"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they
add something subliminal to the way the music
affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that
this is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Why don't you dispute it then?

Been there, done that many times, Stephen should be
well-aware of the details, He's trolling, as usual.

You asked how one could show the affects of high
frequencies. Oohashi did that.

No he didn't. His work is greviously flawed, and I've explained how in
detail.

Since you know he did so, that makes you the troll.

Horsefeathers!

And you didn't dispute so much as reject the findings.

Wrong, I've deconstructed the paper and shown where the procedures were
grossly flawed.

If anybody rejected anybody's findings Stephen, it is you who have rejected
but not ever properly responded to mine about Oohashi.

Oohashi's paper is widely revilied and discredited.

Oohashi's paper is widely revilied ...


"At least" that is neither as egregious nor prevalent as arnylied

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they
add something subliminal to the way the music
affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that
this is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Why don't you dispute it then?

Been there, done that many times, Stephen should be
well-aware of the details, He's trolling, as usual.

You asked how one could show the affects of high
frequencies. Oohashi did that.

No he didn't. His work is greviously flawed, and I've explained how in
detail.

Brain-waves don't lie.

Since you know he did so, that makes you the troll.

Horsefeathers!

How ever could we measure how inaudible high frequency sounds affect the
listener? you ask. Since you know about a study titled "Inaudible
High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity" one could assume you'd make
that connection.

And you didn't dispute so much as reject the findings.

Wrong, I've deconstructed the paper and shown where the procedures were
grossly flawed.

Some tut-tutting about the possibility of intermodulation distortion is
about all I see.

If anybody rejected anybody's findings Stephen, it is you who have rejected
but not ever properly responded to mine about Oohashi.

You don't reject the findings? Still, if you have more than the IM
thing, repeat or cite it and I'll show that I understand your objections.

Oohashi's paper is widely revilied and discredited.

I'd be interested to see the peer-reviewed follow-up that "reviles and
discredits" the article.

Stephen

On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:44:11 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:
How about this:
http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=45&page=3

If the brain can localize based upon differential delays as small as 10 us,

This is highly unlikely and not supported by reference.

Kal

MINe 109 said:

Oohashi's paper is widely revilied and discredited.

I'd be interested to see the peer-reviewed follow-up that "reviles and
discredits" the article.

Your peers or Arnii's? Krooger was talking about the Hive, you know.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:44:11 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:
How about this:
http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=45&page=3

If the brain can localize based upon differential delays as small as 10
us,

This is highly unlikely and not supported by reference.

Kal

From http://www.physiol.ox.ac.uk/~raac/pd...aa_curBiol.pdf

"Humans can discriminate ITDs as small as 10-20 ?s [3] - an astonishing
achievement given that the duration of an
action potential is two orders of magnitude greater than this."

From http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/article...gi?artid=34336
" But even a sound coming directly from one side reaches the near ear only
600 ?s earlier than the far one, an interval comparable to the duration of a
single action potential. Our finest discrimination of a source's position
involves measurement of interaural time delay with a precision of less than
20 ?s-a seemingly impossible feat that we reflexively perform dozens of
times a day."

Interesting note on the speed of cilial response:
http://www.hhmi.org/news/coreydp.html

"Within 5 to 10 microseconds of this motion, channels in the hair cell open
and allow ions to enter - the first step in sending a sound signal to the
brain.

According to Corey, the rapidity of this response - which is as much as
1,000 times faster than the opening of similar channels in the eye in
response to light - indicated to scientists that the channel must respond
directly to the mechanical stimulus, rather than relying on a signal from
another molecule. The speed of the response was determined more than 20
years ago in the laboratory of HHMI investigator A. James Hudspeth - but
since that time, no one had been able to identify the channel protein."

Recording engineers using tape would usually push recording levels up into
the red.. This produced a saturated effect on the tape somewhat similar to a
compression type effect. This produced a warm, full sound.

Try to push the levels into the red with digital and you just get clipping.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:45:58 +1200, "Geoff"
wrote:

Mr. Tapeguy wrote:
James Price wrote:
I was reading an interview with Tom Scholz (Boston) in
which he was asked what his beef with digital is. He
replied as follows, however I'm wondering if others
agree with his assessment?


You know we could get into a lot of technical
gobbledygook as the forums often do but the bottom line
is how do you like the way it sounds? Digital has many
advantages over analog but I think all of us oldtimers
find the analog sound to be warmer and more pleasing in
a number of ways. Ultimately that's the test.

So ultimately we may ask a string quartet to perform
through a veil to make it sound like analogue recording ?

geoff

This is very witty, but though I don't advocate a return
to LPs I can understand what about them attracts people.

Yup sentimentality and ears that are far enough gone so that they don't
hear all of the bad stuff that the LP format adds.

