Talk:Ultrasonic hearing

Can anyone put in a reference on what it is like to hear sounds of such high frequencies? It's hard to imagine what it would be like.--RLent 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Deatherage[3] states that what humans experience as ultrasonic perception may have been a necessary precursor in the evolution of echolocation in marine mammals."


 * Ultrasound says the effect was first discovered by scuba divers hearing navy sonar, so the underwater aspect should be pointed out. — Omegatron 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So who's the Deatherage guy? --Foma84 (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

-- I had an ultrasound done today on my thyroid, and the tech confirmed that I could tell when she was using it. The color scan seems to be the loudest / most obvious.

It’s difficult to describe, because I don’t have an adequate frame of reference. It’s not really “like” anything, although if I had to, I’d say it is something like that whine you hear just before a laser printer kicks out a piece of paper. It’s a high pitched but not unpleasant pulse, not like a mosquito, or like when the t.v. is doing the white noise thing. Just a soothing drone really.M-w-b (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Sound from ultrasound?
there is no citation given for the ultrasonic carrier modulation, but this topic is covered more comprehensively & with proper citations over at "sound from ultrasound".

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

also, the deatherage paper is not visible via the link given; you need membership of the ASA to access it.

duncanrmi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I oppose the merge. This article is about actually hearing ultrasonics, the other is about sound created through intermodulation by modulated ultrasound.
 * There's no problem with refs behind paywalls or behind library door for that matter. ~KvnG 13:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also oppose, as these are clearly separate topics. Ultrasonic hearing is about humans hearing ultrasound directly.  Sound from ultrasound is about loudspeakers that produce audible frequencies by demodulation of ultrasonic frequencies. — Omegatron (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

fair enough, but my quibble remains. it's hardly an "article" & the "recognised" in the opening sentence is unqualified. I am not suggesting a merge as such, but that this area could be included as an aside, if you will, in the other article, since there is plainly not enough supporting material to warrant its own article here. as for the deatherage paper- if normal wikipedia readers cannot access it, what's the use in linking to it? its mere existence does not make it a credible voice on the subject; we need to see it.

duncanrmi (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK but those problems are best fixed by improving this article, not by merging it into another. ~KvnG 14:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ultrasonic hearing products are already available
I have found at least one relative product, based on the beneficial effect of bypassing the normal hearing path to the brain so as to learn faster or keep calm. The most well known is the Neurophone made by Patrick Flanagan. Of course, with some training it can also be used as a hearing aid in noisy environments.


 * Probably better to include this on There's a sucker born every minute. ~KvnG 13:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Hypersonic effect
An IP editor has suggested a merge from Hypersonic effect. I beleive this would create an WP:UNDUE issue in the target article so I oppose such a merge at this time. The existing crosslinking of the articles should allow readers to find all the information they're looking for. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There have been no comments on this. I have removed the merge banners. ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

has restored the merge banners. Please explain here why a merge is justified. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * They should be merged because... both articles are about the same topic? I don't understand your WP:UNDUE comment.  Undue weight about what? — Omegatron (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The only part that is in common between the two articles is the third paragraph of this article. If we expand that third paragraph to include all the material in Hypersonic effect, the article will be WP:UNDUELY about the Hypersonic effect. The Hypersonic effect is a controversial and unproven claim. The other mechanisms discussed in this article are not particularly controversial. ~Kvng (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The topic of this article is human perception of frequencies above 20 kHz.


 * Oohashi claim that humans do perceive these frequencies, other researchers claim that we don't. Those claims and counterclaims belong in this article, discussing the topic in whole.  Undue weight is having an entire article called "hypersonic effect" (which is a misnomer anyway) to focus on a single group's claims, as if they're more notable or truthful than the other claims and counterclaims.


 * For example, Colloms' and NHK's research are specifically meant to rebut Oohashi's, but the Boston Audio Society/AES study also cited as a counterexample in that article is only related to this topic of ultrasonic hearing; it's not a response to Oohashi's claims in particular. Kunchur independently claims that we can perceive such frequencies, but using a different methodology, and there are probably counterclaims to that as well.  This all belongs in one article, not a bunch of separate vanity articles. — Omegatron (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Understandable since they're tangled together at WP:UNDUE. You can have WP:UNDUE without WP:NPOV. In that case you'd have the majority of the article covering one corner of a topic in a neutral way. This gives readers the impression that the corner is a more significant part of the topic than it actually is. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What other corners are there? Either we can perceive ultrasound or we can't.  That's two(?) and both would be covered. Why are you opposed to this? — Omegatron (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The hypersonic effect is a proposed unconscious hearing mechanism that comes out the audiophile world. Normal hearing is conscious and that is the experience we assume to be associated with ultrasonic hearing in dogs, for instance. There are three suggested mechanisms in the article here of ultrasonic hearing in animals, such as humans, that don't have ears with these capabilities, none of them subconscious. I oppose this because of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)