AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I think people hear differently and perceive sound differently based on shape of ears, ears position on head, shape of head, all kinds of different in ear differences, tolerances.....


Can the perceived frequency response of a human be compared to the perceived frequency response of another human?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excellence
I think people hear differently and perceive sound differently based on shape of ears, ears position on head, shape of head, all kinds of different in ear differences, tolerances.....


Can the perceived frequency response of a human be compared to the perceived frequency response of another human?


I'm sure this can be done... but some engineer would have to care about this to make a formula


either way this could be drastically changed if your head wasn't kept perfectly centered in the audio wave front etc (impossible without some crazy chin stand)


seems rather strange to even try to create some kind of formula so that some people can say I HAVE A SUPERIOR HEAD


when there's nothing anyone can do about it


I know some guy in Japan blamed his head for not reaching audio buddha status and made waveguides for his ears
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,123 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feandil
I'm sure this can be done... but some engineer would have to care about this to make a formula


either way this could be drastically changed if your head wasn't kept perfectly centered in the audio wave front etc (impossible without some crazy chin stand)


seems rather strange to even try to create some kind of formula so that some people can say I HAVE A SUPERIOR HEAD


when there's nothing anyone can do about it


I know some guy in Japan blamed his head for not reaching audio buddha status and made waveguides for his ears
Feandil


I am so curios about you as a single dad of 24 who seems to know so much about Wilson Audio.


Please enlighten us

http://www.0dating.com/profile.php?ID=6531
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excellence
I think people hear differently and perceive sound differently based on shape of ears, ears position on head, shape of head, all kinds of different in ear differences, tolerances.....
From the perspective of audio and preferences the above has not shown to be a major factor. In fact age and loss of hearing is much more relevant (which raises a number of questions regarding reviewers). When comparing people with good hearing, studies have shown that people usually prefer similar sound quality; i.e. they tend to prefer systems that lean towards actual accuracy (as opposed to perceived accuracy).


However, when comparing subjects whose hearing had begun to "decay" (due to age, hearing loss, etc.), their preferences fell over the map in a more diverse fashion (and accuracy not been as critical as the prior group). Therefore, the latter are more likely to have biases towards certain forms of distortions, and they are harder to group into particular representations of reproduced sound.


Considering most reviewers in established magazines are already well into their years where some hearing loss has begun, their biases may diverge from accuracy, and in many cases will diverge in different manner than his or her readers.


Cheers,

Raul
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,123 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
From the perspective of audio and preferences the above has not shown to be a major factor. In fact age and loss of hearing is much more relevant (which raises a number of questions regarding reviewers). When comparing people with good hearing, studies have shown that people usually prefer similar sound quality; i.e. they tend to prefer systems that lean towards actual accuracy (as opposed to perceived accuracy).


However, when comparing subjects whose hearing had begun to "decay" (due to age, hearing loss, etc.), their preferences fell over the map in a more diverse fashion (and accuracy not been as critical as the prior group). Therefore, the latter are more likely to have biases towards certain forms of distortions, and they are harder to group into particular representations of reproduced sound.


Considering most reviewers in established magazines are already well into their years where some hearing loss has begun, their biases may diverge from accuracy, and in many cases will diverge in different manner than his or her readers.


Cheers,

Raul
Raul--you are right on
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,586 Posts
Quote:
Feandil


I am so curios about you as a single dad of 24 who seems to know so much about Wilson Audio.


Please enlighten us
http://www.0dating.com/profile.php?ID=6531
I'm not sure what's behind this, but if you went out searching for this so that you could post it here to embarass him, that's of pretty questionable taste and ethics, whatever your disagreement with him here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneobgyn
Feandil


I am so curios about you as a single dad of 24 who seems to know so much about Wilson Audio.


