Photography is in-part "devolving" into high-end audio-speak, as far as VIDEO is concerned

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:42:20 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

He must live in an interesting world where there is no Rock music, no Heavy
Metal, Grunge never existed etc. Lots of musical styles require the sound of
an overdriven amplifier!

At this point the amplifier becomes a musical instrument.

correct.

Not in my listening space, at least not if I can help it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

One tends to forget that the concert hall with its particular acoustics
are
as much a part of the performance as any instrument, or artist. That alone
is
difficult to reproduce. I mentioned Beethoven1s 7th, and the Bach Cantata
&
Fugue, as both are/were a visceral experience when heard in a great
concert
hall, very different to a string quartet, even in the same location.Very
few
of todays youth have, ever considered even listening to, or attending any
symphonic orchestra performance.

This may be at the heart of the ongoing disagreement I have with
nospam. When you listen to real live instruments you sense them with
more than your ears and as has been confirmed by lab tests they
produce sounds way beyond the nominal limit of human hearing. Even if
you can capture the acoustic ambience of the space in which the
instruments are being played, listening to them via frequency limited
electronic reproduction must inevitably have the listener missing
something.

there have been zero tests that show that sounds 'way beyond the
nominal limit of human hearing' have any effect, nor can there be,
since they are by definition, not audible by humans.

Wrong.

I have cited them in this thead.

no you haven't.

you have yet to cite a single objective double-blind test that shows
listeners can identify the effect you claim.

until that time, it remains unproven, or to put it bluntly, rubbish.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just for the record, what do think was my original claim?

ultrasonic frequencies which are outside of the range of human hearing
and cannot be heard by humans can somehow be sensed in other mysterious
and unspecified ways.

this is of course, complete rubbish.

Ever heard of bone conduction?

Have you ever wondered how ultrasonics succeed in penetrating the
human body and reflect from internal organs etc?

Have you ever *really* considered the implications of the above taken
with https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/...2000.83.6.3548 and
the quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound
"Sound from ultrasound is the name given here to the generation of
audible sound from modulated ultrasound without using an active
receiver. This happens when the modulated ultrasound passes through a
nonlinear medium which acts, intentionally or unintentionally, as a
demodulator."?

I am sure you haven't, or worse, you refuse to do so. It points to new
and largely unknown territory.

ultrasound of internal organs?? you're seriously grasping at straws.

we're still waiting for an objective double-blind test that shows that
listeners can identify the effect you claim.

i expect that will be a very long wait.

until that time, it remains unproven, or to put it bluntly, rubbish.

On 2019-06-15 07:42, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just for the record, what do think was my original claim?

ultrasonic frequencies which are outside of the range of human hearing
and cannot be heard by humans can somehow be sensed in other mysterious
and unspecified ways.

this is of course, complete rubbish.

It's no mystery that sub harmonics of ultrasonic acoustic signals fall
into the range of human hearing. Thus if some part of the listeners ear
(or some part of the head) resonates with the ultrasound then the
listener will hear the sub harmonic. So a 39 kHz tone will likely be
heard at 19.5 kHz and possibly 9.75 kHz, etc.

--
"Even with the brain dead, the pig's heart keeps on beating...
sort of like ... pick a Kardashian."
-Anthony Bourdain, Parts Unknown

On 2019-06-15 22:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:42:19 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just for the record, what do think was my original claim?

ultrasonic frequencies which are outside of the range of human hearing
and cannot be heard by humans can somehow be sensed in other mysterious
and unspecified ways.

this is of course, complete rubbish.

Ever heard of bone conduction?

Have you ever wondered how ultrasonics succeed in penetrating the
human body and reflect from internal organs etc?

Have you ever *really* considered the implications of the above taken
with https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/...2000.83.6.3548 and
the quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound
"Sound from ultrasound is the name given here to the generation of
audible sound from modulated ultrasound without using an active
receiver. This happens when the modulated ultrasound passes through a
nonlinear medium which acts, intentionally or unintentionally, as a
demodulator."?

Sub harmonics. Not 'demodulator'.


--
"Even with the brain dead, the pig's heart keeps on beating...
sort of like ... pick a Kardashian."
-Anthony Bourdain, Parts Unknown

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 06:34:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just for the record, what do think was my original claim?

ultrasonic frequencies which are outside of the range of human hearing
and cannot be heard by humans can somehow be sensed in other mysterious
and unspecified ways.

this is of course, complete rubbish.

