Indeed, we *do* hear higher frequencies if we transmit the sound directly to the skull bone or, as I read in a recent paper, through the eyes, which then gets transmitted to the nerves or to the skull from there (so it seems that the bottleneck is the tympanic cavity).
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Hypex nCore vs Class A amps
- Thread starter ppataki
- Start date
Indeed, we *do* hear higher frequencies if we transmit the sound directly to the skull bone or, as I read in a recent paper, through the eyes, which then gets transmitted to the nerves or to the skull from there (so it seems that the bottleneck is the tympanic cavity).
We are still waiting for someone to demonstrate these claims about class D sounding different with a proper ABX test. My own experience, in a primitive, but blind, test, was that the differences evaporated after level-matching and not knowing which amp was playing. I don't think all amps will sound alike double blind, but research suggests that audible differences are overwhelmingly likely to be restricted to amplifiers with significant deviations from flat frequency response and/or poor electrical matching to load (eg. tube output transformer to difficult load), creating same, but randomly. Or just audible distortion.
and this is good, because you can spend more on speakers, EQ and room treatment with the money you save not buying Audio Research/Krell/whatever kilobuck monsters.
Hopefully everyone has considered audiophile experiments like this as they decide where to prioritize their spending: http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
and this is good, because you can spend more on speakers, EQ and room treatment with the money you save not buying Audio Research/Krell/whatever kilobuck monsters.
Hopefully everyone has considered audiophile experiments like this as they decide where to prioritize their spending: http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
That is stretching the definition of "hear". So we don't actually pick up ultrasonic sound waves from the air unless we make special arrangements to transmit them directly to the skull bone.
Good example of the sort of true-but-irrelevant canard people use to justify higher-priced equipment.
Although Beekhuyzen's steak analogy was a real puzzler (I've been told not to link, but it's in his 12 minute distraction from actually addressing blind testing, entitled "Double Blind Testing")
Indeed, but I still feel it may be relevant to how we perceive some music. We do not actually "hear" very low bass pulses either, but certainly feeling them has an effect on our appreciation of the music which they convey. The psychoacoustic research into these kinds of elements seems quite incomplete at this point, especially as to how we appreciate music, but anyone who has links to more relevant research on this, please share.
As usual, I would love to see some validated evidence.
Don't they use THX feed forward technology?
THX 789.
However similar spectrum thus similar possible audible effect if too high level.
Actually Purifi are the measurement Champs in Class D.
Yep, and there are also NCore modules that outperform thet 252. Like the NC400.
Although we are probably in non-audible territory here (unless the extra power is required)
...I wondered what your like was all about.
I had a good laugh while reading. He got a like. If the question is why did I laugh, well, you may have noticed that the guy was quite agressive (in addition to proudly display his ignorance). Was there any better reaction to have in such a situation?
Absolutely. A well deserved sarcastic like.
I'll second this. Very often I see statements characterizing the sound signature of the different classes, but these statements are almost never backed up by anything. These kinds of claims should be backed up in two ways. There should be references to proper, controlled listening tests that verify that the supposed signatures are real and apply to the respective classes in a general way. There should also be plausible explanations for why the given class has the specific sound signature that it is claimed to have. Instead of these things that are obviously needed, what we see too often, with these kinds of statements about amplifier classes and with various other audio beliefs, is another assertive statement that typically involves "dynamics".
BrokenEnglishGuy
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2020
- Messages
- 1,933
- Likes
- 1,154
i have 3 amps
headphone class A
nad class AB speakers
Purifi class D
I don't detect any weird thing with my purifi, just a awesome amplifier with so much power.
pd: I was expecting something weird in the highs, but the highs only sound really clean and real, good amplifier..
headphone class A
nad class AB speakers
Purifi class D
I don't detect any weird thing with my purifi, just a awesome amplifier with so much power.
pd: I was expecting something weird in the highs, but the highs only sound really clean and real, good amplifier..
Last edited:
I too came here with many preconceived beliefs re: electronics, sound, psychoacoustics, etc and was quickly humbled by the sheer magnitude of brain power and expertise in these areas and out of a sense of humbled awe I tried to shut up and listen-however, we are all eager to chat and throw our beliefs out into this group of EE's and designers and want them to either reinforce them or tear them down. Most of mine have been torn down, and that's ok now. It's saved me a LOT of money and time researching subjective sites and YouTube videos-I now rely on 75%<>25% objective measurements vs subjective listening. My big takeaway after lurking here for several months: You don't realize what you don't know because you don't have the background in science and engineering to understand the arguments and sometimes even the measurements. Thank goodness Amir is now posting YT vids explaining some of these measurements and how they translate (or not) into audio. Don't get discouraged, but don't continue to hit your head against the wall-it's far harder than your head.
Yes, it is a bit stretching, but we *do* pick some ultrasonic sound through the eyes, apparently, here's the paper on the subject.
I am not claiming that because of this we must reproduce higher frequencies (in fact, I resample all of my hires to either 44,1 or 48 Khz, just to tell you how much I care about those extra frequencies) but it is an interesting subject. So claiming that we are not sensitive to frequencies over 20hz is not entirely correct - even though my personal experience is that I cannot hear higher than 14Khz through the ears...
Last edited:
Similar threads
