Re: AUDITORY Digest - 4 Oct 2001 to 6 Oct 2001 (#2001-181) (Jont Allen )

Subject: Re: AUDITORY Digest - 4 Oct 2001 to 6 Oct 2001 (#2001-181)
From:    Jont Allen  <jba(at)RESEARCH.ATT.COM>
Date:    Mon, 8 Oct 2001 08:48:28 -0400

Christian, I believe that this is the job of ANSI and ISO standards committees. It is a somewhat thankless job, usually supported by those industries or companies who care about each definition. For example if you build an audiometer, you needs standards to define ''normal'' hearing. On the internet we are used to RFP's (Request for proposal) and the process is much more open. If you want to buy an ANSI standard, you can get them from the Acoustical Society. I was at least one person who raised this issue, as I disagree with several of the definitions, and usage. If you look back in the archives, you will find discussions between Chris Plack and myself on the topic of masking. For example, I have a bad feeling about the term dB-SPL when referring to pressure re 20 uPa, when the answer you get, in dB, is different than what you would get if you calculated a power or energy ratio definition for the same situation. As an example, take the case of standing waves in the ear canal. The pressure does not do a good job of indicating where the power is flowing, and dB-SPL re 20 uPa is a pretty useless concept. As discussed in this forum, I also question the standard (ANSI) definition of masking. I believe earplugs would fall under the ANSI/ISO definitions of masking, as they reduce the audibility of sound. This is not in the spirit of what I think masking should be. I feel (and I am not alone) that masking should correspond to cases where the signal to noise ratio is changed. If a noise obliterates a tone, then it masks the tone. If the noise reduces the loudness, then I would not say it masks the tone (though it might mask the spread of excitation elsewhere along the place axis). This is one of those topics where everybody has an opinion. So please keep your resonses short and to the point. Jont Automatic digest processor wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 17:43:50 +0200 > From: Christian Kaernbach <chris(at)PSYCHOLOGIE.UNI-LEIPZIG.DE> > Subject: Standardization > > I remember vaguely that years ago on this list there has been mentioning > of "official" definitions of terminology, be it loudness, pitch, > perception, sensation, ... > > My question today is: Who did it? Which organization was/is trying to > establish a standard terminology? Can these definitions be found in the > internet? Is there "competition" (e.g. between international versus > national bodies)? I would also be curious to learn which kind of > procedure was employed (e.g., was there a prepublication and demand for > feedback from scientists active in this field, etc.), and whether such > endeavors were also extended to other subject matters beyond > psychoacoustics. Also comments on the usefulness and appropriateness of > these definitions are welcome. > > Christian > > ------------------------------ > > End of AUDITORY Digest - 4 Oct 2001 to 6 Oct 2001 (#2001-181) > ************************************************************* -- "A computer without Windows is like a chocolate cake without mustard." Jont B. Allen, 973/360-8545 voice, 775/796-9844 (fax), 908/789-9575 (home fax) Technology Leader Speech Processing Software and Technology Research Room E161, AT&T Labs-Research, Shannon Laboratory 180 Park Ave., Florham Park NJ, 07932-0971

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