Hearing Loss & Equipment Reviews - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 19Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 42 Old 12-17-2014, 04:18 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Kev H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Central PA
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Hearing Loss & Equipment Reviews

I recently tried the "Can You Hear This?" hearing test on Noise Addicts. By this test my hearing cuts out between 12 kHz and 14 kHz. Further reading on the site indicates that this is normal for a person my age, 52. Also, according to the site, at age 45, hearing may "cut out" at 14 kHz.

So, if this is true, can audio reviewers, many of which look to about 45 or older be trusted? Remember, many do post pictures of themselves with their reviews. Not mention many have been in the business 20+ years. So, assume age at first publication of 25.

Thoughts on this anyone?
Kev H is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 42 Old 12-20-2014, 08:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
audio2xs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev H View Post
I recently tried the "Can You Hear This?" hearing test on Noise Addicts. By this test my hearing cuts out between 12 kHz and 14 kHz. Further reading on the site indicates that this is normal for a person my age, 52. Also, according to the site, at age 45, hearing may "cut out" at 14 kHz.

So, if this is true, can audio reviewers, many of which look to about 45 or older be trusted? Remember, many do post pictures of themselves with their reviews. Not mention many have been in the business 20+ years. So, assume age at first publication of 25.

Thoughts on this anyone?
The "Can You Hear This?" hearing test on Noise Addicts is an unscientific, uncontrolled "test" that doesn't necessarily prove you can or cannot hear above 12KHz. In fact, it's a bit backwards. A real hearing profile would gradually reduce random tones until you couldn't hear them, finding your threshold of hearing vs frequency. The other big difference is that a professional audiometer would calibrate the response of the headphones out of the test. Headphone frequency response is quite varied for different models, and would influence the test result rather significantly.

Hearing high frequencies is not the only ability required to be a good audio reviewer. In fact, until hearing loss becomes an impairment, it's more about listening ability than hearing ability. However, for the last several decades the ability to hear and listen has been quite overshadowed by the vanishing difference between devices. Often the "differences" that people "hear" between devices are far more influenced by how the device looks than some change in the output audio. Do a search for ABX testing for some background. ABX tests remove all biases, and are designed to determine if there is a difference between devices, not determine a preference. The results of many ABX tests of audiophile devices (except speakers) often falls around a statistical 50%, meaning the subject is guessing.

Evaluating speakers is very different, as they are the largest influencing factor in an audio system from the upper bass region to the highest treble. Below upper bass, rooms are the dominating factor. But most of what's audible in speakers and the things people evaluate as quality factors occurs in mid frequencies, and up to 10Khz. The top octave is important certainly, but most of what we hear is below that, so most of the imaging, "soundstage" (whatever that is) and character is in the middle.

There's also just a little review comment about build, design, features, etc. That's important stuff, and doesn't make a sound.

Given all the above, I wouldn't be so quick to distrust a thoughtful audio reviewer over 40. In fact, years of listening to the "good" stuff might even make him more sensitive, even with the loss of hearing ability above 12KHz.
mfeust, natchie and audiolan like this.
audio2xs is offline  
post #3 of 42 Old 12-20-2014, 08:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
audio2xs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 131
I'll just add that IMHO, some of the least authoritative audio reviewers publish "listening-only" evaluations filled with adjectives that are borrowed from visual descriptions, but without any real substance. More than a few of these have been at it that way for more than the life-span of their readers.
Kev H likes this.
audio2xs is offline  
post #4 of 42 Old 12-20-2014, 08:54 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,737
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 654 Post(s)
Liked: 926
Do you have some recordings with content above 14khz? I'm not sure i do.
FMW is offline  
post #5 of 42 Old 12-21-2014, 01:48 AM
Advanced Member
 
audio2xs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
Do you have some recordings with content above 14khz? I'm not sure i do.
Yes, there are quite a few.
audio2xs is offline  
post #6 of 42 Old 01-04-2015, 05:25 PM
Senior Member
 
SmittyJS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev H View Post
Thoughts on this anyone?
Getting older myself, so last year I decided to do a little research. Seems there isn't anything that goes that high except harmonics. And for the rock music I listen to, only the harmonics of cymbals get as high as even 12kHz.

