I've often thought about getting those Fostex. For a few years I ran a pair of Fane bullet tweeters that I bought right here on the swap meet. They sounded pretty good to me, at the right level I didn't consciously hear them, just noticed the added warmth they brought.
About old ear EQ, I tried it this morning. Didn't do the full EQ, just a simple rise starting at 2K and hitting +12dB at 8K. It was bright, but not as bad as I thought it would be. Had to ask myself "Self - is this how you used to hear?"
I would take adjustment, for sure. But I could never truly adjust because I don't hear that way in real life, just with audio EQ.
I have said this before but perhaps on another thread? I can tell the improvements even if I am listening from the next room! Without the Fostex; there is something definitely missing. It also helps that I have the ability to control the level with a separate amplifier. If nothing else; as we all realize; some recordings just lack. Sometimes too much or too little bass; sometimes too much or too little treble.
I have a decent turn table and a decent CD player both but I do listen to streaming audio "radio" or YouTube often. Obviously; the sound quality here is very hit and miss...
Human hearing loss at HF is not a brickwall. You will hear frequencies at 8kHz, 10kHz, 12kHz, 15kHz more or less attenuated, i.e. not at the same volume as being younger.
You hear natural sounds at a certain level, and you expect reproduced sounds at the same level. This is true for all frequencies you can hear at all. Conclusion: your sound reproduction chain must have as extended frequency response as possible.
For example you can hear the 10 kHz overtones of a musical instrument at a certain level (although very attenuated, but your brain still detects it). It your loudspeaker cuts at 8 kHz, your brain would miss the 10 kHz overtone. Even if your audiologist says you have a hearing loss starting at 8 kHz.
You hear natural sounds at a certain level, and you expect reproduced sounds at the same level. This is true for all frequencies you can hear at all. Conclusion: your sound reproduction chain must have as extended frequency response as possible.
For example you can hear the 10 kHz overtones of a musical instrument at a certain level (although very attenuated, but your brain still detects it). It your loudspeaker cuts at 8 kHz, your brain would miss the 10 kHz overtone. Even if your audiologist says you have a hearing loss starting at 8 kHz.
yep, agree 100%. That's why I say I can EASILY tell if I don't have the ST on. My brickwall does exist starting at above 15 KHz; up to then it is more gradual. Overtones and harmonics are very necessary for realistic reproduction for sure. This is how we differentiate "timbre" and can tell the differences in musical instruments. Some instruments have very rich harmonics and overtones extending even above 15 KHz; I have seen the graphs and charts; it is quite interesting actually!
When you get into hearing impairment requiring hearing aids the losses can be well beyond the ability of typical tone controls to offset and there are walls that seem to be of quite stout brick. Typical audiograms are run from 250Hz to 8KHz. Losses of 20-30dB are considered mild, 40-60dB moderate and above 70dB severe, I fall into the moderate range in both ears. With hearing aids I am able to enjoy music at home and we are season ticket holders at the Detroit Symphony Orchestra. Without aids it is very quiet, often my wife will complain about a thunderstorm keeping her awake and I just smile.
Obvious from recent posts, he really seems to correctly understand hearing perception. Great. Thanks.
Pity about those Detroit concert series tickets, eh.
Having said that, may I ask are earlier remarks* about the causes of tinnitus "evidence based"?
B.
* "People who have chronic uncorrected hearing loss often also experience prominent tinnitus, the high pitched whine that is heard and that isn't really there. As the brain tries to compensate for the lack of high frequency input from the ear mechanism the added system gain can result in the spontaneous oscillation of tinnitus."
Last edited:
Quite a bit actually thanks to ~ lifelong severe tinnitus, many relatives, neighbors friends with WWII, Korea, Vietnam, loud manufacturing jobs related hearing damage, so what with Bell Labs', RCA's research heading up the development of sound reproduction; from a '50s era RCA audio system design/installation manual:
50 - 11,000 c.p.s. for satisfying full orchestra reproduction.........only needing ~200-4500 c.p.s. to insure speech intelligibility, clarity............ [though] going lower does help preserve balance and naturalness of tone.
FWIW, as my sound system's bass evolved from ~42 Hz down to a ~14 Hz tuning, the more perceived 'fullness'/wider BW, so assume this is the corollary of our brain's apparent ability to 'fill in' missing fundamentals of a harmonic structure higher up in our acute hearing BW. My 'burning' [rhetorical] question then is, did I actually hear it? Or having read it at a young/impressionable age before said system existed, 'heard' what RCA said I should hear?
Another important thing I learned early on was during a visit to Altec and shortly thereafter in print for my now much faded memory was WRT proper tonal balance criteria based on a [25*20,000 Hz] audible BW = 500,000, though if pipe organ and HF 'air' is included, then ~16*25 k = 400,000, but can't recall any system design I've checked that was close to it with most > 500,000, so obviously most are HF biased; presumably due to the aforementioned observation along with assuming some room reinforcement and of course the mass marketing considerations, but it did get me curious enough to pursue the subject from a driver sizing POV that's worked well for me.
Regardless, 500,000/6,000 = 83.33 Hz, 400,000 = 66.67 Hz for [minimum?] lower extension Vs 8,333.33 Hz/6,666.67 Hz for a high bias, though IME would go down to our ~20 Hz threshold and at least a 6,667 Hz HF BW, but hope to get Dr. Geddes and/or others thoughts on all this from those similarly educated/experienced in human hearing perception since we listen with more than just our ears.
GM
The magic "400,000" product is meant to result in a nicely balanced system. While the exact number is not important, I subscribe to the notion that a music system sounds lousy if the bass is extended but not the treble, and vice versa, etc.
