this thread - which is to obsess over things that
are meaningless in the larger scheme of things.


Like 6 Hz musical content?


I'll leave that people to determine with their own ears.

Atkinson, is it your position that the corruption of musical
timbres by infrasonic cut-offs is OK? Should it should be
tolerated, and even glorified if vinyl-playback and tubed
equipment evidences this audible coloration to a greater degree?


No loaded words there...


Want me to list out the loaded words in the posts I was responding
to? It makes a nice study in the one-sided nature of your posts,
Stephen.


That doesn't seem possible.


And the antecedent of "that" is???

While it is an improvement over your
reflexive flaming ("one-sided nature" my eye), your game of answering
misspellings literally is tedious and noisy.


It's not as tedious as trying to fix them or work around them.




  #17   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
I first would like him to clarify what spound pressure levels are
required for 6Hz to become audible.


No spound levels were involved.


I would have thought it obvious that I was referring to _sound_ pressure
levels.

The sound levels involved were not extreme in any way. I did most of
the listening with Sony 7506 headphones and FSI IEMs. The signal source
clips at about 1.5 volts RMS, which sets a reasonably low natural limit.


So, what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz
is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #18   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


John Atkinson wrote:


I first would like him to clarify what spound pressure levels are
required for 6Hz to become audible.


No spound levels were involved.


On the chance that this was just another one of Atkinson's many careless
mistakes...


I would have thought it obvious that I was referring to _sound_
pressure levels.


I would have thought it obvious that I suspected that Atkinson was
referring to _sound_ pressure levels.

The sound levels involved were not extreme in any way. I did most of
the listening with Sony 7506 headphones and FSI IEMs. The signal
source clips at about 1.5 volts RMS, which sets a reasonably low
natural limit.


So, what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz
is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different.


Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible acoustic
levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson Robinson-Dadson, or any
other source.

These are the widest range examples of those publications that I can find:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf

Fletcher-Munson seem limted to 25 Hz while Robinson-Dadson seem limited to
20 Hz.

Both Fletcher Munson and Robinson Dadson seem have be limited to audible
sounds.

There seems to be pretty good agreement that 6 Hz is infrasonic sound -
too low to be audible.

Yet, there is evidence that the absence, reduction or perhaps some other
kind of modification of sounds in the 6 Hz range can be reliably perceived.
Since some other means of perception than hearing seems to be involved, it
may be unwise to go too far extrapolating this information about audible
sounds.


  #19   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz
is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different.


Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible
acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson
Robinson-Dadson, or any other source.


The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing
frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the
curves have points of inflection below those limits.

there is evidence that the absence, reduction or perhaps some other
kind of modification of sounds in the 6 Hz range can be reliably
perceived.


Not in the literature that I can find. In addition, there seems to be
agreement that perception of very low frequencies (though higher than
6Hz) involves the body rather than the ears. If so, how can you report
perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones? Was this a double-blind test
involving a high-pass filter? If so, then isn't it more likely that
the test was detecting the audio-band phase error of the filter,
rather than the presence of infrasonic (6Hz) information?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #20   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

John Atkinson wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


John Atkinson wrote:
what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that
6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different.


Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible
acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson
Robinson-Dadson, or any other source.


The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing
frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the
curves have points of inflection below those limits.


Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a fact
with questionable relvance isn't a proper answer.

Furthermore, the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly
different slopes in the region he is discussing.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf

Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether
they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the
frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of evidence
that Atkinson has dragged in!

Atkinson seems to be unwilling to believe that there may be any differences
in human perception between the sonic and infrasonic ranges.

There is a long-standing tradition of calling the sonic and infrasonic
ranges two different things. I know he's not ignorant of this convention. I
don't know why he wants to ignore it.

Since he can't provide a simple answer to a simple question about the curves
he cited, perhaps Atkinson could at least try to make some
intelligent-sounding noises about why the sonic and infrasonic ranges are
called two different things.

there is evidence that the absence, reduction or perhaps some other
kind of modification of sounds in the 6 Hz range can be reliably
perceived.


Not in the literature that I can find.


Your inability to find relelvant literature that doesn't fit your agenda is
well-known Atkinson. I'll make it easy for you - screw the literatre and
listen for yourself::

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/high_pass/index.htm

In addition, there seems to be
agreement that perception of very low frequencies (though higher than
6Hz) involves the body rather than the ears.


Absence of cites of relevant sources noted. This is just more of the
proof-by-assertion, speculation, and greviously-flawed listening evaluation
that we've had to bear with this author as long as he has been writing about
audio.

If so, how can you report
perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones?


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to
perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of
eliminating or reducing them.

Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter?


Yes.

If so, then isn't it more likely that
the test was detecting the audio-band phase error of the filter,
rather than the presence of infrasonic (6Hz) information?


The filter in question is known to be a reasonbly precise implmentation of
the type of filter it is stated to be. My web site posts results are based
on Audition's butterworth high-pass filters. At
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/high_pass/index.htm I present audio samples
developed with no additional filtering, as well as sixth order and third
order butterworth filters.

As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less audibly
damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio systems,
particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment created for
the purpose of vinyl playback.







  #22   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that
6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different.

Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible
acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson
Robinson-Dadson, or any other source.


The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing
frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the
curves have points of inflection below those limits.


Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a
fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer.


I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the
earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research
from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves
indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with
reducing frequency. The implication is that by the time you reach
6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit"
of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear"
the tone.

