Wouldn't dream of it.Oh, I like it OK. But it's a different effect. I would rather have good bass envelopment than bad bass of another kind. But proper stereo bass sounds more realistic to me. Bass all around is a cool effect, but does not give me the "window into the venue" effect that I enjoy.
I have. I can locate it. So it's not just the transients, at least not for me. And please don't get started on the "your tone was not pure" debate. We've been there, done that. All accounted for.
so my audiologist is wrong?
i don't understand how someone can hear 5hz with standard headphones and that seems to be an acceptable statement.
so what is the accepted low frequency limit of average hearing?
i don't understand how someone can hear 5hz with standard headphones and that seems to be an acceptable statement.
so what is the accepted low frequency limit of average hearing?
A fully automatic machine gun fires at about 5Hz. A basic mechanical watch has 6 beats per second. So the intro to 60minutes on TV where you hear the stopwatch ticking, that is 6Hz. pretty slow. A lot of speakers or even headphones have a hard time reproducing that - other than a wup-wup-wup sound ?
i'm not sure that a machine gun or a stopwatch are producing anything close to a clean sinewave and that hearing them is because both these sources are broader in frequency content than a simple pure fundamental, indeed the timing of these "impulse" like events are at a low frequency but i don't think we hear them as 5 or 6 hz tones.
interesting that my audiologist and i have had several interesting discussions about the standard tests that are employed and how they ignore anything below 125 hz or anything above 8 khz.
Covering the basic frequency range of speech as if that is the only thing important to us. 😱
I'd trust your audiologist and not the husband of one 😉.
yes i know that the testing that my audiologist did for me was outside the normal scope of what is standard but we where both interested in testing for the lowest level as well as frequency we both could reliably detect to see if our testing corresponded to published Fletcher/Munson curves.
Yes I meant that the timing is the same not the sound. A sine wave at 5Hz like I said probably sounds like "wup-wup-wup" sound but at 5Hz speed. I would not know what it is supposed to sound like with true clean sine wave as I have no transducers or even amps capable of going that low without significant distortion. Maybe a closer analogy is sound made by a big ventilation shaft fan with blades going by at 5Hz. More like a "fuff-fuff-fuff" sound. In fact, ULF subs sometimes use variable pitch fan blades to get single digit Hz sound.
i do think that low frequencies are sometimes more "felt" than "heard"
which i think is behind why dance tracks always rely on heavy bass content combined with rhythm to generate a reaction (impulsive desire to "bust a move")
which i think is behind why dance tracks always rely on heavy bass content combined with rhythm to generate a reaction (impulsive desire to "bust a move")
You know that is very insulting, especially when he admitted that audiologists don't test below 125 Hz.
Correct.......it's the one zone of the FR where it's 'season to taste' so to speak. And as for accurate, it's impossible to compare to a reference when the reference is environmentally dependent.
.......BUT.....I've tried it both ways and every way in between and must say I strongly prefer the smooth, enveloping action as opposed to a peaky stereo reproduction. YMMV.
not all audiologists do the testing we have done but that doesn't invalidate the data i gave with respect to my own hearing.
if you are refuting what i said on the basis that it's not part of the "standard testing" you are conditionally correct.
if you are refuting what i said on the basis that it's not part of the "standard testing" you are conditionally correct.
Take it as an insult if you will, but it wasn't meant that way. I wasn't the one that said my wife would laugh at the results. I saw that as an insult directed at the OP. Maybe you should have asked about the specifics instead of judging before knowing those specifics.
I remember in earlier talks we had on impulse response and phase where you quickly dismissed the results and audibility. Lately you seem to have changed your mind on that. Maybe you should not judge everything on sight.
I have not changed my mind on my early response to the impulse data.
I did not say that my wife would laugh at the "results" I said she would laugh at the "claim" because there is no equipment available to an audiologist that can do this test.
I can only judge what I see "on sight".
I will take it as an insult.
I did not say that my wife would laugh at the "results" I said she would laugh at the "claim" because there is no equipment available to an audiologist that can do this test.
I can only judge what I see "on sight".
I will take it as an insult.
We can hear below .01 Hz.
However, our bodies have various resonances around 10-5 Hz which overwhelm our hearing sensation. Also there is not much meaningful sound below 40 Hz.
Turk, I am curious.
How did your audiologist test the test apparatus to be sure it was able to test that low?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.