naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sample Rate Conversion

Subject: Re: Sample Rate Conversion
From: Walter Knapp <>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:47:34 -0400
From: Syd Curtis <>

>  For getting hearing aids one listens for threshold amplitudes at specific
> frequencies over the  normal hearing range, and the hearing aid is designed
> according to the results.  I surmise that even with those with apparently
> normal hearing there can be differences in hearing sensitivity at various
> frequencies. If so, surely two people listening to the same sound at the
> same time, may hear it differently.

During 2 1/2 of my years in the Army one of my daily duties was to do 
large numbers of hearing tests. For such work we had a semi-automated 
testing system and the subjects were in small individual soundproof 
rooms. We did test in individual frequency bands, one ear at a time. The 
results of those tests, on mostly male late teens, early 20's, were all 
over the map. It was extremely rare for anyone to have the same 
sensitivity in every band. Even those with excellent hearing would have 
some falloff at the higher frequencies, and we were only testing to 
8khz. Differences of 30-40db across the bands were common. The 100 dB 
range we tested was not often reached in the differences as most with 
bad hearing in some bands would not reach to most sensitive end in any 
band. We tested from -10dB to 90dB. In those days I came very close to a 
perfect -10dB across the board, but not quite.

Those Army tests were intended only to screen new recruits. We rejected 
for service those with too low a hearing level. They used many fewer 
bands and tests than are used to prescribe a hearing aid.

Yes, in actual hearing sensitivity we each hear sounds differently.

> Walter takes a sound, manipulates it with computer technology, and posts the
> results on a web site.  This is sent, digitally, I assume, via satellite
> technology, around the world then down Vicki's phone-line to her iMac, which
> converts digital to analogue, and the analogue signal is interpreted by some
> sound-producing device which vibrates the air, eventually causing pressure
> variations in Vicki's ear-hole.
> 
> Ditto, with other naturerecordists.
> 
> To me, Mozart sounds better than Messiaen.
> 
> I'd be surprised if everyone did agree on which samples sound the best!

On top of the pure mechanics of hearing and our individual sensitivities 
there is how we interpret sound. As I've pointed out our brains 
interpret the signals from our ears according to what we have heard, 
what we think about the sound, our current emotions and so on. We filter 
what our own ears picked up even before becoming aware of the sound.

Walt




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU