[mercbuggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif My whole point and thought in posting this was that his hearing is quite normal in "what" he hears, but very remarkable in "how" he hears. No hearing test is going to reveal anything different than any other normal human. (my conjecture) The intense development he went through, was the development of his mind and how he processes what he hears. He's not hearing anything you or I cannot hear. It's what he does with what he hears that makes all the difference. The clicking sounds he produces with his tongue while walking around and hearing how those clicks reflect off of his surroundings, all takes place in the humanly audible frequency range. He's hearing and recognizing subtle phase relationships and sympathetic resonances of the reflected sounds between his right and left ears. Likewise, when he's tossing the pillows at them, he's again hearing stereoscopically, and even 3D spatially, being able to hear exactly where the people are in order to throw the pillows at them. I can totally relate to what and how he's doing what he does. That makes it no less remarkable, but the point is, it appears superhuman when in fact, it's not at all. If what I'm saying makes not sense to any of you, then forgive me for wasting you time. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programs....

Ben's 'resolution' would be relatively low compared to Bats & Cetaceans as his clicks are low frequency compared to the 150 - 200 khz extension that the 'best' echolocating mammals achieve.

We haven't even touch on cross-modal transfer yet!! The visualisation of a acoustical information or the acoustical modelling of visual information, found in Bottle Nose Dolphins and Sea Lions (although I understand work is ongoing in this area).

(I like this stuff anyway).

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercbuggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ben's 'resolution' would be relatively low compared to Bats & Cetaceans as his clicks are low frequency compared to the 150 - 200 khz extension that the 'best' echolocating mammals achieve. We haven't even touch on cross-modal transfer yet!! The visualisation of a acoustical information or the acoustical modelling of visual information, found in Bottle Nose Dolphins and Sea Lions (although I understand work is ongoing in this area). (I like this stuff anyway).

Indeed, although I would imagine that Ben could very easily experience some measure of cross-modal transfer. It would be wonderful to interview him at length. The mind is an amazing thing! This is very cool stuff.

 

[mercbuggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Simply amazing! My sister had (and might still have) somewhat similar skills. Walking around parked cars when going down the road. Yes, she is blind as well..

Does your sister use clicks or another audio cue like a walking stick? I would think that a stick might still be necessary as I would assume the resolution of this 'click' echolocation to not pick up small variations like the sidewalk edge.

 

[mercbuggy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Indeed, although I would imagine that Ben could very easily experience some measure of cross-modal transfer. It would be wonderful to interview him at length. The mind is an amazing thing! This is very cool stuff.

Thought that this might be of interest too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uobuBc2GO0o

He does talk about visualization of sound fields but would submit that he would need much higher frequencies to have sufficient resolution. There is a big difference between his brain using the visual cortex part of his brain 'seeing' the soundfield and 'just' visualisation in an imaginary sense.

 

[Edwood]

For reals!

 

[milkpowder]

It's amazing what the brain is capable of doing. My guess is that the areas in his brain that was responsible for vision have adapted to processing sound instead. Extraordinary.

If perfect sound reproduction were to be possible and he can really visualise audio cues, it would be possible for him to don a pair of headphones (or listen to speakers) and actually experience a live musical event without actually being there! Normal people might also be able to do the same, but maybe not as effectively.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercbuggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thought that this might be of interest too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uobuBc2GO0o He does talk about visualization of sound fields but would submit that he would need much higher frequencies to have sufficient resolution. There is a big difference between his brain using the visual cortex part of his brain 'seeing' the soundfield and 'just' visualisation in an imaginary sense.

Fascinating! Thanks for the link! With regards to "resolution," I agree that higher frequencies and rep rates would give him better resolution, but remember he correctly identified that pole in front of him and the mic boom further away. I bet that was not more than about 1 degree (probably less) in width. That's pretty amazingly high resolution as it is.

It sort of bugs me that the reporter refers to the skill as "superhuman" when what's really amazing is that it is a completely human skill, and learned, at that. That makes it all the more "super" to me!

Good point about "visualization" as opposed to actually utilizing the VC part of his brain. It would be very interesting to study him, Ben, and others to see what areas of their brains they were using, to see if any cross over had taken place.

 

[pne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Televator /img/forum/go_quote.gif good on you... Lets close this thread and revert to your original one but really, thanks for this very informative contribution

i'm holding you to that. and thank you for the snide comment!

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Televator /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think your posts do invite us to think a bit more on the topics of hearing/perception/science/... and let's take this comparison between senses a bit further. (((snip)))

I snipped just because I hate quoting long posts unless I'm going to take the time to dissect them point by point.

In any case, you made some great points, especially about how we're able to see several different shades of grey simultaneously whereas we cannot simultaneously hear the differences (if there are any) in the sound produced by an audio system with even 2 different cables in place at the same time.

That's a big part of the frustration with the "great cables debate" (as I like to call it). No matter what methodology is used, people will argue over whether the methodolgy is correct, or more accurately, how incorrect it is.

Such is life. I agree with your assessment that (in the end) the "true" answer to the great cable debate doesn't matter all that much to me. It does matter, apparently, to other.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, it's called Sonar, and it is very powerful and sensitive, more sensitive than the most potent echolocation. This image of an underwater volcano was created using Sonar mapping. The depths are even color-coded! I'd like to see a bat or dolphin do that! (Let alone a human!)

