Meaningful frequency-response specs require high resolution and narrow tolerance.

Evidence

Since the lower slope is independent of critical-band rate, the model leads to direct proportionality between just-noticeable frequency variation, 2.1/, and the width of the critical band. The factor between the two should be 27, the constant lower slope in dB/ .1/G . This value corresponds quite well to the data outlined in Fig. 6.10. There, a factor of 25 is marked between the two values. Our model therefore assumes that the high sensitivity of our hearing system for variations in frequency is not established by the use of specialized systems that react to frequency changes. Rather, the steep slopes of the frequency selectivity of our hearing system are the reason for the high sensitivity to frequency changes. This sensitivity is based on our hearing system’s ability to indicate changes in excitation level that are of the size of only 1 dB. It seems that our hearing system is using this sensitivity for level changes together with its frequency selectivity to reach the high sensitivity for frequency variations. — Professor Dr.-Ing. Hugo Fastl, Professor Dr.-Ing. Eberhard, Psychoacoustics- Facts and Models, 1143 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: High-resolution measurement and Q-matched filters are required for effective EQ; Frequency discrimination stems from steep filter slopes plus 1 dB level sensitivity — Professor Dr.-Ing. Hugo Fastl, Professor Dr.-Ing. Eberhard, Psychoacoustics- Facts and Models, 1143

Related

• Frequency discrimination is finest around 0.3% near 500 Hz. (similarity 0.91)
• Frequency discrimination stems from steep filter slopes plus 1 dB level sensitivity (similarity 0.91)
• Hearing’s fine frequency resolution may be modeled at coarser steps in practice (similarity 0.87)
• The ear’s frequency response is level-dependent, favoring mid frequencies at low volume (similarity 0.86)
• The human hearing system compromises between frequency and time resolution, unlike ideal filters (similarity 0.85)
• Frequency-modulation detection relies on the steep lower excitation slope at 27 dB per Bark (similarity 0.85)
• Phase-change sensitivity in hearing is bounded by critical bandwidth, scaling with centre frequency. (similarity 0.84)
• Uncertainty principles force mechanical frequency sorting in the ear to be coarse. (similarity 0.84)
• Basilar membrane displacement produces an asymmetric filter response across frequency. (similarity 0.84)
• The critical band model fails because selectivity varies with level and asymmetry. (similarity 0.84)
• Hearing selectivity is modeled via critical-band and excitation intermediate values (similarity 0.83)
• The ear’s frequency selectivity worsens as frequency rises above 500 Hz. (similarity 0.83)
• Critical bandrate scale stabilizes frequency discrimination measures across durations (similarity 0.83)
• Narrow critical bandwidths at low frequencies reduce hearing sensitivity via noise fluctuations (similarity 0.83)
• Auditory filter bandwidth scales nonlinearly with center frequency (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• High-resolution measurement and Q-matched filters are required for effective EQ #expands (0.80)
• Frequency discrimination stems from steep filter slopes plus 1 dB level sensitivity #corroborates (0.75) — Professor Dr.-Ing. Hugo Fastl, Professor Dr.-Ing. Eberhard, Psychoacoustics- Facts and Models, 1143