While it's true that our ears don't work like microphones, I find your argument flawed: just because we think we hear a difference, it doesn't mean there is one.
After some investigation, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that microphones are actually considerably more sensitive than human hearing. I've been reliably measuring things that are completely inaudible over here: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/353954-low-level-fr-measurements-3.html#post6192451
The tests that may be of interest are:
1 - That the mic was picking up sweeps (albeit fairly close to the cone) that I simply could not hear in the room. It was just too quiet.
2 - That low-level sweeps can reliably retrieved from underneath pink noise that's so much louder as to render the sweep inaudible: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/353954-low-level-fr-measurements-6.html#post6202584
The files direct from the mic are available to download, so you can see if you can hear the last few sweeps. IIRC, each sweep is repeated 8x times before I lowered the sweep level by 6dB and ran it again.
Chris
Greetings Chris,
Apologies in advance if this is pedantic.
I think your experiments support the idea that ears are *not* like microphones.
Obviously, we may or may not hear a difference that is measurably reproducible. But what about the reverse? Psyhoacoustically, if we think we hear a difference, there is a difference. It may or may not be measurable; it may or may not be repeatable with other listeners.
The filter function of cochlear outer hair cells probably originated from providing some kind of survival advantage. But I would suggest that there is probably an element of conscious recognition also required in the selective attention process of 'hearing details'. [e.g., the familiar sound patterns of long grass moving... Big predator moving that grass or no? ...etc...]. I wonder how well a pure frequency sweep behind pink noise represents how I listen to music.
Moreover, how does recognition of details translate to music appreciation? For me and I think many, one element is the sensation of acoustic space. Another is the recognition and appreciation of truly great acoustic instruments - treasured instruments with brilliant players. Not easily measurable, but quite describable in psychoacoustic terms.
Yup, easy. Hearing impedance originates anatomically (middle ear cavity) as well as neurologically (cochlea of inner ear).
Very interesting, and I wonder about the detection threshold from a large enough sample to achieve acceptable levels of statistical confidence. But of course, the exact same reproduction equipment should be used for all test subjects, and I don't imagine that happening. But lets be sure to use EnABL'd drivers!
Our own individual differences are probably more variable than one would imagine. But again, what is the relevance of pink noise to music, and recognition of a frequency sweep to 'musical details'?
A question I've been pondering is: How much does extra-auditory sensation influence the appreciation of music? My wife, with much 'better' hearing than mine, appreciates music that sounds like it is being played by her narrow band-pass phone transducers! When I play the same thing for her via my high-res, highly tuned rig, same appreciation. She says she doesn't really hear the detail - I'm like, "WHAT?" It seems that she just doesn't care to hear it all. So I usually step back from contentious debate about psychoacoustics. Music reproduction is for entertainment, as is the sum of DIY Audio.
Frank
Apologies in advance if this is pedantic.
I think your experiments support the idea that ears are *not* like microphones.
Obviously, we may or may not hear a difference that is measurably reproducible. But what about the reverse? Psyhoacoustically, if we think we hear a difference, there is a difference. It may or may not be measurable; it may or may not be repeatable with other listeners.
The filter function of cochlear outer hair cells probably originated from providing some kind of survival advantage. But I would suggest that there is probably an element of conscious recognition also required in the selective attention process of 'hearing details'. [e.g., the familiar sound patterns of long grass moving... Big predator moving that grass or no? ...etc...]. I wonder how well a pure frequency sweep behind pink noise represents how I listen to music.
Moreover, how does recognition of details translate to music appreciation? For me and I think many, one element is the sensation of acoustic space. Another is the recognition and appreciation of truly great acoustic instruments - treasured instruments with brilliant players. Not easily measurable, but quite describable in psychoacoustic terms.
Yup, easy. Hearing impedance originates anatomically (middle ear cavity) as well as neurologically (cochlea of inner ear).
Very interesting, and I wonder about the detection threshold from a large enough sample to achieve acceptable levels of statistical confidence. But of course, the exact same reproduction equipment should be used for all test subjects, and I don't imagine that happening. But lets be sure to use EnABL'd drivers!
Our own individual differences are probably more variable than one would imagine. But again, what is the relevance of pink noise to music, and recognition of a frequency sweep to 'musical details'?A question I've been pondering is: How much does extra-auditory sensation influence the appreciation of music? My wife, with much 'better' hearing than mine, appreciates music that sounds like it is being played by her narrow band-pass phone transducers! When I play the same thing for her via my high-res, highly tuned rig, same appreciation. She says she doesn't really hear the detail - I'm like, "WHAT?"
It seems that she just doesn't care to hear it all. So I usually step back from contentious debate about psychoacoustics. Music reproduction is for entertainment, as is the sum of DIY Audio.Frank
Hi cone modders! The DX4 drivers that I've been messing with have new DIY phase plugs. I posted here:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...etry-and-mckenzie-patent.381061/#post-7010043
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...etry-and-mckenzie-patent.381061/#post-7010043
There are 6 nibs (A/B/C/D/E/#56 — for a calligraphy pen that pretty much covers all driver sizes — only th esmaller 3 needed for drivers 8” or less..
A calligraphy nib holder
High pigment content Acrylic train paint (Testors is a favourite). Acrylic MicroGloss.
If you are doing paper cones i would add some ModPodge.
ZIG 2-way glue is of use with wizzer cones and most Fostex drivers.
dave
A calligraphy nib holder
High pigment content Acrylic train paint (Testors is a favourite). Acrylic MicroGloss.
If you are doing paper cones i would add some ModPodge.
ZIG 2-way glue is of use with wizzer cones and most Fostex drivers.
dave
Thanks for the list Dave, it will save me some time digging this up.
I intend on enABLing some Lowther cones, but these driver cones were provided by the new company and they add a lot of shellac to the cone so I am thinking that that ModPodge would not be necessary, do you think that is correct?
Retsel
I intend on enABLing some Lowther cones, but these driver cones were provided by the new company and they add a lot of shellac to the cone so I am thinking that that ModPodge would not be necessary, do you think that is correct?
Retsel