As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and
without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am
doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually
"hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the subject.
As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of the
high-pass filter?

snip

If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones?


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.


With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On
multiple occasions. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for
saying the opposite.

My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.


Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact
that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the
filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content.
As I asked:

Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter?


Yes.


Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in this
test and might well be the source of the identification you report.
Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early 1980s
that such filters produced audible effects.

If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the
audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of
infrasonic (6Hz) information?


The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise
[implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be.


So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the implementation
of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. If you really wanted to
perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you would
need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely?

As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less audibly
damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio systems,
particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment created for
the purpose of vinyl playback.


I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback chain
consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare for
recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let alone
20Hz.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
  #23   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

Ah ****, I thought you were finally going to admit you were the one who
backed out of the debate.


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
In message
Arny Krueger ) claimed:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Is gooogle lying to you again?


gooogle never lies to me.


Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google
search engine, Arny Krueger made the following statement on this subject
in message :
"dave weil" wrote in message

I'm not posturing. You claimed that my first mention of you was in
2001, according to your google skills. This turned out to be off by,
what was it? Oh, I remember. TWO YEARS!


Explained in another post. Google lied to me and I didn't catch the
lie.


Seems clear enough to me. Arny Krueger did, in fact, state that Google
"lied" to him.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



  #24   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default intra-band distortion


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that
6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different.

Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible
acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson
Robinson-Dadson, or any other source.


The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing
frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the
curves have points of inflection below those limits.


Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a
fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer.


I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the
earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research
from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves
indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with
reducing frequency. The implication is that by the time you reach
6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit"
of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear"
the tone.

As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and
without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am
doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually
"hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the subject.
As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of the
high-pass filter?

snip

If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones?


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.


With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On
multiple occasions. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for
saying the opposite.

My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.


Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact
that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the
filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content.
As I asked:

Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter?


Yes.


Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in this
test and might well be the source of the identification you report.
Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early 1980s
that such filters produced audible effects.

If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the
audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of
infrasonic (6Hz) information?


The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise
[implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be.


So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the implementation
of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. If you really wanted to
perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you would
need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely?

As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less audibly
damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio

systems,
particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment created

for
the purpose of vinyl playback.


I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback chain
consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare for
recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let alone
20Hz.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


6 Hz at high SPL likely produces high frequency noise caused by air-flow
boundary turbulence.
At this frequency, the joints of the inner ear bones, and gross movement of
cochlear fluid would produce similar noise, perceptible by the cochlear
hairs as broadband noise.

There are no cochlear hairs tuned to 6 Hz. These hairs do have harmonic
modes, as given by the the eigenvalues of the "string equation with one end
free", which are Hankel functions.

An interesting question would be whether an intense low frequency signal
induces audible Doppler distortion on the eardrum. Personally, I think not.

It seems unlikely that a reproduction chain exists that could explore these
effects. As Francois remarks, headphones suitable for investigational
purposes do not exist.



  #25   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


John Atkinson wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


John Atkinson wrote:


what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that
6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different.


Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible
acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson
Robinson-Dadson, or any other source.


The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing
frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the
curves have points of inflection below those limits.


Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a
fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer.


Furthermore, the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly
different slopes in the region he is discussing.


http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf


Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether
they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the
frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of

evidence
that Atkinson has dragged in!


I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the
earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research
from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves
indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with
reducing frequency.


I reject the necessity of making an either-or choice. I've already shown how
the evidence you've presented Atkinson, is self-contradictory. This is
repeated just below.

... the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly
different slopes in the region he is discussing.


http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf


Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether
they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the
frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of

evidence
that Atkinson has dragged in!


The implication is that by the time you reach
6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit"
of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear"
the tone.


Repeating speculation and self-contradictory results doesn't make it fact.

... the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly
different slopes in the region he is discussing.


http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf


Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether
they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the
frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of

evidence
that Atkinson has dragged in!


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.
My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.


As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and
without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am
doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually
"hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the
subject.


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.
My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.


As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband
action of the high-pass filter?


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.
My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.



If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones?


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.
My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.


With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On
multiple occasions.


Since you can't quote me saying such a thing, this would be a false claim on
your part, Atkinson.

You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for
saying the opposite.


Since you can't quote him saying such a thing, this would be a false claim
on your part, Atkinson.

Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact
that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the
filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content.


That's what I said, isn't it?

As I asked:

Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter?


Yes.


Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in
this test and might well be the source of the identification you
report. Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the
early 1980s that such filters produced audible effects.


Again, you've missed the point, Atkinson. With modern technology, much of
the high-pass filtering present in modern audio systems is not necessary. If
this filtering has an reliably-perceptible audible effect, then we have to
ask why it is being tolerated.

If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the
audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of
infrasonic (6Hz) information?


The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise
[implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be.


So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the
implementation of a high-pass filter, only that one be used.


That's a possibility, as I've said a number of times. I'm glad to see that
you are coming around to agreeing with me when I said a number of posts ago:

I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.
My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.



If you
really wanted to perform a test on the audibility of content in the
6Hz region, you would need to compensate for the filter's audio-band
phase error, surely?


Or plan "B", implement the filter without phase shift. That seems to be a
more feasible way to do it, given the availble tools.

As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less
audibly damaging than the actual filters that are built into most
audio systems, particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio
equipment created for the purpose of vinyl playback.


