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

[Cereal Killer]

Spacey, the likely truth obscured by marketing is thus.

It's silver plated copper wire. Silver plated because it has an extruded teflon dielectric- end of story. Any more flowery a description is marketing prose.

If it makes a reasonably broad difference you should be able to AB it blind. If you can't then 'maybe' there is no difference.

I agree Si, The LAT cable has properties that are altering. The Lindy cable is a simple in spec copper conductor.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Sue, you're being condescending. The reason for me to include the USB debate and trial is to put it in the context of the hobby and give it relevance. You fail to understand that this is intertwined.

Apologies if it came across as condescending. I meant for it to be ironic. I think the USB debate is valid as I've also heard different USB cables sound different and can't explain why. So, actually, I was interested in what the answer might be, when I said 'How so?'.

 

[Cereal Killer]

Simply cable properties, Sue, but the topic goes beyond.

 

[janerik]

Why waste time on people who don't know what words mean, and are too lazy to google?

The problem with google is that it's a crap shoot, which leads to the inevitable human temptation to use the first result that most closely agrees with our preconceptions...

I prefer textbooks, in this case 'The Sense of Hearing' by Christopher Plack (PhD Psychoacoustics, Cambridge). From pages 3 and 4:

' ''Auditory psychophysics, or psychoacoustics, is the psychological or behavioral study of hearing - behavioral - in that the participant is required to make a response to the sounds that are presented. As the name suggest, the aim of psychoacoustic research is to determine the relation between the physical stimuli (sounds) and the sensations produced in the listener. In a typical experiment, the listener may be asked to make some judgement about sounds that are played (e.g., which of two sounds has the highest pitch) and to produce a response (e.g., by pressing a button corresponding to which sound is chosen)...

... That we measure the behavioral responses of listeners is essentially why psychoacoustics is regarded as a branch of psychology, although many of the problems addressed by psychoacoustics have little to do with the popular conception of psychology. Psychoacoustic techniques can be used to study very ''low-level'' or ''physiological'' processes, such as the mechanical processes underlying the separation of sounds in the cochlea. '' '

Highly recommended reading (about $40 on Amazon) that will deepen your understanding and respect for the sense of hearing.

Jan

 

[janerik]

When it comes to ultrasonics in audio, Ooashi aside there has been no robust evidence to show signals beyond 20kHz has any influence on the human condition. Although Ooashi's test was peer reviewed at the time, it is widely dismissed, because it was not corroborated. AFAIK, it has never been retested, so that corroboration is not likely to arrive soon.

Alan,

Your statement disregards a substantial body of anecdotal and experimental evidence published since the 1950s of bone conduction as the pathway for perception of ultrasound :

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1129920

Nishimura and colleagues (2011) are looking at how this pathway works :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21238563

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12527135

See also Fujimoto in 2005 :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15925206

Another pathway was proposed by Lenhart and colleagues in 2007 :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17691656

There is also some interesting work using ultrasound through bone conduction as a means of relieving tinnitus :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16639909

and this one reporting the use of ultrasound to convey auditory information to profoundly deaf subjects :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11234768

I can't find the paper by Ooashio that you refer to ; could you point me to it please,

Thanks,

Jan

 

[Blzebub]

The problem with google is that it's a crap shoot, which leads to the inevitable human temptation to use the first result that most closely agrees with our preconceptions...

I prefer textbooks, in this case 'The Sense of Hearing' by Christopher Plack (PhD Psychoacoustics, Cambridge). From pages 3 and 4:

' ''Auditory psychophysics, or psychoacoustics, is the psychological or behavioral study of hearing - behavioral - in that the participant is required to make a response to the sounds that are presented. As the name suggest, the aim of psychoacoustic research is to determine the relation between the physical stimuli (sounds) and the sensations produced in the listener. In a typical experiment, the listener may be asked to make some judgement about sounds that are played (e.g., which of two sounds has the highest pitch) and to produce a response (e.g., by pressing a button corresponding to which sound is chosen)...

... That we measure the behavioral responses of listeners is essentially why psychoacoustics is regarded as a branch of psychology, although many of the problems addressed by psychoacoustics have little to do with the popular conception of psychology. Psychoacoustic techniques can be used to study very ''low-level'' or ''physiological'' processes, such as the mechanical processes underlying the separation of sounds in the cochlea. '' '

Highly recommended reading (about $40 on Amazon) that will deepen your understanding and respect for the sense of hearing.

Jan

I have read extensively on the topic, thanks. Your initial description was and is misconceived and misleading.

 

[janerik]

Christopher Plack : .. That we measure the behavioral responses of listeners is essentially why psychoacoustics is regarded as a branch of psychology.

