My Hearing test revealed that I am unable to hear beyond 10,000 HZ. Actually I could not hear 9,000 HZ either and since Music is said to only go out to about 5,000 HZ and not much of any music will be at 7,000 HZ & above ...................
Then it occurs to me that it is pointless to be limiting my choice of Full Range drivers to those units that only go above 10,000 HZ. This opens up many,many more drivers to choose from to create speaker systems with. and I would guess that I would probably realize as much enjoyment from my speakers at a 9,000 HZ or 10,000 HZ top end as I would if they went out to 15000 HZ & above.
So if anyone is using 5 " or 6.5 " units I would be interested in knowing the drivers you are using.
Steve -
Then it occurs to me that it is pointless to be limiting my choice of Full Range drivers to those units that only go above 10,000 HZ. This opens up many,many more drivers to choose from to create speaker systems with. and I would guess that I would probably realize as much enjoyment from my speakers at a 9,000 HZ or 10,000 HZ top end as I would if they went out to 15000 HZ & above.
So if anyone is using 5 " or 6.5 " units I would be interested in knowing the drivers you are using.
Steve -
Hmm, I lost my message while quoting Freddi at the very end.
It's a very old story: why do I need a system that can go 20-20000 when
the higher note from an instrument cannot reach 10000 ?
Audiophiles say that they want to hear the air between the instruments.
I'd call it microphone air hiss and I like it.
The system is already full of low-pass filters, so don't limit the BW at the very end. Modern tweeters can have a good off-axys response ( and that's useful for stereo, uh, Freddi ?? ) well beyond 20000 ...
It's a very old story: why do I need a system that can go 20-20000 when
the higher note from an instrument cannot reach 10000 ?
Audiophiles say that they want to hear the air between the instruments.
I'd call it microphone air hiss and I like it.
The system is already full of low-pass filters, so don't limit the BW at the very end. Modern tweeters can have a good off-axys response ( and that's useful for stereo, uh, Freddi ?? ) well beyond 20000 ...
My hearing's pretty bad, so I was fitted whith hearing aids a couple years ago. Before the hearing aids, my system sounded very good to me. With hearing aids, it sounds even better. I say this because the hearing aids are there to boost the upper range of voice frequency. They don't go very high as far as music is concerned. However, they make a big difference in the sound quality of music, to me.
Even though you may not hear much above 9-10K, I believe there is still something to be said for having higher frequencies present. Typically, it's not that you don't hear the sound, it's that it just needs to be louder to hear it.
I don't know how high would make a difference to you with the FR of a speaker, but I wouldn't discount frequencies above the 10K range.
Mike
Even though you may not hear much above 9-10K, I believe there is still something to be said for having higher frequencies present. Typically, it's not that you don't hear the sound, it's that it just needs to be louder to hear it.
I don't know how high would make a difference to you with the FR of a speaker, but I wouldn't discount frequencies above the 10K range.
Mike
FWIW, in Bell Labs' early research they built an anechoic chamber large enough to measure all things human hearing perception related up to, and including, a 75 piece orchestra and concluded that for PA [speech] apps, 200-4,500 cps [Hz] sufficed, noting that including lower frequencies better preserved tonal balance/naturalness, whereas for vocal group and orchestra playback through single voice coil drivers, 75-7,000 cps was adequate and for multiple driver speakers, 50-11,000 cps offered a sufficiently 'full'/'true' reproduction.
Of course we know there's a lot of BW on both ends of the 50-11 kHz BW spectrum, but human hearing perception being what it is, using 'FR' drivers over a > 75-7 kHz BW or multi-way over 50-11 kHz will make for a more life-like sounding reproduction if the recording has it and one's hearing is youthful enough since the lower the fundamental, the wider its harmonic BW, but our hearing acuity at these extremes is too poor to actually be able to discern what's been accurately reproduced Vs a driver's 'doubling' down low and break-up modes up high distortion, euphonic though it may sound.
In short, if we listen to a reproduction that extends somewhat below 50 Hz 'flat' and above 11 kHz, then it may sound 'dull' to someone who can't hear beyond 11 kHz and since max speech intelligibility requires a speaker only be flat from 125-4 kHz, rolling off at 3dB/octave IIRC, then limiting a 'FR' driver to a max of ~62.5-8 kHz F3 and adding a 'sub' and 'super tweeter' system for 'fill' makes a lot of sense to me even if one's HF hearing is rolled off, i.e. add an octave down low, add one up high to maintain the proper tonal balance: There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz
GM
Of course we know there's a lot of BW on both ends of the 50-11 kHz BW spectrum, but human hearing perception being what it is, using 'FR' drivers over a > 75-7 kHz BW or multi-way over 50-11 kHz will make for a more life-like sounding reproduction if the recording has it and one's hearing is youthful enough since the lower the fundamental, the wider its harmonic BW, but our hearing acuity at these extremes is too poor to actually be able to discern what's been accurately reproduced Vs a driver's 'doubling' down low and break-up modes up high distortion, euphonic though it may sound.