Frequency chart of musical instruments

I read reviews for entertainment and filtering, but ultimately, I only pay attention to the charts for the speakers being reviewed. I guess I've become one of those "if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist" types.
citizen arcane and Kev H like this.
SmittyJS is offline  
post #7 of 42 Old 01-05-2015, 06:06 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,737
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 654 Post(s)
Liked: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev H View Post
I recently tried the "Can You Hear This?" hearing test on Noise Addicts. By this test my hearing cuts out between 12 kHz and 14 kHz. Further reading on the site indicates that this is normal for a person my age, 52. Also, according to the site, at age 45, hearing may "cut out" at 14 kHz.

So, if this is true, can audio reviewers, many of which look to about 45 or older be trusted? Remember, many do post pictures of themselves with their reviews. Not mention many have been in the business 20+ years. So, assume age at first publication of 25.

Thoughts on this anyone?

The reason they can't be trusted at any age is that the positiveness of their reviews insures a steady flow of products from the manufacturers for them to review in the future. The other reason they can't be trusted is that none of them control hearing bias in their reviews.


Actually I don't think the inability to hear content above 14khz is very important since there isn't much content there anyway.
arnyk, Kev H and audiolan like this.
FMW is offline  
post #8 of 42 Old 01-05-2015, 09:44 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 3
I am 66 and know that I have a dip from 3-4kHz and a rolloff above 10kHz. That was from a 'free' hearing test at a local discount 'club'. They inspected my ears and refused to test me the first time due to 'impacted wax' buildup - I felt shame! I was told to seek a professional, ie, an ENT, for cleaning. I bought an ear cleaning 'kit' (Murine) before leaving the 'club' - used it - then a concoction from my regular pharmacist - returned to the same audiologist for my 'free' test. She was amazed at how clean my ears were - and ran her tests, revealing my stated frequency response deficiencies. All I know is I couldn't understand much of my wife's low level speech - and for good reason. I could hear 'fuzz' in my Polk Monitors, thinking them to be at fault, I bought some Infinity P163's - it was the old Yamaha 5.1 receiver - I heard the same fuzz in my headphones (Koss Pro-4aa and Sony MDR-V6's.) - until I subbed a CD player with a headphone output, where the audio was clean. I added an Onkyo TX-8020 stereo 50WPC receiver - good specs, as had the Onkyo C-7030 CD player - a decent starting place. But now the P163's sound brighter and more harsh... my hearing was better! The high end was fine on the headphones. I subbed my twenty plus year old Polk Large Monitors - depressed midrange, but clearer high end. I had 'settled' before on my speakers. I had read a good review on NHT's - the SuperZero and SuperOnes - '... pianos sounded natural' - that got my attention. I ordered a pair from that mention alone - from a place with a great return policy. Great purchase! They have a crystal clarity I haven't heard in a long time.


So, no... don't put blind faith in a reviewer - commercial or hobbyist. You don't know their reasons... just look for specifics - like 'pianos sounded natural'. You likely don't know the reviewer's age - or the state of his hearing - or when he last cleaned his ears! There is a good suggestion... clean your ears - that is easy and safe with the Murine product. As an ENT once told me, never put anything in you ear except for your elbow. Yeah, I had to try...


Stainz


PS My wife was with me when the audiologist revealed my hearing deficiency - in the range in which most female information is passed by speech - she told my wife I couldn't hear her! Did I get sympathy? At least I didn't need a hearing aid!
Kev H likes this.
Stainz is offline  
post #9 of 42 Old 01-05-2015, 01:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
bluewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 872
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 448 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Hearing any frequency is about volume. In reality most people never could hear 20khz, and few can hear 15khz at normal volume levels, but if you crank the volume up eventually you will hear something.