I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback
chain consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very
rare for recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz,
let alone 20Hz.


Neverthless, there are numerous commercial recordings with substantial
content that extends well below 20 Hz, there are numerous audio systems that
are capable of reproducing this content, and the content is reliably
perceptible. However since this content is infrasonic, it is not perfectly
technically accurate to call it "audible".

The purpose of my test is to show that infrasonic filtering has reliably
percptible effects that change the quality of sound from its natural or
intended state. Since high fidelity is about reducing or eliminating
reliably percptible effects that change the quality of sound from its
natural or intended state, unecessary infrasonic filtering should be
avoided. This naturally results in creating audio systems that have response
in the infrasonic range.

It is generally agreed that recordings tend to lack a sense of liveness that
is present in live performances. Various enhancments have been proposed, in
the interest of restoring this sense of liveness. Regrettably, some of these
proposed enhancments, such as extending the bandpass beyond 20 KHz don't
seem to have any reliably perceptible effects. Extending response below 20
Hz is well known to have reliably perceptible effects. Therefore I find it
strange to be arguing for preservation of infransonic content present in
live music, against the editor of a high end audio magazine and another
audiophile.







  #26   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

I have left your message below in its entirety, Mr. Krueger, because
it seems largely to
consist of random neuron firing on your part. To address and correct
each or every part
of what you say, whether it is relevant or not, is beyond both my
stamina and my time.

To sum up:

1) You claimed to hear program content in the 6Hz region over
headphones at
moderate spls. This is an extraordinary claim, that contradicts the
published
literature on human hearing sensitivity. I pointed that out and
offered an
alternative explanation for your test results.

2) Upon examination of your test procedure, it appeared you were
inserting a high-pass
filter. Prior work (Fincham) indicates that the in-band phase error
due to the filter is
likely to be the cause for you perceiving differences.

3) You agree with me that this is what you were testing for.

4) You agree with my past writing that it is a good thing to eliminate
as many
high-pass filters in the recoridng and playback chain as possible.

5) You would extend this to the loudspeakers.

6) You disgree with me that recordings with content in the 6Hz region
are
very rare. As I have analyzed many recordings and not found many to
have
any infrasonic information, please give examples of such recordings.

Thank you in advance for doing so,

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

---------------------------------------------------
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


John Atkinson wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


John Atkinson wrote:


what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that
6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different.


Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible
acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson
Robinson-Dadson, or any other source.


The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing
frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the
curves have points of inflection below those limits.


Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a
fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer.


Furthermore, the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly
different slopes in the region he is discussing.


http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf


Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether
they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the
frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of

evidence
that Atkinson has dragged in!


I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the
earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research
from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves
indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with
reducing frequency.


I reject the necessity of making an either-or choice. I've already shown how
the evidence you've presented Atkinson, is self-contradictory. This is
repeated just below.

... the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly
different slopes in the region he is discussing.


http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf


Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether
they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the
frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of

evidence
that Atkinson has dragged in!


The implication is that by the time you reach
6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit"
of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear"
the tone.


Repeating speculation and self-contradictory results doesn't make it fact.

... the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly
different slopes in the region he is discussing.


http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf


Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether
they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the
frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of

evidence
that Atkinson has dragged in!


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.
My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.


As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and
without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am
doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually
"hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the
subject.


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.
My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.


As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband
action of the high-pass filter?


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.
My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.



If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones?


I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.
My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.


With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On
multiple occasions.


Since you can't quote me saying such a thing, this would be a false claim on
your part, Atkinson.

You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for
saying the opposite.


Since you can't quote him saying such a thing, this would be a false claim
on your part, Atkinson.

Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact
that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the
filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content.


That's what I said, isn't it?

As I asked:

Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter?

Yes.


Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in
this test and might well be the source of the identification you
report. Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the
early 1980s that such filters produced audible effects.


Again, you've missed the point, Atkinson. With modern technology, much of
the high-pass filtering present in modern audio systems is not necessary. If
this filtering has an reliably-perceptible audible effect, then we have to
ask why it is being tolerated.

If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the
audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of
infrasonic (6Hz) information?


The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise
[implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be.


So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the
implementation of a high-pass filter, only that one be used.


That's a possibility, as I've said a number of times. I'm glad to see that
you are coming around to agreeing with me when I said a number of posts ago:

I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.
My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.



If you
really wanted to perform a test on the audibility of content in the
6Hz region, you would need to compensate for the filter's audio-band
phase error, surely?


Or plan "B", implement the filter without phase shift. That seems to be a
more feasible way to do it, given the availble tools.

As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less
audibly damaging than the actual filters that are built into most
audio systems, particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio
equipment created for the purpose of vinyl playback.


I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback
chain consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very
rare for recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz,
let alone 20Hz.


Neverthless, there are numerous commercial recordings with substantial
content that extends well below 20 Hz, there are numerous audio systems that
are capable of reproducing this content, and the content is reliably
perceptible. However since this content is infrasonic, it is not perfectly
technically accurate to call it "audible".

The purpose of my test is to show that infrasonic filtering has reliably
percptible effects that change the quality of sound from its natural or
intended state. Since high fidelity is about reducing or eliminating
reliably percptible effects that change the quality of sound from its
natural or intended state, unecessary infrasonic filtering should be
avoided. This naturally results in creating audio systems that have response
in the infrasonic range.