Excellent! Of course I was just speculating that maybe our ears are even more sophisticated than the best measuring devices, but somehow I knew that was a foolish position to take. Thanks for sharing this. Amazing what science has provided in terms of tools of analysis.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wayne, actually I do disagree with your assessment of what went on in that thread. I replied to your post (I think it was the second one), but you never responded. Edit: actually, it was your first post that I responded to. As long as we're talking about shades of grey, I always find this to be a fascinating illustration: A and B are the exactly the same shade, but appear to be different because of the way that our brains process the shadows. However, if you were describing A and B, you would describe them as being different, even though, from an objective perspective, there is no difference at all. Can't the same thing happen with audio?

Another excellent post. Sorry about not responding to you in that other thread. You must have said something that was too intelligent for me to adequately counter. Thus I ignored it hoping you wouldn't notice that you had 'won'... no, wait! That's what I've been claiming the cable believers and non-believers had been doing in that thread! Hope I didn't inadvertanty do the same.

As for the two equal shades of color that our eyes see totally differently because of the influence caused by the shadow, all I have to say is: 1) Wow! In other words, I'm ultra impressed because I would have never believed that they were the exact same shade. They don't even look close, and 2) I agree with you that this could well translate with equal force to the debate with respect to our hearing. Our ears may deceive us with all of the potency that our eyes sometimes do!

Thus, 3) I could well be wrong in my assertion that I can distinguish practically an infinite number of shades of grey with my eyes, and thus (or double thus as it were), 4) the same may well be true in terms of what I think my ears are telling my brain in terms of the shades of grey that I often think I'm hearing (be it between cables, or between speakers, amps, sources, whatever). I really don't know. All of this is fascinating to me. Thanks for sharing that mind game!

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mercbuggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thought that this might be of interest too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uobuBc2GO0o

All of your posts in this thread have been fun to read, but thanks for this video especially.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think some of the mods here haven't heard that double, and even triple and quad posting is unneeded.

Not sure what you mean by this, given the double negative, but I suppose you're complaining that we allow the same topic to be repeated from time to time, either because:

1) people like yourself who are obviously annoyed enough by it to publicly express your annoyance are nonetheless unwilling to report the new double or triple or quad posted thread(s) along with the previously posted thread(s) on the same topic by using the "report post" button, such that we the mods who don't know what we're doing can utilize this, now shared, knowledge base to merge the offending threads and thereby reduce your degree of annoyance to a more manageable level, or

2) you think the mods have nothing better to do than to search for these sorts of occurances all day long in the hopes of being able to prevent an annoyance to folks like yourself, or

3) you just like to complain.

 

[Romanee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif All of your posts in this thread have been fun to read, but thanks for this video especially.

Hi, Wayne! Neck pain woke me and I bumped into and read this thread. I'd seen the Ben Underwood video when that thread came up and had the "WOW!" reaction and then forgot about it.

After reading all this and seeing the Dan Kish video, I tried a tiny click-and-listen test. I obviously have no experience or skill at this, but even in a 1-minute attempt I was amazed that it is possible to hear the difference (very roughly) in the sound quality indicating approximate distance, shape and even material -- even with the interfering sound of the Dan Kish video playing (quietly) -- though certainly much better when the room was quiet!

It was obvious -- really obvious -- with eyes open or closed -- when clicking while facing my laptop that it was small/close/hard, down toward my bare legs (shorts on) that it was much closer and softer with a closed-in sound, towards my right sleeved shoulder that it was really close and that it was soft fabric, towards the bookshelves & wood door to my right that it was a few feet away and hard, towards the front far wall that it was much farther and that there was a volume of quiet/closed-in air between me and the next surface (ceiling drops down there) and towards the closer left wall there was the sound of a slightly closer harder surface with a higher-pitched more open sound (expanse of bare wall with higher ceiling).

The observations had little to do with knowing what I was facing. The sounds were dramatically different and, obviously from a lifetime's experience, a bit identifiable -- especially with the cotton fabric.

Now I'm even more impressed at the skill and strong spirits of those remarkable people in the video. Cycling blind???!!!! Clicks or not, that's inspiring.

That's the limit of my attempt -- but now I'm a bit hooked on the subject.

 

[kwkarth]

I do hope this hasn't escaped all of you dear head-fiers out there, but there has never, to my knowledge, been any assertion that humans were good at any *absolute* form of judgment. Our brains are mismatch detectors and pattern matchers. Because they are so good at accommodation, it is easy to be "fooled" by things, either on an absolute basis, or by throwing in too many variables without an absolute reference to compare against. So this is really, completely off topic with respect to this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif [size=xx-small]Another excellent post. Sorry about not responding to you in that other thread. You must have said something that was too intelligent for me to adequately counter. Thus I ignored it hoping you wouldn't notice that you had 'won'... no, wait! That's what I've been claiming the cable believers and non-believers had been doing in that thread! Hope I didn't inadvertanty do the same. As for the two equal shades of color that our eyes see totally differently because of the influence caused by the shadow, all I have to say is: 1) Wow! In other words, I'm ultra impressed because I would have never believed that they were the exact same shade. They don't even look close, and 2) I agree with you that this could well translate with equal force to the debate with respect to our hearing. Our ears may deceive us with all of the potency that our eyes sometimes do! Thus, 3) I could well be wrong in my assertion that I can distinguish practically an infinite number of shades of grey with my eyes, and thus (or double thus as it were), 4) the same may well be true in terms of what I think my ears are telling my brain in terms of the shades of grey that I often think I'm hearing (be it between cables, or between speakers, amps, sources, whatever). I really don't know. All of this is fascinating to me. Thanks for sharing that mind game![/size]