The hearing tests plot your threshold of hearing. They take a particular tone, say 10khz and play it softly, soft enough that they think you will not be able to hear it, then incrementally they bring the volume up until you indicate you can hear the tone.

With high frequency hearing loss, the tone just need to be that much louder before you hear it.

If you want to test your hearing in the room you are in, make a CD by downloading 1/3rd Octave Test Tones or 1/6th Octave Test Tones. Then play either a music CD or a 1khz test tone and set the volume to a comfortable listening level, and leave it there.

Now start stepping up from 30hz. I think with the volume level normalized at 1 khz tone, you will be surprised at how little you hear, especially on the high end.

But, if you have to turn the volume up to hear higher frequencies, that is cheating. When you listen to music, you can't selectively turn the high frequencies up. Though you could perhaps adjust the Treble Tone Control, but that's not very precise.

So, get a series of test tones (1/3 octave or 1/6 octave) burn them to a CD. Then normalize the Volume level either with a 1khz tone, or with a music CD, so you are listening at common normal music levels. Leave the volume in that position. Then step through the frequencies to see what you hear under normal listening conditions in your actual listening room, with the equipment you normally listen to, at normal listening volumes.

I think you will find it enlightening. Though equally, a bit disappointing.

Steve/bluewizard

Last edited by bluewizard; 01-05-2015 at 01:22 PM.
bluewizard is online now  
post #10 of 42 Old 01-05-2015, 01:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
AllenA07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Just throwing out there that on my computer at work running an awesome $25 sound system I was able to hear sound at 22khz. Now as much as I wish my hearing was that good, it isn't. When I was 17 using good equipment I could hear up around 18khz. I'm almost 30 now and my hearing hasn't improved. Likely I can't hear much above 15khz at this point. The reason I can hear the sound at 22khz on this site is because my speakers are cheap and are not doing a good job of accurately producing noise. Because of that I really would be dubious about trusting the results of this "test".

AVR: Denon 2112
Speakers: EMP Tek e55ti, Center- EMP Tek e56ci, Side Surrounds- EMP Tek e55wi, Rear Surrounds- SVS Prime Satellites, Sub- SVS PC12 Plus
Display: BenQ w1070 on a 92in fixed screen
Blu-Ray Player: Sony BDP S6200;
Playstation 4
AllenA07 is offline  
post #11 of 42 Old 01-05-2015, 02:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Gerardo2068's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Hearing Loss & Equipment Reviews

I would be careful with playing certain frequencies that you can't heard too loud. I've read that it can damage your hearing even more. I'm not sure the accuracy of the reports but makes sense to me.
Gerardo2068 is online now  
post #12 of 42 Old 01-05-2015, 02:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,819
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Liked: 339
It's best not to purchase gear based solely on "reviews" and opinions from internet forums.
Input is useful but IMHO, use your own ears, make a purchase on what you like and enjoy your system without any guilt.
Ratman is offline  
post #13 of 42 Old 01-06-2015, 07:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 386
I lost any faith in reviewers a long time ago. I still read the mags as a yearly subscription is so cheap. Mostly for giggles.
PrimeTime likes this.

Louder is NOT better!
JWhip is online now  
post #14 of 42 Old 01-07-2015, 09:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 1,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Fifteen years ago I replaced my RPTV with an HD RPTV. One of the nicest surprises was the elimination of the 14.4 kHz flyback oscillation whine that was driving me nuts prior to HD.

Considering its intensity, I would think that everyone would have heard it.
charmerci likes this.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #15 of 42 Old 01-07-2015, 09:53 AM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,530
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev H View Post
I recently tried the "Can You Hear This?" hearing test on Noise Addicts. By this test my hearing cuts out between 12 kHz and 14 kHz. Further reading on the site indicates that this is normal for a person my age, 52. Also, according to the site, at age 45, hearing may "cut out" at 14 kHz.

So, if this is true, can audio reviewers, many of which look to about 45 or older be trusted? Remember, many do post pictures of themselves with their reviews. Not mention many have been in the business 20+ years. So, assume age at first publication of 25.

