| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Correcting the record
In message
Arny Krueger ) claimed: "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... Is gooogle lying to you again? gooogle never lies to me. Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google search engine, Arny Krueger made the following statement on this subject in message : "dave weil" wrote in message I'm not posturing. You claimed that my first mention of you was in 2001, according to your google skills. This turned out to be off by, what was it? Oh, I remember. TWO YEARS! Explained in another post. Google lied to me and I didn't catch the lie. Seems clear enough to me. Arny Krueger did, in fact, state that Google "lied" to him. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
John Atkinson wrote:
In message Arny Krueger ) claimed: "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... Is gooogle lying to you again? gooogle never lies to me. Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google search engine, Horsefeathers. Typical of Atkinson's inability to discern the true facts. I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I mean "google" I write "google". John I'm sorry to hear that don't have anything better to do with your time than to get involved defending S888wheel's functional illiteracy. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... John Atkinson wrote: Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google search engine, Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I mean "google" I write "google". I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean "Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google search engine, Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I mean "google" I write "google". I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean "Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to? Asked and answered. You deleted my answer, and I'm not going to tell you twice. The real shame Atkinson is that you obsessing over this trivia, and missing a big chunk of audio content related to the perception of infrasonic musical sounds elsewhere, in the same thread you picked this up from. It's distracted behavior like this that convinces me that you really don't care about audio. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:35:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: John Atkinson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google search engine, Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I mean "google" I write "google". I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean "Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to? Asked and answered. You deleted my answer, and I'm not going to tell you twice. The real shame Atkinson is that you obsessing over this trivia, and missing a big chunk of audio content related to the perception of infrasonic musical sounds elsewhere, in the same thread you picked this up from. It's distracted behavior like this that convinces me that you really don't care about audio. Apparently he learned something from Mr. Wheeler about trying to discuss such critical audio matter such as 6 hz tones. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Krueger really is a pathological liar.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google search engine, Horsefeathers...I know how to spell Google for goodness sake. If I mean "google" I write "google". I did write "if." So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean "Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to? Asked and answered. You deleted my answer, and I'm not going to tell you twice. Unbelievable. Krueger is a pathological liar. I knew he was off balance, but I was unaware of the extent. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
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 |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
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? |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
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 |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
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. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
John Atkinson wrote:
Regarding Mr. Krueger's complaint that I did not offer any comment on his comment that 6Hz tones are audible, I first would like him to clarify what spound pressure levels are required for 6Hz to become audible. No spound levels were involved. On the chance that this was just another one of Atkinson's many careless mistakes... The sound levels involved were not extreme in any way. I did most of the listening with Sony 7506 headphones and FSI IEMs. The signal source clips at about 1.5 volts RMS, which sets a reasonably low natural limit. It's also true that SPLs of many natural infrasonic sounds look pretty crazy on paper. For example, most people are pretty amazed the first time they measure SPLs in a car traveling down an interstate at legal speeds, if they turn the normal weighting curve off. When people talk about 70 dB SPL noise levels in a car, that usually means 70 dB A-weighted. A-weighting is something like 50 dB down at 20 Hz, and falling off at the rate of about 40 dB/decade or 12 dB/octave. So, at 2 Hz, its more like 90 dB down, 78 dB down at 4Hz, 66 dB down at 8 Hz and so on. 70 dB A-weighted SPL could translate into something like 136 dB at 8 Hz. That's extreme, but it shows the trend. More than 100 dB are not unusual IME. This in turn begs the question of how an audio system can possibly reproduce low frequency sound, that loud or louder. There's a tendency for a closed room to transition to a bass-boost mode of operation below some low frequency, depending on the size and construction of the room. This is one reason why car audio tends to be so bassy - the extreme levels of bass common in car audio are not all that impractical to generate, because the *room* is so small. A living room act like a bigger closed space with similar bass boost. There will be a lower transition frequency. The bass boost due to the room's size and the fact that it is a closed space tends to naturally be about 12 dB/octave. If you have a subwoofer that is flat down to your room's transition frequency, and falls off below that at 12 dB/octave, then the merger of the room response and the speaker response can approximate flat response, at least down to the next lower cut-off frequency. My findings about the audibility of subsonic cut-offs can relate to this next lower cut-off frequency, when the room and the subwoofer are well-matched. Or, it can relate to the rapidly-expanding population of people who are listening using certain common kinds of personal listening devices. I've seen it have audible effects with both IEMs and normal headphones. This makes the point that a subwoofer with an extremely low cut-off point can easily sound boomy in a too-small room. The room's transition frequency can overlap the roll-off of the subwoofer leading to a range with boosted response. There can be substantial boominess due to this overlap. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: John Atkinson wrote: dave weil wrote in message . .. On 18 Apr 2004 17:11:36 -0700, (John Atkinson) wrote: So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean "Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to? Mr. Atkinson, he was just parroting Scott Wheeler's misspelling of "google". That's what I had assumed. So what's your problem, Atkinson? Why aren't you showing a little concern for the rather significant audio issue raise in that thread? You snipped the part where he did. Roger. That makes yours a nice question. Doesn't sound quality mean anything to you? He's the test guy at Stereophile. Maybe you've seen his work. A lot of it is irrelevant to sound quality. He has a nasty tendency that he shows in this thread - which is to obsess over things that are meaningless in the larger scheme of things. Like 6 Hz musical content? Atkinson, is it your position that the corruption of musical timbres by infrasonic cut-offs is OK? Should it should be tolerated, and even glorified if vinyl-playback and tubed equipment evidences this audible coloration to a greater degree? No loaded words there... Want me to list out the loaded words in the posts I was responding to? It makes a nice study in the one-sided nature of your posts, Stephen. That doesn't seem possible. While it is an improvement over your reflexive flaming ("one-sided nature" my eye), your game of answering misspellings literally is tedious and noisy. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: John Atkinson wrote: dave weil wrote in message . .. On 18 Apr 2004 17:11:36 -0700, (John Atkinson) wrote: So, when you typed "gooogle" you didn't mean "Google," Mr. Krueger, what were you referring to? Mr. Atkinson, he was just parroting Scott Wheeler's misspelling of "google". That's what I had assumed. So what's your problem, Atkinson? Why aren't you showing a little concern for the rather significant audio issue raise in that thread? You snipped the part where he did. Roger. That makes yours a nice question. It makes it a non-issue at this time. Doesn't sound quality mean anything to you? He's the test guy at Stereophile. Maybe you've seen his work. A lot of it is irrelevant to sound quality. He has a nasty tendency that he shows in this thread - which is to obsess over things that are meaningless in the larger scheme of things. Like 6 Hz musical content? I'll leave that people to determine with their own ears. Atkinson, is it your position that the corruption of musical timbres by infrasonic cut-offs is OK? Should it should be tolerated, and even glorified if vinyl-playback and tubed equipment evidences this audible coloration to a greater degree? No loaded words there... Want me to list out the loaded words in the posts I was responding to? It makes a nice study in the one-sided nature of your posts, Stephen. That doesn't seem possible. And the antecedent of "that" is??? While it is an improvement over your reflexive flaming ("one-sided nature" my eye), your game of answering misspellings literally is tedious and noisy. It's not as tedious as trying to fix them or work around them. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
"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. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... John Atkinson wrote: I first would like him to clarify what spound pressure levels are required for 6Hz to become audible. No spound levels were involved. I would have thought it obvious that I was referring to _sound_ pressure levels. The sound levels involved were not extreme in any way. I did most of the listening with Sony 7506 headphones and FSI IEMs. The signal source clips at about 1.5 volts RMS, which sets a reasonably low natural limit. So, what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: I first would like him to clarify what spound pressure levels are required for 6Hz to become audible. No spound levels were involved. On the chance that this was just another one of Atkinson's many careless mistakes... I would have thought it obvious that I was referring to _sound_ pressure levels. I would have thought it obvious that I suspected that Atkinson was referring to _sound_ pressure levels. The sound levels involved were not extreme in any way. I did most of the listening with Sony 7506 headphones and FSI IEMs. The signal source clips at about 1.5 volts RMS, which sets a reasonably low natural limit. So, what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different. Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson Robinson-Dadson, or any other source. These are the widest range examples of those publications that I can find: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf Fletcher-Munson seem limted to 25 Hz while Robinson-Dadson seem limited to 20 Hz. Both Fletcher Munson and Robinson Dadson seem have be limited to audible sounds. There seems to be pretty good agreement that 6 Hz is infrasonic sound - too low to be audible. Yet, there is evidence that the absence, reduction or perhaps some other kind of modification of sounds in the 6 Hz range can be reliably perceived. Since some other means of perception than hearing seems to be involved, it may be unwise to go too far extrapolating this information about audible sounds. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... John Atkinson wrote: what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different. Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson Robinson-Dadson, or any other source. The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the curves have points of inflection below those limits. there is evidence that the absence, reduction or perhaps some other kind of modification of sounds in the 6 Hz range can be reliably perceived. Not in the literature that I can find. In addition, there seems to be agreement that perception of very low frequencies (though higher than 6Hz) involves the body rather than the ears. If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones? Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter? If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of infrasonic (6Hz) information? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different. Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson Robinson-Dadson, or any other source. The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the curves have points of inflection below those limits. Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a fact with questionable relvance isn't a proper answer. Furthermore, the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly different slopes in the region he is discussing. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of evidence that Atkinson has dragged in! Atkinson seems to be unwilling to believe that there may be any differences in human perception between the sonic and infrasonic ranges. There is a long-standing tradition of calling the sonic and infrasonic ranges two different things. I know he's not ignorant of this convention. I don't know why he wants to ignore it. Since he can't provide a simple answer to a simple question about the curves he cited, perhaps Atkinson could at least try to make some intelligent-sounding noises about why the sonic and infrasonic ranges are called two different things. there is evidence that the absence, reduction or perhaps some other kind of modification of sounds in the 6 Hz range can be reliably perceived. Not in the literature that I can find. Your inability to find relelvant literature that doesn't fit your agenda is well-known Atkinson. I'll make it easy for you - screw the literatre and listen for yourself:: http://www.pcabx.com/technical/high_pass/index.htm In addition, there seems to be agreement that perception of very low frequencies (though higher than 6Hz) involves the body rather than the ears. Absence of cites of relevant sources noted. This is just more of the proof-by-assertion, speculation, and greviously-flawed listening evaluation that we've had to bear with this author as long as he has been writing about audio. If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones? I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter? Yes. If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of infrasonic (6Hz) information? The filter in question is known to be a reasonbly precise implmentation of the type of filter it is stated to be. My web site posts results are based on Audition's butterworth high-pass filters. At http://www.pcabx.com/technical/high_pass/index.htm I present audio samples developed with no additional filtering, as well as sixth order and third order butterworth filters. As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less audibly damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio systems, particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment created for the purpose of vinyl playback. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
