Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by weirdo12, Jan 29, 2013.
15k...61 years young.
12kHz for me
Most music is within 10kHz bandwidth so it still seems adequate
Slight RH inbalance on cans
Listening is brain training and focus.imho
It's not only about the age. I wonder if it takes account of the Walkman/iPod impact in the last 30 years, which is one of the major sources of long exposure to ear-damaging levels of sound.
15 kHz. I've believed my hearing was somewhere between 16 and 17 kHz but I can't blame the noises (computer & chair etc. and noises from out on the street). At 16 I thought I felt some unpleasant feeling in my ears. As pressure. Don't know, probably I just was expecting the sound.
Actually, more interesting was the audiogram hearing test. Funny thing, I didn't bothered to do the "hand-rub calibration" at first and wondered how am I not hearing this and that... (On computer I use very moderate volume that turned out to be only a fraction of the calibrated volume.) There was a lot more variation in my hearing than I would have guessed. Especially around 1 kHz I had difficulties: a 20 dbHL sample I was able to hear only in optimal situation so at 1 kHz I got 30 dbHL compared to 8kHz 0 dbHL in optimal situation. Otherwise the results were closer to 20 than 10 dbHL. A mild hearing loss as expected.
Appreciation aside, I think there are lots of species in jungles and in rain forests that communicate somewhere between 20-100 kHz. So sad we cant' follow them...
I use this one at school on occasion.
Yep, that's me alright. It is very sad. I still greatly enjoy music, but for me to spend crazy money on hifi any more would be, well, crazy.
Not only is this depressing for the general public, a lot of revered audio professionals are heading into age groups where they won't be able to hear what they're doing in the high end.
I tried a little experiment last night with the test and it made a huge difference. I was recording/mixing some stuff and using headphones. So I listened to the test tones and could still hear 21K (annoyingly) and 22k was the same 'not-heard-but-felt' kind of thing. Then I did the recording - which some of the music was loud (rock). I didn't have the headphones cranked up - just normal listening levels. Right after I was done, I did the test again and could only hear up to about 17k. 21 and 22k weren't even "felt" or annoying. I might have started getting that "there's something there" at 20k - but not really heard anything until down 17k.
Then I went and ate and after about another hour of just watching TV at normal (not loud) volume, I did the test again. I could hear 21k again.
I could only imagine how much my "hearing loss" would be after a loud rock concert - when I usually walk around for up to 2 hrs and feel like there's pillows over my ears!
It's not like we can hear that high end anyway.
Dont forget bats too , Vidiot
An interesting quirk. A technican told me he was playing around with a set of full frequency speakers and their cross overs. His elderly mother was around and she had listened to them Without her knowing he disconnected the very high range tweeters (which she had no hope in hell of 'hearing') and played the same music again. Her reaction : "What you do, the sound is now completely different" . This leads to the argument : with people that do not actually 'hear' super high frequencies , the physical presence of such - has a effect on what they do overall hear loud & clear. In regard to the rest of the sound spectrum, they actually do hear .
I know it goes without saying but it's best to get someone else to administer this test for you (like the audiologist would do). Sometimes you "feel" the tone because you know it's playing and wish you could hear it.
The same happened to me until I got someone else to play it, then I knew I couldn't hear the highest tones because the person didn't tell me when he was playing them.
Careful, the folks over in the "do 24/192 downloads make sense" thread might hear you!
Expectations play a big part in audio perceptions, it's just that some folks won't admit it.
True. I don't know about everyone else, but situations like I described above constantly remind me how fallible my perception is. Also when I'm working on audio, get the EQ adjusted just right in the DAW, and realize the bypass was on the whole time. Expectation bias!
All of us in urban areas - actually any industrialized area in including rural is subject to a higher noise level. I've had the rare experience to be in quiet spaces on occasion. It is almost eerie to me.
Yes, I've had that happen many times. I used to be quite adamant about any differences I thought I heard, but now when differences are subtle, I'll gladly admit they're possibly imagined rather than real.
Good point. I grew up in a small town then moved to the middle of downtown Montreal where I lived for a decade. I recall when visiting my hometown just how strangely quiet it seems at night.
Your post brings up the whole aspect of ambient noise and how it affects our perception of sound.
I got 17kHz, which I guess isn't too great for 31 years old...
At -18dB i can hear 16 KHz!
I probably could when I was young, so care for your ears, which it seems you have done. I love this link.
I find this is a pretty neat speaker and headphone test as well. I don't worry about any of my amps not being flat anymore.
That is probably a pretty good score if have been listhing to music for over 15 years. Just now take better care of your hearing.
Yes it does. The biggest advantage often promoted for 24-bit is lowering the noise floor. Unless a person is in a completely quiet room (that is, completely isolated from all outside sound), I don't think that even comes into play. Even then one would probably have to crank the amp way up during fades or in between tracks to hear the difference.
I remember seeing a really interesting demonstration once where a really egregious, obnoxious noise was mixed in with relatively quiet music, and gradually the level was lowered via a DAW. At 0 dB it completely overwhelmed the music, but I think by -60 dB, it was completely undetectable. It may have even been -48 dB. That's what convinced me that the lower noise floor of 24-bit held no likely practical advantage, especially for the type of music I listen to (rock, which has limited dynamic range). But I digress.
That, in conjunction with hearing tests such as this one, I realize that I also can't hear over 19-20 kHz, which can be perfectly captured with 44.1 kHz based upon my own tests. That probably explains why I've never been able to hear any kind of tonal difference with SACD/high-res PCM. I wish I could though, since I have many high-res recordings.
I am now in my 60's. I have tried to take of my hearing and not listen to really loud music, but I did expose myself to loud machinery in my early 20's and went to the loud concert on a few occasions. I have tested my hearing about every 5 years since I have been in my 30 's and it pretty much follows the aging pattern that has been shown. In my 40's I could hear 14 KHz easily and struggled to hear 16 KHz, in my 50's I could hear 12 KHz easily and struggled to hear 14 KHz and now in my 60's I can easily hear 10 KHz but struugle to hear 12 KHz. Thus is is typical male hearing loss with age.
I say male hearing loss because it is known that females loose less with age. My wife is also in her 60's and can still hear 16 KHz.
I have been thinking about make a last time buy of one more really great stereo system (better than what I have right now) but I really wonder if it is worth it.
I had to use the *very* loud sample to hear 16 kHz. Now if I could just get rid of the constant ringing...I guess I haven't really cared for my ears all that well at all ;-)
Separate names with a comma.