So are you saying that those hearing aids that are better in sound location do so because they reproduce frequencies beyond 20khz? I'd like to see some evidence of these ultrasonic hearing aids.
I never said anything about specific frequencies, and definitely nothing about 20khz. Audiograms don't even go past 8khz. Some hearing aids can only amplify frequencies up to 5-6k while others can reach 10k (those work better for sound placement). Since speech (English as it varies from language to language) tends to be within 90 to 255Hz with peeks up to 4khz, some hearing aids don't bother much with higher frequencies.
I would think that a hearing aid in the ear would interfere with HRTF and perhaps timing a bit. The main way you sound locate would probably be with head movement.
I would think that a hearing aid in the ear would interfere with HRTF and perhaps timing a bit. The main way you sound locate would probably be with head movement.
Yes, and one feature of high end hearing aids is timing. There is also a big difference between open fit and closed fit hearing aids, a bit like open back v closed back with headphones. Unlike headphones where open backs don't have to grapple with all the bouncing sound, with open fit hearing aids there is a huge challenge to amplify only the parts that can't be heard, and doing this with perfect timing to the parts you can hear naturally, while avoiding high frequency feedback from leakage.
Anyhow, as someone who teaches rhetoric, my fourth point was mostly about acknowledging we don't know everything about sounds we can't hear, and showing a little graciousness to those who swear they hear differences.
Sorry, that doesn’t make sense to me. Not knowing everything obviously does not mean we don’t know anything and actually we do know a great deal about sounds we can’t hear. We have compelling evidence that “those who swear they hear differences” in fact do not (with music recordings at reasonable listening levels):
1. We’ve been testing the upper frequency threshold of hearing for a century or so and there is no reliable evidence to suggest we can detect ultra-sonic content.
2. The only evidence which suggests any affect at all of freq content higher than 20kHz is the Oohashi paper you referenced but even that does not support the possibility that those who swear they hear differences actually can. The paper claims a “hypersonic effect”, an effect on alpha brainwaves of which the subjects were unaware, they could not “hear differences”.
3. The paper I referenced provides reliable evidence that there is no effect at all on the auditory cortex, that ultrasound does not even register in the auditory cortex, let alone is audible.
4. Whenever one of “those who swear they hear differences” are tested under controlled conditions (EG. DBT or ABX) their claimed ability to do so magically disappears.
All I’m asking for is some reliable evidence for why we should grant any “graciousness” beyond that due to someone making a false claim based on unknowingly suffering from a perceptual error/placebo.
You stated “There is evidence that high frequencies outside human hearing range helps locate where a sound comes from.” - As the human hearing range extends to ~20kHz, then effectively you did make an assertion regarding 20kHz frequencies (and higher).
Let’s extend some graciousness to folks who see dead people, believe the Earth is flat and think the moon is made of green cheese too. I’ll graciously allow those people to believe whatever they want. But that doesn’t mean I can’t point out their errors to them and ask what they base their opinion on.
It isn’t that difficult to base opinions on solid facts… like the numerous tests showing codecs are audibly transparent and ultrasonic frequencies add nothing to the perceived quality of recorded music… or even basing opinions on personal research… like taking the time to set up a controlled listening test to find out their own line of just detectable difference.
We don’t have to be nice and allow people to believe things that are probably completely wrong. We have the right to ask those people to support their belief with facts.
All I’m asking for is some reliable evidence for why we should grant any “graciousness” beyond that due to someone making a false claim based on unknowingly suffering from a perceptual error/placebo.
For me the problem with the "graciousness" comment by @polymathic is that, specifically in the context of head-fi (in the 9 years that I'm a member plus 6-7 years reading many threads without creating an account), I see a large number of people "who swear they hear differences" in codecs, lossy vs lossless, CD vs Hi-res, cables, DAPs, amps, DACs, etc., and many of this people will using often fancy audio vocabulary that helping impressing and convincing (many?) others people that they must changing/buying expensive headphones, cables, DAPs, subscribing to expensive streaming services, etc. The amount of BS I see in this 15-16 years is simply --AND literally-- incredible. And just like with fake news, for many people is not easy recognising true, valuable and useful information (even from majority of audio publications) from inaccurate information, biased comments, conflicts of interest, lies and...well, simply rubbish
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
