David Brooks aka the stalking weasel

On Sat, 27 May 2017 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
if they can't be heard, they can't be detected.

Absolutely false.

it's not false. it's common sense.

There's means of detection other than the ears.

audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all.

You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with
acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want
to try to believe that they don't matter?

none of this specious 'but it alters brain waves'. everything alters
brain waves. what matters is can it be heard.

Not even talking about that stuff. Look up Larry Sturdivan's models.

FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an
industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear
were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source.

and?

And you don't know about harmonics? Really?

Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will
respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear.

This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital. There are no LP's that
contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you can neither hear nor sense
something that isn't there in the first place.

In article , Bill W
wrote:


FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an
industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear
were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source.

and?

And you don't know about harmonics? Really?

Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will
respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear.

This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital. There are no LP's that
contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you can neither hear nor sense
something that isn't there in the first place.

yep.

although to be completely accurate (since there are those here who
argue absolutes), cd-4 quadraphonic lps had ultrasonic frequencies, as
high as 50khz, however, that was *not* audio content, but rather used
to decode the 4 channels.

http://www.surrounddiscography.com/quaddisc/cd4-1.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatible_Discrete_4
Along with this audio, a separate 30*kHz carrier was recorded on each
groove wall. The carrier on each side carried the difference signal
for that side. This was the information that enabled a combined
signal to be resolved into two separate signals. For the left carrier
it would be left front minus left back, and for the right carrier it
would be the right front minus the right back.

These audio signals were modulated onto the carriers using a special
FM-PM-SSBFM (frequency modulation-phase modulation-single sideband
frequency modulation) technique. This created an extended carrier
frequency range from 18*kHz to 45*kHz for the left and right
channels. The algebraic addition and subtraction of the sum and
difference signals would then yield compatible and discrete
quadraphonic playback.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Nope. Just adding them to the mix. I have already told you of high
frequency sounds which can't be heard but still can be detected.

if they can't be heard, they can't be detected.

Wrong

true. someone could have an oscilloscope wired up, and detect it that
way.

humans can't detect sounds above the limit of human hearing using their
ears.

Now you are really quibbling.

Are you ruling out that part of sound which reaches the brain via bone
conduction?

oh right.

because when people listen to music, they press the instruments up
against their bones.

that's why the seats in the back of the music hall go for cheap.

give me a ****ing break.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

You should try listening to a l a r g e organ. You feel the lower
notes rather than hear them. Also some drums.

so what? that was never in dispute.

the issue *you* brought up was high frequency sounds, not low.

now you're moving the ol' goalposts around.

Nope. Just adding them to the mix. I have already told you of high
frequency sounds which can't be heard but still can be detected.

if they can't be heard, they can't be detected.

Wrong

true. someone could have an oscilloscope wired up, and detect it that
way.

humans can't detect sounds above the limit of human hearing using their
ears.


The limit on human hearing is not the issue.

it is the issue

The issue is the ability to
distinguish tonal differences. e.g. In my younger days I had a sense of
perfect pitch. The vast majority of people do not. While one may not
hear undertones and overtones with their ears, in the traditional
meaning, there are other senses that kick in. Of course if you spend
your days listening to heavy metal, you will lose that ability.
As to all people seeing the same color:
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision

that's the exception, not the rule.

The same principle applies to othr senses such as taste. But then, you
don't want to learn. You would rather argue.

that would be you.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


the issue *you* brought up was high frequency sounds, not low.

now you're moving the ol' goalposts around.

Nope. Just adding them to the mix. I have already told you of high
frequency sounds which can't be heard but still can be detected.

if they can't be heard, they can't be detected.

The evidence is that the brain can.

there is no evidence it can be heard. you even admitted that there's no
evidence.

You keep quibling.

ain't me who is quibbling.

claiming that 'brain waves' matters is absurd.

you've yet to cite any double blind test that shows that it matters.
until you do, it's *bull*****.

The ultimate recipient of the sound signals are the
brain. The ears are the primary channel through which the sound is
delivered but they are not the only channel.

See http://www.goldendance.co.jp/English...onduct/01.html
and particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_hearing

you are desperately grasping for straws.

In article , -hh
wrote:


audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at
all.

You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with
acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want
to try to believe that they don't matter?

not for music reproduction, they don't.

On Sat, 27 May 2017 17:05:15 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Sat, 27 May 2017 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
if they can't be heard, they can't be detected.

Absolutely false.

it's not false. it's common sense.

There's means of detection other than the ears.

audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all.

You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with
acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want
to try to believe that they don't matter?

none of this specious 'but it alters brain waves'. everything alters
brain waves. what matters is can it be heard.

Not even talking about that stuff. Look up Larry Sturdivan's models.

FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an
industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear
were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source.

and?

And you don't know about harmonics? Really?

Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will
respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear.

