Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning "adult-proof" ringtone

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Get the buzz at:
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687
> I'd be interested to know whether you can hear this sound.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>
>

Yup, fine (age 31) ... although I had a moment of panic before
cranking up the volume a bit. None of the concerts I go to require
earplugs!

I don't know if there are some systems that refuse or are unable to
process such audio frequencies - it would not surprise me if cheap
computer speakers couldn't deal with them.

We talked about the 'teen repellent' some time ago didn't we?
Generally a bad idea to introduce social penalties for those with good
hearing. So this development is a positive one!

~~~T~~~

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

Carl Lumma wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Get the buzz at:
>>
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687
>> I'd be interested to know whether you can hear this sound.
>>
>> Regards, >> Yahya
> > Loud and clear. I also hear TV ultrasonics very clearly,
> that are much higher than this. Looks like my secret plan
> of wearing ear plugs in concerts and movies is working.
> Then again, I'm only 29.
> > -Carl

There is definitely nothing in the "Listen" link (confirmed by a 9 year old). The mp3 I heard like a distant gnat that got disproportionally louder when I yanked up the volume. The nasty pressure in my ears minutes after the sound ended makes me suspect that this will unconsciously work on adult costumers, too. Which fills me with strange satisfaction, but let's hope the owner runs his shop alone.

klaus

And I thought mp3s filtered away stuff like this?

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

I hear it extremely loud and clear, not the "like this" section narrated by
Melissa Block (there is nothing to hear there other than static!), but the
teen buzz here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5483203

or here:

http://www.freemosquitoringtone.com/

And I must say I find it utterly irritating.

> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Get the buzz at:
> >
> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687
> > I'd be interested to know whether you can hear this sound.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yahya
>
>
>
>
> Yahya,
>
> I heard it quite distinctly, though somewhat faint.
>
> Regards,
>
> jlsmith
>
>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

I'm going to have to assume that this is proof of the different
istening environments we have on our computers. There is very
clearly a perfect example sound during the "like this" portion of
the broadcast. Any statement to the contrary, either your computer
has some audio glitch or your ears are really not so good. I can
hear sounds higher than that, and I'm 25 with a few years of rock
band rehearsals (usually with earplugs though) behind my belt and
moments of noticeable tinnitus even.

I did a test on my hearing a few months ago, and was testing a
dither noise comparison, when I found an issue with my audio system.

I'm running a USB audio device for both inputs and outputs and I
couldn't hear the difference with the dither noise on or off, they
both faded into static eventually. I could only hear it by cranking
the volume and listening with my studio monitor headphones.
But they sounded the same.

I don't remember how I figured it out, but it turns out that simply
allowing the input signals to pass through the device *even with
nothing plugged in* was causing static at a very low level that was
audible when the volume was cranked. By signalling the unit to
MUTE the input channels, the noise dissapeared, and I could hear
the difference in the dither comparisons.

It's like how the report talks about the significance of the sound
PULSING in order to be annoying. Everybody thinks that the sound
of their computer is just what it is, because they don't know
otherwise. Almost every computer emits sounds of processor
action, drive spinning, fans, etc. and because they are constant
we don't notice them. They could mask these example sounds.
The only way to know for sure is to control as much background
noise as possible, check every connection, use high
quality headphones and move as far as possible from the computer
or any other noise source.

Then, you'll more likely hear these things. And unless your 9-year
old has serious hearing issues, he'll hear the high frequency loud and clear.

The real lesson for this list is a reminder of how much examples and
recordings we share hear are not heard in the same listening environment
at all. We should not forget that. Especially when it comes to things like MIDI
files where the sounds will actually be different.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I hear it extremely loud and clear, not the "like this" section narrated by
> Melissa Block (there is nothing to hear there other than static!), but the
> teen buzz here:
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5483203
