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

[Mike42]

[/I]

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.

Trust me, I listen with my ears.

 

[Alan Sircom]

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

Calling Mallinson "some marketing honcho" is extremely disingenuous and probably actionable. He's the Chief Technology Officer of ESS, and has a pretty much unimpeachable reputation as a chip designer of the first water.

One of his more audio-related 'firsts' was he helped designed the original delta-sigma modulator chips, although I believe he currently spends a lot of his time team leading on ASIC design for aircraft control and medical imaging systems.

Of course, all of this pales into insignificance next to being some internet guy.

 

[Werner]

Apologies. Recalling the video of Mallinson's presentation the top of my head made me believe he was the VP of M&S. Clearly, said top of head was wrong.

But I also remember clearly at least one claim on auditory perception that was passingly made, yet for which I know there is no substantiation in accepted science. So my above post still stands.

Now back to team leading on ASIC design for spacecraft control.

 

[Cereal Killer]

Wasn't there a study done where a 100% deaf person could work out sounds and messages through vibrations?

Probably.

The relevance is???

Can you not work that one out for yourself??

 

[Cereal Killer]

Apologies. Recalling the video of Mallinson's presentation the top of my head made me believe he was the VP of M&S. Clearly, said top of head was wrong.

But I also remember clearly at least one claim on auditory perception that was passingly made, yet for which I know there is no substantiation in accepted science. So my above post still stands.

Now back to team leading on ASIC design for spacecraft control.

If all sciences stuck to the given formulas we'd never progress any further. Science is by definition exploratory.

 

[Mike42]

Beethoven was deaf, we all know there is more to it, I just don’t want a lecture along the lines of ‘Items’ rambling self-gratifying post…

 

[Werner]

Can you not work that one out for yourself??

Bone conduction of sound indeed leads to perception of sound, both in the case of baseband sound (that is how T.A.Edison tested his products) and sound on an ultrasonic carrier. In the latter case the payload sound demodulates on non-linearities in the skull tissue to fall back into the normal auditory range, so once more: no magic perception of ultrasound.

What these have in common is bone conduction, requiring an exciter coupled hard to the skull. This is a situation not encountered in domestic listening, hence not relevant to it.

It would be possible to cause in-bone sound by indirect excitation through the air, but this would demand sound levels so excessive that the listener would be too busy dying to enjoy the music.

 

[merlin]

What mechanism is at work with the perception of infrasonics? Especially infrasonic signals played alongside a musical signal at listening levels?

 

[ItemAudio]

We all know there is more to it, I just don’t want a lecture along the lines of ‘Items’ rambling self-gratifying post…

Look how painful it is to agree with someone!
Agreed then: sound is vibration; nerves and skin detect vibration, deaf musicians: QED.
Not agreed: rambling posts.
Moving on . . .

 

[avole]

Beethoven was deaf, we all know there is more to it, I just don’t want a lecture along the lines of ‘Items’ rambling self-gratifying post…

Not quite.

Beethoven suffered from increasing deafness during his life. Certainly for his early and middle works he could hear, so by the time he was deaf he already knew pretty much all there is to know about music, what each instrument sounded like, what a note played by a certain instrument sounded like, etc.

I'm not sure a person deaf from birth would be able to compose or play music without having some memory of the sound.

 

[Werner]

What mechanism is at work with the perception of infrasonics?

Sympathetic resonance of internal organs, for sure.

I can imagine, but do not know, that direct detection of air particle motion by the skin is a possibility, too.

Agreed then: sound is vibration; nerves and skin detect vibration, deaf musicians: QED.

QED?

Again, there is no relevance for domestic music replay.

 

[Mike42]

Look how painful it is to agree with someone!
Agreed then: sound is vibration; nerves and skin detect vibration, deaf musicians: QED.
Not agreed: rambling posts.
Moving on . . .

Somebody shoot me now, please.

 

[Cereal Killer]

Bone conduction of sound indeed leads to perception of sound, both in the case of baseband sound (that is how T.A.Edison tested his products) and sound on an ultrasonic carrier. In the latter case the payload sound demodulates on non-linearities in the skull tissue to fall back into the normal auditory range, so once more: no magic perception of ultrasound.