Thoughts on this anyone?
There is a larger question, which is whether audio reviewers can be trusted, period. They invariably use sighted evaluations which are almost 100% biased towards hearing differences whether or not they are there. When they review speakers they review them in their listening room, not mine and it is well known that rooms utterly bias the sound of speakers in them.

Your best estimate is that all electronics sound the same, which of course they do not (but many, many do) as the perceptions of people who are effectively looking at everything through randomly changing colored glasses can be are likely to be an even worse bet.

With speakers my approach is to buy speakers that have good dynamics and smooth response based on measurements, and use equalization (including the Audyssey in my AVR) to tune the speaker's sound to my preferences.

As far as the reviewer's high frequency hearing goes, as the frequencies go up, their significance and the need for really high accuracy goes down. It's been known for decades that if the response is good up to say 5 KHz and wanders around over a reasonable range above that, most people will be just as pleased as they would be if response were perfect up to 20 KHz. Most people won''t notice if there is no response at all above 16 KHz unless they can do a close comparison, and even then not so much.

However the reviewer still has that problem with listening to speakers in his room, not mine. If you take reasonably good speakers around from room to room you will find that their sound is easily as strongly influenced by the room they are in as they are influenced by which speakers they are.
Kev H likes this.

Last edited by arnyk; 01-07-2015 at 10:06 AM.
arnyk is offline  
post #16 of 42 Old 01-07-2015, 10:24 AM
Member
 
audiolan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: A 3rd world backwater
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Some excellent information in this thread. AVSforum has been an outstanding source of information.

Can anyone comment on the effect of higher order harmonics on sound perception.
As far as I know, even though our audible frequency range contracts as we age we retain the ability to understand the effects of higher order harmonics on audible frequencies. This may explain why a reviewer with experience will still be able to make a good call despite his/her age.

Hopefully I can get it or make it for cheaper!
audiolan is offline  
post #17 of 42 Old 01-08-2015, 09:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
bluewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 872
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 448 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiolan View Post
...

Can anyone comment on the effect of higher order harmonics on sound perception.
...
I'm going to say something that makes no sense, but is none the less true.

You can hear what you can't hear.

No that's not a misprint or typo. Just to make sure you got it right, I'll say it again.

You can hear what you can't hear.

Obviously, that requires some explanation.

I don't remember the details of the test, so I'll just make it up, but regardless of the details, it still illustrates my point.

As I remember it, in a research setting, they play 'sound' with and without, a very high harmonics tone, a tone well well well above the range of human hearing. I say, they played 'sound' because I don't know if it was a test tone or music or what. But, they found that people could consistently tell which 'sound' had the high frequency overlay and which did not. Further they couldn't explain why the could hear a difference or what difference they were hearing.

Let me throw out some numbers to better illustrate.

Let's say they played a 1khz tone, then piggybacked a 100khz tone on top of it. People, in a majority could tell when the 100khz tone was there and when it was not. Again, because I can't remember the details, that serves as no more than an illustration.

What is being observed here is the difference between hearing and perceiving. While they certainly could not hear the high tone, they could perceive its presence.

You can perceive a lot of acoustic phenomenon that you can't actually hear.

Even subtle changes in volume. A professional recording engineer was once fooled by a fraction of dB difference in a sound level. Once he tracked it down, and discovered an ever so slight mis-calibration, what he thought was a stunning new break through in sound quality, turn out to be a very slight inbalance in sound levels. From memory, I think it was a 0.5db difference.

Supposedly, you can't hear anything under a 1db range. That is, you can't consciously distinguish a difference of less than 1db. But, while you may not be able to hear it, you can perceive it, as this professional recording engineer proved.

Again, I'm simply drawing a distinction between what can be literally heard, and what can be perceived. You perceive more than you hear.

So, within a very stilted context -

You can hear what you can't hear.

...within a very stilted context....

Steve/bluewizard
audiolan likes this.

