On 02/22/2013 03:25 AM, Eric Carmichel wrote: >> I’ll confess ignorance when it comes to knowledge of a separate or >> unique physiological mechanism used to localize (or omni-ize) >> ultra-low frequencies.
Jörn Nettingsmeier <[email protected]> wrote: > same here. if there is indeed a special mechanism at work, i'd like to learn >what it might be. AND > yeah, the "inability to localise bass sounds" is a very persistant urban > myth. >"in rooms", ok, but anybody who has been near an open-air rocknroll stage >during >subwoofer calibration will have no trouble localising the sound :) Indeed, the same time-based mechanism for localization appears to operate down to the lowest audible frequencies. There is very little published about this because it would appear that psychoacousticians consider 125 Hz to be a 'very low frequency'. The best reference of which I know is Klumpp and Eady, "Some Measurements of Interaural Time Difference Thresholds", JASA Vol 28, No.5. Their data shows that the threshold of detection increases monotonically from 1 kHz down to 90 Hz, and post hoc analysis shows that the threshold is proportional to 1/f. My own measurements show good localization performance down to 50 Hz or so. If any of you have better references on low-frequency localization, I'd like to read them. So far as the in-room localization is concerned, I experience strong localization down to the lowest frequencies for sinusoids. The trouble is that the localization is almost always wrong. Standing waves cause there to be large Interaural Level Differences which wouldn't occur out-of-doors, resulting in near and in-head localization. I can see no reason why the low-frequency localization mechanisms would suddenly fail at low frequencies. They get less sensitive but just keep working. Eric Benjamin _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
