http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-f...principle.html
Printable View
Ha - one in the eye for the oscilloscope-carrying 'our senses are shit' brigade! ;)
Marco.
Yep:lol:
This ties in a lot with the benefits of high-res which people ignore - impulse response! Impulse response is all about the timing which is what this paper seems to be saying in a confusing kind of way... They are recognising that our hearing is more sensitive to timing and impulse than was previously thought it seems.
So.... err, how does this relate to Nyquist Theorum, the Fourier Uncertainty principle inherent within it and this saying that our ears don't comply with that Fourier Uncertainty principle? Does this mean that PCM digital inherently falls short of the timing sensitivity of our hearing?
Sounds like some kind of non-linear digital conversion technique is needed for both A/D and D/A.
That's what I always think... and therefore try to test a system or bit of kit with non-musical sounds and soundscapes to see how real they feel. A much better test than music in my opinion. Probably also why there is such pleasure in a dynamic, fast speaker (for me).Quote:
Building on the current results, the researchers are now investigating how human hearing is more finely tuned toward natural sounds, and also studying the temporal factor in hearing.
"Such increases in performance cannot occur in general without some assumptions," Magnasco said. "For instance, if you're testing accuracy vs. resolution, you need to assume all signals are well separated. We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, as opposed to abstract time-series; this comes under the rubric of 'ecological theories of perception' in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry. We just tested that subjects do much better in discriminating timing and frequency in the forward version than in the time-reversed version (manuscript submitted). Therefore the nervous system uses specific information on the physics of sound production to extract information from the sensory stream.
An excellent approach Sam, I've always though spoken voice is a good test if you haven't access to anything else.
It reminds me of a former headmaster, who had ESL57's, telling me that a number of people thought that someone was in the other room, when it was Radio 4 playing through the 57's.
:)
I'm waiting for the day when they prove that some people can hear differences between cables. Will be good fun bringing up all the old cable threads and laughing at the patronising naysayers.
I know you'd love to believe it was but there's nothing in the article that seems to suggest that this is the case. What they're saying is that a principal designed to apply to linear systems (Fourier Uncertainty) doesn't serve to aid our understanding in quite the same way when applied to a non-linear system (the cochlea). The researchers express surprise at how good humans are at discerning timing cues (in particular), yes, but look a bit closer at the level of the timing cue they are working with...
The most exceptional candidate could differentiate sounds with a 3ms acuity, pretty impressive, but this only represents about 132 samples at 44.1kHz and is a signal / duration that wouldn't be difficult to measure with pretty rudimentary equipment. Given that the article seems to go on to suggest that being able to tell which room of the house someone is calling you from represents a 'hyper acuity' I would humbly suggest they're quite some way off of saying anything about the different sonic qualities of mains cables.
Still, it's nice to know we're all contributing to an open minded, welcoming forum where diverse views are welcome and the most important upshot is more hifi enjoyment....
Well, Marc, in that case we'll have to agree to disagree. For me, it quite clearly demonstrates that our human senses (albeit only in certain exceptional individuals) are rather more sensitive/accurate than science had previously given them credit for!
Perhaps if there was more of such credit given to the ability/acuity of our senses, as opposed to ridiculing what they reveal as 'imagined' (the common behaviour of 'objectivists' when it suits their shortsighted and simplistic thinking agendas), then we might actually learn more? :)
Marco.
I think that will be a long wait. If anything this is yet another nail in the coffin of the anti-science, anti-measuring brigade. This study was carried out using precise measuring equipment in a scientifically controlled environment. It just goes to show that you “can” measure what you hear. Something I and many others have been saying all along. The evidence it there if you look. The only difference between me and you is that I’m not laughing at your beliefs. This is a forum; we are all entitled to our opinions. If you can show me some tangible evidence that supports your claim I am more than happy to listen