[analogsurviver]

  http://www.popsci.com.au/science/medicine/this-woman-sees-100-times-more-colours-than-the-average-person,396736

Most interesting - and I *guess* there is no scientific proof satisfying all the statistical requirements to be accepted
by regular science at the moment - to prove her claims wrong or false. It is certain that humans with this ability exist and that they must be extremely rare; depending on circumstances, the time and place they were/are discovered, they might end up as guinea pigs in some lab, supreme sorcerers, royalty or simply being "disposed of " if they insist on their special ability - people tend to be hostile to things they can not understand and do not fit in the "accepted" drawer.
 
I am most interesting if this does get researched and explained scientifically - but with all the science, at least one another human being with the same ability will have to be independently used for confirmation; one can not create a scientific apparatus if it is not known what to look for and one single person might be simply telling ferytales upon which wrong set of scientific parameters would end up being used. 

 

[castleofargh]

the only uncertainty here seems to be how she really sees. when she looks at a chair, it's still a chair. and the spectrum of light hitting the chair and coming back to the eye is also still the same. reality doesn't change. checking that she has more kinds of cones is not at all at the limit of science. but sure if we could cut one eye open it might make things easier ^_^.
in fact we have a rough idea about how a lot of animals see things and what frequencies they can perceive. it's how they interpret the data that is always the unknown factor.
 
 

"You might see dark green but I’ll see violet, turquoise, blue. It’s like a mosaic of color.”

 
hey I'm a tetrachrothingy!!! I've got tonnes of pictures done with my camera where shadow areas are dark green and full of violet and turquoise and blue. I used to call it noise and try to remove it.

 

 

[money4me247]

  the only uncertainty here seems to be how she really sees. when she looks at a chair, it's still a chair. and the spectrum of light hitting the chair and coming back to the eye is also still the same. reality doesn't change. checking that she has more kinds of cones is not at all at the limit of science. but sure if we could cut one eye open it might make things easier ^_^.
in fact we have a rough idea about how a lot of animals see things and what frequencies they can perceive. it's how they interpret the data that is always the unknown factor.
 
hey I'm a tetrachrothingy!!! I've got tonnes of pictures done with my camera where shadow areas are dark green and full of violet and turquoise and blue. I used to call it noise and try to remove it.

 
I think the point of bringing up that rare example is to claim that there are certain individuals within this community that can hear sonic differences that normal people can't.
 
The more interesting example of people with 'special sensory gifts' would be synesthesia, where people hear colors or see sounds, due to neurons being cross-wired between traditional divisions of senses in various regions of the brain.
 
Note that these types of phenomenon are extremely rare and not really applicable to the average population. Also, the processes behind them can be understood through science and research though some of these areas have not been well-studied.
 
The traditional audiophile claims made around here of being able to hear certain sonic discrepancies due to an genetic golden ear or intensive ear training are mostly anecdotal without any rigorous testing using the scientific method. There have been certain cases where blind testing revealed something beyond mere chance, but I would imagine further objective testing would be required to verify the actual scope and accuracy of such personal claims. The existent of expectation bias is certainly well-established and not being blinded to the equipment drastically changes preferences. fun quick summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ear

 

[Roly1650]

I think the point of bringing up that rare example is to claim that there are certain individuals within this community that can hear sonic differences that normal people can't.

The more interesting example of people with 'special sensory gifts' would be synesthesia, where people hear colors or see sounds, due to neurons being cross-wired between traditional divisions of senses in various regions of the brain.

Note that these types of phenomenon are extremely rare and not really applicable to the average population. Also, the processes behind them can be understood through science and research though some of these areas have not been well-studied.

The traditional audiophile claims made around here of being able to hear certain sonic discrepancies due to an genetic golden ear or intensive ear training are mostly anecdotal without any rigorous testing using the scientific method. There have been certain cases where blind testing revealed something beyond mere chance, but I would imagine further objective testing would be required to verify the actual scope and accuracy of such personal claims. The existent of expectation bias is certainly well-established and not being blinded to the equipment drastically changes preferences. fun quick summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ear

Interesting that it's only women that can have the necessary chromosome mutation, leading to this condition, a corresponding mutation in men leads to color blindness. Presumably therefore a similar phenomenon with hearing would also only apply to women, the result in men would be "cloth ears" not "golden ears".

There is evidence that hearing can be trained, but it's not improving hearing, it's improving listening, two completely different things.

 

[bigshot]

If you actually go and find out what sort of exceptional hearing that people with exceptional hearing have, you find out that it isn't that much more than regular hearing. Just a few notes higher in the scale. And music wouldn't sound any different to them because most music doesn't contain those frequencies, and those frequencies are way beyond the range of being perceived as a musical note. Exceptional hearing is something you can test for and identify, but in the real world, it's no real advantage at all. In fact, it is often a detriment because high frequency squeals of fluorescent lights and TV monitors can become irritating.

 

[castleofargh]

  If you actually go and find out what sort of exceptional hearing that people with exceptional hearing have, you find out that it isn't that much more than regular hearing. Just a few notes higher in the scale. And music wouldn't sound any different to them because most music doesn't contain those frequencies, and those frequencies are way beyond the range of being perceived as a musical note. Exceptional hearing is something you can test for and identify, but in the real world, it's no real advantage at all. In fact, it is often a detriment because high frequency squeals of fluorescent lights and TV monitors can become irritating.

but there are a lot of cures for that one problem. rave parties close to the speakers are just one of many.
 
 
as you say it's easy to test people for their hearing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mosquito.

 

[Mezzo]

Just a technical question to the EEs on the forum. If you have two amps, one is rated to supply 100 watts and the other rated to supply 400 watts, and both are playing at a specific volume (let's say 90 dB), and you are using the same speaker, the power to the load at that SPL will remain the same between both amps, irrespective of the rated power output?
 
Just want to wrap my brain around this before it kills me.

 

[stv014]

  Just a technical question to the EEs on the forum. If you have two amps, one is rated to supply 100 watts and the other rated to supply 400 watts, and both are playing at a specific volume (let's say 90 dB), and you are using the same speaker, the power to the load at that SPL will remain the same between both amps, irrespective of the rated power output?

 
Yes. The power required for a given SPL depends on the speaker's efficiency (usually specified in dB/W at 1 m distance). The maximum power output of the amplifier determines the maximum peak SPL that can be achieved with a given speaker efficiency at an acceptable level of distortion. However, if the more powerful amplifier has higher gain, it will probably need a lower volume setting for matched power output.

 

[Wizz]

  the power to the load at that SPL will remain the same between both amps, irrespective of the rated power output?

 
This is correct.
Ceteris paribus of course.
And given that the 90dbs are measured at the acoustic output (speaker), and are not some electrical level at some point in the chain.

 

[analogsurviver]

I have not gone trough it all yet, but this looks interesting : http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/new-methods-for-quantifying-sonic-performance/?utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&page=3&utm_source=email-316

 

[bigshot]

Height? What are they smoking?!

 

[analogsurviver]

Obviously something stronger ( NOTHING really) ... - if you never heard (of) height of instruments or voices reproduced, no matter how incorrectly, and still are convinced all music is at the same height, then it is perhaps time to go to some concert of choir(s) that are not being herded in the classical position on the stage 101% of the time by the traditional and most of the time unimaginitive conductors. Mahler symphonies can also take advantage of this - horns in the distance can also be positioned not only "far(ther) away", but also LOWER or HIGHER while still being far away - depending on the particular concert hall and capabilities it offers. It can and does give quite a different effect - and in most cases, public does get to see those horn players and their conductor only after the final applause, when they show out of their "hiding".
 
Better audio equipment is capable of at least hinting at it (if recording managed to capture at least portion of it ) - but one can put redbook on anything and it would still be at "prescribed height" no matter what. To get the spatial cues right, more precise time information is required than redbook is capable of providing. However, going this far REQUIRES that one listens in sweet spot - like it or not, listening window is usually formula 1 car (single seat ), not a family SUV or not even Ferrari or similar 2 seater. Also speakers have to be painstakingly correctly positioned - it IS mind boggling how small misalignments throw the whole concept out of water. But once it is put right - WOW. Provided it is fed with purist microphone technique recording. One can try to hear it on multimiked recording(s) without successs - forever...

 

[Wizz]

  Height? What are they smoking?!

The whole thing screams "hoax".
 
"So clearly we must remain cautious in predicting whether everyone can replicate our results to the same quantitative extent. In other words, depending on system and hearing acuity, your mileage may vary."
 
Which is a twisted way to confess "all that we've writing up to this point, is actually entirely pointless since our results cannot be reproduced".
 
Damn, there are people in this world who have too much time on their hands. Instead of enjoying good music and good sound, they reinvent physiognomony. To what ends? that's the real question. Where lies the profit..?
 
A hoax.. at best!
 
Rather the usual plot to trick gullible people with an inferiority complex, into buying useless, offensively expensive "high end" stuff and building a temple for it in their living room.

 

[Wizz]

  Obviously something stronger ( NOTHING really) ... - if you never heard (of) height of instruments or voices reproduced, no matter how incorrectly, and still are convinced all music is at the same height, then it is perhaps time to go to some concert of choir(s) that are not being herded in the classical position on the stage 101% of the time by the traditional and most of the time unimaginitive conductors. Mahler symphonies can also take advantage of this - horns in the distance can also be positioned not only "far(ther) away", but also LOWER or HIGHER while still being far away - depending on the particular concert hall and capabilities it offers. It can and does give quite a different effect - and in most cases, public does get to see those horn players and their conductor only after the final applause, when they show out of their "hiding".
 
Better audio equipment is capable of at least hinting at it (if recording managed to capture at least portion of it ) - but one can put redbook on anything and it would still be at "prescribed height" no matter what. To get the spatial cues right, more precise time information is required than redbook is capable of providing. However, going this far REQUIRES that one listens in sweet spot - like it or not, listening window is usually formula 1 car (single seat ), not a family SUV or not even Ferrari or similar 2 seater. Also speakers have to be painstakingly correctly positioned - it IS mind boggling how small misalignments throw the whole concept out of water. But once it is put right - WOW. Provided it is fed with purist microphone technique recording. One can try to hear it on multimiked recording(s) without successs - forever...

"Mahler symphonies can also take advantage of this - horns in the distance can also be positioned not only "far(ther) away", but also LOWER or HIGHER while still being far away -"
 
Correct, who said differently BTW?
 
"Better audio equipment is capable of at least hinting at it"
 
Incorrect. Totally impossible. Entirely in your head. This is nuts. Ludicrous. Illogical. Stupid.
 
Would anyone state that you could hear right/left with a single mono channel and a single speaker? Of course not, that's why they invented stereo, duh.
How then can anyone be irrational enought to state that you could hear height when height was never even recorded to start with? And with 2 speakers at that?
You'd need at least 3 mikes and 3 speakers to record and reproduce height... or it's fairytales territory.
 
But hey, sorry to bother you with facts, you don't like to be bothered by them I guess.
 
As Paul says, "you can't win with these people".

 

[Head Injury]

  ...one can put redbook on anything and it would still be at "prescribed height" no matter what. To get the spatial cues right, more precise time information is required than redbook is capable of providing.

What time information is Redbook missing, why does it relate to height, and why would other formats capture it correctly?