>
> or here:
>
> http://www.freemosquitoringtone.com/
>
> And I must say I find it utterly irritating.
>
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Get the buzz at:
> > >
> > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687
> > > I'd be interested to know whether you can hear this sound.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Yahya
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahya,
> >
> > I heard it quite distinctly, though somewhat faint.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > jlsmith
> >
> >
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

I demand an audio analysis of that mp3 with the "like this" portion.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 22 Haziran 2006 Perï¿½embe 21:48
Subject: [tuning] Re: "adult-proof" ringtone

> I'm going to have to assume that this is proof of the different
> istening environments we have on our computers. There is very
> clearly a perfect example sound during the "like this" portion of
> the broadcast. Any statement to the contrary, either your computer
> has some audio glitch or your ears are really not so good. I can
> hear sounds higher than that, and I'm 25 with a few years of rock
> band rehearsals (usually with earplugs though) behind my belt and
> moments of noticeable tinnitus even.
>
> I did a test on my hearing a few months ago, and was testing a
> dither noise comparison, when I found an issue with my audio system.
>
> I'm running a USB audio device for both inputs and outputs and I
> couldn't hear the difference with the dither noise on or off, they
> both faded into static eventually. I could only hear it by cranking
> the volume and listening with my studio monitor headphones.
> But they sounded the same.
>
> I don't remember how I figured it out, but it turns out that simply
> allowing the input signals to pass through the device *even with
> nothing plugged in* was causing static at a very low level that was
> audible when the volume was cranked. By signalling the unit to
> MUTE the input channels, the noise dissapeared, and I could hear
> the difference in the dither comparisons.
>
> It's like how the report talks about the significance of the sound
> PULSING in order to be annoying. Everybody thinks that the sound
> of their computer is just what it is, because they don't know
> otherwise. Almost every computer emits sounds of processor
> action, drive spinning, fans, etc. and because they are constant
> we don't notice them. They could mask these example sounds.
> The only way to know for sure is to control as much background
> noise as possible, check every connection, use high
> quality headphones and move as far as possible from the computer
> or any other noise source.
>
> Then, you'll more likely hear these things. And unless your 9-year
> old has serious hearing issues, he'll hear the high frequency loud and
clear.
>
> The real lesson for this list is a reminder of how much examples and
> recordings we share hear are not heard in the same listening environment
> at all. We should not forget that. Especially when it comes to things
like MIDI
> files where the sounds will actually be different.
>
> -Aaron

🔗Peter Frazer <paf@easynet.co.uk>

Aaron Wolf wrote

> > I'm going to have to assume that this is proof of the different
> > istening environments we have on our computers. There is very
> > clearly a perfect example sound during the "like this" portion of
> > the broadcast. Any statement to the contrary, either your computer
> > has some audio glitch or your ears are really not so good. I can
> > hear sounds higher than that, and I'm 25 with a few years of rock
> > band rehearsals (usually with earplugs though) behind my belt and
> > moments of noticeable tinnitus even.

Interesting and strange. I can both hear (just) and easily detect with
analysis software the tone in the 'Download Ringtone' link. But the
'Mellisa Block' sample appears to be completely blank (apart from some
noise). So it is neither the computer nor my ears. In both cases
I am using the same software.

Peter
www.mdicode.com

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

So, it seems I wasn't "hearing things"?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Frazer" <paf@easynet.co.uk>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 23 Haziran 2006 Cuma 1:12
Subject: [tuning] Re: "adult-proof" ringtone

>
> Aaron Wolf wrote
>
> > > I'm going to have to assume that this is proof of the different
> > > istening environments we have on our computers. There is very
> > > clearly a perfect example sound during the "like this" portion of
> > > the broadcast. Any statement to the contrary, either your computer
> > > has some audio glitch or your ears are really not so good. I can
> > > hear sounds higher than that, and I'm 25 with a few years of rock
> > > band rehearsals (usually with earplugs though) behind my belt and
> > > moments of noticeable tinnitus even.
>
> Interesting and strange. I can both hear (just) and easily detect with
> analysis software the tone in the 'Download Ringtone' link. But the
> 'Mellisa Block' sample appears to be completely blank (apart from some