In short, if we listen to a reproduction that extends somewhat below 50 Hz 'flat' and above 11 kHz, then it may sound 'dull' to someone who can't hear beyond 11 kHz and since max speech intelligibility requires a speaker only be flat from 125-4 kHz, rolling off at 3dB/octave IIRC, then limiting a 'FR' driver to a max of ~62.5-8 kHz F3 and adding a 'sub' and 'super tweeter' system for 'fill' makes a lot of sense to me even if one's HF hearing is rolled off, i.e. add an octave down low, add one up high to maintain the proper tonal balance: There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz
GM
I've said this before - I think there are probably a few other types of permanent or temporary hearing "disorders" - beyond simple HF loss - that can impact how any individual perceives live or reproduced music on any given day.
Tinnitus that can oscillate between a gentle susurration to a raging waterfall, for example.
Tinnitus that can oscillate between a gentle susurration to a raging waterfall, for example.
Steve,
Do keep in mind that there are 2 hearing systems. The measures taken were FR, The less talked about time response system does not degrade near as fast so limiting the HF response to 10k may find you wanting.
But the only way to know is to try, you may find drivers with limited top just fine. Most of the music is in the midrange.
2 known to have less top that are worth looking at are the Mark Audio CHP-70.2 and the CHN-70 (a wonky FR specifically for the Japanese market it is targeted for). At a higher price others like the TB W5-1611, and the Fostex FE108/168eS might suit as well.
There are a lot more.
dave
Yes that opens up a huge selection of potential FR drivers, some cheap Pyle PPA 6.5 to PRV bass mid-range units ( many go to 7000 HZ & above and I use Sonnox EQ plug-ins to help create a flat power response ) so I should ? be able to eq these to 10,000 or so without creating distortion or stretching the voice coil. also the Tangband W6.5 drivers look awesome not sure how they sound. also I use the updated REW software 5.12 for analysis. but still believe it is how they sound to me and my enjoyment of the speakers are primary..... making Specs secondary.
Steve -
Steve -
Last edited:
I got timed out in attempting to edit my response #9 above to include the following:
I wouldn't use any type of hearing "deficiency" to justify choice of system components with reduced frequency response, dynamic capability or resolution. As a personal example, I have exactly the type of tinnitus described above - it's chronic, 24/7 - as well as occupationally caused HF hearing loss beyond the age related norm for a 64yr old. But I still have no trouble hearing the difference between the CHP70's intentionally shelved response above 5K, the "wonky" ( Dave's word) CHN70 and the more linear CHR70. I mention these three as I've heard them all, and they are examples of a single manufacturer's products in the same size range that have each been tailored to meet a specific demographic.
FWIW, of those 3, I don't mind all the the CHN's "personality" - but my daily drivers are a larger model of wide-band ( Alpair 10P) , and the absolute favorite driver in my harem would be the MAOP7. It as frequency response that extents far past what annual occupational hearing tests indicate I can "hear", but I have no trouble detecting the difference in resolution and detail between them and any other single driver I've heard in that size range.
There's more to perception than the simple numbers, I think
I wouldn't use any type of hearing "deficiency" to justify choice of system components with reduced frequency response, dynamic capability or resolution. As a personal example, I have exactly the type of tinnitus described above - it's chronic, 24/7 - as well as occupationally caused HF hearing loss beyond the age related norm for a 64yr old. But I still have no trouble hearing the difference between the CHP70's intentionally shelved response above 5K, the "wonky" ( Dave's word) CHN70 and the more linear CHR70. I mention these three as I've heard them all, and they are examples of a single manufacturer's products in the same size range that have each been tailored to meet a specific demographic.
FWIW, of those 3, I don't mind all the the CHN's "personality" - but my daily drivers are a larger model of wide-band ( Alpair 10P) , and the absolute favorite driver in my harem would be the MAOP7. It as frequency response that extents far past what annual occupational hearing tests indicate I can "hear", but I have no trouble detecting the difference in resolution and detail between them and any other single driver I've heard in that size range.
