I have done tests like these and there is no way anything above 20khz can be perceived as the signal itself. What you hear is artifacts only.
My point (6) should be revised as around 5% , all the other points unchanged.
Probably the speaker company gave them money to try to prove the advantage of using it for high sample rate. Besides that, I have no doubt the higher sample rate provide better sound, all other factors being equal.
My point (6) should be revised as around 5% , all the other points unchanged.
Probably the speaker company gave them money to try to prove the advantage of using it for high sample rate. Besides that, I have no doubt the higher sample rate provide better sound, all other factors being equal.
Gabdx1, I always bugged the manager about turning off the ultrasonic alarm. Just for fun (being a technician also, and curious) he set up one of our calibration mics; the alarm had no output below 23KHz.
No 'subharmonics' IOW. The fact that there is variance in human physiology is well-known. *Generally* we have hearing response that is 20-20KHz, but specifically some humans have more than that while others have less, depending on variables like age, health, genetics and the like.
No 'subharmonics' IOW. The fact that there is variance in human physiology is well-known. *Generally* we have hearing response that is 20-20KHz, but specifically some humans have more than that while others have less, depending on variables like age, health, genetics and the like.
End of the article:
: The data, therefore, may not precisely represent the actual hearing threshold values of the particular ear. Further investigations are needed to provide more accurate estimation of the hearing threshold values.
It should reformulate: 'values to hear the distortions generated by the ear apparatus, harmonics produced by the propagation of the impulse through the bone structure etc.'
The author is not addressing the harmonics generated by the ear itself which accounts for the hearing sensation of the test subjects.
Also I never assumed anything from my hearing test.
If you can start to 'hear' a 25khz test tone at 110 db good for you because that just proved we can hear over 20khz !
It is as stupid as putting a 10hz tone at 110 db and say now do you hear it? That whole article is just plain BS.
: The data, therefore, may not precisely represent the actual hearing threshold values of the particular ear. Further investigations are needed to provide more accurate estimation of the hearing threshold values.
It should reformulate: 'values to hear the distortions generated by the ear apparatus, harmonics produced by the propagation of the impulse through the bone structure etc.'
The author is not addressing the harmonics generated by the ear itself which accounts for the hearing sensation of the test subjects.
Also I never assumed anything from my hearing test.
If you can start to 'hear' a 25khz test tone at 110 db good for you because that just proved we can hear over 20khz !
It is as stupid as putting a 10hz tone at 110 db and say now do you hear it? That whole article is just plain BS.
Gabdx1, no need to be rude. Presenting objective data and references would be more helpful.
Newer ones too: http://www.audyssey.com/technology/dynamicEQ.html
Best, Markus
nigelwright7557 said:
Newer ones too: http://www.audyssey.com/technology/dynamicEQ.html
Best, Markus
Don't cry please.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml
Test anyone? At 27 I can hear up 18000 kHz ( my own tests) (17khz on my 3$ desktop speakers)
I feel very lucky to still have that range; I take care of my ears.
At 13 kHz it's pretty high and over it I don't think you lose anything. I have a small ear ringing problem I develop after I blow crackers in my face around 10kHz.
You should hear the pitch going higher and higher. If you hear some noise of crackling sounds, you don't hear the frequency at all.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml
Test anyone? At 27 I can hear up 18000 kHz ( my own tests) (17khz on my 3$ desktop speakers)
I feel very lucky to still have that range; I take care of my ears.
At 13 kHz it's pretty high and over it I don't think you lose anything. I have a small ear ringing problem I develop after I blow crackers in my face around 10kHz.
You should hear the pitch going higher and higher. If you hear some noise of crackling sounds, you don't hear the frequency at all.
My father could 'hear' 23Khz many years ago.
His 'Test' was conducted on a texas instraments computer using a 4 inch paper cone speaker! (sometime in the mid- early 80s). He was about my age then, (33), my hearing is as good as that of my 12 yo boy. I am pretty certain i 'can' still hear to 17500-18000 hz. Tested with a test disc with vifa d25ag tweets.
I think a lot of it comes down to how the test is conducted, I can EASILY hear televisions from a mile away (god bless dem big *** plasmas!!!!!!).
However I will not enter into what the true cutoff point is, some people can swim well, some people can think well, some people........!
His 'Test' was conducted on a texas instraments computer using a 4 inch paper cone speaker! (sometime in the mid- early 80s). He was about my age then, (33), my hearing is as good as that of my 12 yo boy. I am pretty certain i 'can' still hear to 17500-18000 hz. Tested with a test disc with vifa d25ag tweets.
I think a lot of it comes down to how the test is conducted, I can EASILY hear televisions from a mile away (god bless dem big *** plasmas!!!!!!).
However I will not enter into what the true cutoff point is, some people can swim well, some people can think well, some people........!
Excuse my ignorance, but i am a little curious on this one.
We are all probably on this forum for the same reason, ie, To build gear to faithfully reproduce sound. My question is; Has any one actually built mics into an exact replica of a human head, with near exact human ear canals, and placed in the sweet spot of a live recording in a big hall?
Now, wouldn't that be something?!