> noise). So it is neither the computer nor my ears. In both cases
> I am using the same software.
>
> Peter
> www.mdicode.com
>
>

🔗yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

Hi all,

Thanks for listening! Your differing responses
seem to reflect what others experience, too.
I (naïvely, I suppose) had expected members of
this list to share somewhat better than average
hearing (unless damaged by too much loud rock,
or other "industrial" deafness).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I hear it extremely loud and clear, not the "like this"
> section narrated by Melissa Block (there is nothing to
> hear there other than static!), but the teen buzz here:
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5483203

Lots of good feedback (heh) there. One comment runs:
"The sound I hear is about the upper middle range of the piano,
certainly not a challenge for most peoples' ears. It's just about
the frequency of the tone used in the U.S. to announce emergency
broadcast system tests. I think what I'm hearing is an alias, where,
much like an old-fashioned British bobby's whistle, two high notes
interact to form a third, lower one. In this case, it's probably an
interaction between the tone itseslf and the sampling frequency used
to encode the MP3. I hope some physics-savvy listener will post some
information about the Nyquist frequency and how it relates to
problems with digital sound recording...".

So, is it a difference tone I'm hearing?
I'll be 57 in September. It strikes me
that I'm hearing something only a little
higher than 10.5 kHz. To be precise, it
seems to be a single pitch an octave higher
than a note between E8 and F8 (the highest
E and F) on the piano. That would make it
between 10560 and ~11660 Hz, right? That's
"off the scale" (of the piano keyboard).

Yet Carl says it's around 16 kHz, which
would put it a couple of tones above A9,
very close to the top C on the piano.
Did you check the sound with a scope, Carl?

> or here:
>
> http://www.freemosquitoringtone.com/

I've downloaded and played both files.
The original one is 10 s long, the second
is 8 s long; apart from that, they sound
very similar to me. Not particularly loud,
but not so faint I need to turn up the
(PC desktop 3D speaker) volume from my
normal moderately low setting. BTW, I can
hear these sounds perfectly well even
during a bout of tinnitus, which I get
every time I get a cold (and I get lots of
those ;-( ...)

> And I must say I find it utterly irritating.

Well, TV ultrasonics are, IME, very *much*
worse than this, and so is the kind of feedback
you get from a pub band. I could quite happily
use this as a ringtone, but I'd rather play
"She Drives Me Crazy" by FYC ...

> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Get the buzz at:
> > >
> > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687
> > > I'd be interested to know whether you can hear this sound.
...
> >
> > Yahya,
> >
> > I heard it quite distinctly, though somewhat faint.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > jlsmith

Regards,
Yahya

🔗yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

Hi Aaron,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" wrote:
>
> I'm going to have to assume that this is proof of the different
> [l]istening environments we have on our computers.

[many wise words snipped]

> The real lesson for this list is a reminder of how much
> examples and recordings we share hear are not heard in
> the same listening environment at all. We should not
> forget that. Especially when it comes to things like MIDI
> files where the sounds will actually be different.

Thanks for your input. Yes, I was mostly
motivated by simple curiosity to discover
what a sample of musically-minded people
can actually hear. I've read many claims
over the years, such as that our hearing
peaks at about age 8, with frequencies as
high as 22 kHz commonly heard then, but
that by (old-style) adulthood, ie age 21,
few people can hear above 16 kHz, with a
typical upper imit at age 30 being 10 to
12 kHz.

If my estimate (see previous post) of
10.5-12 kHz is roughly right, that suggests
that a large proportion of people can't
even hear 10kHz clearly. An accurate
determination would be nice.

If that's right, we don't need to sample
beyond 20 kHz to get the sounds most people
hear. 44 or 48 or even 96 kHz is just a
waste for all those people.

Apart from their innate or acquired physio-
logical differences, listeners do also have,
as you note, very different environments for
listening in. It's the one factor that makes
the MIDI format so unsatisfactory. I can
create a piece here, and playing it back on
my system sounds one way, using both the MIDI
keyboard's speakers and the PC speakers, each
with their different responses, those of the
PC being configurable. Then I take it to a
meeting of the Music SIG at the MelbPC User
Group, and play it back on a similar keyboard
but a different soundcard and entirely dif-
ferent speakers. The sounds I hear there
almost always surprise me, because they are
so very different.

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" wrote:
