Correcting the record [Archive]

Robert Morein

April 19th 04, 05:58 AM

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: Re: 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: Re: 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 here:
>
> "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".
>

John Atkinson

April 19th 04, 12:16 PM

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. But as I pointed out in the message that
started this thread, Arny Krueger cannot admit that because that would
prove that his following statement was, for want of a better word, a
lie:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger

April 19th 04, 12:47 PM

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?

Doesn't sound quality mean anything to you?

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?

MINe 109

April 19th 04, 01:24 PM

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.

> Doesn't sound quality mean anything to you?

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

> 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...

Stephen

Arny Krueger

April 19th 04, 01:28 PM

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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

Arny Krueger

April 19th 04, 01:55 PM

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.

MINe 109

April 19th 04, 06:58 PM

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.

Arny Krueger

April 19th 04, 07:04 PM

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.

Robert Morein

April 19th 04, 07:17 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> 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?
>
> Doesn't sound quality mean anything to you?
>
> 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?
>
If it would drown out the sound of your voice, by all means.

John Atkinson

April 19th 04, 09:08 PM

"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

Arny Krueger

April 19th 04, 09:30 PM

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/Fletcher-MunsonIstNichtRobinson-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.

John Atkinson

April 20th 04, 12:25 PM

"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

Arny Krueger

April 20th 04, 12:46 PM

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/Fletcher-MunsonIstNichtRobinson-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.

dansteel

April 20th 04, 06:23 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> 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.
>

So you believe it's truly within the province of people using "their
own ears" to determine the meaningfulness in individual listening
experiences? Cool. I agree.

John Atkinson

April 20th 04, 07:14 PM

"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.
[i]
> > 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
> 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

Michael McKelvy

April 21st 04, 07:25 AM

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

Robert Morein

April 21st 04, 09:22 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >...
> > John Atkinson wrote:[i]
> > > "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
> > 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.

Arny Krueger

April 21st 04, 12:40 PM

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/Fletcher-MunsonIstNichtRobinson-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/Fletcher-MunsonIstNichtRobinson-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/Fletcher-MunsonIstNichtRobinson-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.

John Atkinson

April 22nd 04, 01:56 AM

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/Fletcher-MunsonIstNichtRobinson-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/Fletcher-MunsonIstNichtRobinson-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/Fletcher-MunsonIstNichtRobinson-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.

Arny Krueger

April 22nd 04, 10:52 AM

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

dave weil

April 22nd 04, 01:20 PM

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?

Arny Krueger

April 22nd 04, 01:51 PM

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.

dave weil

April 22nd 04, 02:05 PM

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.

dave weil

April 22nd 04, 02:08 PM

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.

dave weil

April 22nd 04, 02:09 PM

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.

Arny Krueger

April 22nd 04, 03:35 PM

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.

dave weil

April 22nd 04, 04:35 PM

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...

Robert Morein

April 22nd 04, 11:24 PM

"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.

Bruce J. Richman

April 23rd 04, 12:27 AM

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

Rich Andrews.

April 23rd 04, 02:19 AM

"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.

Bruce J. Richman

April 23rd 04, 03:48 AM

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

Rich Andrews.

April 23rd 04, 04:43 AM

(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.

Bruce J. Richman

April 23rd 04, 04:55 AM

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

Robert Morein

April 23rd 04, 04:55 AM

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:irkg805os6r38k5172s8pe8kv93qb73bb3@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> 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.
>
> --
"The Sign of the Krueger" ?

Rich Andrews.

April 23rd 04, 07:53 AM

(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in
:

> 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
>
>
>
>

Bruce,

The response curve of the RS meter is not flat as you may suspect. You
can do one of two things. Either adjust for the dicrepancies
mathematically or modify the meter.

Here is a web page that furnishes enough data so that you will have
reasonable results no matter which method of correction you choose.

http://www.gti.net/wallin/audio/audio.html

Personally, I prefer the RS analog SPL meters.

Let me know if you are looking for a PC based warble tone generator.
Warble tones are necessary as pure tones make for hypercritical placement
of the microphone resulting in extra work and decreased accuracy.

If you have room issues like a resonance, an eq will work wonders. If you
have a null, then the eq won't do much, if anything, to help that.