What these have in common is bone conduction, requiring an exciter coupled hard to the skull. This is a situation not encountered in domestic listening, hence not relevant to it.

It would be possible to cause in-bone sound by indirect excitation through the air, but this would demand sound levels so excessive that the listener would be too busy dying to enjoy the music.

Are you saying there’s no more to explore on the subject and we know 101% about everything we perceive via sound waves, auditory or physical experiences?

 

[ItemAudio]

I just don’t want a lecture along the lines of ‘Items’ rambling self-gratifying post…

Not quite.

Thank you, avole, for leaping to my defense. The post wasn't long, didn't ramble and was only slightly gratifying.

You probably said other stuff that was true as well.

 

[Mike42]

Thank you, avole, for leaping to my defense. The post wasn't long, didn't ramble and was only slightly gratifying.

You probably said other stuff that was true as well.

I am not sure that Avole was leaping to your defence, although I am sure he’ll be delighted that you have stated that “You probably said other stuff that was true as well”.

 

[avole]

Thank you, avole, for leaping to my defense. The post wasn't long, didn't ramble and was only slightly gratifying.

You probably said other stuff that was true as well.

Item, ye who puts words in my mouth, look up Beethoven in Wikipedia. His story does not justify a word of your theories, because he used his ears until late on in his life to listen to sounds.

There is no record of him using his skin.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Well, I find I can hear frequencies beyond 100kHz quite easily, but only if I grow out my toenails and walk around my Las Vegas penthouse suite naked and watch Ice Station Zebra 150 times in a row.

I also find that my hearing between 76kHz-78kHz varies according to whether I'm blinking.

To quote Dr. Fox, "Now that's scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact." And he should know - he's a doctor of doctorology, or something.

-

The high-resolution thing is IMO unfortunate. I believe it's an attempt to provide high quality versions of recordings, but as 'high quality' is even more nebulous a term than 'high fidelity', we've gone down what I think is a wrong turn to produce recordings that end up being justified by claims that seem to be on the wild side of voodoo. If we are attempting to justify beyond 20kHz recordings through bone conduction, listening through our eyes etc, those justifications are heading to pretty inhospitable waters. Even if they turn out to be valid.

If there is something going on - aside from selling better mixes at premium prices (something I have absolutely no problem with, if there is no other way of getting those better mixes) - there needs to be some rigid explanation of whats going on, instead of vapid guesswork. The problem there is a reluctance on the part of the scientific community connected to audio to even countenance any such idea (perhaps understandable - maintaining tenure is difficult if your peers refer to you as "that nutcase"). So it will probably remain guesswork.

This is a difficult one for me. There is considerable pressure from the international audiophile community (meaning 'the readers', rather than necessarily 'the manufacturers') to 'get with the program' and drink the hi-rez Kool-Aid, and I remain simply unconvinced by the explanations, if not necessarily the end results. I'm concerned that if high quality sound continues to be dismissed as an obsession of kooky audiophiles and their bat-eared ways, we'll get nowhere fast.

 

[Pandapple]

unconcsiousely perceiving

That's a good one.

But perception is, by its definition, conscious

But much perception is subconscious

Perception is the part of sensations that are registered consciously.

Werner - quite the mr clever clogs aren't we? You speak with formidable confidence, yet are simply wrong. (Hmmmm - sounds familiar!)

Sensation is a form of conscious perception, and this seems to be what you are thinking of and confusing with the term perception.

However, unconscious perception also exists, and is a very well known phenomenon in neurobiology and experimental psychology.
Probably the most striking example of this is blindsight, defined by many in the literature as unconscious vision.

(None of which means bat-like frequencies can be heard, but still!)

 

[Cereal Killer]

Well,................There is considerable pressure from the international audiophile community (meaning 'the readers', rather than necessarily 'the manufacturers') to 'get with the program' and drink the hi-rez Kool-Aid, and I remain simply unconvinced by the explanations, if not necessarily the end results. I'm concerned that if high quality sound continues to be dismissed as an obsession of kooky audiophiles and their bat-eared ways, we'll get nowhere fast.

The only thing that will happen is it'll drive the final nail in the coffin, and Lossy MP3 will win!

 

[avole]

Perception: 1.The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.