Please enlighten us

http://www.0dating.com/profile.php?ID=6531


of course that's not me


my name isn't even feandil


seems strange someone's name is actually that... as it's Noldorian for "child of light"


hmmmm


either way... kudos
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,091 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey
I'm not sure what's behind this, but if you went out searching for this so that you could post it here to embarass him, that's of pretty questionable taste and ethics, whatever your disagreement with him here.
I agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,211 Posts
Thee is an audio group that is on the forefront of TRUE audio learning and understanding, http://www.synaudcon.com/ and they have done quite a bit of testing with different people and placing tiny microphones inside different peoples ears.


Results are that on the most part things are similar, but there are differences.


If anybody here has time to kill at all and wants to REALLY learn about audio... Take their courses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,760 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
Considering most reviewers in established magazines are already well into their years where some hearing loss has begun, their biases may diverge from accuracy, and in many cases will diverge in different manner than his or her readers.
This issue is real but not necessarily significant. First, very few individuals (young, old, reviewer or not) have any idea what their hearing is although they presume it is 'normal' for their age. Second, all careful listeners who spend time with live music as well as the natural sounds we live in adapt and recalibrate their perceptions of level and balance to that reference as long as they retain some hearing over the musical spectrum.


OTOH, I do agree that one cannot make value judgements without knowing something about one's own biases and that includes the aural filter you live with.


Kal (who often retests his hearing)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson
This issue is real but not necessarily significant...
It depends what you mean by significant.
Quote:
First, very few individuals (young, old, reviewer or not) have any idea what their hearing
This not relevant in the context of the discussion (unless we are talking about reviewers who make absolute statements based purely on auditory experience). Whether individuals with good hearing (whether they are aware of it or not) tend to show preference towards reproduced sound that leans towards accuracy. Conversely, individuals with some hearing loss tend to diverge from the mean (accuracy that is), and not necessarily in a predictable fashion (they fall into different groupings). However, as you note, one can test their hearing and determine its limitations and try to compensate for biases that may develop, the problem is, that one is nonetheless operating under a stronger filter than normal (hearing with less limitations), and it is extremely difficult to compensate for something one has difficulty perceiving. Further complicating the matter is that the brain can (and does) fill in gaps when elements of sound may be missing (are not being perceived for some reason; i.e. noise, hearing loss, etc.).
Quote:
Second, all careful listeners who spend time with live music as well as the natural sounds we live in adapt and recalibrate their perceptions of level and balance to that reference as long as they retain some hearing over the musical spectrum.
Bingo, as long as one retains hearing over said musical spectrum (i.e. frequency). If an individual is suffering from some hearing loss (which is natural as we pass our 30s), their exposure to live music cannot compensate for that which they have some difficulties hearing; thus how biases are developed and why people as they age begin to diverge in auditory preferences. BTW, this does not mean that their preferences are wrong, they are RIGHT for THEM. Also, if one finds a reviewer that exhibits the same biases as them, then that writer can serve as an excellent guide (but not a decision maker).
Quote:
OTOH, I do agree that one cannot make value judgements without knowing something about one's own biases and that includes the aural filter you live with.
As a reviewer I think that is more critical to you than it is for us as consumers. In fact, as a consumer, I would argue that we must make the value judgments on the basis of our biases; i.e. what matters most is what connects with the music (noticed that in this context issues of aesthetics and reliability can be a factor; i.e. affect our psychological experience of an event)



Cheers,

Raul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
 http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/hearing.html


The 8k tone was louder in my left ear so I flipped my hd650's around (hooked up to audigy2zs platinum pro volume 7/8th up), and then it was louder in the right ear. I wonder if it's the signal, the phones, or the sound card? (I was really happy it wasn't my ears) Did you have the same issue with 8k?


