The non-linearities of the Human Ear

[Abee_V]

Hi All,

 

Not sure if this has been mentioned here before - interesting read re what we hear and don't hear:

 

http://www.audiocheck.net/soundtests_nonlinear.php

 

Also has a number of sound checks, hearing frequency tests etc on the website.

 

So much for my high frequency hearing these days.....

 

Enjoy

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Abee_V

[joey_v]

I have read that before, I think that's one of the reasons why a flat measuring speaker does not sound particularly good or bass shy.  

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

6 hours ago, joey_v said:

I have read that before, I think that's one of the reasons why a flat measuring speaker does not sound particularly good or bass shy.  

 

Nope. And, a loudspeaker with a flat, in-room frequency response will always sound better (more accurate) than a speaker with a compromised frequency response, all things being equal. 

[Keith_W]

1 hour ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

 

Nope. And, a loudspeaker with a flat, in-room frequency response will always sound better (more accurate) than a speaker with a compromised frequency response, all things being equal. 

 

I think it would be clearer to say that listening tests performed by Olive, Toole, etc. would indicate that a loudspeaker with a falling in room response (flat to 1kHz, then -6dB at 20kHz) would be preferred by most people. 

[Happy]

Gimme the true actual flat any day my ears can take that no problem


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PauliD]

Put your hands in the air...yeah

 

Interesting

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

3 hours ago, Keith_W said:

 

I think it would be clearer to say that listening tests performed by Olive, Toole, etc. would indicate that a loudspeaker with a falling in room response (flat to 1kHz, then -6dB at 20kHz) would be preferred by most people. 

 

I have never regarded audiophiles as "most people". Audiophiles, generally, desire the closest approach to the original musical event as can reasonably be attained. That means speakers like Quad ESLs, Duntech Sovereigns, B&W 800D, VAF i93, et al will be the preferred way of reproducing music. All those speakers are VERY flat from 1kHz to at least 10kHz. The general public may well prefer a falling response. Doesn't mean much, IMO. 

[joey_v]

16 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

 

Nope. And, a loudspeaker with a flat, in-room frequency response will always sound better (more accurate) than a speaker with a compromised frequency response, all things being equal. 

According to the FM curve, if you heard a flat in room response speaker, it would sound bass shy because of the lack of ear sensitivity to bass, so why would you say a flat FR would sound better?

[sir sanders zingmore]

12 hours ago, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

 

I have never regarded audiophiles as "most people". Audiophiles, generally, desire the closest approach to the original musical event as can reasonably be attained. That means speakers like Quad ESLs, Duntech Sovereigns, B&W 800D, VAF i93, et al will be the preferred way of reproducing music. All those speakers are VERY flat from 1kHz to at least 10kHz. The general public may well prefer a falling response. Doesn't mean much, IMO. 

 

I think Toole's/Olive's results are pretty consistent across the whole spectrum of listeners. Audiophiles are not as different as perhaps they'd like to believe. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Sir Sanders Zingmore

[sir sanders zingmore]

30 minutes ago, joey_v said:

According to the FM curve, if you heard a flat in room response speaker, it would sound bass shy because of the lack of ear sensitivity to bass, so why would you say a flat FR would sound better?

 

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding happening here. 

I believe the research shows that a flat speaker response is preferred (as opposed to a flat listening-position response)

[LHC]

19 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

I think Toole's/Olive's results are pretty consistent across the whole spectrum of listeners. Audiophiles are not as different as perhaps they'd like to believe. 

 

Not the whole spectrum; the results don't apply to people with hearing problems or damages, which they estimated to be roughly 25% of the listeners. Even for those with healthy hearing, their results applied to the majority of them, but not everyone.

[Satanica]

I seem to be one of the few "audiophiles" who uses Loudness functionality and have been for years. But now thinking about it I guess that doesn't make me a true audiophile hey? 

[sir sanders zingmore]

    ...

Edited August 10, 2017 by Sir Sanders Zingmore

[LHC]

2 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

"Pretty consistent "

 

That phrase could mean anything really. Better to use the statistical language they have used to described their results to avoid confusion. 