It is generally agreed that recordings tend to lack a sense of liveness that
is present in live performances. Various enhancments have been proposed, in
the interest of restoring this sense of liveness. Regrettably, some of these
proposed enhancments, such as extending the bandpass beyond 20 KHz don't
seem to have any reliably perceptible effects. Extending response below 20
Hz is well known to have reliably perceptible effects. Therefore I find it
strange to be arguing for preservation of infransonic content present in
live music, against the editor of a high end audio magazine and another
audiophile.

  #27   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

John Atkinson wrote:
I have left your message below in its entirety, Mr. Krueger, because
it seems largely to
consist of random neuron firing on your part. To address and correct
each or every part
of what you say, whether it is relevant or not, is beyond both my
stamina and my time.

To sum up:

1) You claimed to hear program content in the 6Hz region over
headphones at
moderate spls.


An intentional false claim. Just goes to show that even when corrected many
times, the Atkinson-automaton cannot be reprogrammed.

This is an extraordinary claim, that contradicts the
published
literature on human hearing sensitivity.


In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his claims
about infrasonic perception. Such evidence that he did provide contradicts
itself.

I pointed that out and
offered an
alternative explanation for your test results.


Atkinson, you've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are incapable of
telling the truth. You obviously can't be depended on to read the frequency
scale of well-known audio references such as the Fletcher-Munson curve.

2) Upon examination of your test procedure, it appeared you were
inserting a high-pass filter.


Gratuitous self-aggrandizing use of the phrase "it appeared" In fact
Atkinson was told this information in simple, clear English.

Prior work (Fincham) indicates that the in-band phase error
due to the filter is likely to be the cause for you perceiving

differences.

The Fincham work alluded to has never been cited in this thread by Atkinson.
Given that he's already proven himself to be both a liar and incapble of
properly interpreting common audio references, this comment can be
completely ignored.

3) You agree with me that this is what you were testing for.


At this point Atkinson has made false claims, improper interpretations of
well-known reference materials, and cited a phantom work. It is impossible
to discern what I might be agreeing with. Therefore, the only safe thing for
me to do is to disagree.

4) You agree with my past writing that it is a good thing to eliminate as

many
high-pass filters in the recoridng and playback chain as possible.


The Atkinson work alluded to has never been cited in this thread by
Atkinson. Given that he's already proven himself to be both a liar and
incapble of properly interpreting common audio references, this comment can
be completely ignored.

5) You would extend this to the loudspeakers.


A figment of Atkinson's imaginataion.

6) You disgree with me that recordings with content in the 6Hz region are
very rare. As I have analyzed many recordings and not found many to have
any infrasonic information, please give examples of such recordings.


http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/basscds.htm


  #28   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:52:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

snip

This is an extraordinary claim, that contradicts the
published
literature on human hearing sensitivity.


In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his claims
about infrasonic perception.


snip

Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical
programming. You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such
a low frequency, nor have you shown any dbts that indicate that 6hz is
"perceptable" in a proper dbt.

BTW, why did you stop using your spell-checker and Quotefix?
  #29   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:52:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

snip

This is an extraordinary claim, that contradicts the
published
literature on human hearing sensitivity.


In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his
claims about infrasonic perception.


snip

Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical
programming.


Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top 30
commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by someone
else.

You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such
a low frequency,


Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about what I can
or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my friends.

Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of measurement
microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio interfaces, broadband analog
audio measuring devices, audio measurement software, and etc. Believe or
not, a representative list of can be assembled from Usenet and the Internet.
Therefore, it's reasonable for me to hold you responsible for knowing this,
particularly since you clearly claimed that it does not exist.

nor have you shown any dbts that indicate that 6hz is "perceptable" in a

proper dbt.

It's nothing like a subtle effect. There is plenty of evidence that strong
audio signals in the infrasonic range including 6 Hz can stimulate reliable
perception, involuntary stimulus of bodily functions, illness, injury and
death.

BTW, why did you stop using your spell-checker and Quotefix?


Never.


  #30   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:51:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his
claims about infrasonic perception.


snip

Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical
programming.


Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top 30
commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by someone
else.


Actually it was in the very post that my post was a response to.
However, that doesn't say anything about the "importance" of the
frequency in question, just that there are 2 recordings that are
lower. ONLY two. And it doesn't speak to whether or not it makes any
difference in the perception of said frequency. A list of recordings
with low frequency content doesn't speak to perceptability. You dbt
guys are all the same. You pick and choose what you want to test. If
it's one of your sacred cows, you don't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
Of course, in your case, I don't think that you could even do such a
test in your own home, because there's nothing you've posted that
indicates that your system can get down to 6 hz (as measured from the
listening position.

You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such
a low frequency,


Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about what I can
or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my friends.

Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of measurement
microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio interfaces, broadband analog
audio measuring devices, audio measurement software, and etc.


The fact that you *have* that equipment and *can* measure your system,
and yet you fail to produce evidence that your system can produce such
low frequencies as 6 hz in a *perceptable* manner, shows the world
that you are all talk and no proof.


  #31   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:51:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

nor have you shown any dbts that indicate that 6hz is "perceptable" in a

proper dbt.

It's nothing like a subtle effect. There is plenty of evidence that strong
audio signals in the infrasonic range including 6 Hz can stimulate reliable
perception, involuntary stimulus of bodily functions, illness, injury and
death.


Thanks for changing the subject yet again. You know full well that we
are talking about musical recordings (yes, even including things with
cannons).

We're not talking about CIA-related sonic cannons here.