While on the subject frequencies, What is the round about frequeny that tweeters seem to 'hiss' their esses? They almost without exception, all seem to do it. Is it the mics used for recording? I find if you pad it out, precious detail goes walking with it.
Or are these questions for another thread?
We are all probably on this forum for the same reason, ie, To build gear to faithfully reproduce sound. My question is; Has any one actually built mics into an exact replica of a human head, with near exact human ear canals, and placed in the sweet spot of a live recording in a big hall?
Now, wouldn't that be something?!
While on the subject frequencies, What is the round about frequeny that tweeters seem to 'hiss' their esses? They almost without exception, all seem to do it. Is it the mics used for recording? I find if you pad it out, precious detail goes walking with it.
Or are these questions for another thread?
thanx markus76,
That makes for interesting reading. I didn't realize someone had actually done it! lol! It would seem then, that we all hear things differently (who'da thunk it?). I guess thats why we can't agree on the perfect speakers, amp, etc!
Do (almost) all tweeters seem to hiss, their esses to your ear also?
(yes I do realize this is definately NOT an ultra sonic issue!).
I kinda figured that its an evolution thing, ie, In the real world if someone kinda hisses their esses and f's, you can tell they've got busted teeth even if your as blind as a welders dog!
Maybe some people's ears are more sensative to this phenomenon than others as i have never heard this hiss in any pink noise test. Some lucky people just say "What hiss?".
It all makes for good brain bran, wouldn't you say?!
That makes for interesting reading. I didn't realize someone had actually done it! lol! It would seem then, that we all hear things differently (who'da thunk it?). I guess thats why we can't agree on the perfect speakers, amp, etc!
Do (almost) all tweeters seem to hiss, their esses to your ear also?
(yes I do realize this is definately NOT an ultra sonic issue!).
I kinda figured that its an evolution thing, ie, In the real world if someone kinda hisses their esses and f's, you can tell they've got busted teeth even if your as blind as a welders dog!
Maybe some people's ears are more sensative to this phenomenon than others as i have never heard this hiss in any pink noise test. Some lucky people just say "What hiss?".
It all makes for good brain bran, wouldn't you say?!
I think this has already been touch on, but what does it mean to say, you can hear this frequency or that?
And what would constitute a fair test?
I say a fair self-test is play a 1khz tone and set the volume to a modestly loud level approximating the level at which you would normally listen to music. Then start testing low and high frequencies.
I suspect at normal volumes you will be disappointed at the frequency range you hear.
Now certainly if you keep turning the volume up, you can hear higher and higher frequencies, or lower and lower frequencies, but at what point does that intense volume level become functionally unrealistic.
And further, at what sound level intensity does the volume level become abusive and damaging.
Someone claimed their father tested his hearing at 23khz, but at what sound level? And, did that sound level represent a realistic sound level?
As far as what the low limit is, I don't think it is a question of 'can you hear it', but a question of 'does it sound like a tone or musical note'? I can hear very low test tones, but they sound more like a buzz or series of clicks than at tone or note. When I've tested tones under 20hz, I don't hear a tone, I just hear the cones flapping.
I also notice that every statement of audible frequency range contains a qualifying word like 'roughly', 'approximately', 'generally', 'on average', etc.... No one is saying it is absolutely this[/]i and no other.
To make a fair test, we need to compare our hearing against a reference level. Setting a 1k reference level assures that we are listening and testing under realistic conditions.
Again, if I force the volume sky high, I can hear very high tones, but at standard listening levels, my hearing doesn't even remotely approach those high frequencies. And, I'm not sure I consider any frequency test done at three digit SPL's as valid.
I think tests that do not say within a realistic framework are pretty much worthless.
Sorry, just rambling.
Steve/bluewizard
And what would constitute a fair test?
I say a fair self-test is play a 1khz tone and set the volume to a modestly loud level approximating the level at which you would normally listen to music. Then start testing low and high frequencies.
I suspect at normal volumes you will be disappointed at the frequency range you hear.
Now certainly if you keep turning the volume up, you can hear higher and higher frequencies, or lower and lower frequencies, but at what point does that intense volume level become functionally unrealistic.
And further, at what sound level intensity does the volume level become abusive and damaging.
Someone claimed their father tested his hearing at 23khz, but at what sound level? And, did that sound level represent a realistic sound level?
As far as what the low limit is, I don't think it is a question of 'can you hear it', but a question of 'does it sound like a tone or musical note'? I can hear very low test tones, but they sound more like a buzz or series of clicks than at tone or note. When I've tested tones under 20hz, I don't hear a tone, I just hear the cones flapping.
I also notice that every statement of audible frequency range contains a qualifying word like 'roughly', 'approximately', 'generally', 'on average', etc.... No one is saying it is absolutely this[/]i and no other.
To make a fair test, we need to compare our hearing against a reference level. Setting a 1k reference level assures that we are listening and testing under realistic conditions.
Again, if I force the volume sky high, I can hear very high tones, but at standard listening levels, my hearing doesn't even remotely approach those high frequencies. And, I'm not sure I consider any frequency test done at three digit SPL's as valid.
I think tests that do not say within a realistic framework are pretty much worthless.
Sorry, just rambling.
Steve/bluewizard
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.