"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. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... John Atkinson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different. Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson Robinson-Dadson, or any other source. The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the curves have points of inflection below those limits. Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer. I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with reducing frequency. The implication is that by the time you reach 6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit" of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear" the tone. As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually "hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the subject. As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of the high-pass filter? snip If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones? I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On multiple occasions. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for saying the opposite. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content. As I asked: Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter? Yes. Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in this test and might well be the source of the identification you report. Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early 1980s that such filters produced audible effects. If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of infrasonic (6Hz) information? The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise [implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be. So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the implementation of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. If you really wanted to perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you would need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely? As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less audibly damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio systems, particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment created for the purpose of vinyl playback. I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback chain consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare for recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let alone 20Hz. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
Ah ****, I thought you were finally going to admit you were the one who
backed out of the debate. "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... In message Arny Krueger ) claimed: "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... Is gooogle lying to you again? gooogle never lies to me. Assuming that by "gooogle" both posters were referring to the Google search engine, Arny Krueger made the following statement on this subject in message : "dave weil" wrote in message I'm not posturing. You claimed that my first mention of you was in 2001, according to your google skills. This turned out to be off by, what was it? Oh, I remember. TWO YEARS! Explained in another post. Google lied to me and I didn't catch the lie. Seems clear enough to me. Arny Krueger did, in fact, state that Google "lied" to him. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
intra-band distortion
"John Atkinson" wrote in message om... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different. Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson Robinson-Dadson, or any other source. The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the curves have points of inflection below those limits. Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer. I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with reducing frequency. The implication is that by the time you reach 6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit" of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear" the tone. As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually "hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the subject. As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of the high-pass filter? snip If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones? I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On multiple occasions. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for saying the opposite. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content. As I asked: Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter? Yes. Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in this test and might well be the source of the identification you report. Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early 1980s that such filters produced audible effects. If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of infrasonic (6Hz) information? The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise [implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be. So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the implementation of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. If you really wanted to perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you would need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely? As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less audibly damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio systems, particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment created for the purpose of vinyl playback. I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback chain consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare for recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let alone 20Hz. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile 6 Hz at high SPL likely produces high frequency noise caused by air-flow boundary turbulence. At this frequency, the joints of the inner ear bones, and gross movement of cochlear fluid would produce similar noise, perceptible by the cochlear hairs as broadband noise. There are no cochlear hairs tuned to 6 Hz. These hairs do have harmonic modes, as given by the the eigenvalues of the "string equation with one end free", which are Hankel functions. An interesting question would be whether an intense low frequency signal induces audible Doppler distortion on the eardrum. Personally, I think not. It seems unlikely that a reproduction chain exists that could explore these effects. As Francois remarks, headphones suitable for investigational purposes do not exist. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
John Atkinson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different. Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson Robinson-Dadson, or any other source. The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the curves have points of inflection below those limits. Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer. Furthermore, the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly different slopes in the region he is discussing. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of evidence that Atkinson has dragged in! I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with reducing frequency. I reject the necessity of making an either-or choice. I've already shown how the evidence you've presented Atkinson, is self-contradictory. This is repeated just below. ... the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly different slopes in the region he is discussing. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of evidence that Atkinson has dragged in! The implication is that by the time you reach 6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit" of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear" the tone. Repeating speculation and self-contradictory results doesn't make it fact. ... the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly different slopes in the region he is discussing. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of evidence that Atkinson has dragged in! I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually "hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the subject. I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of the high-pass filter? I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones? I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On multiple occasions. Since you can't quote me saying such a thing, this would be a false claim on your part, Atkinson. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for saying the opposite. Since you can't quote him saying such a thing, this would be a false claim on your part, Atkinson. Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content. That's what I said, isn't it? As I asked: Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter? Yes. Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in this test and might well be the source of the identification you report. Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early 1980s that such filters produced audible effects. Again, you've missed the point, Atkinson. With modern technology, much of the high-pass filtering present in modern audio systems is not necessary. If this filtering has an reliably-perceptible audible effect, then we have to ask why it is being tolerated. If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of infrasonic (6Hz) information? The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise [implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be. So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the implementation of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. That's a possibility, as I've said a number of times. I'm glad to see that you are coming around to agreeing with me when I said a number of posts ago: I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. If you really wanted to perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you would need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely? Or plan "B", implement the filter without phase shift. That seems to be a more feasible way to do it, given the availble tools. As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less audibly damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio systems, particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment created for the purpose of vinyl playback. I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback chain consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare for recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let alone 20Hz. Neverthless, there are numerous commercial recordings with substantial content that extends well below 20 Hz, there are numerous audio systems that are capable of reproducing this content, and the content is reliably perceptible. However since this content is infrasonic, it is not perfectly technically accurate to call it "audible". The purpose of my test is to show that infrasonic filtering has reliably percptible effects that change the quality of sound from its natural or intended state. Since high fidelity is about reducing or eliminating reliably percptible effects that change the quality of sound from its natural or intended state, unecessary infrasonic filtering should be avoided. This naturally results in creating audio systems that have response in the infrasonic range. It is generally agreed that recordings tend to lack a sense of liveness that is present in live performances. Various enhancments have been proposed, in the interest of restoring this sense of liveness. Regrettably, some of these proposed enhancments, such as extending the bandpass beyond 20 KHz don't seem to have any reliably perceptible effects. Extending response below 20 Hz is well known to have reliably perceptible effects. Therefore I find it strange to be arguing for preservation of infransonic content present in live music, against the editor of a high end audio magazine and another audiophile. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
I have left your message below in its entirety, Mr. Krueger, because
it seems largely to consist of random neuron firing on your part. To address and correct each or every part of what you say, whether it is relevant or not, is beyond both my stamina and my time. To sum up: 1) You claimed to hear program content in the 6Hz region over headphones at moderate spls. This is an extraordinary claim, that contradicts the published literature on human hearing sensitivity. I pointed that out and offered an alternative explanation for your test results. 2) Upon examination of your test procedure, it appeared you were inserting a high-pass filter. Prior work (Fincham) indicates that the in-band phase error due to the filter is likely to be the cause for you perceiving differences. 3) You agree with me that this is what you were testing for. 4) You agree with my past writing that it is a good thing to eliminate as many high-pass filters in the recoridng and playback chain as possible. 5) You would extend this to the loudspeakers. 6) You disgree with me that recordings with content in the 6Hz region are very rare. As I have analyzed many recordings and not found many to have any infrasonic information, please give examples of such recordings. Thank you in advance for doing so, John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile --------------------------------------------------- "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different. Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson Robinson-Dadson, or any other source. The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the curves have points of inflection below those limits. Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer. Furthermore, the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly different slopes in the region he is discussing. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of evidence that Atkinson has dragged in! I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with reducing frequency. I reject the necessity of making an either-or choice. I've already shown how the evidence you've presented Atkinson, is self-contradictory. This is repeated just below. ... the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly different slopes in the region he is discussing. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of evidence that Atkinson has dragged in! The implication is that by the time you reach 6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit" of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear" the tone. Repeating speculation and self-contradictory results doesn't make it fact. ... the two sets of curves that Atkinson cited have vastly different slopes in the region he is discussing. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Fletche...son-Dadson.pdf Since the curves are so different, it is questionable to me as to whether they are both accurate, or either is accurate. Neither curve covers the frequency range being discussed here. This is an odd collection of evidence that Atkinson has dragged in! I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually "hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the subject. I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of the high-pass filter? I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones? I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On multiple occasions. Since you can't quote me saying such a thing, this would be a false claim on your part, Atkinson. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for saying the opposite. Since you can't quote him saying such a thing, this would be a false claim on your part, Atkinson. Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content. That's what I said, isn't it? As I asked: Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter? Yes. Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in this test and might well be the source of the identification you report. Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early 1980s that such filters produced audible effects. Again, you've missed the point, Atkinson. With modern technology, much of the high-pass filtering present in modern audio systems is not necessary. If this filtering has an reliably-perceptible audible effect, then we have to ask why it is being tolerated. If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of infrasonic (6Hz) information? The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise [implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be. So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the implementation of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. That's a possibility, as I've said a number of times. I'm glad to see that you are coming around to agreeing with me when I said a number of posts ago: I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. If you really wanted to perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you would need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely? Or plan "B", implement the filter without phase shift. That seems to be a more feasible way to do it, given the availble tools. As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less audibly damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio systems, particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment created for the purpose of vinyl playback. I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback chain consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare for recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let alone 20Hz. Neverthless, there are numerous commercial recordings with substantial content that extends well below 20 Hz, there are numerous audio systems that are capable of reproducing this content, and the content is reliably perceptible. However since this content is infrasonic, it is not perfectly technically accurate to call it "audible". The purpose of my test is to show that infrasonic filtering has reliably percptible effects that change the quality of sound from its natural or intended state. Since high fidelity is about reducing or eliminating reliably percptible effects that change the quality of sound from its natural or intended state, unecessary infrasonic filtering should be avoided. This naturally results in creating audio systems that have response in the infrasonic range. It is generally agreed that recordings tend to lack a sense of liveness that is present in live performances. Various enhancments have been proposed, in the interest of restoring this sense of liveness. Regrettably, some of these proposed enhancments, such as extending the bandpass beyond 20 KHz don't seem to have any reliably perceptible effects. Extending response below 20 Hz is well known to have reliably perceptible effects. Therefore I find it strange to be arguing for preservation of infransonic content present in live music, against the editor of a high end audio magazine and another audiophile. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
