26 Jan
2004
26 Jan
'04
7:39 a.m.
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:19:59 +0100
Joern Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de> wrote:
or there *may* have been aliasing or reproduction artifacts which
provided clues to the listeners within the 20-20k range.
<babble type="not strictly scientific">
and even if they could tell a difference, this does not imply one was
better or more hifi than the other - most people can hear the difference
of a 192k mp3 and a 44k cd track, but i've yet to meet somebody who
could always determine which is which, or even which of the two is better.
on my monitors, i can hear a 19k sine wave at 6db over my normal
listening level. but: i'm 28 yrs old, and i've been doing about 20 gigs
and/or mixing jobs a year at higher levels that i'm comfortable with for
about 10 years. i really doubt my ears are still that good, and my guess
is it's some artifact from the tweeters.
</babble>
ok, now i shut up :)
in any case, if you have papers on studies about this, send them over.
it seems there is still much to learn.
--
"I never use EQ, never, never, never. I previously used to use mic
positioning but I've even given up on that too."
- Jezar on http://www.audiomelody.com
Jörn Nettingsmeier
Kurfürstenstr 49, 45138 Essen, Germany
http://spunk.dnsalias.org (my server)
http://www.linuxaudiodev.org (Linux Audio Developers)
people can't hear over 20k. period. 48k
sampling rate gives you 24k
minus what's cropped off by the aliasing filter.
Thats not the full story. There was a Japanese study where untrained
listeners could tell the difference between 10kHz sine waves and 10kHz
square waves in double blind tests. That means that the listeners
could tell presence or absence of the 30kHz third harmonic of the
square wave.
Theroretically this should not have been possible which indicates that
theories of hearing perception are far from complete.