Last edited by bluewizard; 01-09-2015 at 01:24 PM.
bluewizard is online now  
post #18 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 08:39 AM
Member
 
audiolan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: A 3rd world backwater
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 0
@bluewizard Thank you for your explanation.

I think it high end audio manufacturers use this as a reason for turning out products with ludicrously large frequency response ranges but whether it contributes to quality is left to more experienced ears than mine because my country, high end is NAD and Harmon kardon.
But a somewhat 'affordable' product like the Job 225 with a stated frequency response of 2Hz to 900kHz did not seem to impress this reviewer. Saying this it was the cheapest of the bunch.
http://parttimeaudiophile.com/2013/1...d-vitus-audio/

Hopefully I can get it or make it for cheaper!
audiolan is offline  
post #19 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 08:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
audio2xs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Might as well have begun all that with "Once upon a time..."

If there were an actual, scientific study that proved beyond question that humans can detect the difference between a 1KHz pure tone and one mixed with 100KHz, that would not only be the beginnings of justification of high-res files, but be a game changer. Funny, it's been kept a bit of a secret until your post. And, it's that "proved beyond question" bit...careful with that one. Many "studies", not so much proof.

If you had any idea where that all came from...any at all, even a guess...like AES, Acoustical Society of America, The Journal of Irreproducible Results...anything would be helpful. Otherwise, we have, really nothing at all, except the relating of a vague memory with made-up data, but with a very definitive conclusion.

BTW, 1dB may be the common threshold for detecting level differences, but 0.5dB is fairly easy to do, 0.1dB can be done in controlled conditions. But that "engineer being fooled" anecdote was another good one.
beaveav likes this.
audio2xs is offline  
post #20 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 08:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
audio2xs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiolan View Post
But a somewhat 'affordable' product like the Job 225 with a stated frequency response of 2Hz to 900kHz did not seem to impress this reviewer.
Getting 900KHz through an amp isn't all that big a trick. Getting any energy out of a speaker and to a listener above 25KHz is not so easy, and by 50KHz, nearly impossible. 900KHz acoustic energy? Nope.
audiolan likes this.
audio2xs is offline  
post #21 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 11:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 1,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Most audio power amplifiers -- i.e., those that use feedback -- have lag-network compensation to roll off response above 50 kHz or so. This is necessary for stabilization (i.e., to prevent oscillation). The forward transfer function at 900 kHz will be nil.

Modulated ultrasound radiators that produce directed sound beams generally have used arrays of piezoelectric radiators at those frequencies.

Last edited by PrimeTime; 01-09-2015 at 11:13 AM.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #22 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 12:12 PM
Senior Member
 
spkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
Even subltle changes in volume. A professional recording engineer was once fooled by a fraction of dB difference in a sound level. Once he tracked it down, and discovered an ever so slight mis-calibration, what he thought was a stunning new break through in sound quality, turn out to be a very slight inbalance in sound levels. From memory, I think it was a 0.5db difference.

Supposedly, you can hear anything under a 1db range. That is, you can't consciously distinguish a difference of less than 1db. But, while you may not be able to hear it, you can perceive it, as this professional recording engineer proved.
This explains why you post the kind of things you've been posting.
spkr is offline  
post #23 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 01:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
bluewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 872
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 448 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio2xs View Post
Might as well have begun all that with "Once upon a time..."
I think I was very clear about the vagueness of the examples I was quoting. I'm not trying to fool anyone, and people are free to make of it what they will.

Further several times, I said, that because the examples I cited were so vague and ill-remembered, they could serve as no more than illustrations, and they did illustrate the point I was trying to make, just as stories that begin with "Once upon a time..." illustrate their moral lessons.

Quote:
If there were an actual, scientific study that proved beyond question that humans can detect the difference between a 1KHz pure tone and one mixed with 100KHz, that would not only be the beginnings of justification of high-res files, but be a game changer.
Why a game changer? There could be several reasonable explanations for the phenomenon. While it could potentially be detectable as I describe, I don't see how that alters consumer audio in any way.

