Talk:Hypersonic effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Acoustics  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Acoustics Taskforce.
 

Oohashi has made lots of papers about this over the years[edit]

Ever since the early 1990s, Oohashi has been coming out with papers about this hypersonic effect. I don't know of anyone who has tried doing the same kind of tests Oohashi has done: Hook someone up to an EEG, give someone music with ultrasonic harmonics followed by music without ultrasonic harmonics (or the other way around), and see if the EEG changes.

But, Oohashi has written a lot of papers:

Oohashi et al. (1991), “High frequency sound above the audible range affects brain electric activity and sound perception”, 91st AES convention, preprint no. 3207

Oohashi et al. (1999), “Analysis of music-brain interaction with simultaneous measurement of regional cerebral blood flow and electroencephalogram beta rhythm in human subjects”, Neuroscience Letters 275, p.222-226

Oohashi et al. (2000), “Inaudible high-frequency sounds affect brain activity: hypersonic effect”, Journal of Neurophysiology 83, p. 3548-3558 http://www.linearaudio.nl/Documents/high%20freq%20inpact%20on%20brain.pdf

Oohashi et al. (2002), “Multidisciplinary study on the hypersonic effect”, International Congress Series 1226, pp.27-42

Oohashi et al. (2002), “Auditory display for deep brain activation: hypersonic effect”, Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Auditory Display, Kyoto, Japan, July 2-5, 2002 http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2002/proceedings/Oohashi.pdf

Oohashi et al. (2003), “Modulatory effect of inaudible high-frequency sounds on human acoustic perception”, Neuroscience Letters 351, p. 191-195

Oohashi et al. (2006), “The role of biological systems other than auditory air-conduction in the emergence of the hypersonic effect”, Brain Research 1073-1074, p. 339-347

There are no formal papers criticizing Oohashi's methods (but lots of papers showing that it's impossible to consciously hear the difference between 24/44.1 and any other higher resolution format such as 24/96, 24/192, or DSD) but some interesting informal discussion at Audio Asylum, not to mention a lot of skepticism over at hydrogenaudio.com. Samboy (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


Criticism[edit]

> The Oohashi et al. (2006) results reveal some interesting contradictions. While full bandwidth sound was preferred to CD limited bandwidth (over a speaker), the test for the ultrasonic music band was inaudible when reproduced alone. Additionally, the preference for HFC was not replicated when using headphones, only with speaker presentation, ruling out the ear as the means by which the effect was produced.

--

These are not contradictions. They are an essential feature of the study, specified and discussed in the paper. There is no contradiction here. Out it goes.(KrodMandooon (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

Contrary evidence and ABX tests[edit]

Oohashi et al. pictured human brains when the test persons were either exposed or not exposed to ultrasonic stimulus. ABX tests only tell, what differences test persons consciously perceive or not during the test. If same research methods had been used and results were drastically different, that should be called contradictory. --Uikku (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I will state that even more generally than previous: There are certainly many signals and irritants that human beings can be unconsciously exposed to, but nevertheless they affect human's well-being and happiness. For example several chemicals or radioactivity would do that. We just don't know the whole truth about ultrasonic signals yet. Some signals could be processed half consciously in human's brains: One feels restless or nervous but still does not know why. --Uikku (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Meyer Moran reference[edit]

Not sure who added the Meyer Moran reference here ... but the Meyer Moran test did not include discs that contain ultrasonics, so it clearly has nothing to do with this. Out it goes. (KrodMandooon (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC))


If you want to post rubbish about Meyer Moran here, you will have to prove first that the test includes a test of ultrasonics. David Moran himself notes that his test is NOT a test of ultrasonics, and his test discs don't contain ultrasonics. (KrodMandooon (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Your blanket complaint of the source material doesn't hold up. The recordings in the worst cases were SACD remasters from original studio master tapes, and the best recordings were modern ones which held naturally-occuring energy above 25 kHz. The speaker systems were ones capable of reproducing sounds up to 30 kHz. The test remains a valid one. Binksternet (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

