Test Equipment vs The Ear
It was Harman Kardon back in the 70's who was touting the audible effects of inaudible frequencies. They claimed that their ultra wide-band receivers, preamps, and amps (4Hz to 140kHz) would outperform the competitor products (typically 20Hz to 20,000kHz) even though they were outside the range of human hearing. They didn't compare a competitor's product against their unit, rather they built (2) identical units and limited the bandwidth on one to the 20-20 range. Supposedly over 80% of the professionals they played them for identified the wider bandwidth as more musical. Harman Kardon's explanation was that inaudible frequencies produce harmonics in the audible range. |
willemj Show me the research in peer reviewed journals that show that what I said is an old wives’ tale. Here is a famous one from me: http://www.keith-snook.info/wireless-world-magazine/Wireless-World-1978/Valves%20versus%20Transistor.... Whoa! Hey! What? Is there a full moon? What’s up with folks suddenly thinking an audio forum is some sort of platform for peer reviews? Most likely this is simply a case of being gullible or naive if you actually believe what you wrote. There is no such thing as audio memory and the whole idea of having to maintain level is just silly. Any audiophile worth more than ten cents can distinguish between volume and dynamic range. |
I recently had my hearing tested. One of the tests had the earphones placed on my skull above and forward of one ear and below and behind the other and it was amazing how well I could hear the test tones. What wasn't amazing, but rather depressing, was what I couldn't hear. 😩 There's so much reinforcement going on with more than our ears than we appreciate. Factor our brain into it and you'll find that it is highly nonlinear when deciphering sound. Test equipment, on the other hand is very linear in measuring sound. Or, used to be unless you have the money for some really serious tests. Hearing aids have always been poor performers in restoring hearing acuity. It's down to what area do you prefer compared to what you can do without. Around the early 90s, some group came up with nonlinear signal processing to get closer to approximating what it is that we actually hear. I don't know if it actually worked or if it's commercially available. Based on that, can we finally put to rest the falsehood that what we measure is what we hear, and nothing more? All the best, Nonoise |