John Atkinson wrote:
I have left your message below in its entirety, Mr. Krueger, because it seems largely to consist of random neuron firing on your part. To address and correct each or every part of what you say, whether it is relevant or not, is beyond both my stamina and my time. To sum up: 1) You claimed to hear program content in the 6Hz region over headphones at moderate spls. An intentional false claim. Just goes to show that even when corrected many times, the Atkinson-automaton cannot be reprogrammed. This is an extraordinary claim, that contradicts the published literature on human hearing sensitivity. In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his claims about infrasonic perception. Such evidence that he did provide contradicts itself. I pointed that out and offered an alternative explanation for your test results. Atkinson, you've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are incapable of telling the truth. You obviously can't be depended on to read the frequency scale of well-known audio references such as the Fletcher-Munson curve. 2) Upon examination of your test procedure, it appeared you were inserting a high-pass filter. Gratuitous self-aggrandizing use of the phrase "it appeared" In fact Atkinson was told this information in simple, clear English. Prior work (Fincham) indicates that the in-band phase error due to the filter is likely to be the cause for you perceiving differences. The Fincham work alluded to has never been cited in this thread by Atkinson. Given that he's already proven himself to be both a liar and incapble of properly interpreting common audio references, this comment can be completely ignored. 3) You agree with me that this is what you were testing for. At this point Atkinson has made false claims, improper interpretations of well-known reference materials, and cited a phantom work. It is impossible to discern what I might be agreeing with. Therefore, the only safe thing for me to do is to disagree. 4) You agree with my past writing that it is a good thing to eliminate as many high-pass filters in the recoridng and playback chain as possible. The Atkinson work alluded to has never been cited in this thread by Atkinson. Given that he's already proven himself to be both a liar and incapble of properly interpreting common audio references, this comment can be completely ignored. 5) You would extend this to the loudspeakers. A figment of Atkinson's imaginataion. 6) You disgree with me that recordings with content in the 6Hz region are very rare. As I have analyzed many recordings and not found many to have any infrasonic information, please give examples of such recordings. http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/basscds.htm |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:52:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: snip This is an extraordinary claim, that contradicts the published literature on human hearing sensitivity. In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his claims about infrasonic perception. snip Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical programming. You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such a low frequency, nor have you shown any dbts that indicate that 6hz is "perceptable" in a proper dbt. BTW, why did you stop using your spell-checker and Quotefix? |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 05:52:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: snip This is an extraordinary claim, that contradicts the published literature on human hearing sensitivity. In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his claims about infrasonic perception. snip Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical programming. Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top 30 commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by someone else. You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such a low frequency, Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about what I can or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my friends. Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of measurement microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio interfaces, broadband analog audio measuring devices, audio measurement software, and etc. Believe or not, a representative list of can be assembled from Usenet and the Internet. Therefore, it's reasonable for me to hold you responsible for knowing this, particularly since you clearly claimed that it does not exist. nor have you shown any dbts that indicate that 6hz is "perceptable" in a proper dbt. It's nothing like a subtle effect. There is plenty of evidence that strong audio signals in the infrasonic range including 6 Hz can stimulate reliable perception, involuntary stimulus of bodily functions, illness, injury and death. BTW, why did you stop using your spell-checker and Quotefix? Never. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:51:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his claims about infrasonic perception. snip Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical programming. Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top 30 commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by someone else. Actually it was in the very post that my post was a response to. However, that doesn't say anything about the "importance" of the frequency in question, just that there are 2 recordings that are lower. ONLY two. And it doesn't speak to whether or not it makes any difference in the perception of said frequency. A list of recordings with low frequency content doesn't speak to perceptability. You dbt guys are all the same. You pick and choose what you want to test. If it's one of your sacred cows, you don't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Of course, in your case, I don't think that you could even do such a test in your own home, because there's nothing you've posted that indicates that your system can get down to 6 hz (as measured from the listening position. You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such a low frequency, Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about what I can or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my friends. Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of measurement microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio interfaces, broadband analog audio measuring devices, audio measurement software, and etc. The fact that you *have* that equipment and *can* measure your system, and yet you fail to produce evidence that your system can produce such low frequencies as 6 hz in a *perceptable* manner, shows the world that you are all talk and no proof. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:51:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: nor have you shown any dbts that indicate that 6hz is "perceptable" in a proper dbt. It's nothing like a subtle effect. There is plenty of evidence that strong audio signals in the infrasonic range including 6 Hz can stimulate reliable perception, involuntary stimulus of bodily functions, illness, injury and death. Thanks for changing the subject yet again. You know full well that we are talking about musical recordings (yes, even including things with cannons). We're not talking about CIA-related sonic cannons here. When you can produce some dbts that show that you can tell the difference between, say Flim and the BBs with and Flim and the BBs without 7hz and below, maybe we'll talk. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:51:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: BTW, why did you stop using your spell-checker and Quotefix? Never. Well, you did with this post. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:51:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his claims about infrasonic perception. snip Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical programming. Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top 30 commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by someone else. Actually it was in the very post that my post was a response to. However, that doesn't say anything about the "importance" of the frequency in question, just that there are 2 recordings that are lower. ONLY two. So what? The list is not inclusive of all recordings. Furthermore, the list is far from being up-to-date. And it doesn't speak to whether or not it makes any difference in the perception of said frequency. It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably perceptible.There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies, period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you will, Weil. A list of recordings with low frequency content doesn't speak to perceptibility. It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably perceptible.There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies, period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you will, Weil. You dbt guys are all the same. Wrong. You've just demonstrated your ignorance of current and past discussions of this issue. Some are published in the JAES, For example: The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies 297761 bytes (CD aes4) Author(s): Fincham, L. R. Publication: Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985 Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay. You pick and choose what you want to test. So what's the option - not picking what we want to test? LOL! If it's one of your sacred cows, you don't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Horsefeathers. Much more likely: Been there, done that. Also, the means for doing DBTs are readily available without any significant out-of-pocket cost. All it takes to use them is time and brains. Sorry to mention brains Weil, since you've obviously fried yours. Of course, in your case, I don't think that you could even do such a test in your own home, because there's nothing you've posted that indicates that your system can get down to 6 hz (as measured from the listening position. Actually there is Weil, but you're too stupid to put 12 dB/octave up and 12 dB/octave down together. You're also to stupid to understand to resources that are readily available to me that don't happen to be my personal property even though I talk about them freely and some of them are in well-known published resources like Audio Magazine. You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such a low frequency, Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about what I can or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my friends. Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of measurement microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio interfaces, broadband analog audio measuring devices, audio measurement software, and etc. The fact that you *have* that equipment and *can* measure your system, and yet you fail to produce evidence that your system can produce such low frequencies as 6 hz in a *perceptable* manner, shows the world that you are all talk and no proof. It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably perceptible.There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies, period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you will, Weil. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:35:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical programming. Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top 30 commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by someone else. Actually it was in the very post that my post was a response to. However, that doesn't say anything about the "importance" of the frequency in question, just that there are 2 recordings that are lower. ONLY two. So what? The list is not inclusive of all recordings. Furthermore, the list is far from being up-to-date. And it doesn't speak to whether or not it makes any difference in the perception of said frequency. It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably perceptible. Prove tha deleting a certain frequency will matter. You say that it's "accepted". Who care if *you* accept it. It's also "accepted" thatthe loss of high frequencies can matter as well. shrug There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies, period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you will, Weil. You keep trying to introduce strawmen. I'm talking about 6 hz, not "infrasonics" in general. Nice try though. A list of recordings with low frequency content doesn't speak to perceptibility. It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably perceptible. Prove it. Where are the dbts that say you will miss 6hz being taken out of musical programming. There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies, period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you will, Weil. Strawmwen aplenty here. You dbt guys are all the same. Wrong. You've just demonstrated your ignorance of current and past discussions of this issue. Some are published in the JAES, For example: The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies 297761 bytes (CD aes4) Author(s): Fincham, L. R. Publication: Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985 Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay. Why don't you reproduce the part that proves that removing 6hz content from musical programming is reliably detectable in a dbt? You pick and choose what you want to test. So what's the option - not picking what we want to test? LOL! The option is proving your claims. If it's one of your sacred cows, you don't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Horsefeathers. Much more likely: Been there, done that. Prove it. Also, the means for doing DBTs are readily available without any significant out-of-pocket cost. All it takes to use them is time and brains. Sorry to mention brains Weil, since you've obviously fried yours. So, why don't you do some regarding the 6 hz that you claim is so important? Why not prove your case? Could it be that your system doesn't even go that low? Of course, in your case, I don't think that you could even do such a test in your own home, because there's nothing you've posted that indicates that your system can get down to 6 hz (as measured from the listening position. Actually there is Weil, but you're too stupid to put 12 dB/octave up and 12 dB/octave down together. You're also to stupid to understand to resources that are readily available to me that don't happen to be my personal property even though I talk about them freely and some of them are in well-known published resources like Audio Magazine. Then you should hitail over to Tom's place and set up some independently verifiable dbts if you want to be credible about this issue. Get yourself the Flim and the BBs CD and remove everything below, say 9hz and get back to us. You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such a low frequency, Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about what I can or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my friends. Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of measurement microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio interfaces, broadband analog audio measuring devices, audio measurement software, and etc. The fact that you *have* that equipment and *can* measure your system, and yet you fail to produce evidence that your system can produce such low frequencies as 6 hz in a *perceptable* manner, shows the world that you are all talk and no proof. It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably perceptible. Prove that 6 hz falls in this category. There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies, period. Prove that 6 hz falls in this category. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you will, Weil. Keep stonewalling... |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:35:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical programming. Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top 30 commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by someone else. Actually it was in the very post that my post was a response to. However, that doesn't say anything about the "importance" of the frequency in question, just that there are 2 recordings that are lower. ONLY two. So what? The list is not inclusive of all recordings. Furthermore, the list is far from being up-to-date. And it doesn't speak to whether or not it makes any difference in the perception of said frequency. It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably perceptible. Prove tha deleting a certain frequency will matter. You say that it's "accepted". Who care if *you* accept it. It's also "accepted" thatthe loss of high frequencies can matter as well. shrug There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies, period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you will, Weil. You keep trying to introduce strawmen. I'm talking about 6 hz, not "infrasonics" in general. Nice try though. A list of recordings with low frequency content doesn't speak to perceptibility. It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably perceptible. Prove it. Where are the dbts that say you will miss 6hz being taken out of musical programming. There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies, period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you will, Weil. Strawmwen aplenty here. You dbt guys are all the same. Wrong. You've just demonstrated your ignorance of current and past discussions of this issue. Some are published in the JAES, For example: The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies 297761 bytes (CD aes4) Author(s): Fincham, L. R. Publication: Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985 Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low frequencies due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make it practical to remove much of this group delay. Why don't you reproduce the part that proves that removing 6hz content from musical programming is reliably detectable in a dbt? You pick and choose what you want to test. So what's the option - not picking what we want to test? LOL! The option is proving your claims. If it's one of your sacred cows, you don't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Horsefeathers. Much more likely: Been there, done that. Prove it. Also, the means for doing DBTs are readily available without any significant out-of-pocket cost. All it takes to use them is time and brains. Sorry to mention brains Weil, since you've obviously fried yours. So, why don't you do some regarding the 6 hz that you claim is so important? Why not prove your case? Could it be that your system doesn't even go that low? Of course, in your case, I don't think that you could even do such a test in your own home, because there's nothing you've posted that indicates that your system can get down to 6 hz (as measured from the listening position. Actually there is Weil, but you're too stupid to put 12 dB/octave up and 12 dB/octave down together. You're also to stupid to understand to resources that are readily available to me that don't happen to be my personal property even though I talk about them freely and some of them are in well-known published resources like Audio Magazine. Then you should hitail over to Tom's place and set up some independently verifiable dbts if you want to be credible about this issue. Get yourself the Flim and the BBs CD and remove everything below, say 9hz and get back to us. You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such a low frequency, Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about what I can or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my friends. Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of measurement microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio interfaces, broadband analog audio measuring devices, audio measurement software, and etc. The fact that you *have* that equipment and *can* measure your system, and yet you fail to produce evidence that your system can produce such low frequencies as 6 hz in a *perceptable* manner, shows the world that you are all talk and no proof. It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably perceptible. Prove that 6 hz falls in this category. There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies, period. Prove that 6 hz falls in this category. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you will, Weil. Keep stonewalling... Arny Krueger's sick. We ought to just tattoo "Insane" on his forehead and be done with it. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Correcting the record
Graham wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:24:32 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Arny Krueger's sick. You only just realised this? We ought to just tattoo "Insane" on his forehead and be done with it. I can think of something much, much better than that. This could be the beginning of a new thread - and one that is audio related  .(Although I'm not sure that "digital work stations" would be listed by very many audiophiles and/or music lovers as their primary source). -- td Bruce J. Richman |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
intra-band distortion
|
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
intra-band distortion
Rich Andrews wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in news:F- : "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different. Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson Robinson-Dadson, or any other source. The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the curves have points of inflection below those limits. Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer. I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with reducing frequency. The implication is that by the time you reach 6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit" of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear" the tone. As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually "hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the subject. As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of the high-pass filter? snip If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones? I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On multiple occasions. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for saying the opposite. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content. As I asked: Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter? Yes. Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in this test and might well be the source of the identification you report. Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early 1980s that such filters produced audible effects. If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of infrasonic (6Hz) information? The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise [implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be. So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the implementation of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. If you really wanted to perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you would need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely? As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less audibly damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio systems, particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment created for the purpose of vinyl playback. I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback chain consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare for recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let alone 20Hz. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile 6 Hz at high SPL likely produces high frequency noise caused by air-flow boundary turbulence. At this frequency, the joints of the inner ear bones, and gross movement of cochlear fluid would produce similar noise, perceptible by the cochlear hairs as broadband noise. There are no cochlear hairs tuned to 6 Hz. These hairs do have harmonic modes, as given by the the eigenvalues of the "string equation with one end free", which are Hankel functions. An interesting question would be whether an intense low frequency signal induces audible Doppler distortion on the eardrum. Personally, I think not. It seems unlikely that a reproduction chain exists that could explore these effects. As Francois remarks, headphones suitable for investigational purposes do not exist. Personally, I would like to find a recording that has a significant amount of extremely low bass. Some Back organ works might do nicely if I can find the right ones. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. While most of us could probably specify our favorite recordings (or at least, well-known recordings) that contain subjectively perceived low bass, who can actually state that they have measured it? And if they have done so, whqt instrumentation and methodology was used to establish the presence of audible low bass at specified frequencies. Given the fact that very few subwoofers, and probably even fewer (if any) full-range speaker systems can reproduce extremely low bass at reasonable average listening levels used in practice, this whole debate about "6 hz tones" may be of academic interest, but would appear to be of little relevance to the average music lover who listens at reasonable levels in their home setting. I'd be more interested in knowing how, if at all, the average home listener might bo about measuring low (and/or high) frequency limits at reasonable listening levels in their home environment. I've done the "test CD routine" with test tones to get a very rough idea of what my system can do, but of course, that is just a rough approximation. Subjectively, with my particular system, all I've established is that not all tones are produced with equal amplitude, but I'm sure that is true of practically all non-equalized systems. Whether an equalizer would change this perception is an open question. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
