advertisement


Psychoacoustics... where does it start and stop, what’s the proof?

vuk said:
you should read the other part of my posting.

i'm not sure why you are making such a fuss about this. labeling is not really that important, the research is.


vuk.
Click to expand...

Of course research is interesting, but the correct use of words is very important. If I told you there was a great new breakthrough in anatomy, and went on to describe a physiological process, you'd wonder what I was on about.
 
The perception doesn't end at 20KHz. Today we know (thanks to computer tomography) that a human being hearing over 20KHz is thinking that there is no sound, but some areas of the brain responsable for the hearing are active and showing that we are not hearing, but unconcsiousely perceiving much higher frequencies. I think that there will be more stuff like that discovered in the future.

Going back to usb cables - i think that a correctly made simple 0.5 m usb cable can be better than a fancy 1m usb cable with some ferrit clamps etc.
Just logic - simple shorter connection is better, than a longer one with some extra added not necessary elements like ferrit clamps and double screen etc.
 
tomek said:
The perception doesn't end at 20KHz. Today we know (thanks to computer tomography) that a human being hearing over 20KHz is thinking that there is no sound, but some areas of the brain responsable for the hearing are active and showing that we are not hearing, but unconcsiousely perceiving much higher frequencies. I think that there will be more stuff like that discovered in the future.

Going back to usb cables - i think that a correctly made simple 0.5 m usb cable can be better than a fancy 1m usb cable with some ferrit clamps etc.
Just logic - simple shorter connection is better, than a longer one with some extra added not necessary elements like ferrit clamps and double screen etc.
Click to expand...

Not trying to funny but if the brain responds to audio stimulus but the individual cannot "hear" it, then that is not hearing. Nor I am convinced that "unconscious" perception is relevant.
 
tomek said:
The perception doesn't end at 20KHz. Today we know (thanks to computer tomography) that a human being hearing over 20KHz is thinking that there is no sound, but some areas of the brain responsable for the hearing are active and showing that we are not hearing, but unconcsiousely perceiving much higher frequencies. I think that there will be more stuff like that discovered in the future.

Going back to usb cables - i think that a correctly made simple 0.5 m usb cable can be better than a fancy 1m usb cable with some ferrit clamps etc.
Just logic - simple shorter connection is better, than a longer one with some extra added not necessary elements like ferrit clamps and double screen etc.
Click to expand...

Interesting on both counts: do you have a citation for the first para? Not that I know enough to quantify it, but it seems likely that conscious (reportable) auditory perception is the tip of the iceberg.
 
A lot of what you experience as 'listening' comes through your skin - your whole body in fact. And at least 90% of brain activity is subconscious.
 
item said:
A lot of what you experience as 'listening' comes through your skin - your whole body in fact. And at least 90% of brain activity is subconscious.
Click to expand...

You listen through your skin?

The options are endless at this point, I dont know where to start...
 
The idea of skin reacting to sound waves isn't as crazy as it may sound, remember - listening to music is about the experience (environment, comfort, mood, distractions, opinions, ...), not just about the music. A lot of people tend to forget that.
 
[/I]
Mike42 said:
You listen through your skin?

The options are endless at this point, I dont know where to start...
Click to expand...

Sound = vibration. Nerves all over detect vibration.

But much perception is subconscious - and auditory stimuli create sensations we struggle to report with accuracy or specificity - most descriptors derive from other senses: particularly sight - hazy, veiled, coloured, muddy, brightly-lit, dark, inky - we talk vaguely in terms robbed from vision about the width, breadth and height of 'staging' and 'imaging'.

Or we draw from the sense of touch (warm, cold, heavy, wet, dry, airy, dense, velvety, grainy, punchy, silky, rough, visceral, soft, smooth, wooly, sharp, palpable, weighty) or even taste (rich, mellow, creamy, sweet, syrupy, unctuous).

We have relatively few words in the vocabulary specifically describing sound - evidently because we don't find it useful in our culture, partly because the experience is so evanescent and immaterial, but mainly because relatively little of our brain is wired for sound. It's a problem.
 
item said:
Sound = vibration.
Click to expand...

Yes.

item said:
Nerves all over detect vibration.
Click to expand...

That is your claim. It seems unquantified and unqualified.
Yes, there are situations where the skin senses sound. These situations normally
do not occur in a domestic setting. Most of them you don't want to occur at all.


item said:
But much perception is subconscious -
Click to expand...

Perception is the part of sensations that are registered consciously.


This is you preparing for a listening session?

mens-skin-care-article2.jpg



i think that Martin Mallison was talking about in this lecture:
Click to expand...

It is not because some marketing honcho states something in a presentation for a bunch of hobbyists that it is true.


I repeat it: today there is zero evidence that supersonic frequencies play a role in the auditory perception of music replay for the vast majority of healthy adults.

Stop chasing this. Pay attention to things that really matter. Room acoustics. The more or less correct replay of anything below 100Hz. Recording quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top