When you can produce some dbts that show that you can tell the
difference between, say Flim and the BBs with and Flim and the BBs
without 7hz and below, maybe we'll talk.
  #32   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:51:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

BTW, why did you stop using your spell-checker and Quotefix?


Never.


Well, you did with this post.
  #33   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:51:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his
claims about infrasonic perception.

snip

Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical
programming.


Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top
30 commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by
someone else.


Actually it was in the very post that my post was a response to.
However, that doesn't say anything about the "importance" of the
frequency in question, just that there are 2 recordings that are
lower. ONLY two.


So what? The list is not inclusive of all recordings. Furthermore, the list
is far from being up-to-date.

And it doesn't speak to whether or not it makes any
difference in the perception of said frequency.


It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you
will, Weil.


A list of recordings
with low frequency content doesn't speak to perceptibility.


It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you
will, Weil.

You dbt guys are all the same.


Wrong. You've just demonstrated your ignorance of current and past
discussions of this issue. Some are published in the JAES, For example:

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies 297761
bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985

Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low frequencies
due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay
chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make it
practical to remove much of this group delay.

You pick and choose what you want to test.


So what's the option - not picking what we want to test?

LOL!

If it's one of your sacred cows, you don't touch it with a ten-foot pole.


Horsefeathers. Much more likely: Been there, done that.

Also, the means for doing DBTs are readily available without any significant
out-of-pocket cost. All it takes to use them is time and brains. Sorry to
mention brains Weil, since you've obviously fried yours.


Of course, in your case, I don't think that you could even do such a
test in your own home, because there's nothing you've posted that
indicates that your system can get down to 6 hz (as measured from the
listening position.


Actually there is Weil, but you're too stupid to put 12 dB/octave up and 12
dB/octave down together. You're also to stupid to understand to resources
that are readily available to me that don't happen to be my personal
property even though I talk about them freely and some of them are in
well-known published resources like Audio Magazine.

You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such
a low frequency,


Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about
what I can or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my
friends.


Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of
measurement microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio
interfaces, broadband analog audio measuring devices, audio
measurement software, and etc.


The fact that you *have* that equipment and *can* measure your system,
and yet you fail to produce evidence that your system can produce such
low frequencies as 6 hz in a *perceptable* manner, shows the world
that you are all talk and no proof.


It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you
will, Weil.


  #34   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:35:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical
programming.

Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top
30 commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by
someone else.


Actually it was in the very post that my post was a response to.
However, that doesn't say anything about the "importance" of the
frequency in question, just that there are 2 recordings that are
lower. ONLY two.


So what? The list is not inclusive of all recordings. Furthermore, the list
is far from being up-to-date.

And it doesn't speak to whether or not it makes any
difference in the perception of said frequency.


It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.


Prove tha deleting a certain frequency will matter. You say that it's
"accepted". Who care if *you* accept it. It's also "accepted" thatthe
loss of high frequencies can matter as well. shrug

There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you
will, Weil.


You keep trying to introduce strawmen. I'm talking about 6 hz, not
"infrasonics" in general. Nice try though.

A list of recordings
with low frequency content doesn't speak to perceptibility.


It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.


Prove it. Where are the dbts that say you will miss 6hz being taken
out of musical programming.

There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you
will, Weil.


Strawmwen aplenty here.

You dbt guys are all the same.


Wrong. You've just demonstrated your ignorance of current and past
discussions of this issue. Some are published in the JAES, For example:

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies 297761
bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985


Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low frequencies
due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay
chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make it
practical to remove much of this group delay.


Why don't you reproduce the part that proves that removing 6hz content
from musical programming is reliably detectable in a dbt?

You pick and choose what you want to test.


So what's the option - not picking what we want to test?

LOL!


The option is proving your claims.

If it's one of your sacred cows, you don't touch it with a ten-foot pole.


Horsefeathers. Much more likely: Been there, done that.


Prove it.

Also, the means for doing DBTs are readily available without any significant
out-of-pocket cost. All it takes to use them is time and brains. Sorry to
mention brains Weil, since you've obviously fried yours.


So, why don't you do some regarding the 6 hz that you claim is so
important? Why not prove your case? Could it be that your system
doesn't even go that low?

Of course, in your case, I don't think that you could even do such a
test in your own home, because there's nothing you've posted that
indicates that your system can get down to 6 hz (as measured from the
listening position.


Actually there is Weil, but you're too stupid to put 12 dB/octave up and 12
dB/octave down together. You're also to stupid to understand to resources
that are readily available to me that don't happen to be my personal
property even though I talk about them freely and some of them are in
well-known published resources like Audio Magazine.


Then you should hitail over to Tom's place and set up some
independently verifiable dbts if you want to be credible about this
issue. Get yourself the Flim and the BBs CD and remove everything
below, say 9hz and get back to us.

You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such
a low frequency,


Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about
what I can or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my
friends.


Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of
measurement microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio
interfaces, broadband analog audio measuring devices, audio
measurement software, and etc.


The fact that you *have* that equipment and *can* measure your system,
and yet you fail to produce evidence that your system can produce such
low frequencies as 6 hz in a *perceptable* manner, shows the world
that you are all talk and no proof.


It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.


Prove that 6 hz falls in this category.

There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period.


Prove that 6 hz falls in this category.

Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you
will, Weil.


Keep stonewalling...
  #35   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:35:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical
programming.

Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top
30 commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by
someone else.