14 Oct 2009

If you read the Oohashi paper, you will see the trouble they have gone to, to source ultrasonic music from gamelans, special playback equipment, special tweeters, etc .... everything checked from source to speaker system. Meyer Moran does not even seek to be a test of ultrasonics. It does not pretend to be a test of ultrasonics. It does not claim to be a test of ultrasonics. If you wish to assert that Meyer Moran is a test of ultrasonics, you will have to formally prove that EACH AND EVERY ONE of the elements of the chain passes the ultrasonic test. So let's check it out

1. Source material:
This is discusssed at: http://www.sa-cd.net/showthread.php?page=1 It turns out that the vast majority of source discs used by Meyer Moran were recorded in the 50s, 60, 70s or 80s ... they are CD quality masters, and therefore do not have ultrasonic content.
Summary: SOURCE MATERIAL: FAILS ultrasonic test

2. The playback equipment used by Meyer Moran has to be able to reproduce ultrasonics.
The source equipment used by Meyer Moran is listed at: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
The principal equipment consisted of an Adcom GTP-450 preamp and Snell C/V speakers. You can find the specs for the Adcom GTP-450 preamp here: http://www.users.interport.net/a/d/adcom/gtp450.html
The specs are listed as: 20Hz to 20kHz. FAILS ultrasonic test
The specs for the Snell C/V speakers are given here: http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1194snell/index3.html
They show massive drop-off above 22 kHz. FAIL
Summary: The playback equipment used by Meyer Moran cannot reproduce ultrasonics properly.

GRAND SUMMARY: Meyer Moran is not a test of ultrasonics. Meyer Moran do not claim it is a test of ultrasonics. The only person claiming that it is a test of ultrasonics is you, it is your own original research, which is a violation of the Wiki original research provisions. Worse, your claim is completely flawed and erroneous, at EVERY LEVEL of the chain, from source material through to speakers.

I'll leave this up for a day or so for some discussion. If you cannot prove your original claims, then ... out it goes.

P.S. Your Lehrman (2008) reference is just a quote of Meyer Moran - it also has absolutely nothing to do with the hypersonic effect, or ultrasonics. You might want to take this to the CD advocacy page - but it has nothing to do with the ultrasonic effect. Out it goes. (KrodMandooon (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

You're right that Meyer and Moran did not test to determine the presence of energy above 20 kHz. They also did not measure listener alpha waves. They did not set out to refute Oohashi. They set out to demonstrate the difference between listening at home to CDs vs. high resolution audio sources. What they did was take a pristine hi-fi signal chain with a variety of speakers that included a pair with ribbon tweeters capable of 30 kHz and a pair of electrostatics known for high frequency purity, and send SACD high resolution sound through them, then send the same sound with a 44.1 kHz sampling rate bottleneck through them. Their test was to determine whether naturally occurring high frequency sounds in musical recordings from past and present were detectable by listeners. They proved such HF was not detectable, consciously.
Your complaint that the Adcom GTP-450 preamp was not capable of high frequencies is not confirmed by its spec sheet. That spec sheet makes no declaration at all about its performance above 20 kHz. Typically, gear that measures ±0.5 dB from 20 to 20,000 Hz has a frequency response that continues to be fairly flat on either side of those stated limits... Nevertheless, any confirmation or denial of its HF ability is not present in the Adcom spec sheet. We can't classify it as failing within the Meyer Moran test.
Your sa-cd.net discussion thread is not a reliable source, and some of the participants in that discussion thread get the facts completely wrong. Someone states that Meyer and Moran bandlimited the SACD and DVD-Audio sources for both test pathways. Malarkey! They bandlimited only one of the parallel pathways, limiting that one to 44.1 kHz sampling rate.
You state that "David Moran himself notes that his test is NOT a test of ultrasonics, and his test discs don't contain ultrasonics" but I have not found that in the AES paper or the supplemental paper from September 2007. What's your source?
I don't have to prove that each and every part of the signal chain was capable of extended HF response. That would original research. I'm not here presenting a paper on the subject, I'm here quoting primary and secondary sources who have commented on the validity of extended HF in the home. Lehrman is an ideal source because he is analyzing and validating the primary research of Meyer and Moran. Please read WP:PRIMARY for Wikipedia's take on primary and secondary sources. In a nutshell, secondary sources are sought. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your answer does not address the issue. If you would like to use Meyer Moran as a primary references, can you please provide any quotation from same (or from your claimed secondary reference) where they refer to the Meyer Moran paper as providing ANY evidence on the issue of ultrasonics or the hypersonic effect. It's that simple. If you cannot do so ... they fail to be relevant, and out they go. A test that uses source material that does not contain ultrasonics, and playback equipment that cannot reproduce ultrasonics ... is NOT a test of ultrasonics. This is NOT the CD advocacy page. (KrodMandooon (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