Quote:
If you had any idea where that all came from...any at all, even a guess...like AES, Acoustical Society of America, The Journal of Irreproducible Results...anything would be helpful. Otherwise, we have, really nothing at all, except the relating of a vague memory with made-up data, but with a very definitive conclusion.
The 1khz/100khz example comes from a forum discussion which likely contained a link, but sadly finding one discussion I read ages ago is going to be difficult.

The second example involving the Recording Engineer was from a YouTube video of a Conference of Recording Engineers, and his point in telling this story was to establish that the ear really can be fooled by even subtle changes in volume.

Quote:
BTW, 1dB may be the common threshold for detecting level differences, but 0.5dB is fairly easy to do, 0.1dB can be done in controlled conditions. But that "engineer being fooled" anecdote was another good one.
The fact that you can hear sound below 'the common threshold' for hearing more or less makes my point. You can perceive subtle differences that you can't actually hear under normal conditions.

Further, I never claimed that minute difference could not be heard. You are in essence confirming my point.

The 1khz/100khz example will be impossible to find, but I might possibly maybe be able to track down the video of the example involving the recording engineer. But, it is long out of my YouTube history, so finding it is going to hinge on me remembering the name of the conference. At that conference, many of the speaker were video'd and uploaded to YouTube.

I still stand by my underlying point. You can hear what you can't hear, meaning, you can sometimes perceive what you can't hear.

Steve/bluewizard

Last edited by bluewizard; 01-09-2015 at 01:54 PM.
bluewizard is online now  
post #24 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 01:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
bluewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 872
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 448 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkr View Post
This explains why you post the kind of things you've been posting.
Thank you for that in depth technical analysis and brilliant counter point. Always good to have you join a discussion and enlighten us with your vast array of knowledge and years of personal experience, not to mention countless hours of research on the topics being discussed.

You are always so informative and enlightening. What would we do without you?

Steve/bluewizard

Last edited by bluewizard; 01-09-2015 at 01:58 PM.
bluewizard is online now  
post #25 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 02:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
audio2xs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
I think I was very clear about the vagueness of the examples I was quoting. I'm not trying to fool anyone, and people are free to make of it what they will.
Your rather definitive "conclusion" can, and would have, been taken as fact by some. We really don't need more fiction becoming "fact" in audio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
Why a game changer?
Because it would be, for the first time, proof positive that it is absolutely necessary to record and reproduce digital audio with sample rates over 200KHz (you did cite 100KHz). The reality is, that need is still very much in question. The strongest proponents are still saying things like "a larger number is better than a smaller one" (thank you, Neil). Sorry, that's not science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
There could be several reasonable explanations for the phenomenon. While it could potentially be detectable as I describe, I don't see how that alters consumer audio in any way.
There are far more solid scientific reasons why it shouldn't be detectable. However, it it were and were detectable by a high percentage of listeners, there would be solid reason for high-rate files. Again, so far, nothing is clear about that except for the considerable disagreement among experts. Posting complete here-say isn't helping anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
The 1khz/100khz example comes from a forum discussion which likely contained a link, but sadly finding one discussion I read ages ago is going to be difficult.

The second example involving the Recording Engineer was from a YouTube video of a Conference of Recording Engineers, and his point in telling this story was to establish that the ear really can be fooled by even subtle changes in volume.
You do get the point of actually citing references? We're still at "I heard a guy say he knows a guy..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
The fact that you can hear sound below 'the common threshold' for hearing more or less makes my point. You can perceive subtle differences that you can't actually hear under normal conditions.

Further, I never claimed that minute difference could not be heard. You are in essence confirming my point.
Not quite. The minimum threshold for level shift detection is well known, studied, and not a surprise. The surprise is that some random "recording engineer" on YouTube was somehow "fooled" by a small level shift into thinking he'd discovered some form of audio Nirvana. No recording engineer worth his salt would have been tripped up to that extent by a level shift. But there are a lot of self-proclaimed "recording engineers" in the world now, many of whom wouldn't know a dB if it bit them in the hinder.