The bad part of an exercise like this is that any frequency response
abberations will become quite obvious. The plus side is that maybe an EQ
will fix some of them. Additionally, you could integrate a sub much
easier with a meter and an eq and know that it is darn close to being
right.

r

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

Rich Andrews.

April 23rd 04, 07:55 AM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in news:oK-
:

>
> "The Devil" > wrote in message
> news:irkg805os6r38k5172s8pe8kv93qb73bb3@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
>> 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.
>>
>> --
> "The Sign of the Krueger" ?
>
>
>

Just ignoring/filtering his posts that I consider offensive works well for
me.

r

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

Lionel

April 23rd 04, 12:14 PM

Rich Andrews. a écrit :
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in news:oK-
> :
>
>
>>"The Devil" > wrote in message
>>news:irkg805os6r38k5172s8pe8kv93qb73bb3@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>--
>>
>>"The Sign of the Krueger" ?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Just ignoring/filtering his posts that I consider offensive works well for
> me.

Morein is not Morein...
I guess that considering the topic it doesn't matter ! :o)

Robert Morein

April 23rd 04, 10:16 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Rich Andrews. a écrit :
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in news:oK-
> > :
> >
> >
> >>"The Devil" > wrote in message
> >>news:irkg805os6r38k5172s8pe8kv93qb73bb3@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>
> >>"The Sign of the Krueger" ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Just ignoring/filtering his posts that I consider offensive works well
for
> > me.
>
> Morein is not Morein...
> I guess that considering the topic it doesn't matter ! :o)

Lionel, I have two news server accounts now. I will post this from both so
you can compare.

Robert Morein

April 23rd 04, 10:18 PM

Duplicate post from my original news server. Compare the headers.

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Rich Andrews. a écrit :
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in news:oK-
> > :
> >
> >
> >>"The Devil" > wrote in message
> >>news:irkg805os6r38k5172s8pe8kv93qb73bb3@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>
> >>"The Sign of the Krueger" ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Just ignoring/filtering his posts that I consider offensive works well
for
> > me.
>
> Morein is not Morein...
> I guess that considering the topic it doesn't matter ! :o)

Lionel, I have two news server accounts now. I will post this from both so
you can compare.

Sylvan Morein

April 24th 04, 11:21 AM

On 4/22/04 23:24, in article , "Robert
Morein" > wrote:

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

Pot=Kettle= Black

You obviously don't have much knowledge about yourself, Bob.

Here's some information that will help you understand why he's such a sick
*******. Unfortunately, Bob can NEVER admit he's been beaten, or he's
wrong. He spent 12 years in college trying to write a thesis that was
totally without any scientific merit. When Drexel got tired of his bleating
about not giving him a degree, he sued them. And even after he was proven
IN COURT to have been wrong, he insisted on appealing to the Supreme Court
in Washington.

And to this day, still believes that THEY are wrong, too!

So you're not going to change him, god knows his mother tried and it killed
her.

Dr. Sylvan Morein, DDS

PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein

Dr. Sylvan Morein, DDS
--

Bob Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm

> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
> By L. STUART DITZEN
> Philadelphia Inquirer
>
> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
> at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
>
> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
> so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
> to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>
> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
> pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
> do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
> by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>
> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>
> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
> years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
> computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
> thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
> rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
> patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.

>
> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
> ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.

>
> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
> Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>
> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
> tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
>
> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
> state Superior Court.
>
> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
> restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
> time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
> affairs was reasserted.
>
> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
> litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>
> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
> asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
> even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
> right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
> compensation.
>
> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
> Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
> happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.

> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
> that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>
> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
> "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
> intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
> pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
> Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>
> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
> and electronic systems.
>
> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
> calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
> nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.

>
> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
> and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
> through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
>
> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
> 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
> related to estimation theory.
>
> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
> Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
> it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
> industrial processes.
>
> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
> problem Kalata had presented.
>
> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
>
> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
>
> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
> into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
> became alienated from Kalata.
>
> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
> The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
> patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
> asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>
> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
> complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!

>
> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.

>
> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
> opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
> about 100 of them.
>
> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
> appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
> intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
> Pennsylvania courts.
> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>
> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
> hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
> from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
> make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
> an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
> bulletlike stream of water.

FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

> But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
>
> "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
> gnawing thing."