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 12:37:52 -0500
List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>

--Apple-Mail-6-706293186 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Thank you Brian - for those without access to the document, the = following is the relevant segment from the Discussion: The subjects could discriminate the stimuli with and without ultrasounds only when all components were mixed and presented through the same loudspeaker. When as many as 6 loudspeakers were used in order to prevent intermodulation, no one could discriminate the stimuli. No significant difference was found between monaural and stereophonic conditions. It was indicated from the results that the non-linear interaction of ultrasounds in the air or in the auditory system was, if any, not so much as that in the average loudspeakers as far as the level of the signal did not exceed 80 dB SPL. It was shown that under conditions in which experimental artifacts had been adequately eliminated, ultrasounds would be extremely difficult to be perceived. They may have little influence on the sound image and its localization Basically in the single-speaker case (response of the speaker claimed to = 50kHz) measurable intermodulation distortion was documented, leading to = the ability to detect the ultrasound harmonics (since these artifacts = started in the sub-20kHz region). When intermodulation distortion was avoided (using individual speakers = to deliver each harmonic beyond 20kHz) no detectability for the = ultrasound components was seen in the test subjects. And yes, the issue below with the Matlab below is aliasing - a rather = fundamental issue when attempting to synthesize waveforms. - Neil On Feb 4, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Brian C. J. Moore wrote: > Deall All, >=20 > In connection with this thread, I suggest taking a look at: >=20 > Ashihara, K. and Kiryu, S. (2000). Influence of expanded frequency = band of signals on non-linear characteristics of loudspeakers, J. = Acoust. Soc. Jap. (J) 56, 549-555. > Ashihara, K. and Kiryu, S. (2003). Audibility of components above 22 = kHz in a complex tone, Acustica - acta acustica 89, 540-546. >=20 > Brian Moore >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Just to show that it is not a simple question of loudspeaker quality = but also of recording quality I send you a Matlab script producing one = square wave "sampled" at 48000 and another at 192000 Hz. The difference = is audible through any loudspeaker. =20 >>=20 >> clear all >> sf1 =3D 48000; >> sf2 =3D 192000; >> dt1 =3D 1/sf1; >> dt2 =3D 1/sf2; >> du =3D 1; >> f0 =3D 5000; >> t1 =3D 0:dt1:du; >> t2 =3D 0:dt2:du; >> s1 =3D square(2*pi*f0*t1); >> s2 =3D square(2*pi*f0*t2); >> sound(s1, sf1) >> wavwrite(s1, sf1, 's48000') >> pause(1) >> sound(s2, sf2) >> wavwrite(s2, sf2, 's192000') >>=20 >>=20 >> Best, >> Dik >>=20 >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception >> > [ mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Joachim Thiemann >> > Sent: vrijdag 4 februari 2011 15:37 >> > To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx >> > Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] High-frequency hearing in humans >> >=20 >> > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 23:08, Kevin Austin = <kevin.austin@xxxxxxxx> >> > wrote: >> > > A colleague of mine has been working on clicks in an = electroacoustics >> > aural perception course. He discovered that a 48kHz sampling rate = was >> > "too crude", and that working at 96kHz (or higher), the differences >> > between clicks over 8kHz were noticeable. This is not quite what >> > sampling theory seems to say. At 44.1kHz, a single sample click >> > represents 22kHz, and a two sample click represents 11kHz. How does = one >> > represent a 16kHz click with a 44.1kHz sampling rate? >> >=20 >> > I think one has to be careful about the actual D/A hardware in = these >> > cases. Oversampled sigma/delta? R-2R? What are the postfilter >> > characteristics? I think with these type of stimuli, differences >> > might be audible: even if the same soundcard is used at different >> > rates, the filter should change. The differences in filter >> > characteristics might extend to lower frequencies, where they might = be >> > picked up by individuals with good hearing. >> >=20 >> > Joe. >> >=20 >> > -- >> > Joachim Thiemann :: http://www.tsp.ece.mcgill.ca/~jthiem >=20 > Brian C. J. Moore, Ph.D, FMedSci, FRS, > Professor of Auditory Perception, > Department of Experimental Psychology, > University of Cambridge, > Downing Street, > Cambridge CB2 3EB, > UK > Tel. +44 (0) 1223 333574 > Fax. +44 (0) 1223 333564 > http://hearing.psychol.cam.ac.uk >=20 --Apple-Mail-6-706293186 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; = "><div><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: = separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; = font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; = letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: = auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; = widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; = -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; = -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: = auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; ">Thank you Brian - for those = without access to the document, the following is the relevant segment = from the Discussion:<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: = medium;"><br></span></span></div><div><br = class=3D"webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><div style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: = normal normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">The subjects could = discriminate the stimuli with and without</div><div style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: = normal normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">ultrasounds only when all = components were mixed and presented</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal = normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">through the same loudspeaker. When = as many as 6 loudspeakers</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal = normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">were used in order