Yes, anecdotally I've heard the opposite. Hearing loss is rarely the same in both ears.
Beam Forming...with a microphone array, you can use DSP techniques to determine direction and distance. This is one of many things I was involved with in the Navy acoustics studies. We were using hydrophones but that is nothing more than an underwater "microphone". Some Police departments have multiple cameras and microphones set up on utility poles to help detect gun shots; distance and direction. I don't know all of the newest technologies but the basic principle is the same here.
Humans have "stereo" ears and eyes; this gives us depth perception and localization abilities. If you lose or have diminished sight or hearing in one side verses the other; this ability mostly goes away.
Humans have "stereo" ears and eyes; this gives us depth perception and localization abilities. If you lose or have diminished sight or hearing in one side verses the other; this ability mostly goes away.
I think we need the advice of an audiologist to answer this one. Anyway, the question was put and I expanded on it as I saw reasonable. I hope there is an answer.Sounds like more anecdotal theory and wishful thinking to me
This is an interesting subject to me. As we know, transient events rely purely on HF response/drivers to provide the rapid rise time of such an event; a square wave theoretically requiring an infinitely high HF response, for example.
I wonder if, even with our personal and variably-limited HF hearing, our psychoacoustic perception of transient events is affected by reproduction limitations or hearing limitations. For example, would a click track sound the same to the OP if a brick wall 6kHz filter was applied to the signal?
I wonder if, even with our personal and variably-limited HF hearing, our psychoacoustic perception of transient events is affected by reproduction limitations or hearing limitations. For example, would a click track sound the same to the OP if a brick wall 6kHz filter was applied to the signal?
That's only half of the truth. The correct reproductuion of transients needs a wide bandwith with no group delay distortion. If you want to properly reproduce a square wave you do also need good low-enmd Extension with a cutoff frequency much lower than the square wave's fundamental.
Regards
Charles
That's my understanding too....that a square wave does not require a sine wave below the fundamental.
I had read conflicting views here, but Fourier seemed pretty clear that nothing below fundamental is needed.
So I had to test it for myself with a decent signal generator and scope...
...and yep, nothing needed below fundamental.
I had read conflicting views here, but Fourier seemed pretty clear that nothing below fundamental is needed.
So I had to test it for myself with a decent signal generator and scope...
...and yep, nothing needed below fundamental.
There could well be an element of adjustment, relearning, particularly if we can reinforce our hearing perception with vision of the object. It's going to be a matter of degrees of hearing loss and at what frequencies due to the differences in ILD and ITD. I'm supposing
. I believe my friend when he tells me he can no longer tell where the singing bird is.According to the hearing test site, I have moderate to severe hearing loss with my right ear being more in the high loss category and my left slightly better. As a young person, I never used hearing protection when shooting, or for any other activity for that matter. My jobs required me to travel between 30,000 and 40,000 miles per year at high (extra-legal) speeds. As you might imagine, the road noise at 80+ mph (I live in a rural state) was constant and quite loud.
I have had a "hi-fi" since the late 1970s. My current set-ups include a set of Monitor Audio Gold towers from the late 1990s, a set of DIY speakers designed by Wayne Jaeske (eros) with Peerless 6.5" woofers and ScanSPeak 9500 tweeters supplemented by a 15" Ascendant Audio home-made sub. I also have Grado SR80 and Sennheiser MassDrop 6XX headphones.
With my hearing loss, I have a difficult time understanding speech when people are looking away from me when speaking and/or are soft spoken. Of course, background noise severely affects my ability to discern speech. I have not, as yet, gone to have hearing aids fitted, but, that is on my list to do soon as my hearing loss is affecting my ability to hear my colleagues, clients, etc. at work.
All this background to say that related to music appreciation, I find that the higher quality of the "system" to which I listen, the more enjoyable the experience. We have an original Amazon Alexa. Last Christmas, my wife asked Alexa to play some holiday music (Pentatonix). To my ears, it sounded awful, virtually unlistenable. I stopped Alexa and went to YouTube and played Pentatonix through my Monitor Audio Gold speakers paired with a 12" DIY subwoofer. The music on the "hi-fi" was immeasurably more enjoyable for me to listen to.
My conclusion based on that (and other) experiences, is that even with moderate to severe hearing loss, a full-range, balance system for music listening is as, or more important to enjoying music. Anecdotal, not scientific, your mileage may vary, no warranties expressed or implied, but based on my personal experience, the better the "source" of the sound, the more even a half deaf old guy can enjoy it., Don't cut the spectrum short thinking it doesn't matter...in my experience, it matters.