Actually it was in the very post that my post was a response to.
However, that doesn't say anything about the "importance" of the
frequency in question, just that there are 2 recordings that are
lower. ONLY two.


So what? The list is not inclusive of all recordings. Furthermore, the

list
is far from being up-to-date.

And it doesn't speak to whether or not it makes any
difference in the perception of said frequency.


It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.


Prove tha deleting a certain frequency will matter. You say that it's
"accepted". Who care if *you* accept it. It's also "accepted" thatthe
loss of high frequencies can matter as well. shrug

There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as

you
will, Weil.


You keep trying to introduce strawmen. I'm talking about 6 hz, not
"infrasonics" in general. Nice try though.

A list of recordings
with low frequency content doesn't speak to perceptibility.


It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.


Prove it. Where are the dbts that say you will miss 6hz being taken
out of musical programming.

There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as

you
will, Weil.


Strawmwen aplenty here.

You dbt guys are all the same.


Wrong. You've just demonstrated your ignorance of current and past
discussions of this issue. Some are published in the JAES, For example:

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies

297761
bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985


Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low

frequencies
due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay
chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make

it
practical to remove much of this group delay.


Why don't you reproduce the part that proves that removing 6hz content
from musical programming is reliably detectable in a dbt?

You pick and choose what you want to test.


So what's the option - not picking what we want to test?

LOL!


The option is proving your claims.

If it's one of your sacred cows, you don't touch it with a ten-foot

pole.

Horsefeathers. Much more likely: Been there, done that.


Prove it.

Also, the means for doing DBTs are readily available without any

significant
out-of-pocket cost. All it takes to use them is time and brains. Sorry to
mention brains Weil, since you've obviously fried yours.


So, why don't you do some regarding the 6 hz that you claim is so
important? Why not prove your case? Could it be that your system
doesn't even go that low?

Of course, in your case, I don't think that you could even do such a
test in your own home, because there's nothing you've posted that
indicates that your system can get down to 6 hz (as measured from the
listening position.


Actually there is Weil, but you're too stupid to put 12 dB/octave up and

12
dB/octave down together. You're also to stupid to understand to resources
that are readily available to me that don't happen to be my personal
property even though I talk about them freely and some of them are in
well-known published resources like Audio Magazine.


Then you should hitail over to Tom's place and set up some
independently verifiable dbts if you want to be credible about this
issue. Get yourself the Flim and the BBs CD and remove everything
below, say 9hz and get back to us.

You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such
a low frequency,


Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about
what I can or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my
friends.

Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of
measurement microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio
interfaces, broadband analog audio measuring devices, audio
measurement software, and etc.


The fact that you *have* that equipment and *can* measure your system,
and yet you fail to produce evidence that your system can produce such
low frequencies as 6 hz in a *perceptable* manner, shows the world
that you are all talk and no proof.


It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.


Prove that 6 hz falls in this category.

There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period.


Prove that 6 hz falls in this category.

Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you
will, Weil.


Keep stonewalling...


Arny Krueger's sick.
We ought to just tattoo "Insane" on his forehead and be done with it.




  #36   Report Post  
Bruce J. Richman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Correcting the record

Graham wrote:


On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:24:32 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Arny Krueger's sick.


You only just realised this?







We ought to just tattoo "Insane" on his forehead and be done with it.


I can think of something much, much better than that.


This could be the beginning of a new thread - and one that is audio related .

(Although I'm not sure that "digital work stations" would be listed by very
many audiophiles and/or music lovers as their primary source).




--
td









Bruce J. Richman



  #37   Report Post  
Rich Andrews.
 
Posts: n/a
Default intra-band distortion

"Robert Morein" wrote in news:F-
:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that
6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying

different.

Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible
acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson
Robinson-Dadson, or any other source.

The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with

reducing
frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the
curves have points of inflection below those limits.

Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a
fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer.


I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the
earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research
from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves
indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with
reducing frequency. The implication is that by the time you reach
6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit"
of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear"
the tone.

As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and
without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am
doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually
"hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the

subject.
As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of the
high-pass filter?

snip

If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones?

I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.


With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On
multiple occasions. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for
saying the opposite.

My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.


Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact
that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the
filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content.
As I asked:

Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter?

Yes.


Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in this
test and might well be the source of the identification you report.
Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early 1980s
that such filters produced audible effects.

If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the
audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of
infrasonic (6Hz) information?

The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise
[implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be.


So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the implementation
of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. If you really wanted to
perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you

would
need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely?

As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less

audibly
damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio

systems,
particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment

created
for
the purpose of vinyl playback.


I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback chain
consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare

for
recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let alone
20Hz.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


6 Hz at high SPL likely produces high frequency noise caused by air-flow
boundary turbulence.
At this frequency, the joints of the inner ear bones, and gross movement

of
cochlear fluid would produce similar noise, perceptible by the cochlear
hairs as broadband noise.

There are no cochlear hairs tuned to 6 Hz. These hairs do have harmonic
modes, as given by the the eigenvalues of the "string equation with one

end
free", which are Hankel functions.

An interesting question would be whether an intense low frequency signal
induces audible Doppler distortion on the eardrum. Personally, I think

not.

It seems unlikely that a reproduction chain exists that could explore

these
effects. As Francois remarks, headphones suitable for investigational
purposes do not exist.





Personally, I would like to find a recording that has a significant amount
of extremely low bass. Some Back organ works might do nicely if I can
find the right ones.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.


