IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
ncdrawl
post Jul 25 2009, 07:27
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 5-October 08
Member No.: 59436



http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm

http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers/FAQs.pdf
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Canar
post Jul 28 2009, 19:46
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3348
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



If I may grossly oversimplify your argument Axon, you're partially arguing that he's choosing an extreme edge case to test. However, if his intent is to map the boundaries of audibility, wouldn't an edge case be acceptable? I find the conclusion that ultrasonics are perceptible fascinating, and if he's found a case in which they actually are audible, should we not hear it out? Even though it does not represent most cases, if they are truly audible in this case, isn't that worth considering?

As an archivist, I want transparency in all cases, so I don't have to worry about the edge cases. That's why I use FLAC and not MP3. If there is any case where 44.1kHz is not sufficient, isn't that worth devising solutions for?


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Axon
post Jul 28 2009, 20:14
Post #3





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1984
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



QUOTE (Canar @ Jul 28 2009, 13:46) *
If I may grossly oversimplify your argument Axon, you're partially arguing that he's choosing an extreme edge case to test. However, if his intent is to map the boundaries of audibility, wouldn't an edge case be acceptable? I find the conclusion that ultrasonics are perceptible fascinating, and if he's found a case in which they actually are audible, should we not hear it out? Even though it does not represent most cases, if they are truly audible in this case, isn't that worth considering?

As an archivist, I want transparency in all cases, so I don't have to worry about the edge cases. That's why I use FLAC and not MP3. If there is any case where 44.1kHz is not sufficient, isn't that worth devising solutions for?


The use of a 7khz square wave as an input here, in this context, seems particularly unrepresentative to me, as a -10db ultrasonic third harmonic, with a signal completely absent of energy at 14khz from other sources, is a profoundly special case. It's not merely that it's an edge case - it is way, way over the edge to begin with. It's like arguing that 16 bits is insufficient because you can hear the noise with the gain raised ~20db above normal (as even shown by Meyer/Moran). Of course you can - but that situation never actually happens in the real world, where music is normalized near 0dbFS and released for an audience that actually wishes to listen to it. More generally, Kunchur never really justifies that input signal very well, and without careful delineation, nothing's stopping anybody from boosting 21khz levels arbitrarily high to get arbitrarily low measured thresholds (like with, for instance, a bipolar pulse train).

In the final reduction ad absurdum, it's hard to tell apart his conclusions apart from a claim that (say) 200khz bandwidth is necessary for audio, because if you play extremely powerful 200khz and 202khz tones, the inevitable intermodulation is audible. The existence of any form of intermodulation, combined with the existence of an ultrasonic bandwidth, necessarily implies that some classes of signals will show audible differences when filtered before distortion. Morevoer, this audibility will exist at any amount of filtering greater than zero, because I'll always be able to hand you a signal that will break threshold at the intermodulation frequency.

A test with ultrasonic content at ranges more representative of real situations would restore validity, but I think that is not going to save his conclusions. In that case, if audibility is shown in the first place, it will almost certainly be above 22us. And at that point it no longer has anything to do with time resolution. But it would be a convincing proof of CD's insufficiency - but before that point is reached, the question is, how would that be possible when every prior attempt has failed?

This post has been edited by Axon: Jul 28 2009, 20:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy_c
post Jul 29 2009, 16:52
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: 3-June 07
Member No.: 44031



I'd like to add a few comments regarding the "Temporal resolution of hearing probed by bandwidth restriction" paper.

One potential issue is the second-harmonic contribution of the test setup. Since this contribution is within the audible band (14 kHz), special attention needs to be paid to it. Of course, an ideal square wave has no even-order harmonics by virtue of its half-wave symmetry, i.e. f(t +/- T/2) = -f(t). But there are ways that the second harmonic can creep back in. Two ways I can think of are the duty cycle of the square wave not being exactly 50 percent, and second-harmonic distortion of the test setup's transducers and electronics. Either of these situations will eliminate the half-wave symmetry and introduce even-order harmonics. The text below figure 1 states "The acoustic output from the transducer is devoid of even numbered harmonics because of the square-wave signal fed to it". Of course, in the real world, that signal can't be entirely devoid of second harmonic, and indeed figure 4 shows its presence. Oddly, figure 4 shows the frequency components in terms of power, where dB would have been better if clarity were the intent. In any case, the power ratio of second harmonic to fundamental is shown as 1e-6, giving a voltage ratio of 1e-3 (-60 dB) at the mic preamp output where this measurement was presumably taken.