The editor of the Journal of the Audio and Engineering Society has recently requested further validation of the tests conducted by Brad Meyer and David Moran, due to the methodology employed in conducting the tests as well as in the statistical analysis of the results.Yasmin Madelene (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lehrman, Paul D. "The Emperor's New Sampling Rate." is not a primary source[edit]

Lehrman, Paul D. "The Emperor's New Sampling Rate." is not a primary source for many of the things it's being used to justify. Could someone please link to the actual peer-reviewed papers instead? --mcld (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources like this one are actually preferred on Wikipedia --Kvng (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Females worse than coin[edit]

I have removed:

Females, and those who were able to hear frequencies higher than 15 kHz, performed worse than average. ref name=Lehrman

because if these people performed worse than flipping a coin, then either the result is statistically insignificant, or these people can tell the difference (although giving responses the opposite direction than expected). This therefore is a bit of an incoherent claim, and even though it's right there in the Mix article as well as in WKP, it's not worth emphasising by parroting it here. --mcld (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

They fall within the confidence interval as females performed about 10% of trials (56 trials, I suspect). A 95% confidence interval on 56 trials suggests 56/2 - sqrt(56) = 20.52 trials or 36.6% identification rate can be expected in one of twenty trials by coin-flipping alone and they achieved 37.5% or 21/56 trials correct) ABX_test#Confidence Dynamicimanyd (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

AES Paper 6298[edit]

Convention Paper 6298 (2004, Oct 28-31) Perceptual Discrimination of Very High Frequency Components in Musical Sound Recorded with a Newly Developed Wide Frequency Range Microphone

This paper, while far from conclusive, is suggestive that further study may be worthwhile. Dogmo1001 (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV edits[edit]

I have edited the introduction in light of copious well-cited contradicting material I uncovered on this subject (and added to the Contrary evidence section). The Hypersonic effect apparently originates with a single research group whose results contain some contradictions and whose results have apparently never been independently reproduced. On the other hand, there is ample reproducible research indicating that ultrasonics are inaudible to humans. If you take issue with these changes, please discuss it here.--Kvng (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is still very Non-NPOV. The studies cited as "disproving" the Oohashi studies seem to focus only on the conscious, subjective reaction to the material. I don't see anything here that contradicts (or even attempts to recreate) the physiological responses to the material; however, the criticism never makes it clear which portion of the study is being addressed. Simply put: one study says people's brains reacted a certain way to audio with HFC, other studies say people could not consciously distinguish between HFC and LFC audio -- these two points do not contradict each other. —Torc. (Talk.) 22:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
You will need to cite a study which focuses on physiological responses, not simply delete studies that focus on conscious responses. You cannot take away the impact of the cited studies by saying they did not look at the things you wanted them to look at. This article is written using WP:Reliable sources; all else falls away, including opinions of Wikipedia editors. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
No, all I'm pointing out is that the studies cited do NOT address physiological responses. That's factual -- if you disagree, please point out where in the studies they do address it. The line regarding "inability to reproduce" does not apply in the introduction because it implies the ENTIRE study was attempted and failed, which simply is not the case. Those citations and the criticism still exists in the "Contrary evidence" section. —Torc. (Talk.) 22:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I have made the following modifications: --Kvng (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Restored cited claim that results have not been successfully reproduced. They did not attempt to reproduce all results. The ones that were tried were not successful so the statement is correct and reasonably neutral.
  2. Restored Contary evidence section. Edits there degraded objectivity.
  3. Created a new Counter-contrary evidence section to document next round of debate
  4. Added new ref cited by Colloms. This apparently new work in progress by Oohashi and should be verified.