[Al.M]

There are a number of factors. We discussed this in previous posts extensively.

 

We hear things in the human A - weighted curve as in below picture so at low freq severely reduced compared to a flat hearing response and beyond 10khz reduced also.

 

Natural hearing ability approaching age 40-50 and beyond reduces significantly above 12khz but doesn't matter much as there isn't a lot of music information in that region. Regardless of age those of us with premature hearing loss and those with age may only be hearing up to 8khz and around those freq there will be reduced ability where there is music info in that freq region. Also, please nobody suggest that "hearing acuity" makes up for age related hearing loss as there is no science research to back this up, In fact it is the opposite if the brain does not receive stimulus in that area it loses it over time.

 

We dont have much control over normal age related hearing loss and the A - weight curve that we are all born with..

 

Each of our audio rooms will have different acoustics so there is influence in that area in terms of in room flat or other response but the higher freq should not be affected greatly.

 

Finally sprinkle in each of our own individual learnings, experiences, innacuracies, likes and dislikes, preferences, biases and prejudices into all of this.

 

Having a flat freq speaker is desirable to produce as close a possible to music source and then let all the above factors kick what you eventually hear and perceive around the mental footy field.

 

We shouldn't need to be too concerned overall as the musician will have made music so that the intended bass, mids and high freq etc are there to hear in the normal range.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Al.M

[legend]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 6:19 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox said:

 

Nope. And, a loudspeaker with a flat, in-room frequency response will always sound better (more accurate) than a speaker with a compromised frequency response, all things being equal. 

 

Agree.  We bring the same ears (with all their imperfections in hearing) to a live event as we do to its reproduction – and so we interpret both (if played at similar SPLs) with these same imperfections.  If you want the same emotional experience (which I do) then there should be as little difference between the live event and its reproduction.  Technically this means as low distortion as possible – for a loudspeaker as flat frequency response etc etc as possible (yes I know there are complications caused by the listening room).  If you want the reproduction to be coloured (eg sweeter with 3 tea-spoons of sugar added to everything etc to mix metaphors) then this is obviously not true.

Edited August 14, 2017 by legend
clarification

[walker1000]

If  you increasd the volume then the ears response is more linear, around 90-100dbA it is pretty flat although we start to worry about hearing damage.This is an equil level chart so shows the level required at different frequincys for the same apparant sound level.

Edited September 1, 2017 by walker1000

[JSmith]

Feel the music...

 

JSmith

[Al.M]

2 hours ago, walker1000 said:

If  you increasd the volume then the ears response is more linear, around 90-100dbA it is pretty flat although we start to worry about hearing damage.This is an equil level chart so shows the level required at different frequincys for the same apparant sound level.

Not really, even by this graph at a typical listening level around 70-80dB the affect of the human A-weighted hearing response is about 40dB between frequencies and at 90-120dB around 10-20 difference, so still very significant at any level. 10dB different is about twice the perceived loudness so not flat at all.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Al.M

[o2so]

If  you increasd the volume then the ears response is more linear, around 90-100dbA it is pretty flat although we start to worry about hearing damage.This is an equil level chart so shows the level required at different frequincys for the same apparant sound level.

 

I think three of the key considerations are:1. What was the frequency response of the speakers used in the mastering room?

2. What was the volume used in the mastering room?

3. What was the frequency response of the ears of the mastering engineers?

 

Probably different for each recording. I wouldn't obsess over having speakers with a flat response. We don't listen to full spectrum white noise after all.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

[naggots]

1 hour ago, o2so said:

I think three of the key considerations are:1. What was the frequency response of the speakers used in the mastering room?

2. What was the volume used in the mastering room?

3. What was the frequency response of the ears of the mastering engineers?

 

Probably different for each recording. I wouldn't obsess over having speakers with a flat response. We don't listen to full spectrum white noise after all.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

Totally agree, to all the artists and bands daring to perform live (= all of them) and doing what they love best.......in front of an audience........ in a pub, hall, concert arena...... I hope the studio versions are recorded with a flat response cos that's what the live audience wouldve been singing/dancing along to with their dodgey ears?