One interesting thing that can be done is to make the generous assumption that the electronics and transducers have zero second-harmonic distortion, and assume this second-harmonic component is due entirely to the duty cycle of the square wave not being exactly 50 percent. One could then derive the Fourier series coefficients of a rectangular wave having duty cycle d, where 0 < d < 1. Then one could figure out what values of d correspond to a second-harmonic component 60 dB down from the fundamental. This would correspond to a "best case" scenario, because with electronics and transducers having non-zero second-harmonic distortion, the tolerance on the duty cycle of the square wave would have to be even tighter to take into account those additional second-harmonic components. Suppose we have a rectangular wave with a symmetrical voltage swing of +/- Vp and a duty cycle d. It's not too hard to show that the Fourier series coefficients vn of this function are:

vn = (4Vp/(pi*n)) sin(pi*d*n) for n >= 1 (i.e. this excludes the DC term)

The ratio r of the second harmonic to the fundamental is:

r = (1/2) sin(2*pi*d)/sin(pi*d)

Now we can solve numerically for the value of d that makes r = +/- 1e-3. This will give two answers - one slightly less than 0.5 and one slightly greater. Plugging this into MathCad, we get r1 = 0.49968 and r2=0.50032. So the allowable range of the duty cycle is 50 +/- 0.032 percent. This is an extremely stringent requirement, and yet this number is optimistic for two reasons. The first is the previously mentioned assumption that the electronics and transducers have no second-harmonic distortion. The second is that real-world square wave generators use nonlinear circuits which in general will have slightly asymmetric rise and fall characteristics. The Fourier series coefficients assume zero rise and fall times. I'm finding it hard to believe that he actually achieved this number, especially with two transducers involved (the headphones and microphone). So let's look at table 1, where he lists the harmonic components of the transducer output to see what he actually measured for the second harmonic in each condition. Well, those measurements aren't there, only the fundamental and the third and fifth harmonics. The entire issue is papered over with the statement "The acoustic output from the transducer is devoid of even numbered harmonics because of the square-wave signal fed to it". Since changes in this second harmonic value could explain the experimental results without needing some hypothesis regarding the alleged ability of the ear to detect signals above the frequency limit of human hearing, it's essential to include these data. Yet he fails to do so.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- ncdrawl   Interesting Papers re temporal resolution   Jul 25 2009, 07:27
- - rpp3po   I'm not sure wether they have actually tested ...   Jul 25 2009, 13:17
- - Ethan Winer   Nice to see this topic here where it can be discus...   Jul 25 2009, 18:26
- - hellokeith   from the link: QUOTE Our recent behavioral studies...   Jul 25 2009, 20:39
|- - C.R.Helmrich   QUOTE (hellokeith @ Jul 25 2009, 21:39) D...   Jul 25 2009, 22:09
||- - rpp3po   QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Jul 25 2009, 23:09)...   Jul 25 2009, 22:28
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (rpp3po @ Jul 25 2009, 14:28) Well,...   Jul 28 2009, 09:27
|- - John_Siau   From the first paragraph at: www.physics.sc.edu/ku...   Jul 31 2009, 19:16
|- - andy_c   QUOTE (John_Siau @ Jul 31 2009, 12:16) Th...   Jul 31 2009, 21:30
