Thank you, sir!

Very interesting.

Of course, this will judged inaudible by Ethan.

Too bad all this stuff happens below the DBT Threshold.

Quote:
Of course, this will judged inaudible by Ethan.

Yeah, probably.

Quote:
Too bad all this stuff happens below the DBT Threshold.

I rest my case.

Inaudible and imperceivable are two different issues.

But that gets us back to "perception", doesn't it?

We have all heard of the CIA controlling our thoughts, making us submissive to a repressive, socialist regime, by sending an eight Hertz signal into the environment. It's killing the whales too! You've heard of it but have you heard it?

I rest my case.

i hope this was tounge in cheek, Jan.

I enjoy Mr. Johnson's recordings very much, and hope he will concentrate on those full time..

Quote:
Inaudible and imperceivable are two different issues.

But that gets us back to "perception", doesn't it?

We have all heard of the CIA controlling our thoughts, making us submissive to a repressive, socialist regime, by sending an eight Hertz signal into the environment. It's killing the whales too! You've heard of it but have you heard it?

I rest my case.

Herr Serenius,

Can you show me the link to the referenced graph/initial discussion?

rroww, christ.. didnt mean to offend you with my lowly questions and INADVERTENT spelling mistake. if I do better, can I avoid being chased off the block?

Quote:

Quote:
Herr Serenius,

Can you show me the link to the referenced graph/initial discussion?

The RMAF 2008 blog is five pages long. Just do a search on each page for "Johnson" and you'll find it in no time.

jason victor SERINUS

Thanks, Jason!

We even now have a measurement of "fuzzy" distortion.

Quote:
Inaudible and imperceivable are two different issues.

But that gets us back to "perception", doesn't it?

We have all heard of the CIA controlling our thoughts, making us submissive to a repressive, socialist regime, by sending an eight Hertz signal into the environment. It's killing the whales too! You've heard of it but have you heard it?

I rest my case.

Nice post. Maybe we should also ask what the threshold actually is and under what conditions?

Quote:
i hope this was tounge in cheek, Jan.

Not really, though too few of us care about the whales and too many of us are willing to accept the plutocrats, even when our own best interests are violated by their policies and actions - the plutocrats that is and not the whales.

The reality however is that perception is everything. We should all be aware of the effects of subsonic and supersonic frequencies on the human body. We all respond to barometric pressure though we do not see or hear its effects until the storm breaks loose. There are a lucky few(?) folk who respond to the 22kHz squeal of a motion sensor in a retail establishment while few of us, with the exception of a minority of young females, can typically hear such frequencies. But those who get headaches from being in a shop with the sensors on cannot deny their ability to perceive the effects of such signals. If you modulate a music signal against the 19kHz carrier frequency of multiplexed FM, you will get intermodualtion distortion within the "audible bandwidth", so we can perceive the effects of the signal even when it is not the signal itself we find audible. JA reports on the effects of magnetic coupling between power supply and audio circuits in this months magazine.

Perception is a bitch!

Jan, you make some good points.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10860/

Quote:
Chaired by Malcolm O.J. Hawksford of the University of Essex, the panel of experts discussed several obstacles to achieving higher levels of resolution in audio recording and playback. Mike Story, of dCS, Ltd., made a strong case for promoting ultra-wide audio bandwidth as a hi-rez standard

http://www.realitysandwich.com/navy_doesn039t_really_want_kill_whales

Quote:
It should be admitted that our potential enemy has compelled us to talk about "psychotropic" or "psychical" weapons. Here is a selective list of the newest American military achievements: portable lasers and isotopic oscillators, which blind enemy soldiers, subsonic generators, which not only disorientate the enemy but also cause nausea and diarrhea, and also noise generators, which influence hostile and excited crowds. Or "water foam," for example. It is a gas which creates a foam that disorientates the enemy. http://www.mindjustice.org/russ9-05.htm
/>

jan, too much written on this so called "sonic weaponry" is myth. at any rate..

http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/27986/0/#msg_261708

http://www.dartdorset.org/noise/AlexDavies_AcousticTrauma.pdf

We are wandering somewhat off topic here but this might be of value in some respects to another discussion of perception. I have to say you and I read material and find different facts. Your first link takes me to a forum discussion wanting information about standing too close to the speakers at a concert. That has nothing to do with the difference between inaudible and imperceptible nor does it have anything to do with subsonic frequencies or supersonic frequencies or sonic weaponry. So I can't find anything of value in that link. If you think there is something specific there, please direct my attention to a particular passage.

In case you haven't paid attention to the news lately, the US Supreme Court did recently hear arguments concerning the effects of Naval sonar on whales and other marine life. They gave their decision just yesterday in favor of the Navy and "national security".

yea. We are safe from terrorist submarines.

Your second link primarily suffers from the flaw of having no date attached. The most recent date I can find on any footnoted material is 1993 with most of the references being pulled from the mid 1970's. If this was written fifteen years ago and relies primarily on thirty year old information, it is unlikely to be completely relevant to what can be accomplished and understood today even though it mentions the research and development of such weapons has continued since WWI. And there you have one of the problems of pulling items from the internet to suppport any theory.

However, within the body of the text there would appear to be sufficient agreement with the plausible theories of sonic weapons as (then) futuristic non-lethal crowd control devices. There is a reference to the alpha rhythm frequencies of the brain which operate at approximately 7-8Hz. If you care to look for the information, early this year Sixty Minutes did a piece on sonic weapons which could be used as crowd control though their frequency range was in the supersonic not the subsonic range. At a distance of a few hundred yards the signal caused a heating sensation on the skin that was uncomfortable enough to ultimately subdue a demonstrator or several individuals in a confined area. Whether there is the possibility of psycho-physiological control of the populace by means of subsonic or supersonic signal radiation remains something that, I suppose, can be dismised as urban myth just as what exists in Area 51 can be dismissed by those who don't listen to Art Bell.

In the area of consumer audio we now have several devices which are sold as "experiential listening enhancement" devices - no Viagra jokes please - when introduced to the listening environment. These operate at the approximate 7-8Hz range and are said to provide a more pleasant listening experience without introducing any audible signal to the environment. Here perception is everything. ( http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/schumann2/revisited.html)

The issue of sonic weapons aside, do you have any comments regarding the examples I provided to suggest imperceptible and inaudible are not mutally inclusive?