When I listen to a live orchestra in the concert hall it
somehow sounds "analogue' to me, not digital.

Speaks to your unfortunate experience with bad digital, Paul.

In other words, I don't hear treble "glare" nor experience
listener fatigue.

Time to upgrade your system, Paul.

And ultimately live music has to be the criterion.

It's like Paul even knows what real-world live music sounds like, even in
his dreams.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

It obviously does matter. While one ear is deaf to the
effect of sound above 20kHz or so, two ears are
differentially sensitive to 50 kHz or more From
http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/ear/ear.html, the
ear is sensitive to the difference of arrival time of a
sound to each ear to 10 microseconds. Quoting, "The brain
is sensitive to differences in time of arrival of as
small as 10 microseconds, and can use this to pinpoint
the location of the sound." This corresponds to a steady
state tone of 100,000 Hz.

Inability to tell the difference between a well-documented fact and an
unsupported assertion, noted.

This is not a paper that has been referred or published in a professional
journal.

It's just a class report for an undergraduate class called "How Things
Work".

Here's the home page for the class:

http://web.mit.edu/2.972/OldFiles/www/body.html

It has no proper footnotes, just some broad references.

Rather than arguing the merits of the paper why address Moreins
grossly flawed logic.

Maybe in terms you and he can understand.... the situation is this.
Consider the brain as a high bandwidth scope...easily capable of
measuring ITD or IPD in the range of 10 usec. But it is has 2 bandwidth
limited mics feeding its inputs called ears.
Now just because the brain can resolve 10 usec time or phase delays
has no real bearing on the bandwidth of the ears.

ScottW

I need to follow up on the psychophysical info but the physiology
seems to make it unlikely that there is temporal (rather than a phase)
discrimination of such brevity, an aspect acknowledged in the review.

Kal


On Sun, 28 May 2006 10:46:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:44:11 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:
How about this:
http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=45&page=3

If the brain can localize based upon differential delays as small as 10
us,

This is highly unlikely and not supported by reference.

Kal

From http://www.physiol.ox.ac.uk/~raac/pd...aa_curBiol.pdf

"Humans can discriminate ITDs as small as 10-20 ?s [3] - an astonishing
achievement given that the duration of an
action potential is two orders of magnitude greater than this."

From http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/article...gi?artid=34336
" But even a sound coming directly from one side reaches the near ear only
600 ?s earlier than the far one, an interval comparable to the duration of a
single action potential. Our finest discrimination of a source's position
involves measurement of interaural time delay with a precision of less than
20 ?s-a seemingly impossible feat that we reflexively perform dozens of
times a day."

Interesting note on the speed of cilial response:
http://www.hhmi.org/news/coreydp.html

"Within 5 to 10 microseconds of this motion, channels in the hair cell open
and allow ions to enter - the first step in sending a sound signal to the
brain.

According to Corey, the rapidity of this response - which is as much as
1,000 times faster than the opening of similar channels in the eye in
response to light - indicated to scientists that the channel must respond
directly to the mechanical stimulus, rather than relying on a signal from
another molecule. The speed of the response was determined more than 20
years ago in the laboratory of HHMI investigator A. James Hudspeth - but
since that time, no one had been able to identify the channel protein."

I just found an interesting review article:
http://www.physiol.ox.ac.uk/~raac/pd...aa_curBiol.pdf
I get the impression that you are correct, that these are phase differences.
If this is the case, it is rather misleading to refer to "arrival time
differences." In the case of a steady state tone, it doesn't arrive, it is
simply present, and an accurate term for the faculty would be phase
discrimination. I haven't found any web references to the localization of
impulsive sounds, as opposed to steady-state tones.

If you find anything on localization of impulsive sounds, please post.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
I need to follow up on the psychophysical info but the physiology
seems to make it unlikely that there is temporal (rather than a phase)
discrimination of such brevity, an aspect acknowledged in the review.

Kal


On Sun, 28 May 2006 10:46:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 27 May 2006 09:44:11 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:
How about this:
http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=45&page=3

If the brain can localize based upon differential delays as small as 10
us,

This is highly unlikely and not supported by reference.

Kal

From http://www.physiol.ox.ac.uk/~raac/pd...aa_curBiol.pdf

"Humans can discriminate ITDs as small as 10-20 ?s [3] - an astonishing
achievement given that the duration of an
action potential is two orders of magnitude greater than this."

From http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/article...gi?artid=34336
" But even a sound coming directly from one side reaches the near ear only
600 ?s earlier than the far one, an interval comparable to the duration of
a
single action potential. Our finest discrimination of a source's position
involves measurement of interaural time delay with a precision of less
than
20 ?s-a seemingly impossible feat that we reflexively perform dozens of
times a day."

