tired hearing

The second one especially seems to address some of the issues posed in the original question.  If not, my bad.

I wouldn't say that it addresses the issue at all. What it does say though is exactly what I suggested:

"What is the minimum audible change in frequency? I created two .wav files: case #1 was a series of 1/2 second tone bursts, all at a frequency of 800 Hz; for case #2 the bursts alternated between 800 and 805 Hz. I can reliably distinguish between these two cases in a double-blind test. This difference in frequency is less than 1/100 of an octave. I could also distinguish between 400 and 402 Hz. According to Jourdain (page 18) this is about normal for a young person; at age 61 I'm not supposed to be able to detect a difference of less than about 8 Hz at 400 Hz. But I can. (I repeated this test at age 67, and I still can do it)."

...which is basically that there are no objective references when it comes to anybody's ability to discriminate - the individual subject variations are far too wide.

I'm already  bored. It's pointless.

Well for someone who has already declared himself bored you sure have been keeping up with this thread!    I wasn't really expecting a reply (except perhaps for one from AndyH being as he was the original poster).  I must have missed the part where he appointed you as his proxy. 

Since he seemed sincerely interested in the topic, I was simply trying to steer him in a direction that might actually satisfy some of his curiosity.  He didn't seem to be getting what he was looking for from the dialog here.

Anyway...  Sorry for trying to contribute.  I guess I'll go back to lurking now.

Well for someone who has already declared himself bored you sure have been keeping up with this thread!    I wasn't really expecting a reply (except perhaps for one from AndyH being as he was the original poster).  I must have missed the part where he appointed you as his proxy. 

I read every thread on the forum - always have done. I'm not Andy's proxy - far from it. But your comment was written in the 3rd person - not addressed to anybody in particular. So I'd say that you are the architect of the response you got... 

Since he seemed sincerely interested in the topic, I was simply trying to steer him in a direction that might actually satisfy some of his curiosity.  He didn't seem to be getting what he was looking for from the dialog here.

He didn't get what he was looking for as it doesn't, and can't, exist.

Wow Steve... I really feel sorry for you.  Your obsessive need to be right must be a heavy burden.  It's one thing to read every post, and quite another to reply.

In my first post on this topic I was simply trying to show that doing a search on Google for a simple phrase like "Human Hearing" was more likely to provide detailed information on psychoacoustics than posting a hastly crafted query in this forum.  I was, however, trying to be nice about it.

I thought perhaps that by learning more about the topic of psychoacoustics, AndyH would come to realize why his original premise was faulty.  The snarky approach you were taking didn't seem to be working.

The fact that you read through and quoted from one of the articles I linked to seems to support my case.  I'm flattered.  Your contributions to this topic, however, make you seem like the brilliant Doctor with no bedside manner, or the scholar with no aptitude for pedagogy.

I sincerly hope that you can overcome the underlying cause of your ill humor. 

Life's too short to spend it being angry.

Don't worry!  Be Happy!

Cheers,

Doug

Wow Steve... I really feel sorry for you.  Your obsessive need to be right must be a heavy burden.  It's one thing to read every post, and quite another to reply.

a) I don't have an obsessive need to be right - there's no evidence for that at all.

b) We have always undertaken to keep the forum clean by monitoring posts, and it doesn't take long to check them if you keep up with it - very little time at all, in fact. Once you've learned to type at a reasonable speed, replies don't take long either. Oh, and I read rather faster than most people as well.

The other thing that you are clearly not in the slightest bit aware of is Andy's very long history of asking this sort of question, and the history of my replies to them. Perhaps if you were, you might hesitate slightly before presuming anything about the situation at all, or the humour bypass you also seem to think I've had.

But never mind - in future just bear in mind the following piece of advice:

If at first you don't succeed - then don't take up skydiving 

Steve,

Mea maxima culpa.  I didn't mean to get in the middle of your ongoing antagonist - delator relationship with Andy.  After all, three is a crowd.  You two have fun now.  Ya hear?  I'm glad you're not angry or ill humored.

Cheers,
Doug

P.S.  Here's another link in case Andy's still following this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

And on a slightly related topic, check out the May '07 issue of MIX magazine, featuring a helpful suite of articles about hearing and health concerns.