> >
> > I hear it extremely loud and clear, not the "like
> > this" section narrated by Melissa Block (there is
> > nothing to hear there other than static!), but the
> > teen buzz here:
> > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5483203
> >
> > or here:
> >
> > http://www.freemosquitoringtone.com/
> >
> > And I must say I find it utterly irritating.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Get the buzz at:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687
> > > > I'd be interested to know whether you can hear this sound.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Yahya
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahya,
> > >
> > > I heard it quite distinctly, though somewhat faint.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > jlsmith
> > >

Regards,
Yahya

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

http://www.ochenk.com/entry.php?id=63

----- Original Message -----
From: "yahya_melb" <yahya@melbpc.org.au>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 23 Haziran 2006 Cuma 2:49
Subject: [tuning] Re: "adult-proof" ringtone

>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to have to assume that this is proof of the different
> > [l]istening environments we have on our computers.
>
> [many wise words snipped]
>
> > The real lesson for this list is a reminder of how much
> > examples and recordings we share hear are not heard in
> > the same listening environment at all. We should not
> > forget that. Especially when it comes to things like MIDI
> > files where the sounds will actually be different.
>
> Thanks for your input. Yes, I was mostly
> motivated by simple curiosity to discover
> what a sample of musically-minded people
> can actually hear. I've read many claims
> over the years, such as that our hearing
> peaks at about age 8, with frequencies as
> high as 22 kHz commonly heard then, but
> that by (old-style) adulthood, ie age 21,
> few people can hear above 16 kHz, with a
> typical upper imit at age 30 being 10 to
> 12 kHz.
>
> If my estimate (see previous post) of
> 10.5-12 kHz is roughly right, that suggests
> that a large proportion of people can't
> even hear 10kHz clearly. An accurate
> determination would be nice.
>
> If that's right, we don't need to sample
> beyond 20 kHz to get the sounds most people
> hear. 44 or 48 or even 96 kHz is just a
> waste for all those people.
>
> Apart from their innate or acquired physio-
> logical differences, listeners do also have,
> as you note, very different environments for
> listening in. It's the one factor that makes
> the MIDI format so unsatisfactory. I can
> create a piece here, and playing it back on
> my system sounds one way, using both the MIDI
> keyboard's speakers and the PC speakers, each
> with their different responses, those of the
> PC being configurable. Then I take it to a
> meeting of the Music SIG at the MelbPC User
> Group, and play it back on a similar keyboard
> but a different soundcard and entirely dif-
> ferent speakers. The sounds I hear there
> almost always surprise me, because they are
> so very different.
>
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

I downloaded a neat program by Oleg Shmelyoff called Sound frequency
generator. Having done a quick sweep, I can confidently say that I can hear
up to about 16.7khz at fortessimo. That was until I saw smoke coming from
the tweeter of my left monitor speaker! Apparently, I turned the volume too
loud the first time.

I drew myself crazy just for you,
My ears turned deaf thanks to you...
The speakers finally fried to a crisp,
I can't anymore listen to that risp!

Music please.

Oz.

P.S. Talk about tinnitus. I always catch ultrasonics in the air that make me
go awry 24/7. Bombarded by broadcasts everywhere. Mildy depressed. Ringing
ears... the night proceeds in utter *silence*... sigh

----- Original Message -----
From: "yahya_melb" <yahya@melbpc.org.au>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 23 Haziran 2006 Cuma 2:23
Subject: [tuning] Re: "adult-proof" ringtone

Hi all,

Thanks for listening! Your differing responses
seem to reflect what others experience, too.
I (naï¿½vely, I suppose) had expected members of
this list to share somewhat better than average
hearing (unless damaged by too much loud rock,
or other "industrial" deafness).

Yet Carl says it's around 16 kHz, which
would put it a couple of tones above A9,
very close to the top C on the piano.
Did you check the sound with a scope, Carl?

> or here:
>
> http://www.freemosquitoringtone.com/

> And I must say I find it utterly irritating.

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

I will go forth and state that perhaps even different streaming
audio is different, I don't know. There is CLEARLY to me a tone
during the broadcast "like this" portion, and it is somewhere
just under 17K.

Testing my hearing, 17K just barely seems like a tone. I can
hear just past 19K in the sense that I can play around 19, turn
the volume up really high and sesne this squealling annoying
high frequency that doesn't really seem like a tone, but I definitely
