Audibility of changes in volume

[Phoney]

I discussed with someone wether a peak of 2db, Q of 2 at 800hz for example would be audible when discussing frequency response. I argued that a lot of things happen in music in this area, but he told me that his education said that changes below 3db would not be audible and I would not pass a blind test. I found a blind test for a pure test tone.

On this test tone, I can easily pick out a 1db change with 100% accuracy over 50 attempts.

But according to this study, and many other studies, 1-2db changes are not perceptible.

You can change the blindtest to 3db, and it would be an easy walk in the park. According to studies, a +3db change is barely audible. Is there any explanation as to why it's so easy to pick out small changes in this exact test? Is the test faulty? Do I have golden ears?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Generally people in blind testing can detect somewhere around 1 db. The 2nd link in your post is just plain wrong. If you match sound levels by ear most people get within about 1 db.

You could look into testing of JND's or just noticeable difference. In some frequencies at some sound levels those are something like .5 to .7 db. You get below that and it is not so likely to hear a difference.

I'd would think the 2 db peak with a Q of 2 at 800 hz would be audible. Maybe not blindingly so, but audible.

https://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/courses/spsci/AUDL4007/Intensity%202014.pdf

Not sure what was going on at 8 khz, but the other tones follow a similar pattern.

 

[GaryH]

JNDs from Dr Floyd Toole's book:

 

[krabapple]

Yup, signal type (test signal vs music) and frequency both matter to the answer to the OP's question.

 

[GaryH]

Yup, signal type (test signal vs music) and frequency both matter to the answer to the OP's question.

True, although some electronica / experimental music might have sections of pure sine tones or pink noise

 

[Phoney]

Yup, signal type (test signal vs music) and frequency both matter to the answer to the OP's question.

I know, but some studies like the one I linked are literally saying below 3db in general is not audible. Then 1 db should be inaudible in any case, nomatter what tone or music. Which seems very wrong. I wasn't really asking about the EQ thing, beacuse that depends on a lot of things like music. I do believe that with some music you would hear that peak filter though (from my short subjective testing in peace, turning the filter on and off quickly).

 

[DVDdoug]

According to studies, a +3db change is barely audible. I

I've always read that 1dB is barely audible and 3dB is clearly audible. But I believe some people can hear a 0.5dB change.

Timing is also a factor. An instant change should be more noticeable than if you pause, or slowly fade-up or fade-down. You probably can't hear a 3dB difference between today and tomorrow.

I've never done the actual experiments but 1dB seems like a very small change to me and when I'm editing audio (maybe boosting or lowering the volume and then playing it again) it's generally unnoticeable to me.

at 800hz for example would be audible when discussing frequency response. I argued that a lot of things happen in music in this area,

I agree. In the context of music and frequency response (or EQ) a small change is likely to be masked, and depending on the filter width you might have to wait for that 800Hz tone/note.

 

[Phoney]

I've always read that 1dB is barely audible and 3dB is clearly audible. But I believe some people can hear a 0.5dB change.

Timing is also a factor. An instant change should be more noticeable than if you pause, or slowly fade-up or fade-down. You probably can't hear a 3dB difference between today and tomorrow.

I've never done the actual experiments but 1dB seems like a very small change to me and when I'm editing audio (maybe boosting or lowering the volume and then playing it again) it's generally unnoticeable to me.


I agree. In the context of music and frequency response (or EQ) a small change is likely to be masked, and depending on the filter width you might have to wait for that 800Hz tone/note.

Yes absolutely, while getting that specific blind test 100% was a walk in the park at 1 db, i would probably struggle to pick out 2db or maybe even 3db differences if someone was playing notes on different volumes with seconds in between them, and have me blindly guess which one was loud, middle and low etc. It's a lot easier on a constant tone with instant change. But, again, there's a lot of studies out there that king of suggest that less than 3 db would almost never be audible in any situation. I guess they are just wrong

 

[solderdude]

I once made this device to see what my limits were.

0.1 dB (with music) was inaudible to me. 0.2dB was just barely audible (often) and 0.5dB was always audible.
Haven't done tests with tones... I never listened to them. Only to music. Same is true for distortion limit tests and dynamic level tests. It really is only interesting with music.

I can see why bandwidth makes a difference as well.

 

[Phoney]

https://ledgernote.com/columns/mixing-mastering/how-to-eq-vocals/

Starting Settings: Use a fairly wide Q width of around 1.20 so you get a smooth boost. Sweep between 1 kHz and 2 kHz to find the best center frequency for your voice. I'd keep the boost or cut below or equal 2 dB max. You don't need much here and less is more.