There's more to perception than the simple numbers, I think
Speaker choices aside you would be well advised to get hearing aids. I've been wearing them for about 3 years and they make a world of difference in minimizing the impact of your hearing loss on your life. Oh and don't just run down to the local audiologist and drop $6K...I went with HearSource aids available on-line for about $2K the pair. That includes SOTA digital aids, the electronic interface and a PC software package that let you tune the response of your hearing aids yourself. For someone comfortable with DIY audio it's a no-brainer!.
Agreed.
Me too except 69, though no occupationally caused hearing loss unless not wearing hearing protectors around various loud racers from unmuffled two strokes to top fuel dragsters over most of my life along with 'riding the rails' in the cabs of steam locomotives until the early '90s.
No experience with these, but can still do the same with similar drivers even though I have some difficulty with speech in a noisy environment or when there's some whispering dialog in a low average SPL movie, etc. playback.
For sure, we perceive sound through our skin, eyes, bone conduction.
All that said, listening to old vinyl is much more pleasant these days, so I definitely have significant HF hearing loss, yet it doesn't sound 'dull' to me like in my youth when I predominately listened to '40s era 45, 78 rpm albums.
GM
FWIW, IME from being around a lot of hearing damaged older folks all my life [I come from two incredibly large, long lived families], many of which had hearing aids from mid-life on due to decades of work and/or war related environments, one thing that became obvious over time was that they lost hearing quicker over time, some to the point of being nearly deaf by their 60s, than folks who waited until their quality of life demanded it, so apparently it's like most 'drug' remedies in that our bodies become dependent on them, needing ever more powerful 'doses' over time.
Another thing, for years now, it seems like hardly a week goes by where I don't get hearing aid sale ads or tickets to seminars or requests to be a test subject, etc., so while you 'well advise' to get them apparently without even knowing his age, etc., I 'well advise' for folks to research them to a 'fare thee well' before even considering them, especially since they're currently being marketed like certain other addictive 'miracle drugs' that can have bad long term consequences.
GM
While I have the utmost respect for your views, opinions, and advice GM, I'm of the mind the OP should at least check into hearing aids. I started wearing them a little over two years ago. It's much easier on my family and others with whom I might be conversing. There are times I don't wear them, and I really don't feel my hearing is any worse than before.
Modern hearing aids are not the same as hearing aids of ten years ago. Speaking from experience, I recommend anyone who has hearing loss that impacts communication with others more than what one would typically experience, to look into them. They honestly can enhance a person's quality of life.
Just my 2 cents... from experience.
Mike
Modern hearing aids are not the same as hearing aids of ten years ago. Speaking from experience, I recommend anyone who has hearing loss that impacts communication with others more than what one would typically experience, to look into them. They honestly can enhance a person's quality of life.
Just my 2 cents... from experience.
Mike
I am 52 yrs old and from what I have seen with my Dad and others who have them, I will pass on hearing aids for now . Actually I am still able to hear & enjoy Music , I just can't hear "The Air around Instruments" so I guess I am no longer an Audiophile ......lol
Perhaps when the day comes to get hearing aids I will send the Bill to the rock band ...AC/DC
Steve -
Perhaps when the day comes to get hearing aids I will send the Bill to the rock band ...AC/DC
Steve -
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for that, but hmm, I thought that's what I rather strongly recommended as opposed to 'well advised' to get them.
True, and judging by all the mass marketing SPAM I get, they're changing as fast as any other electronic technology, though without researching it, I assume that it's just the same kind of the marketing BS we often see concerning how speakers can magically defy the physics of sound reproduction.
Not surprising of course, just look at all electronics and another good reason for not making such an expensive investment until it's necessary, same as when a SMART phone has some new feature that's worth the upgrade or worse, the particular marketing cartel designs in no backward compatibility for using older software or similar, forcing folks to scrap often still perfectly good working products.
A seemingly ever rapidly increasing planned obsolescence for a disposable society is here to stay, which considering how little recycling is done in comparison, I wonder whether some technology not yet even dreamed of will come in time to offset the environmental impact, dwindling of natural resources such a marketing scheme demands.
GM
There are some rather off the wall researchers Sandy Shaw and Durk Person who mention an off label use for the drug Hydrogene . This drug has been used in small doses I think it was .5 mg a day for Alzheimers. But Sandy and Durk reported that large doses of this in the 8 to 10 mg a day range often reverse hearing loss in a few months. But even at .5mg a day that stuff is a couple of hundred dollars a month so this might be an expensive experiement !
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.