Ever heard of bone conduction?

Have you ever wondered how ultrasonics succeed in penetrating the
human body and reflect from internal organs etc?

Have you ever *really* considered the implications of the above taken
with https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/...2000.83.6.3548 and
the quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound
"Sound from ultrasound is the name given here to the generation of
audible sound from modulated ultrasound without using an active
receiver. This happens when the modulated ultrasound passes through a
nonlinear medium which acts, intentionally or unintentionally, as a
demodulator."?

I am sure you haven't, or worse, you refuse to do so. It points to new
and largely unknown territory.

ultrasound of internal organs?? you're seriously grasping at straws.

Quite right. The use of that technique is imaginary.

we're still waiting for an objective double-blind test that shows that
listeners can identify the effect you claim.

i expect that will be a very long wait.

until that time, it remains unproven, or to put it bluntly, rubbish.

The difference between us is that you are trying to defend the limits
of what is already known and I am aware that there is still more to be
learned beyond those limits.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 18:12:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-06-15 22:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:42:19 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just for the record, what do think was my original claim?

ultrasonic frequencies which are outside of the range of human hearing
and cannot be heard by humans can somehow be sensed in other mysterious
and unspecified ways.

this is of course, complete rubbish.

Ever heard of bone conduction?

Have you ever wondered how ultrasonics succeed in penetrating the
human body and reflect from internal organs etc?

Have you ever *really* considered the implications of the above taken
with https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/...2000.83.6.3548 and
the quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_from_ultrasound
"Sound from ultrasound is the name given here to the generation of
audible sound from modulated ultrasound without using an active
receiver. This happens when the modulated ultrasound passes through a
nonlinear medium which acts, intentionally or unintentionally, as a
demodulator."?

Sub harmonics. Not 'demodulator'.

I don't think so. A better analogy may be an AM radio signal where
high frequencies carry a low frequency signal.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 18:11:36 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-06-15 07:42, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just for the record, what do think was my original claim?

ultrasonic frequencies which are outside of the range of human hearing
and cannot be heard by humans can somehow be sensed in other mysterious
and unspecified ways.

this is of course, complete rubbish.

It's no mystery that sub harmonics of ultrasonic acoustic signals fall
into the range of human hearing. Thus if some part of the listeners ear
(or some part of the head) resonates with the ultrasound then the
listener will hear the sub harmonic. So a 39 kHz tone will likely be
heard at 19.5 kHz and possibly 9.75 kHz, etc.

That's another possible explanation.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 06:34:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

One tends to forget that the concert hall with its particular acoustics
are
as much a part of the performance as any instrument, or artist. That alone
is
difficult to reproduce. I mentioned Beethoven1s 7th, and the Bach Cantata
&
Fugue, as both are/were a visceral experience when heard in a great
concert
hall, very different to a string quartet, even in the same location.Very
few
of todays youth have, ever considered even listening to, or attending any
symphonic orchestra performance.

This may be at the heart of the ongoing disagreement I have with
nospam. When you listen to real live instruments you sense them with
more than your ears and as has been confirmed by lab tests they
produce sounds way beyond the nominal limit of human hearing. Even if
you can capture the acoustic ambience of the space in which the
instruments are being played, listening to them via frequency limited
electronic reproduction must inevitably have the listener missing
something.

there have been zero tests that show that sounds 'way beyond the
nominal limit of human hearing' have any effect, nor can there be,
since they are by definition, not audible by humans.

Wrong.

I have cited them in this thead.

no you haven't.

you have yet to cite a single objective double-blind test that shows
listeners can identify the effect you claim.

This is not the same as "... that show that sounds 'way beyond the
nominal limit of human hearing' have any effect ... "

until that time, it remains unproven, or to put it bluntly, rubbish.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/16/2019 8:55 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 18:11:36 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-06-15 07:42, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Just for the record, what do think was my original claim?

ultrasonic frequencies which are outside of the range of human hearing
and cannot be heard by humans can somehow be sensed in other mysterious
and unspecified ways.

this is of course, complete rubbish.

It's no mystery that sub harmonics of ultrasonic acoustic signals fall
into the range of human hearing. Thus if some part of the listeners ear
(or some part of the head) resonates with the ultrasound then the
listener will hear the sub harmonic. So a 39 kHz tone will likely be
heard at 19.5 kHz and possibly 9.75 kHz, etc.

That's another possible explanation.

I'm not seeing a mechanism for this. Please elucidate.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--