My graph looks like

30 +3 (not an option)

60 -3

125 -6

250 -6

500 -6

1k -12

2k -15

4k -18

8k -15

16k -12


I couldn't get the sounds to match perfectly, I think they need to give you 1db increments. Let's compare results


Wow, did you know they have implants that let def people hear by electricaly stimulating their ear nerves? http://www.utdallas.edu/~loizou/cimplants/tutorial/ I guarantee these people know tons about human perception of frequency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,760 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
It depends what you mean by significant.
In this context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
Bingo, as long as one retains hearing over said musical spectrum (i.e. frequency). If an individual is suffering from some hearing loss (which is natural as we pass our 30s), their exposure to live music cannot compensate for that which they have some difficulties hearing; thus how biases are developed and why people as they age begin to diverge in auditory preferences.
Sorry but you misuse or misunderstand adaptation. If an individual has reduced thresshold or sensitivity in a particular frequency band, that does not mean he cannot hear them but, rather, the input from the ear to the brain is reduced. In other words, the input frequency response is not flat. However, the brain is always adapting (equalizing) that input to the environmental input. Thus, if such an individual hears the real world, including live music, and the brain accepts that as reference (it has no real choice), the individual's assessment, through that same adaptive filter, of the accuracy of reproduced sound is as valid as that for an individual with a flat transduction mechanism. In other words, the comparison to external reference is equally valid.


Of course, that presumes that the loss is not absolute.


Kal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,380 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson
However, the brain is always adapting (equalizing) that input to the environmental input.
The way our eye/brain mechanism always does an automatic white-balance so that the grey-scale looks neutral under different types of light.


Sanjay
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,760 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani
The way our eye/brain mechanism always does an automatic white-balance so that the grey-scale looks neutral under different types of light.

Sanjay
Exactly. I am a moderately color-disabled individual who, nonetheless, appreciates the subtle adjustment of my PDP.


Kal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson
Sorry but you misuse or misunderstand adaptation. If an individual has reduced thresshold or sensitivity in a particular frequency band, that does not mean he cannot hear them but, rather, the input from the ear to the brain is reduced.
You are correct
Quote:
In other words, the input frequency response is not flat. However, the brain is always adapting (equalizing) that input to the environmental input. Thus, if such an individual hears the real world, including live music, and the brain accepts that as reference (it has no real choice),
That is the tricky part. Adaptation does not imply that the brain is able to totally compensate for the limitations of hearing. Yes, one is able to use the real world as a reference to set as a baseline, but that does not necessarily equate to being able to totally compensate.
Quote:
the individual's assessment, through that same adaptive filter, of the accuracy of reproduced sound is as valid as that for an individual with a flat transduction mechanism.
Again, within limits. The brain is able to adapt, and live music can help as a reference, but both of those approaches help mitigate the effects of hearing loss, but they cannot eliminate them. If you take two people, one with hearing loss, and one without, and you provide both with a full audio spectrum baseline, the one with the better hearing will perform better in tests pertaining to accuracy, all things being equal (which of course is not always the case). To borrow from your sight example. Individuals with color disabled adapt to their condition and are able to perceive grades of differentiation in color, but their sensitivity is not to the same level as those individuals whose vision is not "color limited".


Raul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,760 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
That is the tricky part. Adaptation does not imply that the brain is able to totally compensate for the limitations of hearing. Yes, one is able to use the real world as a reference to set as a baseline, but that does not necessarily equate to being able to totally compensate.
Note, please, that I did not say compensate (such as with prosthetics) but adapt. The central processing leads to the percept and the adaptation mechanism permits the individual to make an accurate comparison to reference. That skill would, admittedly, be limited by a lack of input.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
Again, within limits. The brain is able to adapt, and live music can help as a reference, but both of those approaches help mitigate the effects of hearing loss, but they cannot eliminate them.
I do not think we are speaking here of hearing loss, per se, but of reduced sensitivity or threshhold. Even with a great reduction in the of ability to hear pure tones of certain frequencies, due to focal hair cell loss, there is still the effect of those frequencies on the shape of the travelling wave in the cochlea which, some believe, allows an individual to detect those frequencies in mixed signals, e.g., music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
If you take two people, one with hearing loss, and one without, and you provide both with a full audio spectrum baseline, the one with the better hearing will perform better in tests pertaining to accuracy, all things being equal (which of course is not always the case).
Aha! It's that "all other things" that makes the difference as does the degree of "hearing loss." An experienced listener has his experience as an essential part of his adaptive mechanism. Thus, he knows (or, rather, his brain knows) from prior exposures what the source sounds like and his adaptation adjusts the percept in the presence of a chronic transduction nonlinearity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
To borrow from your sight example. Individuals with color disabled adapt to their condition and are able to perceive grades of differentiation in color, but their sensitivity is not to the same level as those individuals whose vision is not "color limited".
Yes and part of that is due to a physiological difference in the transduction mechanisms for vision and sound. The 3+ types of color receptors have greatly overlapping ranges of wavelength sensitivity. Eliminate one and the individual still sees the wavelengths but has a different perception of them. Audible frequencies, OTOH, are transduced by several mechanisms. In other words, it's merely an analogy.