hear this "ringing" in my ears, and I can sweep the volume up and
down and it correllates exactly. By 20K I hear nothing no matter
what, except that if I really crank it I start to hear difference tones
or other noises that are clearly not the 20K.

Anyway, I don't know what broadcast issues there are, and their
might also be noise, but like I said, I heard a tone in the broadcast
link.

I've always been sensitive to TV ultrasonics too, now that you
mention it. But I haven't been around TVs much lately to know
if I still am. I know I'm not as sensitive as I once was.

Oh and as for sampling at 44/48/96 etc. it's more complicated
than that. Yahya I think commented. Just a quick briefing: 44
sampling only allows frequencies up to 22, because one wave
needs a low point and high point both in order to be captured.
Also, due to imperfections in actual recording hardware, 44
systems are never set to record all the way to 22 because they
start to get glitches around the cutoff point, so they use a low
pass filter. For cheap systems, that could be as low as 17 or 18!
If you record at 96, the low pass filter could be at 30 or higher
in a cheap system, thus no risk of losing frequencies around 20.
And the further point is: If an orchestra in a real concert produces
tones at 40K and 44K, there will be very small difference tones at
4K! That is very subtle now, but we certainly hear that stuff. While
it won't be exactly the same, a recording that only picks up 20K
and under will successfully record the 4K difference tone. Yay!
BUT... if you record two violin parts separately in a studio
overdubbing, but cut out anything over 20K, then you will
lose the 40K region from each recording, and they together
will not make the difference tone. So recording for overdubbing
at 96K is the best bet for capturing all the possible interactions
of the various sounds, including audible difference tones of
inaudible frequencies.

But then, with obviously imperfect listening systems,
background noise, and damaged hearing, as we've all seen
in this thread... well... we're getting pretty picky to bother
caring about all this subtlety.

-Aaron

🔗yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

Hi Oz,

Thanks for an interesting and pertinent link.

I downloaded the samples at 10 to 25 kHz from the
website you linked to. I can hear *something*
in each of them! But I'm fairly sure that I'm
only hearing difference tones in the highest two.

To be sure, I need to generate some pure sine
tones over a range of frequencies. I wasted
Saturday morning playing with Csound, and despite
the completely beginner-unfriendly nature of the
documentation (why is it that so few software
developers are ever *teachers*?), have managed to
begin to get some sounds out of it. So maybe I'll
be able to get CSound to generate those samples
for a proper listening test.

Regards,
Yahya

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" wrote:
>
> http://www.ochenk.com/entry.php?id=63
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "yahya_melb"
...
> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm going to have to assume that this is proof of the
different
> > > [l]istening environments we have on our computers.
> >
> > [many wise words snipped]
> >
> > > The real lesson for this list is a reminder of how much
> > > examples and recordings we share hear are not heard in
> > > the same listening environment at all. We should not
> > > forget that. Especially when it comes to things like MIDI
> > > files where the sounds will actually be different.
> >
> > Thanks for your input. Yes, I was mostly
> > motivated by simple curiosity to discover
> > what a sample of musically-minded people
> > can actually hear. I've read many claims
> > over the years, such as that our hearing
> > peaks at about age 8, with frequencies as
> > high as 22 kHz commonly heard then, but
> > that by (old-style) adulthood, ie age 21,
> > few people can hear above 16 kHz, with a
> > typical upper imit at age 30 being 10 to
> > 12 kHz.
> >
> > If my estimate (see previous post) of
> > 10.5-12 kHz is roughly right, that suggests
> > that a large proportion of people can't
> > even hear 10kHz clearly. An accurate
> > determination would be nice.
> >
> > If that's right, we don't need to sample
> > beyond 20 kHz to get the sounds most people
> > hear. 44 or 48 or even 96 kHz is just a
> > waste for all those people.
> >
> > Apart from their innate or acquired physio-
> > logical differences, listeners do also have,
> > as you note, very different environments for
> > listening in. It's the one factor that makes
> > the MIDI format so unsatisfactory. I can
> > create a piece here, and playing it back on
> > my system sounds one way, using both the MIDI
> > keyboard's speakers and the PC speakers, each
> > with their different responses, those of the
> > PC being configurable. Then I take it to a
> > meeting of the Music SIG at the MelbPC User
> > Group, and play it back on a similar keyboard
> > but a different soundcard and entirely dif-
> > ferent speakers. The sounds I hear there
> > almost always surprise me, because they are