Not necessarily a good source, but for mixing vocals, this one suggests you to not make bigger changes than +2db (Q1.2) at around 1khz-2khz, and that is just for vocals, which will be mixed with everything else afterwards. Would be kind of a strange suggestion if for example 1.5db would not really be an audible peak filter here. That being said, I tested the filter that I mentioned in the first post with some music (on/off with peace) sighted, and while I can hear the difference with some music, it's not as obvious as I expected to be honest. Definetly more obvious in some passages of music than others, obviously. The filter I used was -2.5db (Q 2), at 800hz.

 

[GaryH]

The filter I used was -2.5db (Q 2), at 800hz.

Peaks are more audible than dips.

 

[Chrispy]

Wasn't the basic definition of a dB of spl based on generally the smallest change in sound most can detect? Would depend somewhat on particular frequency and range of spl generally, tho?

 

[Geert]

0.1 dB (with music) was inaudible to me. 0.2dB was just barely audible

I can confirm this. Finishing a mix in the studio involves EQ-ing and balancing with an accuracy of about 0,2dB.

 

[GaryH]

Lower Q deviations => more audible, and you can't get much lower Q than a spectral tilt across the entire frequency range. Floyd Toole again:

The simplest deviation from flat is probably a spectral tilt. There is some evidence that we can detect slopes of about 0.1 dB/octave, which translates into a 1 dB tilt from 20 Hz to 20 kHz — not much.

 

[solderdude]

Wasn't the basic definition of a dB of spl based on generally the smallest change in sound most can detect? Would depend somewhat on particular frequency and range of spl generally, tho?

Nope... dB's are always a ratio

 

[Chrispy]

Nope... dB's are always a ratio

Well that wouldn't be exclusive in my mind....and I see this in the wiki for deciBel under acoustics and is along the lines of what I was thinking of "The decibel is commonly used in acoustics as a unit of sound pressure level. The reference pressure for sound in air is set at the typical threshold of perception of an average human"

 

[krabapple]

I know, but some studies like the one I linked are literally saying 3db in general is not audible. Then 1 db should be inaudible in any case, nomatter what tone or music.

That logic doesn't hold. 'Masking' for example arises from complex signal, not pure tones. Stereo music is relatively forgiving as test signals go. Depends on the particular music, of course.

 

[Chromatischism]

I discussed with someone wether a peak of 2db, Q of 2 at 800hz for example would be audible when discussing frequency response. I argued that a lot of things happen in music in this area, but he told me that his education said that changes below 3db would not be audible and I would not pass a blind test. I found a blind test for a pure test tone.

On this test tone, I can easily pick out a 1db change with 100% accuracy over 50 attempts.

But according to this study, and many other studies, 1-2db changes are not perceptible.

You can change the blindtest to 3db, and it would be an easy walk in the park. According to studies, a +3db change is barely audible. Is there any explanation as to why it's so easy to pick out small changes in this exact test? Is the test faulty? Do I have golden ears?

I just did a lot of headphone tweaking and even 0.5 dB is enough to audibly change the balance of music if the Q is wide enough, and IMO a Q of 2 is plenty. I was hearing differences in bass balance down to 0.2 dB with a Q of 1.

 

[solderdude]

Well that wouldn't be exclusive in my mind....and I see this in the wiki for deciBel under acoustics and is along the lines of what I was thinking of "The decibel is commonly used in acoustics as a unit of sound pressure level. The reference pressure for sound in air is set at the typical threshold of perception of an average human"

dB is a ratio and is not based on human hearing.
It is the letters behind it that makes it specific for certain goals and those letters tells you what the '0 dB' reference is.
There is the dB SPL which is also a ratio and 0dB is set as 20uPA (20 micro Pascal) at 1kHz and is supposed to be the audibility limit of a young person that has been present in an anechoic room.
We can hear below 0dB SPL by the way, 0dB SPL is not 'no sound'.

 

[Spkrdctr]

I once made this device to see what my limits were.

View attachment 235444

0.1 dB (with music) was inaudible to me. 0.2dB was just barely audible (often) and 0.5dB was always audible.
Haven't done tests with tones... I never listened to them. Only to music. Same is true for distortion limit tests and dynamic level tests. It really is only interesting with music.

I can see why bandwidth makes a difference as well.

Solderdude, are you under 25? That is some seriously good hearing you have. Protect it at all costs. Many, many regular people would kill for fantastic hearing. Especially us older folks!