Re: High-frequency hearing in humans (Neil Waterman )


Subject: Re: High-frequency hearing in humans
From:    Neil Waterman  <neil.waterman@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:22:53 -0500
List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>

Not wishing to pile on, but unfortunately I have to say I too am very skeptical of such claims.... Unless the replay system these claimed differences are heard on is really top-notch, there is no way this can make any sense. As Bob notes below, there are a very small fraction of loudspeakers with any output of meaningful quality beyond 18-20kHz, let alone 24kHz and seriously... good luck finding with something out to 48kHz. Even if the replay system is able to provide a linear response out to 48kHz, unless he/you are creating/recording the source material, I don't know where/what that might be coming from? And remember the recording system/microphone/etc need to have the same wide-band response for this to make any sense....). Regards, Neil www.asti-usa.com On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Bob Masta wrote: > On 3 Feb 2011 at 23:08, Kevin Austin wrote: > > <snip> >> Anecdotally, I know someone who can 'hear a difference' >> between a 96kHz and 192kHz recording. He's not sure >> "what" the difference is, but he hears it. [He's one of >> the few people whose hearing I really trust.] This >> implies [somehow] that there are / were people who had >> this 'extra' advantage of extremely wide frequency >> response. > > I must say I am extremely skeptical that he is actually > hearing a frequency response difference. If these are > commerical music recordings, then I would ask what else is > different besides the sample rates... a "premium" recording > might also use different microphones, different placement, > etc, etc. > > Not intending to offend your friend, but I have noticed > that, in general, when such "extreme audiophile" claims are > made they never involve double-blind testing. Admittedly, > that might be very difficult to do properly, so that a > stray perceptual cue didn't give away the game. But > otherwise this is a case of extraordinary claims needing > extraordinary evidence. > > If he really can hear a difference in sample rates, and it > is not due to anti-aliasing filter artifacts, then > presumably he could be tested entirely with 192 kHz > material that had various cutoff frequencies applied, or > (better yet) using synthesized clicks having controlled > spectral content. > > And note that getting headphones or speakers that have > acceptable output above even 24 kHz is not trivial, and > above 48 kHz is probably going to involve a quest in > itself. > > > Best regards, > > > Bob Masta > > D A Q A R T A > Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis > www.daqarta.com > Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Signal Generator > Science with your sound card! >


This message came from the mail archive
/home/empire6/dpwe/public_html/postings/2011/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University