> > so very different.

🔗yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

Hi Aaron,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" wrote:
...
> Oh and as for sampling at 44/48/96 etc. it's more complicated
> than that. Yahya I think commented. Just a quick briefing: 44
> sampling only allows frequencies up to 22, because one wave
> needs a low point and high point both in order to be captured.
> Also, due to imperfections in actual recording hardware, 44
> systems are never set to record all the way to 22 because they
> start to get glitches around the cutoff point, so they use a low
> pass filter. For cheap systems, that could be as low as 17 or 18!
> If you record at 96, the low pass filter could be at 30 or higher
> in a cheap system, thus no risk of losing frequencies around 20.
> And the further point is: If an orchestra in a real concert
> produces tones at 40K and 44K, there will be very small difference
> tones at 4K! That is very subtle now, but we certainly hear that
> stuff. While it won't be exactly the same, a recording that only
> picks up 20K and under will successfully record the 4K difference
> tone. Yay!

Audibly the same, for anyone who can't hear the high
tones that were differenced.

> BUT... if you record two violin parts separately in a studio
> overdubbing, but cut out anything over 20K, then you will
> lose the 40K region from each recording, and they together
> will not make the difference tone. So recording for overdubbing
> at 96K is the best bet for capturing all the possible interactions
> of the various sounds, including audible difference tones of
> inaudible frequencies.

Yes - a very good point, and one that I hadn't even
considered. Following this logic, if your equipment
can record at 128 kHz or even 256 kHz, you'd want to
do that, because two piccolos (piccoli?), say, that
produce overtones at 251 and 255 kHz would still have
an audible difference tone at 4 kHz ... (though I
doubt there'd be much power in it).

> But then, with obviously imperfect listening systems,
> background noise, and damaged hearing, as we've all seen
> in this thread... well... we're getting pretty picky to
> bother caring about all this subtlety.

Hmmm ... I've listened to a lot of pub rock over the
years, and can still hear things that theoretically
I shouldn't be able to. For example, this house is
about average, maybe slightly larger, yet I can hear
(and understand) my wife and daughter conversing in
low tones at the opposite end of the house - behind
a closed door! There's no secrets from me ..;-)

But would you want to limit music to only that which
everyone can hear and understand!?

Regards,
Yahya

🔗steve parker <steveparker@350.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, steve parker <steveparker@...> wrote:
>
> > Yes - a very good point, and one that I hadn't even
> > considered. Following this logic, if your equipment
> > can record at 128 kHz or even 256 kHz, you'd want to
> > do that, because two piccolos (piccoli?), say, that
> > produce overtones at 251 and 255 kHz would still have
> > an audible difference tone at 4 kHz ... (though I
> > doubt there'd be much power in it).
>
> The difference tone would still be recorded at 44.1 - just not the tones
> causing it.
>
> Steve Parker.
>

Not if you record the two piccolos SEPARATELY at 44.1 and then
mix them together! Then there will be no tones to cause it.

(But do piccolos really make overtones like that that have any
substantial power?? I thought my example of tones in the 40-50K
range was a little more realistic.)

-Aaron

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Guess what! I can after-all hear all the way up to 22khz! Now I know why I
couldn't discern previously pitches so high... I hear them all the time! I
am bombarded from all directions with these incredibly shrill frequencies
broadcasted by Allah knows what satellite networking systems and radio/tv
stations... They are so annoying that my brain probably shuts down my
perception, if not reception, of them.

A rested ear certainly can make a difference.

Try http://shmelyoff.nm.ru/ . The tubby Russian fellow knows his thing.

I'm fed up with trying to understand CSound. Why is it so user-unfriendly?

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "yahya_melb" <yahya@melbpc.org.au>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 26 Haziran 2006 Pazartesi 3:47
Subject: [tuning] Re: "adult-proof" ringtone

>
> Hi Oz,
>
> Thanks for an interesting and pertinent link.
>
> I downloaded the samples at 10 to 25 kHz from the
> website you linked to. I can hear *something*
> in each of them! But I'm fairly sure that I'm
> only hearing difference tones in the highest two.
>
> To be sure, I need to generate some pure sine
> tones over a range of frequencies. I wasted
> Saturday morning playing with Csound, and despite
> the completely beginner-unfriendly nature of the
> documentation (why is it that so few software
> developers are ever *teachers*?), have managed to
> begin to get some sounds out of it. So maybe I'll
> be able to get CSound to generate those samples
