DeVerm;353513 Wrote: > > 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: > > <snip> > > 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; > This is getting so abstract and confusing I can't keep my head straight. We're arguing over procedural and academic points about research which in the first place isn't properly directed at the real issue.
Personally I'm not interested in several things including (all touched upon in this thread or the audiophile forum regularly): - whether ultrasonics can be transmitted through bones (using 'direct drive' as per the patent). - whether instruments have a high spectral content. - hi-rez is more accurate or contains more bandwidth or data rate than red book. - whether introducing ultrasonic sound into an artificially deadened environment makes my brain light up (might be a little more interested if the test was constructed in a way to demonstrate this works _only_ for harmonically related ultrasonics, as per Mr. O's sentiments; might be more interested yet if this was done with classical music recorded at normal distances). - whether hi-rez is necessary for studio processing. If we stopped talking about peripheral stuff it would make it easier for peeps to respond sensibly. "Research shows SACD played through an ultrasound cleaning device can clean my teeth better than red book." It proves something, yes. It's not something I believe should change my music listening habits. This is about whether the difference is audible listening to music at normal volumes using a domestic audio system. The question is important because, as mentioned, there are some material factors in red book's favour (otherwise, I would switch to hi-rez just to avoid this thread!). Darren -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz -> Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) -> PMC AB-1 Dell laptop -> JVC UX-C30 mini system ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