to prevent = intermodulation, no one could</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal = normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">discriminate the stimuli. No = significant difference was found</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal = normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">between monaural and stereophonic = conditions. It was indicated from</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal = normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">the results that the non-linear = interaction of ultrasounds in the air or</div><div style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: = normal normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">in the auditory system was, = if any, not so much as that in the average</div><div style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: = normal normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">loudspeakers as far as the = level of the signal did not exceed 80 dB</div><div style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: = normal normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">SPL.</div><div = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 8px/normal Helvetica; ">It = was shown that under conditions in which experimental = artifacts</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal = 8px/normal Helvetica; ">had been adequately eliminated, ultrasounds = would be extremely</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal = 8px/normal Helvetica; ">difficult to be perceived. They may have little = influence on the sound</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal = 8px/normal Helvetica; ">image and its localization</div></div> <div><br></div><div>Basically in the single-speaker case (response of = the speaker claimed to 50kHz) measurable intermodulation distortion was = documented, leading to the ability to detect the ultrasound harmonics = (since these artifacts started in the sub-20kHz = region).</div><div><br></div><div>When intermodulation distortion was = avoided (using individual speakers to deliver each harmonic beyond = 20kHz) no detectability for the ultrasound components was seen in the = test subjects.</div><div><br></div><div>And yes, the issue below with = the Matlab below is aliasing - a rather fundamental issue when = attempting to synthesize waveforms.</div><div><br></div><div>- = Neil</div><br><div><div>On Feb 4, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Brian C. J. Moore = wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote = type=3D"cite"><div> Deall All,<br><br> In connection with this thread, I suggest taking a look at:<br><br> <font face=3D"Times New Roman, Times">Ashihara, K. and Kiryu, S. (2000). Influence of expanded frequency band of signals on non-linear characteristics of loudspeakers, <i>J. Acoust. Soc. Jap. (J)</i> <b>56</b>, 549-555.<br> Ashihara, K. and Kiryu, S. (2003). Audibility of components above 22 kHz in a complex tone, <i>Acustica - acta acustica</i> <b>89</b>, 540-546.<br><br> </font>Brian Moore<br><br> <br><br> <br> <blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D"cite" cite=3D"">Just to show that it = is not a simple question of loudspeaker quality but also of recording quality I send you a Matlab script producing one square wave "sampled" at 48000 and another at 192000 Hz.&nbsp; The difference is audible through any loudspeaker.&nbsp; <br><br> clear all<br> sf1 =3D 48000;<br> sf2 =3D 192000;<br> dt1 =3D 1/sf1;<br> dt2 =3D 1/sf2;<br> du =3D 1;<br> f0 =3D 5000;<br> t1 =3D 0:dt1:du;<br> t2 =3D 0:dt2:du;<br> s1 =3D square(2*pi*f0*t1);<br> s2 =3D square(2*pi*f0*t2);<br> sound(s1, sf1)<br> wavwrite(s1, sf1, 's48000')<br> pause(1)<br> sound(s2, sf2)<br> wavwrite(s2, sf2, 's192000')<br><br> <br> Best,<br> Dik<br><br> &gt; -----Original Message-----<br> &gt; From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception<br> &gt; [<a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx" eudora=3D"autourl"> mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a>] On Behalf Of Joachim Thiemann<br> &gt; Sent: vrijdag 4 februari 2011 15:37<br> &gt; To: <a = href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a><br> &gt; Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] High-frequency hearing in humans<br> &gt; <br> &gt; On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 23:08, Kevin Austin &lt;<a = href=3D"mailto:kevin.austin@xxxxxxxx">kevin.austin@xxxxxxxx</a>&gt= ;<br> &gt; wrote:<br> &gt; &gt; A colleague of mine has been working on clicks in an electroacoustics<br> &gt; aural perception course. He discovered that a 48kHz sampling rate was<br> &gt; "too crude", and that working at 96kHz (or higher), the differences<br> &gt; between clicks over 8kHz were noticeable. This is not quite what<br> &gt; sampling theory seems to say. At 44.1kHz, a single sample click<br> &gt; represents 22kHz, and a two sample click represents 11kHz. How does one<br> &gt; represent a 16kHz click with a 44.1kHz sampling rate?<br> &gt; <br> &gt; I think one has to be careful about the actual D/A hardware in these<br> &gt; cases.&nbsp; Oversampled sigma/delta? R-2R? What are the postfilter<br> &gt; characteristics?&nbsp; I think with these type of stimuli, differences<br> &gt; might be audible: even if the same soundcard is used at different<br> &gt; rates, the filter should change.&nbsp; The differences in filter<br> &gt; characteristics might extend to lower frequencies, where they might be<br> &gt; picked up by individuals with good hearing.<br> &gt; <br> &gt; Joe.<br> &gt; <br> &gt; --<br> &gt; Joachim Thiemann :: <a href=3D"http://www.tsp.ece.mcgill.ca/~jthiem" eudora=3D"autourl"> http://www.tsp.ece.mcgill.ca/~jthiem</a></blockquote></div> <br> <div>Brian C. J. Moore, Ph.D, FMedSci, FRS,</div> <div>Professor of Auditory Perception,</div> <div>Department of Experimental Psychology,</div> <div>University of Cambridge,</div> <div>Downing Street,</div> <div>Cambridge CB2 3EB,</div> <div>UK</div> <div>Tel. +44 (0) 1223 333574</div> <div>Fax. +44 (0) 1223 333564</div> <div><a href=3D"http://hearing.psychol.cam.ac.uk/" eudora=3D"AUTOURL"> http://hearing.psychol.cam.ac.uk</a></div> <br> </blockquote></div><br></body></html>= --Apple-Mail-6-706293186--


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