A lot of hearing damage "standards" are little more than educated guesswork. Lots of drug dosage, daily vitamins, etc likewise. A lot of things can't be easily nailed down or nailed down at all.
Bell Labs (ahem, ahem) in so far as we ever "served" the phone system, was oriented to how little bandwidth is needed for "adequate" comprehension of words in phone service (I worked on an analogous issue for colour picture phone colours in 1970). Great careful research but barely relevant to our music audio world. I can't think of any Toole testing that achieves that kind of precise quantitative assessment of "can you identify the notes of the piccolo tune...".
Not easy measuring hearing and the entire world of hearing assessment has certain standard frequencies topping at 8kHz. Why bother measuring higher... even if in the unlikely event it could be done.
So there is much to learn from various areas of psychology but our world of sound quality is somewhat differently oriented than hearing damage, speech intelligibility, etc.
B.
A lot of hearing damage "standards" are little more than educated guesswork. Lots of drug dosage, daily vitamins, etc likewise. A lot of things can't be easily nailed down or nailed down at all.
Bell Labs (ahem, ahem) in so far as we ever "served" the phone system, was oriented to how little bandwidth is needed for "adequate" comprehension of words in phone service (I worked on an analogous issue for colour picture phone colours in 1970). Great careful research but barely relevant to our music audio world. I can't think of any Toole testing that achieves that kind of precise quantitative assessment of "can you identify the notes of the piccolo tune...".
Not easy measuring hearing and the entire world of hearing assessment has certain standard frequencies topping at 8kHz. Why bother measuring higher... even if in the unlikely event it could be done.
So there is much to learn from various areas of psychology but our world of sound quality is somewhat differently oriented than hearing damage, speech intelligibility, etc.
B.
Last edited:
What hearing aids do you have? Mine delay the boosted frequencies and thus distort any high frequency content, brass for example, I find totally unlistenable. When I first tried them at the audiologists he said most people don't notice the delay, I don't believe him! I haven't worn them for a long time, but I don't think it's something you would "adjust" to?
I've read that before, there are plenty of theories about tinnitus, seems that's all they are.
Acoustics, what's that? We have signal processors!.. What a sell though. Measure the patient, take one of these out of the packaging and flash it.
I hope you find a good alternative, even if you take them out for serious listening.
I haven't used them since I can't remember when, they didn't seem to help the tinnitus, which was the plan, I may dig them out and try again. I did find they helped with speech, which is their main function after all. Supposedly the delay issue is addressed in very expensive ones, and music listening is a selling point.
There are methods intended to ease tinnitus by listening to music that has the frequency range of the tinnitus notched out out. There are even mobile phone apps for this purpose so it is possible to do this while on public transport etc
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
Yep the last concert we attended was a Classical Roots program March 6, we vacationed the next 2 weeks and by the time we returned the lockdown in MI had begun. The DSO has done a fantastic job since of making concerts available online so we still get to enjoy their work.
On tinnitus there are many causes but the phenomenon I mentioned related to hearing loss is quite common. I began using hearing aids about 10 years ago, before adopting them i had very prominent tinnitus. Once I got hearing aids it gradually faded over a period of months to a level that I only perceive when I am not wearing hearing aids, and then it is much less intrusive than before.
I am currently wearing MD Hearing "Control" model behind the ear aids with large diameter tubes and closed tips. They are my third set in 10 years and work quite well for me. There is no perceptible delay effect like you mention and I would find that unacceptable.
One thing I have learned is that hearing with hearing aids is not analogous to seeing with corrective lenses, where the experience seems without much compromise. The ability with natural hearing to focus your attention on a particular source in a noisy environment isn't really there at all. I assume this is due to the loss of much of the directionality cues that the ear provides.
There is also a reduced attention aspect that is hard to describe but very notable. When my wife says something to me I might hear the sound clearly, but the mental interrupt that occurs naturally where you can immediately focus on that new sound source isn't as effective. It still beats the hell oput of not hearing.
I've been reading about the 400,000 rule for decades. It's one of those ideas that seems to make sense on the surface, but I've never been able to verify it. I have tested in on all sorts of systems and never found it to be any better than some other rule. It's not bad, but for me it doesn't to do much,
Feels arbitrary to me.
We can detect/feel lower than 20Hz. For ultimate HiFi, I'd suggest flat-to-10Hz should be the goal. The home-theatre nutters, of course, will say that 120dB@5Hz (no, I'm not kidding) is the real goal here, and anything less is a mere AM radio in comparison.
It's worth considering program material. Should my microphones correspond to the 400,000 rule? If they do, should they only be used with instruments that correspond to that rule? If the sax player over-blows and generates additional harmonics, should I add a little more double bass to the mix?
My mixing desk is flat down to about 5Hz. Should I open it up and change some of the coupling capacitors?
An acoustic guitar in standard tuning has a fundamental frequency of 82Hz on the low-E. In the treble, one could (successfully) argue that there are frequency components way past what we can hear. If we call it 100kHz, then an acoustic guitar's "rule" is 8,200,000.
What're we supposed to do with that number?
I have no idea.
If we took a 20Hz-20kHz HiFi system (400,000), and played a recording of an acoustic guitar, and then applied an 80Hz brick-wall (oh, look, it's now 1,600,000) highpass, we would hear no difference (setting aside phase shifts). Yet, this supposedly useful number has shifted by a factor of four.
Further, if we were to perfectly integrate a hyper-tweeter covering up to 100kHz, that system would have a new "score" of 8,000,000. Since we can't hear frequencies that high, there would still be no subjective improvement to the sound, despite a factor-of-20 difference in the numbers.
Based on the above, I propose that the 400,000 "rule" should be dropped. It's clearly not doing anything useful.
Chris