intra-band distortion
|
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
intra-band distortion
Rich Andrews wrote:
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in : Rich Andrews wrote: "Robert Morein" wrote in news:F- : "John Atkinson" wrote in message om... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... John Atkinson wrote: what sound pressure level was required for the 6Hz tone to become audible? The Fletcher-Munson or Robinson-Dadson curves imply that 6Hz is not audible at normal levels, yet you are saying different. Please cite a reference that portrays minimum reliably perceptible acoustic levels for the 5-10 Hz range from Fletcher-Munson Robinson-Dadson, or any other source. The sensitivity curves in these data increasingly rise with reducing frequency to their lower limits. There is no reason to believe the curves have points of inflection below those limits. Failure to properly answer a simple question noted. Substitution of a fact with questionable [relevance] isn't a proper answer. I think you misunderstood my point, Mr. Kreuger. Whether you take the earlier Fletcher-Munson sensitivity curves or the more recent research from Robinson and Dadson, simple extrapolation from these curves indicates that the human ear continues to lose sensitivity with reducing frequency. The implication is that by the time you reach 6Hz -- almost two octaves below the 20Hz usually stated as the "limit" of human hearing -- you would need extraordinary high spls to "hear" the tone. As you seem to be saying that you could hear the difference with and without 6Hz content using headphones at moderate levels, all I am doing is pointing out that it would seem unlikely you are actually "hearing" the 6Hz content in light of the published data on the subject. As I conjectured, perhaps you are detecting the audioband action of the high-pass filter? snip If so, how can you report perceiving 6Hz tones using headphones? I never said that I was perceiving 6 Hz tones. With respect Mr. Krueger, you did appear to be saying just that. On multiple occasions. You also criticized Scott Wheeler (S888wheel) for saying the opposite. My test reports related to perceiving their reduction, absence or some by-product of common means of eliminating or reducing them. Well yes, now you are saying that, which in turn allows for the fact that you actually agree with me that it is perhaps the action of the filter you are perceiving, not the presence or absence of 6Hz content. As I asked: Was this a double-blind test involving a high-pass filter? Yes. Which is my point. That the high-pass filter is also a variable in this test and might well be the source of the identification you report. Laurie Fincham, then with KEF, did some blind tests in the early 1980s that such filters produced audible effects. If so, then isn't it more likely that the test was detecting the audio-band phase error of the filter, rather than the presence of infrasonic (6Hz) information? The filter in question is known to be a [reasonably] precise [implementation] of the type of filter it is stated to be. So what? My conjecture doesn't necessarily depend on the implementation of a high-pass filter, only that one be used. If you really wanted to perform a test on the audibility of content in the 6Hz region, you would need to compensate for the filter's audio-band phase error, surely? As I point out in a recent post, these filters are probably less audibly damaging than the actual filters that are built into most audio systems, particularly audio equipment based on tubes or audio equipment created for the purpose of vinyl playback. I agree. As I have written in Stereophile, the recording-playback chain consists of cascaded high-pass filters. Which is why it is very rare for recorded music to contain high levels of content below 30Hz, let alone 20Hz. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile 6 Hz at high SPL likely produces high frequency noise caused by air- flow boundary turbulence. At this frequency, the joints of the inner ear bones, and gross movement of cochlear fluid would produce similar noise, perceptible by the cochlear hairs as broadband noise. There are no cochlear hairs tuned to 6 Hz. These hairs do have harmonic modes, as given by the the eigenvalues of the "string equation with one end free", which are Hankel functions. An interesting question would be whether an intense low frequency signal induces audible Doppler distortion on the eardrum. Personally, I think not. It seems unlikely that a reproduction chain exists that could explore these effects. As Francois remarks, headphones suitable for investigational purposes do not exist. Personally, I would like to find a recording that has a significant amount of extremely low bass. Some Back organ works might do nicely if I can find the right ones. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. While most of us could probably specify our favorite recordings (or at least, well-known recordings) that contain subjectively perceived low bass, who can actually state that they have measured it? And if they have done so, whqt instrumentation and methodology was used to establish the presence of audible low bass at specified frequencies. Given the fact that very few subwoofers, and probably even fewer (if any) full-range speaker systems can reproduce extremely low bass at reasonable average listening levels used in practice, this whole debate about "6 hz tones" may be of academic interest, but would appear to be of little relevance to the average music lover who listens at reasonable levels in their home setting. I'd be more interested in knowing how, if at all, the average home listener might bo about measuring low (and/or high) frequency limits at reasonable listening levels in their home environment. I've done the "test CD routine" with test tones to get a very rough idea of what my system can do, but of course, that is just a rough approximation. Subjectively, with my particular system, all I've established is that not all tones are produced with equal amplitude, but I'm sure that is true of practically all non-equalized systems. Whether an equalizer would change this perception is an open question. Bruce J. Richman Bruce, The cheapest way to obtain some sort of reasonable estimation of the performance of a home speaker system is to buy a RS SPL meter, buy or make a CD with suitable 1/3 octave warble tones, and then plot the results. Of course things aren't quite as simple as they appear and this is no exception. This method is suitably accurate IME. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. I've toyed with the idea of doing that. I've wondered how accurate the Radio Shack SPL meter is. Of course, unless I wanted to invest in some equalization equipment, I'm not sure how helpful that would be. And then, of course, there still remains the question of how much better or worse my system might sound if the response curve produced were flatter. Perhaps I'll give it a try. I'm also seriously considering the addition of a subwoofer, but integrating it with full-range electrostatics in a room with some definite placement constraints might pose a difficult task to overcome. Bruce J. Richman |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Record analog audio input on Mac G5 | General | |||
| need help looking for phonograph / record player | General | |||
| MP3 players that record | General | |||
| can portable cassette recorder record on Type II tapes? | General | |||
| Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction??? | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