- - hellokeith   Well after reading through the first 3 PDF's a...   Jul 26 2009, 01:24
- - Axon   Don't even bother using a square wave generato...   Jul 28 2009, 02:55
|- - rpp3po   Yes, I asked myself why Adobe would even include s...   Jul 28 2009, 03:06
- - Mike Giacomelli   I only skimmed the paper, but IIRC tried a digital...   Jul 28 2009, 03:31
- - Canar   Now the WAV files won't load in foobar2000... ...   Jul 28 2009, 03:51
|- - rpp3po   QUOTE (Canar @ Jul 28 2009, 04:51) These ...   Jul 28 2009, 11:37
|- - lvqcl   QUOTE (rpp3po @ Jul 28 2009, 14:37) Could...   Jul 28 2009, 12:52
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (rpp3po @ Jul 28 2009, 06:37) Could...   Jul 28 2009, 15:58
- - Nick.C   Why not just just create a 7.35kHz square wave ...   Jul 28 2009, 13:13
|- - benski   QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jul 28 2009, 08:13) Why n...   Jul 31 2009, 15:39
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (benski @ Jul 31 2009, 15:39) QUOTE...   Jul 31 2009, 16:33
|- - benski   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Jul 31 2009, 11:33) QU...   Jul 31 2009, 16:39
- - Axon   Because that places unacceptable restrictions on t...   Jul 28 2009, 16:12
- - Canar   If I may grossly oversimplify your argument Axon, ...   Jul 28 2009, 19:46
|- - Axon   QUOTE (Canar @ Jul 28 2009, 13:46) If I m...   Jul 28 2009, 20:14
||- - andy_c   I'd like to add a few comments regarding the ...   Jul 29 2009, 16:52
||- - Axon   QUOTE (andy_c @ Jul 29 2009, 10:52) I...   Jul 29 2009, 17:11
||- - andy_c   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 29 2009, 10:11) Well, g...   Jul 29 2009, 17:27
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (Canar @ Jul 28 2009, 14:46) As an ...   Jul 28 2009, 21:08
|- - NullC   QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Jul 28 2009, 12...   Jul 29 2009, 05:48
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (NullC @ Jul 29 2009, 00:48) QUOTE ...   Jul 29 2009, 16:19
- - Axon   So, on that note.... an off topic comment. I just ...   Jul 29 2009, 17:01
|- - Canar   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 29 2009, 09:01) So, on ...   Jul 29 2009, 18:18
- - krabapple   It may well be that Dr. Kunchur's audio work i...   Jul 29 2009, 17:04
- - kode54   Where did you come up with that 1.45GHz figure? Th...   Jul 29 2009, 20:22
- - Axon   Well, I'm thinking more specifically of the th...   Jul 29 2009, 20:41
- - Audible!   QUOTE (ncdrawl @ Jul 30 2009, 23:07) QUOT...   Jul 31 2009, 08:36
- - 2Bdecided   Yes, I see it now (having tried it!), it's...   Jul 31 2009, 17:13
- - John_Siau   From the summary paragraph in "Audibility of ...   Jul 31 2009, 19:37
|- - Axon   QUOTE (John_Siau @ Jul 31 2009, 13:37) Fr...   Jul 31 2009, 21:28
|- - John_Siau   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 31 2009, 16:28) That se...   Jul 31 2009, 22:15
|- - WernerO   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 31 2009, 21:28) Dr. Kun...   Aug 1 2009, 06:46
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 31 2009, 21:28) That se...   Aug 1 2009, 08:24
|- - rpp3po   I'm just coming back from vacation. Thanks for...   Aug 2 2009, 17:42
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (rpp3po @ Aug 2 2009, 12:42) But un...   Aug 3 2009, 01:24
|- - rpp3po   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Aug 3 2009, 02...   Aug 3 2009, 01:42
|- - ncdrawl   QUOTE (rpp3po @ Aug 2 2009, 20:42) QUOTE ...   Aug 3 2009, 04:59
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (ncdrawl @ Aug 2 2009, 23:59) QUOTE...   Aug 3 2009, 07:57
