Search results

That's not how ABX testing works. It's not "back to back", and hearing does not have the chemical "hangover" effects of taste and smell. The issue with touch is not that the sensation goes away, but rather it ceases to alarm.

The answer is a bit complicated. With any threshold detection, there are two functions, the function that shows "missing an event that occurred" and the function that shows "hearing an event that did not happen". As it happens, experience and various work in cognitive areas far from my area of...

The HF cutoff is very sharp, because the energy has passed through the basilar membrane (much like a transmission filter). I dare say I said it backwards? Did I? Yeah, I answered from the POV of the basilar membrane position. I'll fix it.

Well, I'd use 25dB/erb slope on the high frequency side, 15dB slope on the lower frequency side, and flat in the middle except for a 6dB bump in the middle third. (edited to correct my own mixing of position vs. frequency, duh)

Absolutely. As an aside, it would be nice if people would throw out level-only panpots, but I'm not holding my breath, because low rate codecs that insist on things like "intensity stereo" will utterly destroy a properly done signal. :(

Go watch the hearing tutorial at the PNW site as long as it's still up. At low frequencies, positive going on the basilar membrane, yes. Above 800Hz that starts to lose importance, about 2kHz for all practical purposes (there is some remaining waveform sensitivity to 4k,but it's overwhelmed...

Yeah, and of course, even that is missing effectively all of the actual soundfield information. Very much so. In fact, using modern software like we made a few years ago, you can make the ILLUSION better by using the fact you know it's an illusion to start with.

What comes out of a stereo reproducer set is nothing like the original soundfield at all. It collapses a very complex 3-dimensional variable to 2 particular single-value measurements. So in terms of "sound stage" and the like, it's all illusion. This has nothing to do with blind testing, so...

You are correct, and, of course, you will have to devise some way to run a blind test and compare "width" vs. your measure. Trust me, I know that's a pain in the butt.

Well, below 50Hz you're working at the very end of the basilar membrane, so grouping everything BELOW (thanks, bmc0) that might be reasonable. Above that, maybe 30Hz bands would suffice. The length of the required cochlear filters will rather point out the slowness of the mechanism, and you...

The thing that I haven't fooled with yet is the level issue, which is also involved, I suspect the variation in arrival coupled with the energy is going to turn out to be the metric, but I've been busy doing retirement.

Also, once again, your skin, via touch, detects very high intensity ultrasound. Ask anyone stationed on a sub.

Sudden onset spreads the bandwidth of a signal FAR above AND BELOW the center frequency, indeed. The Columbia experiments in the 1970's and 1980's very much showed the active issues, but it still seems that the rigidity of the outer hair cells plays a huge part in all of that (which makes...

No replication. Noisy setup, rather a lot of potential confusing issues present. Have you ever BEEN in an MRI? What about proper blinding, proper data presentation, positive controls, negative controls, actual in-ear measures of the 'harmonics', considerations of the interference with the...

Attacks are indeed more important. Of course, since the ear does a time-frequency analysis, nobody should be surprised, and nobody who works in hearing is the slightest bit surprised. The question is "what part of that gets to the auditory nerve" and that, frankly, is not that hard to know...

In some fashions we are. That's several orders of magnitude, like about 4, longer than redbook CD can manage. *ding* Give that man a cigar!

Well, when it comes to the "we didn't know" we knew the phenomenon in the 1930's that he says we didn't know until the 1970's, about compression, for example. Ditto the "frequency selectivity" and the compression aspect of how the ear actually reacted. Look at Fletcher's masking studies in the...

Well, the two time constants in the auditory system that might make sense are the 100ms and about 2 seconds. I think that the 2 seconds will miss the point of envelopment, which has to change inside that window. I just did some stuff on crosscorrelation and level. Trying to figure out how to...

Doing this on 50-100 millisecond windows makes more sense than the one size fits all calculation I did. Maybe I'll write something to iterate over appropriate block lengths with a Hann window and see what crawls out.

I just ran about 30 tracks through matlab. Clunky, slow. I filtered the L and R to 60Hz, with a filter cutting off by 80dB at 120Hz. (long FIR constant delay filter) and then rudely calculated the normalized cross-correlation between the two channels ( this means I ignored level differences, but...