• 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!

THD, Noise, THD+N. Isn't It All Just Noise?

OP
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Major Contributor
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
1,238
Likes
1,484
I would hope cadavers would not shed light on any useful issues.

I am, frankly, surprised by such a flippant response from somebody in the audio business. One doesn't have to think terribly hard to see where such research could be quite useful to the fields of acoustics and psychoacoustics.

Cadaver research produces useful findings on things like the natural resonance of an ear canal or eardrum to be measured. Post mortem is examination inner ear structures, which can tell researchers how the human ear works (beyond the macro tympanic membrane view). Destructive testing of tissue can determine its mechanical limits.

This kind of work was apparently useful enough for the Nobel Committee to grant a prize to Dr. Békésy in 1961.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3449028/

"One issue in all of Békésy’s work is his near exclusive use of unfixed cadaveric material. While this choice has a large impact on studies of inner ear mechanics, in which the gain of the cochlear amplifier has been lost, its impact on studies of the middle ear and other sound conduction paths is much smaller: The passive mechanical properties of tissues are not much altered by death, as long as the tissues are kept fresh and moist. Comparisons of multiple middle-ear mechanical measurements in collections of live-human and cadaveric ears show great similarities (Rosowski et al. 1990; Goode et al. 1996; Chen et al. 2009), and where they exist, there are generally significant similarities between modern results and Békésy’s."

"Some less-developed ideas of Bekesy’s are relevant to continued research today."

"Another approach to understanding BC [bone conduction] hearing is the use of finite element computational models. While these had previously been used for understanding structure-function relationships for the AC pathway, Bohnke and Arnold (2006) were the first to apply finite element methods to the study of BC. More recently, Homma et al. (2009) used a finite element model, validated against measurements from cadaver ears"
 

MetalheadRich

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
40
Likes
12
In my world distortion from nonlinearity is not treated the same as random noise. Distortion is much more obnoxious and easier to hear IME. And note harmonic distortion means intermodulation distortion as well and to me that is the worst offender.

YMMV - Don

not sure why you would consider IMD to be harmonic distortion. care to explain?
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,067
Location
Zg, Cro
Psychoacoustic science in general doesn't claim that humans can hear ultrasonic frequencies. But @GrimSurfer is correct that some folks do make this claim, and they cite a few well-worn sources for it. It turns out that every single one of those sources is based on a single study, the Oohashi study, which claimed to find that ultrasonics create some kind of neurological or psychoacoustic effect that influences how people hear music, and which causes them to perceive the music as sounding better when the ultrasonics are part of the signal.

The study was done with a very small subject group, included results that contradict its main claimed finding, has been criticized on multiple grounds, and - unsurprisingly - has not been able to be replicated by anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_effect

I am not exaggerating when I say that every claim and source citation on behalf of the audibility (or other brain impact) of ultrasonics rests on this single study: Every single comment and article I've ever read that argues we can hear ultrasonics either (a) doesn't cite any sources; (b) cites Oohashi; or (c) cites sources that themselves cite Oohashi, and only Oohashi.

Well, if it was a single study, and nobody managed to repeat it, it seems pretty irrelevant, doesn't it?
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
Wasn't the Oohashi study discredited because it was found that their system was causing audible aliasing artifacts?
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,482
Likes
25,234
Location
Alfred, NY
Well, if it was a single study, and nobody managed to repeat it, it seems pretty irrelevant, doesn't it?

Yes, but as with Gaquelin for astrology and Benveniste for homeopathy, true believers will continue to drag out the corpse for display.
 

Dj7675

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
2,140
Likes
2,809
These are the kinds of discussions you just don’t find in very many places. A great initial post, and comments from people that actually know something. Learned something today.
 
OP
GrimSurfer

GrimSurfer

Major Contributor
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
1,238
Likes
1,484
Thanks, @Dj7675. I ran things past @Blumlein 88 before posting, as he (and others contributing to the thread) know a great deal.
 
Top Bottom