  #38   Report Post  
Bruce J. Richman
 
Posts: n/a
Default intra-band distortion

Rich Andrews wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in news:F-
:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that
6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying

different.

Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible
acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson
Robinson-Dadson, or any other source.

The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with

reducing
frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the
curves have points of inflection below those limits.

Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a
fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer.

I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the
earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research
from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves
indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with
reducing frequency. The implication is that by the time you reach
6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit"
of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear"
the tone.

As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and
without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am
doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually
"hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the

subject.
As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of the
high-pass filter?

snip

If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones?

I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.

With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On
multiple occasions. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for
saying the opposite.

My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.

Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact
that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the
filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content.
As I asked:

Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter?

Yes.

Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in this
test and might well be the source of the identification you report.
Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early 1980s
that such filters produced audible effects.

If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the
audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of
infrasonic (6Hz) information?

The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise
[implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be.

So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the implementation
of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. If you really wanted to
perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you

would
need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely?

As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less

audibly
damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio

systems,
particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment

created
for
the purpose of vinyl playback.

I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback chain
consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare

for
recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let alone
20Hz.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


6 Hz at high SPL likely produces high frequency noise caused by air-flow
boundary turbulence.
At this frequency, the joints of the inner ear bones, and gross movement

of
cochlear fluid would produce similar noise, perceptible by the cochlear
hairs as broadband noise.

There are no cochlear hairs tuned to 6 Hz. These hairs do have harmonic
modes, as given by the the eigenvalues of the "string equation with one

end
free", which are Hankel functions.

An interesting question would be whether an intense low frequency signal
induces audible Doppler distortion on the eardrum. Personally, I think

not.

It seems unlikely that a reproduction chain exists that could explore

these
effects. As Francois remarks, headphones suitable for investigational
purposes do not exist.





Personally, I would like to find a recording that has a significant amount
of extremely low bass. Some Back organ works might do nicely if I can
find the right ones.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.









While most of us could probably specify our favorite recordings (or at least,
well-known recordings) that contain subjectively perceived low bass, who can
actually state that they have measured it?

And if they have done so, whqt instrumentation and methodology was used to
establish the presence of audible low bass at specified frequencies. Given
the fact that very few subwoofers, and probably even fewer (if any) full-range
speaker systems can reproduce extremely low bass at reasonable average
listening levels used in practice, this whole debate about "6 hz tones" may be
of academic interest, but would appear to be of little relevance to the average
music lover who listens at reasonable levels in their home setting.

I'd be more interested in knowing how, if at all, the average home listener
might bo about measuring low (and/or high) frequency limits at reasonable
listening levels in their home environment. I've done the "test CD routine"
with test tones to get a very rough idea of what my system can do, but of
course, that is just a rough approximation. Subjectively, with my particular
system, all I've established is that not all tones are produced with equal
amplitude, but I'm sure that is true of practically all non-equalized systems.
Whether an equalizer would change this perception is an open question.





Bruce J. Richman



  #39   Report Post  
Rich Andrews.
 
Posts: n/a
Default intra-band distortion

(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in
:

Rich Andrews wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in news:F-
:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to

become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply

that
6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying

different.

Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably

perceptible
acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson
Robinson-Dadson, or any other source.

The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with

reducing
frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe

the
curves have points of inflection below those limits.

Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of

a
fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer.

I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the
earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent

research
from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves
indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with
reducing frequency. The implication is that by the time you reach
6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the

"limit"
of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear"
the tone.

As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and
without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am
doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually
"hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the

subject.
As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of

the
high-pass filter?

snip

If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones?

I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.

With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On
multiple occasions. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for
saying the opposite.

My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.

Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact
that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the
filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz

content.
As I asked:

Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter?

Yes.

Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in

this
test and might well be the source of the identification you report.
Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early

1980s
that such filters produced audible effects.

If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the
audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of
infrasonic (6Hz) information?

The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise
[implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be.

So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the

implementation
of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. If you really wanted to
perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you

would
need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely?

As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less

audibly
damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio
systems,
particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment

created
for
the purpose of vinyl playback.

I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback

chain
consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare

for
recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let

alone
20Hz.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

6 Hz at high SPL likely produces high frequency noise caused by air-

flow
boundary turbulence.
At this frequency, the joints of the inner ear bones, and gross

movement
of
cochlear fluid would produce similar noise, perceptible by the

cochlear
hairs as broadband noise.

There are no cochlear hairs tuned to 6 Hz. These hairs do have

harmonic
modes, as given by the the eigenvalues of the "string equation with

one
end
free", which are Hankel functions.

An interesting question would be whether an intense low frequency

signal
induces audible Doppler distortion on the eardrum. Personally, I

think
not.

It seems unlikely that a reproduction chain exists that could explore

these
effects. As Francois remarks, headphones suitable for investigational
purposes do not exist.





Personally, I would like to find a recording that has a significant

amount
of extremely low bass. Some Back organ works might do nicely if I can
find the right ones.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.









While most of us could probably specify our favorite recordings (or at

least,
well-known recordings) that contain subjectively perceived low bass, who

can
actually state that they have measured it?

And if they have done so, whqt instrumentation and methodology was used

to
establish the presence of audible low bass at specified frequencies.