This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital. There are no LP's that
contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you can neither hear nor sense
something that isn't there in the first place.

Yes, it keeps diverging into ultrasonics but the question I keep
raising is that of complex wave forms for which higher frequency
harmonics are required.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 28 May 2017 12:21:32 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sat, 27 May 2017 17:05:15 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Sat, 27 May 2017 15:28:33 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
if they can't be heard, they can't be detected.

Absolutely false.

it's not false. it's common sense.

There's means of detection other than the ears.

audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all.

You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with
acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want
to try to believe that they don't matter?

none of this specious 'but it alters brain waves'. everything alters
brain waves. what matters is can it be heard.

Not even talking about that stuff. Look up Larry Sturdivan's models.

FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an
industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear
were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source.

and?

And you don't know about harmonics? Really?

Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will
respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear.

This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital. There are no LP's that
contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you can neither hear nor sense
something that isn't there in the first place.

Yes, it keeps diverging into ultrasonics but the question I keep
raising is that of complex wave forms for which higher frequency
harmonics are required.

Add to the issues this factor: Every piece of gear used in the
original recording chain, including the cables, must have the
capability to handle those frequencies. When you start with the mics,
it all pretty much ends right there, right at the beginning. And if
there are complex wave forms that can be heard, then they are within
the range of hearing, so again, there would be no difference in the
sound quality between digital and vinyl, except for all that noise
that comes naturally to vinyl. Well that, and the DR, and the S/N
ratio, etc.

Eric Stevens wrote:
Bill W wrote:
-hh wrote:
Nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
if they can't be heard, they can't be detected.

Absolutely false.

it's not false. it's common sense.

There's means of detection other than the ears.

audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all.

You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with
acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want
to try to believe that they don't matter?

none of this specious 'but it alters brain waves'. everything alters
brain waves. what matters is can it be heard.

Not even talking about that stuff. Look up Larry Sturdivan's models.

FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an
industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear
were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source.

and?

And you don't know about harmonics? Really?

Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will
respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear.

This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital.

True, it started there, but nospam made an absolutist statement that
had bearing far beyond what's commonly used in commercial music
recording.

There are no LP's that contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you
can neither hear nor sense something that isn't there in the first place.

Yes, it keeps diverging into ultrasonics but the question I keep
raising is that of complex wave forms for which higher frequency
harmonics are required.

The other part of the question is ... at just what step in the recording
process does this higher (and lower) frequency data get filtered out?

Because in a fully unfiltered setting (such as live orchestra), there will
be this beyond-range stuff which will then interact at audible harmonic
frequencies which ARE audible.

Depending on how the composition was performed & recorded, this
data may or may not necessarily have been lost, as it depends on how
the original multipathed source(s) were recorded & filtered. Even when
the same filtering values are being used: where they're applied matters.


-hh

On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:12:01 -0700 (PDT), -hh
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
Bill W wrote:
-hh wrote:
Nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:
if they can't be heard, they can't be detected.

Absolutely false.

it's not false. it's common sense.

There's means of detection other than the ears.

audio signals are heard. if they can't be heard, they do not matter. at all.

You're trying to use a self-licking ice cream come. I can kill you with
acoustic signals that aren't "perceptible" by your definition: still want
to try to believe that they don't matter?

none of this specious 'but it alters brain waves'. everything alters
brain waves. what matters is can it be heard.

Not even talking about that stuff. Look up Larry Sturdivan's models.

FYI, I have a friend whose hearing was highly impaired in an
industrial accident ... root cause was that the hairs in his inner ear
were selectively destroyed at the **harmonics** of the frequency source.

and?

And you don't know about harmonics? Really?

Push a 30kHz acoustic signal strongly enough and 15KHz sensors will
respond to it .. such as the ones in your ear.

This is a discussion of vinyl vs. digital.

True, it started there, but nospam made an absolutist statement that
had bearing far beyond what's commonly used in commercial music
recording.

There are no LP's that contain any ultrasonic frequencies, so you
can neither hear nor sense something that isn't there in the first place.

Yes, it keeps diverging into ultrasonics but the question I keep
raising is that of complex wave forms for which higher frequency
harmonics are required.

The other part of the question is ... at just what step in the recording
process does this higher (and lower) frequency data get filtered out?

Well that's the thing, it doesn't with digital recording, but the
highs are certainly mastered out with vinyl by means of a low pass
filter, and the lows are also attenuated per the RIAA curve.

Because in a fully unfiltered setting (such as live orchestra), there will
be this beyond-range stuff which will then interact at audible harmonic
frequencies which ARE audible.

And if it's audible, it will appear on the recording, whether vinyl or
digital.

Depending on how the composition was performed & recorded, this
data may or may not necessarily have been lost, as it depends on how
the original multipathed source(s) were recorded & filtered. Even when
the same filtering values are being used: where they're applied matters.

Only vinyl has a need to filter things out.