> for a proper listening test.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

Hi Oz,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Guess what! I can after-all hear all the way up to 22khz!

That's simply incredible!

I tested my hearing last year in comparison with a young man
(16 years old at the time) who has extremely sensitive hearing
and sight. He complained about the refresh rate of my computer
monitor because he saw it flashing, and i see none of that.

Anyway, he could hear just above 18 kHz, and my limit was
around 13.8 kHz. I know my high-frequency hearing was better
when i was younger -- i suppose that years of playing in
very loud rock bands took its toll.

I find it amazing that you can hear all the way up to 22 kHz,
particularly since you are beyond your teenage years. High
frequency perception diminishes with age.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

Hi Oz,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I'm fed up with trying to understand CSound. Why is it so
user-unfriendly?
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm fed up with trying to understand CSound. Why is it
> so user-unfriendly?

Mainly simply because it's so old.

Csound itself was invented around 1982, but it evolved directly
out of the very earliest computer-music languages, which were
developed back in the late 1950s.

As it's been updated, it always had to be backwards-compatible,
and since it's free and open-source, the goal was always to
keep it running on as many different platforms as possible.

One thing that i might mention here is that Tonescape allows
the user to export Tonescape files as Csound .sco ("score")
files. So that makes it extremely easy to create microtonal
scores in Csound.

As for the .orc ("orchestra") file ... well, that's another
matter -- you have to really learn Csound or learn how to
use an instrument-processor plug-in.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Hey monz,

----- Original Message -----
From: "monz" <monz@tonalsoft.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 29 Haziran 2006 Perï¿½embe 4:57
Subject: [tuning] Re: "adult-proof" ringtone

> Hi Oz,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > Guess what! I can after-all hear all the way up to 22khz!
>
> That's simply incredible!
>

I thought so too.

> I tested my hearing last year in comparison with a young man
> (16 years old at the time) who has extremely sensitive hearing
> and sight. He complained about the refresh rate of my computer
> monitor because he saw it flashing, and i see none of that.
>
> Anyway, he could hear just above 18 kHz, and my limit was
> around 13.8 kHz. I know my high-frequency hearing was better
> when i was younger -- i suppose that years of playing in
> very loud rock bands took its toll.
>
> I find it amazing that you can hear all the way up to 22 kHz,
> particularly since you are beyond your teenage years. High
> frequency perception diminishes with age.
>
>

I am surprised myself. I definetely am able to hear the faintest sound
pressure in my ears coming from my speakers as I gradually notch the sine
sample from 18khz to 22khz, though it is almost inaudible starting from
18khz, which happens to be the whereabouts of the frequency of my tinnitus.
I still suspect that this has everything to do with being under bombardment
of high frequency air waves from all directions.

I desire to do more thorough tests. How should I go about it?

>
> -monz
> http://tonalsoft.com
> Tonescape microtonal music software
>
>
>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

hi Oz,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:

> I desire to do more thorough tests. How should I go about it?

Sorry i can't help you there ... my young friend and i simply
used some software on his computer which allowed us to input
the frequency in Hz, listening in headphones.

It wasn't very scientific nor, i'm sure, very accurate ...
but i was surprised that my limit was at 13.something Hz,
because my auditory perception in general is extremely good,
and i thought that my limit was far higher than that.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I am surprised myself. I definetely am able to hear the faintest sound
> pressure in my ears coming from my speakers as I gradually notch the
sine
> sample from 18khz to 22khz, though it is almost inaudible starting from
> 18khz, which happens to be the whereabouts of the frequency of my
tinnitus.
> I still suspect that this has everything to do with being under
bombardment
> of high frequency air waves from all directions.

That is a crucial question, whether you 'hear' something if you just
have the sensation that something is happening to your ears, without
actually being able to distinguish a pitch.

My proposed test would be to take pulses of the high frequency (i.e.
off-on-off), get a computer to produce a randomised number of pulses
and see if you can count them reliably.

Or if you know Morse, see if you can recognise a random word.

Even if you can't attribute pitch to a very high frequency, it still
probably influences your perception of tones with such frequencies are
partials.