Given
the fact that very few subwoofers, and probably even fewer (if any)

full-range
speaker systems can reproduce extremely low bass at reasonable average
listening levels used in practice, this whole debate about "6 hz tones"

may be
of academic interest, but would appear to be of little relevance to the

average
music lover who listens at reasonable levels in their home setting.

I'd be more interested in knowing how, if at all, the average home

listener
might bo about measuring low (and/or high) frequency limits at

reasonable
listening levels in their home environment. I've done the "test CD

routine"
with test tones to get a very rough idea of what my system can do, but

of
course, that is just a rough approximation. Subjectively, with my

particular
system, all I've established is that not all tones are produced with

equal
amplitude, but I'm sure that is true of practically all non-equalized

systems.
Whether an equalizer would change this perception is an open question.





Bruce J. Richman





Bruce,

The cheapest way to obtain some sort of reasonable estimation of the
performance of a home speaker system is to buy a RS SPL meter, buy or make
a CD with suitable 1/3 octave warble tones, and then plot the results. Of
course things aren't quite as simple as they appear and this is no
exception. This method is suitably accurate IME.

r




--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.


  #40   Report Post  
Bruce J. Richman
 
Posts: n/a
Default intra-band distortion

Rich Andrews wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in
:

Rich Andrews wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in news:F-
:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to

become
audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply

that
6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying
different.

Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably

perceptible
acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson
Robinson-Dadson, or any other source.

The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with
reducing
frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe

the
curves have points of inflection below those limits.

Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of

a
fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer.

I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the
earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent

research
from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves
indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with
reducing frequency. The implication is that by the time you reach
6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the

"limit"
of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear"
the tone.

As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and
without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am
doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually
"hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the
subject.
As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of

the
high-pass filter?

snip

If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones?

I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones.

With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On
multiple occasions. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for
saying the opposite.

My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or
some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them.

Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact
that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the
filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz

content.
As I asked:

Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter?

Yes.

Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in

this
test and might well be the source of the identification you report.
Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early

1980s
that such filters produced audible effects.

If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the
audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of
infrasonic (6Hz) information?

The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise
[implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be.

So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the

implementation
of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. If you really wanted to
perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you
would
need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely?

As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less
audibly
damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio
systems,
particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment
created
for
the purpose of vinyl playback.

I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback

chain
consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare
for
recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let

alone
20Hz.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

6 Hz at high SPL likely produces high frequency noise caused by air-

flow
boundary turbulence.
At this frequency, the joints of the inner ear bones, and gross

movement
of
cochlear fluid would produce similar noise, perceptible by the

cochlear
hairs as broadband noise.

There are no cochlear hairs tuned to 6 Hz. These hairs do have

harmonic
modes, as given by the the eigenvalues of the "string equation with

one
end
free", which are Hankel functions.

An interesting question would be whether an intense low frequency

signal
induces audible Doppler distortion on the eardrum. Personally, I

think
not.

It seems unlikely that a reproduction chain exists that could explore
these
effects. As Francois remarks, headphones suitable for investigational
purposes do not exist.





Personally, I would like to find a recording that has a significant

amount
of extremely low bass. Some Back organ works might do nicely if I can
find the right ones.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.









While most of us could probably specify our favorite recordings (or at

least,
well-known recordings) that contain subjectively perceived low bass, who

can
actually state that they have measured it?

And if they have done so, whqt instrumentation and methodology was used

to
establish the presence of audible low bass at specified frequencies.

Given
the fact that very few subwoofers, and probably even fewer (if any)

full-range
speaker systems can reproduce extremely low bass at reasonable average
listening levels used in practice, this whole debate about "6 hz tones"

may be
of academic interest, but would appear to be of little relevance to the

average
music lover who listens at reasonable levels in their home setting.

I'd be more interested in knowing how, if at all, the average home

listener
might bo about measuring low (and/or high) frequency limits at

reasonable
listening levels in their home environment. I've done the "test CD

routine"
with test tones to get a very rough idea of what my system can do, but

of
course, that is just a rough approximation. Subjectively, with my

particular
system, all I've established is that not all tones are produced with

equal
amplitude, but I'm sure that is true of practically all non-equalized

systems.
Whether an equalizer would change this perception is an open question.





Bruce J. Richman





Bruce,

The cheapest way to obtain some sort of reasonable estimation of the
performance of a home speaker system is to buy a RS SPL meter, buy or make
a CD with suitable 1/3 octave warble tones, and then plot the results. Of
course things aren't quite as simple as they appear and this is no
exception. This method is suitably accurate IME.

r




--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.










I've toyed with the idea of doing that. I've wondered how accurate the Radio
Shack SPL meter is. Of course, unless I wanted to invest in some equalization
equipment, I'm not sure how helpful that would be. And then, of course, there
still remains the question of how much better or worse my system might sound if
the response curve produced were flatter. Perhaps I'll give it a try.

I'm also seriously considering the addition of a subwoofer, but integrating it
with full-range electrostatics in a room with some definite placement
constraints might pose a difficult task to overcome.




Bruce J. Richman



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Record analog audio input on Mac G5 Richard Rateick General 1 July 26th 04 11:40 PM
need help looking for phonograph / record player sugarcandymountain General 0 July 22nd 04 02:40 PM
MP3 players that record MS General 18 December 5th 03 06:44 PM
can portable cassette recorder record on Type II tapes? 00 General 2 November 10th 03 03:36 PM
Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction??? Jacob Kramer Audio Opinions 1094 September 9th 03 02:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"