|- - WernerO   QUOTE (ncdrawl @ Aug 3 2009, 04:59) Dr. K...   Aug 3 2009, 08:52
||- - Axon   QUOTE (WernerO @ Aug 3 2009, 02:52) QUOTE...   Aug 3 2009, 19:02
|||- - honestguv   QUOTE (Axon @ Aug 3 2009, 20:02) BTW, I f...   Aug 3 2009, 19:35
||- - ncdrawl   QUOTE (WernerO @ Aug 3 2009, 03:52) we do...   Aug 8 2009, 00:03
|- - honestguv   > Dr. Kunchur will be posting confutations in f...   Aug 3 2009, 08:54
|- - andy_c   Regarding my earlier post about the lack of second...   Aug 3 2009, 17:34
- - benski   I need to do further reading to do a full refutati...   Aug 3 2009, 20:10
|- - benski   Also, for his FAQ example of two peaks separated b...   Aug 3 2009, 20:24
|- - WernerO   QUOTE (benski @ Aug 3 2009, 21:24) two pe...   Aug 3 2009, 20:56
||- - Axon   QUOTE (WernerO @ Aug 3 2009, 14:56) QUOTE...   Aug 3 2009, 21:04
||- - benski   QUOTE (WernerO @ Aug 3 2009, 15:56) QUOTE...   Aug 3 2009, 21:22
|||- - WernerO   QUOTE (benski @ Aug 3 2009, 22:22) Please...   Aug 4 2009, 08:11
|||- - benski   QUOTE (WernerO @ Aug 4 2009, 03:11) QUOTE...   Aug 4 2009, 14:34
||- - honestguv   QUOTE (WernerO @ Aug 3 2009, 21:56) But t...   Aug 3 2009, 21:47
||- - benski   QUOTE (honestguv @ Aug 3 2009, 16:47) QUO...   Aug 3 2009, 22:04
||- - honestguv   QUOTE (benski @ Aug 3 2009, 23:04) They a...   Aug 3 2009, 22:49
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (benski @ Aug 3 2009, 20:24) Also, ...   Aug 3 2009, 22:05
- - Canar   I just had a random thought about this and I wante...   Aug 4 2009, 02:41
|- - andy_c   Well, the 4.7us time constant does decrease the le...   Aug 4 2009, 02:57
|- - andy_c   Here's another thing I noticed in his test app...   Aug 4 2009, 14:23
||- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (andy_c @ Aug 4 2009, 09:23) Here...   Aug 13 2009, 12:56
|- - Pio2001   Hello, I've just read the first and third arti...   Apr 18 2010, 23:07
|- - C.R.Helmrich   QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Apr 19 2010, 00:07) Ther...   Apr 18 2010, 23:56
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Apr 18 2010, 18:07) QUOT...   Apr 19 2010, 14:49
- - ultrasonic   QUOTE (rpp3po @ Aug 3 2009, 02:42) QUOTE ...   Jan 2 2010, 05:09
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ultrasonic @ Jan 1 2010, 20:09) QU...   Jan 2 2010, 05:28
||- - ultrasonic   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Jan 2 2010, 06:28) Q...   Jan 2 2010, 05:41
||- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (ultrasonic @ Jan 1 2010, 23:41) QU...   Jan 2 2010, 06:15
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (ultrasonic @ Jan 1 2010, 23:09) QU...   Jan 2 2010, 06:01
|- - ultrasonic   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Jan 2 2010, 07...   Jan 2 2010, 06:37
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (ultrasonic @ Jan 2 2010, 00:37) QU...   Jan 2 2010, 06:52
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ultrasonic @ Jan 1 2010, 21:37) Op...   Jan 2 2010, 10:29
||- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Jan 2 2010, 04:29) B...   Jan 2 2010, 13:24
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (ultrasonic @ Jan 2 2010, 00:37) Op...   Jan 3 2010, 06:43
- - Woodinville   It is interesting to note that now the same people...   Jun 15 2010, 19:31
- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Jun 15 2010, 14:31) ...   Jun 16 2010, 11:09
- - Paulhoff   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Jun 15 2010, 14:31) ...   Jun 16 2010, 12:33
2 Pages V   1 2 >


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th July 2014 - 06:20