~~~T~~~

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > I definetely am able to hear the faintest sound
> > pressure in my ears coming from my speakers as I gradually
> > notch the sine sample from 18khz to 22khz, though it is
> > almost inaudible starting from 18khz, which happens to be
> > the whereabouts of the frequency of my tinnitus.
> > I still suspect that this has everything to do with being
> > under bombardment of high frequency air waves from all
> > directions.
>
> That is a crucial question, whether you 'hear' something if
> you just have the sensation that something is happening to
> your ears, without actually being able to distinguish a pitch.

White noise certainly qualifies, along with a myriad of
other pitchless sounds. If we're strictly talking about
supersonic stuff, experiments have shown listeners can
detect differences in recorded material when supersonic
frequencies are added. My recollection is that while not
strictly ruled out, combination tones were unlikely to
account for this.

> Even if you can't attribute pitch to a very high frequency,

Actually most components of pitch fall off by 5 or 6K. Pure
tones above that already qualify as 'pitchless' sounds in
some sense.

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Can you create some wav samples for me Tom?

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Dent" <stringph@gmail.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 07 Temmuz 2006 Cuma 13:24
Subject: [tuning] Re: "adult-proof" ringtone

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > I am surprised myself. I definetely am able to hear the faintest sound
> > pressure in my ears coming from my speakers as I gradually notch the
> sine
> > sample from 18khz to 22khz, though it is almost inaudible starting from
> > 18khz, which happens to be the whereabouts of the frequency of my
> tinnitus.
> > I still suspect that this has everything to do with being under
> bombardment
> > of high frequency air waves from all directions.
>
>
> That is a crucial question, whether you 'hear' something if you just
> have the sensation that something is happening to your ears, without
> actually being able to distinguish a pitch.
>
> My proposed test would be to take pulses of the high frequency (i.e.
> off-on-off), get a computer to produce a randomised number of pulses
> and see if you can count them reliably.
>
> Or if you know Morse, see if you can recognise a random word.
>
> Even if you can't attribute pitch to a very high frequency, it still
> probably influences your perception of tones with such frequencies are
> partials.
>
> ~~~T~~~
>
>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

If you're ready to test it, i'm ready for you
(and anyone else who is serious about it)
to be a tester.

system requirements:
http://tonalsoft.com/support/tonescape/knowledge.aspx

plus a working internet connection for
the computer containing Tonescape.
(only necessary for the initial activation)

Write to me at

monz(AT)tonalsoft.com

NOTE:
the Help files are still very minimal;
work is progressing on them right now.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> So, when do we begin to test this marvelous tonescape of yours?
>
> SNIP
>
> > One thing that i might mention here is that Tonescape allows
> > the user to export Tonescape files as Csound .sco ("score")
> > files. So that makes it extremely easy to create microtonal
> > scores in Csound.
> >
> > As for the .orc ("orchestra") file ... well, that's another
> > matter -- you have to really learn Csound or learn how to
> > use an instrument-processor plug-in.

"adult-proof" ringtone

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Peter Frazer <paf@easynet.co.uk>

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Peter Frazer <paf@easynet.co.uk>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

🔗yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

🔗yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

🔗steve parker <steveparker@350.com>

🔗Aaron Wolf <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>