Re: Wasn't v. Helmholtz right? (Eckard Blumschein )

Subject: Re: Wasn't v. Helmholtz right?
From:    Eckard Blumschein  <Eckard.Blumschein(at)E-TECHNIK.UNI-MAGDEBURG.DE>
Date:    Tue, 23 May 2000 08:39:49 +0200

Dear Bill, thank you for the address! My question rather implicated a judgement by Roy Patterson, since I was aware of a poster by S. Fobel, St. Uppenkampf, R. Patterson, and B. Kollmeier, entitled Asymmetry in Perception of Short Chirp Cignals, presented in Oldenburg, and dealing with two types of stimuli. Chirps with rising frequency were calculated to compensate for the dispersion of traveling wave. Dau postulated that this up-chirping will sound more compact than an ordinary click and much more compact than chirps with falling frequency. The opposite seems to be true. Concerning the reply by Jont Allen, I feel a little bit embarrassed. Fortunately, I have no idea who is suggested to die and why. - Eckard

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University