Bottom line, though, I do agree that "all other things being equal," a better transduction apparatus is advantageous. However, things rarely are. Even at my advanced age, I still hear more of the details of life than most people I know simply because I always listen. ;-)


I would also like to say that I have a friend with severe presbycusis that begins in the 6KHz range and, with intervening peaks and grooves, is more than 60dB down at 12KHZ in terms of threshhold to pure tones. Given adequate SPLs, his discrimination of musical and sonic details is quite superb.


Kal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,760 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
That is the tricky part. Adaptation does not imply that the brain is able to totally compensate for the limitations of hearing. Yes, one is able to use the real world as a reference to set as a baseline, but that does not necessarily equate to being able to totally compensate.
Note, please, that I did not say compensate (such as with prosthetics) but adapt. The central processing leads to the percept and the adaptation mechanism permits the individual to make an accurate comparison to reference. That skill would, admittedly, be limited by a lack of input.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
Again, within limits. The brain is able to adapt, and live music can help as a reference, but both of those approaches help mitigate the effects of hearing loss, but they cannot eliminate them.
I do not think we are speaking here of hearing loss, per se, but of reduced sensitivity or threshhold. Even with a great reduction in the of ability to hear pure tones of certain frequencies, due to focal hair cell loss, there is still the effect of those frequencies on the shape of the travelling wave in the cochlea which, some believe, allows an individual to detect those frequencies in mixed signals, e.g., music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
If you take two people, one with hearing loss, and one without, and you provide both with a full audio spectrum baseline, the one with the better hearing will perform better in tests pertaining to accuracy, all things being equal (which of course is not always the case).
Aha! It's that "all other things" that makes the difference as does the degree of "hearing loss." An experienced listener has his experience as an essential part of his adaptive mechanism. Thus, he knows (or, rather, his brain knows) from prior exposures what the source sounds like and his adaptation adjusts the percept in the presence of a chronic transduction nonlinearity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul GS
To borrow from your sight example. Individuals with color disabled adapt to their condition and are able to perceive grades of differentiation in color, but their sensitivity is not to the same level as those individuals whose vision is not "color limited".
Yes and part of that is due to a physiological difference in the transduction mechanisms for vision and sound. The 3+ types of color receptors have greatly overlapping ranges of wavelength sensitivity. Eliminate one and the individual still sees the wavelengths but has a different perception of them. Audible frequencies, OTOH, are transduced by several mechanisms. In other words, it's merely an analogy.


Bottom line, though, I do agree that "all other things being equal," a better transduction apparatus is advantageous. (Can you get me one?) However, things rarely are. Even at my advanced age, I still hear more of the details of life than most people I know simply because I always listen. ;-)


I would also like to say that I have a friend with severe presbycusis that begins in the 6KHz range and, with intervening peaks and grooves, is more than 60dB down at 12KHZ in terms of threshhold to pure tones. Given adequate SPLs, his discrimination of musical and sonic details is quite superb.


Kal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I know what compensation means, I also that whatever magic makes some womans voice sound so great, if I drop the slider on one of the bands by 2 db, the magic dissapears. A speaker that has a 2db bump where the magic is will sound AMAZING to one person hearing. And it will be 2db too bright to another person. adaptation or no.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top