I have had a "hi-fi" since the late 1970s. My current set-ups include a set of Monitor Audio Gold towers from the late 1990s, a set of DIY speakers designed by Wayne Jaeske (eros) with Peerless 6.5" woofers and ScanSPeak 9500 tweeters supplemented by a 15" Ascendant Audio home-made sub. I also have Grado SR80 and Sennheiser MassDrop 6XX headphones.
With my hearing loss, I have a difficult time understanding speech when people are looking away from me when speaking and/or are soft spoken. Of course, background noise severely affects my ability to discern speech. I have not, as yet, gone to have hearing aids fitted, but, that is on my list to do soon as my hearing loss is affecting my ability to hear my colleagues, clients, etc. at work.
All this background to say that related to music appreciation, I find that the higher quality of the "system" to which I listen, the more enjoyable the experience. We have an original Amazon Alexa. Last Christmas, my wife asked Alexa to play some holiday music (Pentatonix). To my ears, it sounded awful, virtually unlistenable. I stopped Alexa and went to YouTube and played Pentatonix through my Monitor Audio Gold speakers paired with a 12" DIY subwoofer. The music on the "hi-fi" was immeasurably more enjoyable for me to listen to.
My conclusion based on that (and other) experiences, is that even with moderate to severe hearing loss, a full-range, balance system for music listening is as, or more important to enjoying music. Anecdotal, not scientific, your mileage may vary, no warranties expressed or implied, but based on my personal experience, the better the "source" of the sound, the more even a half deaf old guy can enjoy it., Don't cut the spectrum short thinking it doesn't matter...in my experience, it matters.
I did study Fourier transforms and transient analysis in engineering school. That was in the mid 1970's though (ha ha old speaker guy is an HONEST name for me); Anyway; I think the lowest sine wave frequency from the stand point of an electrical signal was the fundamental of that square wave; I don't specifically remember needing a lower primary frequency. It could be so; I can't honestly say for sure though. It seems that to exactly duplicate the square wave with sine waves; you need a very large number in various frequencies; amplitudes, phases, etc. Perhaps, ultimately, an "infinite" number??? Like I said, mid. 70's!
I do remember the old analog oscilloscopes that had the calibration bar; you clipped the probe to this and selected the frequency range and maybe the voltage scale? This put out a square wave so you could tweak the variable capacitor inside the probe to get the "perfect" square wave. The above mention of rounding off, over-shoot, under-shoot, etc. reminded me. A perfect square wave in the woofer range would also have spectral components well into the midrange and tweeter bands as well. So; any fast attack signal that resembles a square wave would depend on your upper frequency limit of your hearing. Whether this is a problem or not probably depends more on your personal preferences and listening habits. One of my older neighbors has a very bad skin cancer condition; they had to completely remove his right ear. When he listened to my stereo; even from the adjoining hallway, he always commented on how good it sounded. He couldn't distinguish certain sounds, distances or directions though. He still had a very wide "bandwidth" though on his other ear. He knew if a particular song had way too much or way too little treble or bass...
I guess hearing loss, especially the highest frequencies, could be compared to a low pass filter. Do you have a 1st order, 2nd order, 3rd order or higher roll-off slope? I would be curious to learn what the Audiologists think in terms of this.
I do remember the old analog oscilloscopes that had the calibration bar; you clipped the probe to this and selected the frequency range and maybe the voltage scale? This put out a square wave so you could tweak the variable capacitor inside the probe to get the "perfect" square wave. The above mention of rounding off, over-shoot, under-shoot, etc. reminded me. A perfect square wave in the woofer range would also have spectral components well into the midrange and tweeter bands as well. So; any fast attack signal that resembles a square wave would depend on your upper frequency limit of your hearing. Whether this is a problem or not probably depends more on your personal preferences and listening habits. One of my older neighbors has a very bad skin cancer condition; they had to completely remove his right ear. When he listened to my stereo; even from the adjoining hallway, he always commented on how good it sounded. He couldn't distinguish certain sounds, distances or directions though. He still had a very wide "bandwidth" though on his other ear. He knew if a particular song had way too much or way too little treble or bass...
I guess hearing loss, especially the highest frequencies, could be compared to a low pass filter. Do you have a 1st order, 2nd order, 3rd order or higher roll-off slope? I would be curious to learn what the Audiologists think in terms of this.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.