Interesting article on our hearing ability.

[Rothchild]

Sounds like you knew it ALL already and so this is so very boring for you to read...

Actually Sam, no. Bringing out the notion that the transient response is being accentuated by the non-linearity of the cochlea and considering it's evolved value is an aspect I hadn't really considered, certainly not in the way you've put it. Also, the observation that the results demonstrate that the brain doesn't 'correct' for the functioning of the ear is a very valid point that tells us something interesting about the ear/brain interface.

Are you talking about shannon and nyquist sampling theorum? Or did Nyquist do other notable work in this area?

I think I may have misused 'interesting' as probably meant 'novel' or surprising, so I'm sorry if anyone thought it meant I was talking about something I find boring. The function of the ear/brain and the physics of sound are, by simple merit of the fact that I'm in to music and sound reproduction, interesting subjects.

[cloth-ears]

Science has a valid role to play in the pursuit of Hi-Fi excellence. The knowledge it brings to the table allows us to concentrate on what matters and to ignore what doesn’t.

[walpurgis]

Science has a valid role to play in the pursuit of Hi-Fi excellence. The knowledge it brings to the table allows us to concentrate on what matters and to ignore what doesn’t.

Who are these "us" and how would they discriminate between 'what matters and what doesn't' ?

[cloth-ears]

Who are these "us" and how would they discriminate between 'what matters and what doesn't' ?

“Us” is anyone who believes in fundamental scientific principles. Applying these principles would tell “us” if placing a pot of jam on a speaker wire makes it sound better or not.

[Marco]

Science has a valid role to play in the pursuit of Hi-Fi excellence.

Yes of course, for those who build and produce our equipment, it is an undeniable necessity. Those of us who simply buy it and listen to it, however, don't need science to help us enjoy our equipment or the music it produces!

Marco.

[Macca]

Yes of course, for those who build and produce our equipment, it is an undeniable necessity. Those of us who simply buy it and listen to it, however, don't need science to help us enjoy our music!

Marco.

It can be useful for determining what we buy - or at least what we decide to try out. For example If you had 10K to spend on speakers there is no way you can dem every 10K speaker in your own home. So having some knowledge of the design and the specs is helpful to ascertain if they will be a match with your room and your amplification.

[walpurgis]

“Us” is anyone who believes in fundamental scientific principles. Applying these principles would tell “us” if placing a pot of jam on a speaker wire makes it sound better or not.

I must admit I've not tried that. What were your findings?

[Jimbo]

I found the article interesting in that it has been found that our hearing and the ears structure is more complicated than we had previously thought. In particular the discovery that our hearing was more sensitive to transients than had been imagined has consequential implications for audio equipment design especially in the digital field where transients fall short of our hearings ability.

Personally I trust what my ears tell me and not science and equipment that measures sound. Hearing is not all about the ear/brain interaction but also possibly much more complicated in that other senses may also be involved in a form of synathaesia.

[Marco]

It can be useful for determining what we buy - or at least what we decide to try out. For example If you had 10K to spend on speakers there is no way you can dem every 10K speaker in your own home. So having some knowledge of the design and the specs is helpful to ascertain if they will be a match with your room and your amplification.

Yes sure, if you're that way inclined. I don't seem to have done too badly though, mainly using my ears, good judgement and gut instincts!

Marco [Who's listening room is a test apparatus-free zone. No blindfolds either, except for bondage purposes].

[Rothchild]

I found the article interesting in that it has been found that our hearing and the ears structure is more complicated than we had previously thought. In particular the discovery that our hearing was more sensitive to transients than had been imagined has consequential implications for audio equipment design especially in the digital field where transients fall short of our hearings ability.

I'm not getting this point from the article though, I'd previously have thought 3ms quite a large margin of error (it's certainly easily captured with a 'basic' 16bit 44.1kHz sampling) but the article seems to suggest that transient detection of this order is somehow 'super hearing'. It interesting insofar as 3ms is also something of a benchmark for a good studio monitoring system (if you can't achieve proper realtime) after 3ms one starts to notice a certain 'sponginess' to the foldback in the cans against what's being played.

Hearing is not all about the ear/brain interaction but also possibly much more complicated in that other senses may also be involved in a form of synathaesia.

Agreed, which was why I said earlier that the ear was 'mostly' the apparatus for hearing (cos of infrasonics etc)