Interesting note on the speed of cilial response:
http://www.hhmi.org/news/coreydp.html

"Within 5 to 10 microseconds of this motion, channels in the hair cell
open
and allow ions to enter - the first step in sending a sound signal to the
brain.

According to Corey, the rapidity of this response - which is as much as
1,000 times faster than the opening of similar channels in the eye in
response to light - indicated to scientists that the channel must respond
directly to the mechanical stimulus, rather than relying on a signal from
another molecule. The speed of the response was determined more than 20
years ago in the laboratory of HHMI investigator A. James Hudspeth - but
since that time, no one had been able to identify the channel protein."

"roke" wrote in message


Recording engineers using tape would usually push
recording levels up into the red..

No such rule exists.

This produced a
saturated effect on the tape somewhat similar to a
compression type effect. This produced a warm, full
sound.

No, it produces a mushy sound.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"roke" wrote in message


Recording engineers using tape would usually push
recording levels up into the red..

No such rule exists.

This produced a
saturated effect on the tape somewhat similar to a
compression type effect. This produced a warm, full
sound.

No, it produces a mushy sound.


Rules my hole. It was/is common PRACTICE to drive the signals and saturate
the tape. This gives more 'headroom' than digital (thus greater dynamics).
If you listen to this phenomenon on analog recordings (analogue recorded
vinyl on good equipment) you will find it has a warm effect and will not
sound flawed. Digital, however, has virtually no 'headroom'. If distortion
occurs it is very brash and sounds very flawed.
"Digital preserves music the way that formaldehyde preserves frogs. You kill
it, and it lasts forever."

"roke" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"roke" wrote in message


Recording engineers using tape would usually push
recording levels up into the red..

No such rule exists.

This produced a
saturated effect on the tape somewhat similar to a
compression type effect. This produced a warm, full
sound.

No, it produces a mushy sound.


Rules my hole. It was/is common PRACTICE to drive the signals and saturate
the tape. This gives more 'headroom' than digital (thus greater dynamics).
If you listen to this phenomenon on analog recordings (analogue recorded
vinyl on good equipment) you will find it has a warm effect and will not
sound flawed. Digital, however, has virtually no 'headroom'. If distortion
occurs it is very brash and sounds very flawed.

Your ignoring the lower noise floor of digital. There is no reason to clip
in
digital recording.

"Digital preserves music the way that formaldehyde preserves frogs. You
kill it, and it lasts forever."

If your gonna clip everything...yeah... but that's just incompetent.

ScottW

"roke" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"roke" wrote in message


Recording engineers using tape would usually push
recording levels up into the red..

No such rule exists.

This produced a
saturated effect on the tape somewhat similar to a
compression type effect. This produced a warm, full
sound.

No, it produces a mushy sound.

Rules my hole. It was/is common PRACTICE to drive the
signals and saturate the tape.

It can't be common practice any more, because hardly anybody still uses
tape.

What people did when tape was all they had is pretty irrelevant here, more
than 20 years later.

This gives more 'headroom' than digital (thus greater dynamics).

Horsefeathers, tape does not give more dynamics than good digital.

If you mean that distorted sound tends to sound "louder" than undistorted
sound, then that's true, but so what?

If you listen to
this phenomenon on analog recordings (analogue recorded
vinyl on good equipment) you will find it has a warm
effect and will not sound flawed.

You call it warm and unflawed, I call it what it is - distorted.

Digital, however, has virtually no 'headroom'.

Horsefeathers. Good digital has far more dynamic range, and therefore its
far easier to run with lots of headroom.

If distortion occurs it is very brash and sounds very flawed.

If you can set levels to avoid that, how incompetent are you, anyway?

"Digital preserves music
the way that formaldehyde preserves frogs. You kill it,
and it lasts forever."

Nonsense. The worst thing that can be said about good digital is that the
signal that is played back is indistinguishable from the signal that was
recorded.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
[snip]

Horsefeathers. Good digital has far more dynamic range, and therefore its
far easier to run with lots of headroom.

If distortion occurs it is very brash and sounds very flawed.

If you can set levels to avoid that, how incompetent are you, anyway?

"Digital preserves music
the way that formaldehyde preserves frogs. You kill it,
and it lasts forever."

Nonsense. The worst thing that can be said about good digital is that the
signal that is played back is indistinguishable from the signal that was
recorded.
Arny, in support of your point, I relate the following. I have been using a
Sound Devices 744T to record musicians in public places in NY. I've made a
number of beginner's mistakes. But with two stage optical limiting, and
immense headroom in the mike circuits, the sound is still impeccable. A
friend of mine, a tubophile, remarks that it doesn't sound like solid state.
It doesn't sound like anything. It is simply a superb recording device.