IIRC, Oohashi's work was originally supported by Panasonic.
What were they selling?
IIRC, Oohashi's work was originally supported by Panasonic.
I see. We have to experience and PERCEIVE the ultrasonic, from Panasonic.IIRC, Oohashi's work was originally supported by Panasonic.
@analogSurviver has been thread banned for continuing to make suspect claims without providing any substantial means to back them up .
The resulting content inspired by his postings all falls below what I want to see here .
You want to make extraordinary claims while presenting yourself as nothing more than another anonymous random person on the internet you need to bring something worth discussing or just drop the argument.
cheers
So, ultrasonics affect us.
According to that published paper shouldn't it mellow you out, and after 200 seconds calm your brain waves a little bit?My ultrasonic cleaner makes me feel nauseated after a few minutes of operation. If I wear two sets of earplugs/muffs, it doesn't, or if I throw two thick towels over the top of it. And yet the cat or dog don't seem to care about it.
My ultrasonic cleaner makes me feel nauseated after a few minutes of operation. If I wear two sets of earplugs/muffs, it doesn't, or if I throw two thick towels...
Anyone else starting to get that familiar whiff of troll?
The reason is that both of those frequencies are in the range where the responses are not temporally encoded. Only very much lower frequencies are temporally encoded.If I my hair cells respond to 1V at 10 kHz, why don't they respond to .33V at 30 kHz (ie same rate of change).
One of numerous non scientific experiments I have done with my system is to turn off the tweeter channel which normally runs from 5K up. You hardly notice it. I have turned it off while guests were listening and nobody ever caught me. All the victims were serious audio nuts.
So, if my Googling is correct, the auditory neurons can only fire at a maximum of 500Hz and lots of other processing happens to be able to be able to detect higher frequencies. ThanksThe reason is that both of those frequencies are in the range where the responses are not temporally encoded. Only very much lower frequencies are temporally encoded.
Yes. It is a global issue in the nervous system that, inherently, neurons have a limited range of firing frequencies. The need to convey information at higher frequencies requires encoding of the signals and, in addition, various types of encoding are used in many neural systems.So, if my Googling is correct, the auditory neurons can only fire at a maximum of 500Hz and lots of other processing happens to be able to be able to detect higher frequencies. Thanks
I expect I'll get a flogging here but I'd like to understand where my logic is wrong so please bear with me if it's all been said before. The hair cells in your ears respond to movement in the air. Movement makes me think of rate of change, in a sine wave rate of change is proportional to voltage and frequency. If I my hair cells respond to 1V at 10 kHz, why don't they respond to .33V at 30 kHz (ie same rate of change). I'm not saying that at 30 kHz they can accelerate, decelerate and actually track the 30 kHz, I'm just asking will a high frequency transient have an influence on the perceived sound, and if not why not?
Did you correct for the inherent level difference between DSD and PCM?DSD sounds different than PCM. I've also A/B compared the same tracks in both formats and I can distiguish them. A lot of people prefer the sound of DSD - even PCM converted to DSD. The simple fact that different modulators and filters are used for DSD playback means it sounds slightly different from PCM. It's a matter of taste, not that one is better or more acccurate than the other.
As far as the editing of it, etc., that's irrelevant for listening purposes.
A program like Roon can make changes to DSD by converting it to multibit-DSD and back to one bit. We can argue all day whether that is DSD or not. I'd say it is, as no decimation of the DSD stream takes place. I'm not going to argue that point as it's a pointless argument.
It's been shown with measurements by people like Miska that there are setups and DACs that produce their most accurate non-distorted output when fed DSD and even 2X or 4X DSD. Sorry if that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas and your linked pages from xiph. Sometimes real world facts inconveniently don't match your ideas that you want to crusade about. Your arguments would work better if you don't set up straw men to knock down.
Yes. BTW, I don't think the difference is huge, but it is audible.Did you correct for the inherent level difference between DSD and PCM?
All good - I was just trying to join the dots that the change in voltage at the speaker terminals causes the speaker cone to move which causes the change in air pressure which causes the ear drum and other bits to move which causes the hair cells to move and then understand where this stops being a causal linear(ish) chain.A sine wave doesn't have to be a voltage. It can represent just about anything - or be a completely abstract mathematical construct.
In the case of sound, it's air pressure, not voltage. Sound, when processed electronically, can be represented by a voltage. But once it leaves a loudspeaker, it's air waves (ie, pressure changes, not a voltage).
So your ear hair cells aren't responding to 1V at 10kHz or .33V at 3kHz or any other voltage. They're responding to changes in air pressure.