My initial description : ''To measure how we react to this signal, we're into the field of psychoacoustics (psychology applied to acoustics).''

So how is that misconceived or misleading ?

 

[Alan Sircom]

Alan,

Your statement disregards a substantial body of anecdotal and experimental evidence published since the 1950s of bone conduction as the pathway for perception of ultrasound :

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1129920

Nishimura and colleagues (2011) are looking at how this pathway works :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21238563

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12527135

See also Fujimoto in 2005 :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15925206

Another pathway was proposed by Lenhart and colleagues in 2007 :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17691656

There is also some interesting work using ultrasound through bone conduction as a means of relieving tinnitus :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16639909

and this one reporting the use of ultrasound to convey auditory information to profoundly deaf subjects :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11234768

I can't find the paper by Ooashio that you refer to ; could you point me to it please,

Thanks,

Jan

Wow, thanks for all that.

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

 

[janerik]

Thanks Alan. No wonder I couldn't find it : Oohashi and not Ooashio.

Jan

 

[Blzebub]

Christopher Plack : .. That we measure the behavioral responses of listeners is essentially why psychoacoustics is regarded as a branch of psychology.

My initial description : ''To measure how we react to this signal, we're into the field of psychoacoustics (psychology applied to acoustics).''

So how is that misconceived or misleading ?

Typical pfm-er. You've found a quote which sort-of props up your initial goof. Well done, that must mean you've won. If you are looking for an argument, look elsewhere.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Typical pfm-er. You've found a quote which sort-of props up your initial goof. Well done, that must mean you've won. If you are looking for an argument, look elsewhere.

Curiouser and curiouser.

This is an argument you started, Blzebub. So far, janerik has done you the courtesy of refuting it, and showing his working, and your responses are mostly bluster.

That starts to look, from here, like you can't back up your side.

 

[janerik]

Typical pfm-er. You've found a quote which sort-of props up your initial goof. Well done, that must mean you've won. If you are looking for an argument, look elsewhere.

Euh, no. I started reading Christopher Plack's book two weeks ago and his definition of psychoacoustics stayed with me. My answer to Spacey was using my recollection of Plack's explanation. Not the reverse. No goof.

I'm not looking for an argument, or trying to win anything, simply trying to better understand the sense of hearing. Your accusation was unsubstantiated ; where is your evidence ?

Jan

 

[Blzebub]

That starts to look, from here, like you can't back up your side.

I know very well what psychoacoustics is, having studied it extensively. I don't really care what you or the other bloke think it means, or whether it looks like I can't back up my argument.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Mmm.

 

[Blzebub]

If you are so interested, read up about it. You'll discover, as I did, that it isn't psychology applied to acoustics, as you might at first imagine. It's actually much more interesting than that.

 

[janerik]

If you are so interested, read up about it. You'll discover, as I did, that it isn't psychology applied to acoustics, as you might at first imagine. It's actually much more interesting than that.

Well here's what I'm reading at the moment. The newspaper is included for proof of date, as you seem to doubt my credibility.

If you can point me to some other textbooks that you have read on the subject, I would be grateful,

Jan

 

[Mr Perceptive]

From Bob Stuart at Meridian

http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/multips3.pdf

Quite lot of further references at the end, for those that want to read more.

 

[janerik]

Thanks Mr P. Good stuff !

 

[Avonessence]

Just wonder how much of this game/hobby/neurosis is based on psychoacoustics...

I've just bought a cheap'as'chips USB cable from't ebay, this one: http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/710-5...0001&campid=5338728743&icep_item=271025364205
When i got my DAC, the UK retailer, Unilet, sent me a 1m LAT International USB2 to try out. This one: http://www.latinternational.com/index.php/wire and cables/usb 2 cable.html

After exchanging it for the Lindy cable mentioned above, i find myself much preferring the new 0.5m lead. What gives... maybe the shorter the USB cable the better?

But then again, it’s all bull-shit, right

Does the more expensive cable take something away from the music which you do not like, but the cheaper one retains this but doesn't do any of the possible HiFi stuff such as detail, soundstage, depth, focus, imaging?

 

[Blzebub]

Well here's what I'm reading at the moment. The newspaper is included for proof of date, as you seem to doubt my credibility.

If you can point me to some other textbooks that you have read on the subject, I would be grateful,

Jan

Good for you. Warm congratulations. And how is psychoacoustics applicable to cable comparisons?

I have a copy of a medical textbook called "Hearing and deafness" on my desk at work. I can't remember who the authors are, it's some years now since I opened it.