opaqueice;353497 Wrote: > You're just the only one that ignores the other posters.
Your links to this Brian editor fellow? Before he became editor he was an electronics guy working with NVRAM, ASIC's and 3 years of PLD programming. I did all that... nothing to do with brain functions or perception of listening to music. Nothing to do with audio hardware either. I have no problem with him at all and with kinda of the same background I think I even like him. The "good" thing about this guy is that he actually refers to this research paper and accepts it's findings! The "bad" thing is that he writes this: "Research data even suggests that the human auditory system lumps all frequencies higher than approximately 12.5 kHz into a single frequency "bin," in which humans cannot differentiate the various frequencies present." without any citation or reference and I think we can all agree that it's wrong because we all did that on-line hearing test and we could all differentiate the various frequencies. I did anyway and my ears are nothing special I'm afraid. But the scope of this discussion is wide enough as it is and I see no reason to start a SACD vs DVDA thing here or 18 bits vs 24 or dithering because it's all OT. He references this paper and doesn't have any objections to it's findings... so there's nothing to say really. > All by the same set of authors... hmm... we had 10 researchers/authors and I found 5 new ones: - Reiko YAGI The Graduate University for Advanced Studies - Masako MORIMOTO Jumonji Gakuen Women's University - Keisho SANADA Bosch Automotive Systems Corporation - Masami TOYOSHIMA Yokkaichi University - Tadao Maekawah Yokkaichi University and new sponsors incl. Kyoto University, University of Fukui etc. Additional studies, papers and new research/educational institutes involved. Added into AES publications etc. Also, all the missing details everyone wanted to see, the follow-up studies incl. finding out why and how etc. > Have they tried combining it with crystals? It's an USA university and the guy did a post-doctorate at Harvard. They do crystals? Here's his CV, compare it with our's, I think he comes out with more knowledge in this area than all of us together: http://www.public.asu.edu/~wtyler/lab/Curriculum%20Vitae.html > That appears to be a research paper for a freshman seminar is > pyschology. You disagree with it's contents? With the spectral analysis of instruments, performed by a CalTech professor in 1992? You can find his paper, incl. all the spectral graphs here: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm Section "X" is particularly interesting. From this section, plus the references, we learn that the 1991 study from Oohashi, as published by AES, was a big part of the reason for the research. I also find this (again): "In a paper published in Science, Lenhardt et al. report that "bone-conducted ultrasonic hearing has been found capable of supporting frequency discrimination and speech detection in normal, older hearing-impaired, and profoundly deaf human subjects."" This was referenced also in the 2000 paper, plus more: "An alternative explanation is that HFCs might be conveyed through pathways distinct from the usual air-conducting auditory pathway and therefore might affect the CNS, including the deep-lying brain structure. It was reported that the vibratory stimulus of ultrasound modulated by the human voice activated the primary auditory cortex (Hosoi et al. 1998) and was successfully recognized by people with normal hearing as well as those whose hearing is totally impaired (Lenhardt et al. 1991)" So, it was already known that ultrasound can be sensed and voice-modulated ultrasound even recognized by humans who are totally deaf! (Hosoi et al. 1998 & Lenhardt et al. 1991). I think it's not so bizarre anymore, do you? Also, it was said in this thread that the paper was just wrong and ignored by the world. But that turns out to be untrue! I show that it's actually used @ Berkeley University and CalTech. I read that CalTech understood the 1991 Oohashi findings already and did follow-up research, all American. The Asian instruments and/or musicians were no good but at CalTech they tested western instruments with American musicians and it turns out that us Westerners have HFC's in our music too! Compare the graphs with those of the samples used by Oohashi! But all I get to hear is "freshman's course", "crystals" etc. I would think that all this shows that the research isn't ignored at all and the scientific and academic communities have accepted it. Even the writing audio press accepts it. We did find all sorts of related previous and later studies, multiple references and no objections or rejections at all. And this is all in addition to 15 or so researchers from at least 12 Japanese research and educational institutes, which incl. the biggest and most established of Japan. And they already make ultrasonic hearing aids. When someone mentioned this earlier in the thread, I thought "here it comes" but it was completely ignored (not anti enough?). So what did they come up with: "The HiSonic(r) is a supersonic bone conduction hearing instrument. It shifts auditory sounds into the supersonic range (above 20,000 hertz) and converts them into vibrations which are transmitted to the brain by our vibrating bones (a process called bone conduction). HiSonic(r) represents the very latest technology used for hearing impairment and is the only device of its kind." And, yes, it's an all American product. Last but not least, look at all that research that is done on human sense of ultrasonic sound in the references of this US patent: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6217508.html They knew this in the 50's already. It wasn't really fair that I didn't tell about my Google-findings before and I felt a little weird saving it for later; but I just wanted to see what happened in the thread. It was mostly me defending this paper with little (but loyal) backup but meeting a massive offensive against the paper by some others. The question is why because all of us together have less knowledge and expertise in this area than each of those researchers alone! My observation is that most members didn't want to dive into the hot discussions, but they do read it, even though they must have seen it so many times before that it's... like a soap. And you know what? it -is- a soap and I actually enjoyed taking part in it, but for me the important thing is that I learned a lot about science and technology that I'm interested in. I think that the results of Oohashi's paper are not bizarre at all, and all the objections raised in this thread were countered by other findings/papers/etc. to at least a level that it's believable. But, this is the audiophile forum. These discussions here aren't about learning or having an open mind for new technologies or studies, it's all about defending our own audio kit, evading fact, finding new openings for ridiculing scientists who know so much more about it than us (and that includes me) or defending such a paper although we never even saw a PET scan being done. But the joy of taking part in discussions, knowing that we supplied many readers of this (and the other SD forums) with some more entertainment, keep the reputation of the audiophile forum up high and the new knowledge we dig up and store in braincells, makes be believe it's a wonderful forum indeed! cheers, Nick. -- DeVerm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