The fact that slightly louder always sounds better has been so well known for so long that it's been used for over 50 years in audio demo rooms to sell equipment. The louder one sells better. I don't know what you think the YouTube video proves (again, no link), but I suspect it proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the so-called recording engineer is a self-taught novice. But perhaps I'll change my tune if there's ever an actual link posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
The 1khz/100khz example will be impossible to find,
It shouldn't be. That would a very important bit of research that should have floated to the surface...if it actually existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
but I might possibly maybe be able to track down the video of the example involving the recording engineer. But, it is long out of my YouTube history, so finding it is going to hinge on me remembering the name of the conference. At that conference, many of the speaker were video'd and uploaded to YouTube.

I still stand by my underlying point. You can hear what you can't hear, meaning, you can sometimes perceive what you can't hear.
And there, again, is a firm, definitive, but totally unsubstantiated conclusion that has the potential to mislead many. I stand by this one: When the proper research is done, and it's been proven beyond question that the presence ultrasonic energy makes a positive audible improvement, then I'll accept it. To date, the evidence is either to the contrary (the presence of ultrasonic energy can definitely be detrimental) or inconclusive.

Now, please don't get me wrong and think I'm just in it for the argument. What you're doing is presenting unsubstantiated claims followed by definitive and firm conclusion. That's how mythology is born. Do we really need more of that in audio?

And we haven't even started talking about exactly how you get 100KHz to someone's ear from a speaker! You know, getting a tweeter to deliver 100KHz at any significant level, getting that through the air in a beam the width of a laser, which unless precision-aimed, flies past your head and gets 100% absorbed by your drywall.
beaveav likes this.
audio2xs is offline  
post #26 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 04:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerardo2068 View Post
I would be careful with playing certain frequencies that you can't heard too loud. I've read that it can damage your hearing even more. I'm not sure the accuracy of the reports but makes sense to me.
Not to mention destroying a tweeter. I know about this, wasn't cheap to replace.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #27 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 04:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
Fifteen years ago I replaced my RPTV with an HD RPTV. One of the nicest surprises was the elimination of the 14.4 kHz flyback oscillation whine that was driving me nuts prior to HD.

Considering its intensity, I would think that everyone would have heard it.
In US Tvs this is 15.75 kHz. 525 scan lines X 30 frames or 262.5 lines at 60 Hz. So, your hearing was even better.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #28 of 42 Old 01-09-2015, 10:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
audio2xs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 670
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
Not to mention destroying a tweeter. I know about this, wasn't cheap to replace.
Tweeters typically have around 10%-20% of the power handling of the woofer.
audio2xs is offline  
post #29 of 42 Old 01-10-2015, 02:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
Thank you for that in depth technical analysis and brilliant counter point. Always good to have you join a discussion and enlighten us with your vast array of knowledge and years of personal experience, not to mention countless hours of research on the topics being discussed.

You are always so informative and enlightening. What would we do without you?

Steve/bluewizard
At least he isn't filling the forum with half-truths and misinformation.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #30 of 42 Old 01-10-2015, 02:59 PM
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,530
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 851 Post(s)
Liked: 1205
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
The fact that you can hear sound below 'the common threshold' for hearing more or less makes my point.
Is that a fact? Without more evidence it looks a lot more like an unsupported anecdote to me.

Quote:
You can perceive subtle differences that you can't actually hear under normal conditions.
Is that a fact? Without more evidence it also looks a lot more like an unsupported anecdote to me.

Not to underestimate the power of focused attention, for which plenty of reliable evidence exists.

What I think is being referred to is the power of focused attention, repetitive listening, and listening until one finds a situation where the audible effect is static enough and isolated enough to be reliably heard.

A good understanding of temporal masking, and spectral masking which are scientifically proven effects, may help one understand these situations.
arnyk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2-Channel Audio

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off