Can You Trust Your Ears? By Tom Nousaine

[March Audio]

Loss of low level hearing and upper frequecy hearing acuity is not something "I thought up." It is a normal thing that happens to us when we age. This not some outlier contrived idea. This is normal. and indeed, Floyd's research does show "surprising" results. In every other aspect of things we judge subjectively taste and personal preference plays a major role but audio. In audio everyon likes the same thing even though there is no consistancy in the actual source material. makes perfect sense. No reason to doubt his conclusions at all.

No, but its application in this context is erroneous. So people with hearing problems are not good at judging fidelity....well no shit Sherlock . BTW it also doesnt follow that people want to boost the HF response to "make up" for it.

You still dont see the contradiction in your assertions here do you? No consistency in source material, but you want to tune the response of replay in a fixed specific way, because apparantly thats your "preference".

I think perhaps, as I suggested earlier, you might benefit from reading about the research and you will gain further understanding of the behaviour of speakers (and humans listening to them).

 

[j_j]

Loss of low level hearing and upper frequecy hearing acuity is not something "I thought up." It is a normal thing that happens to us when we age. This not some outlier contrived idea. This is normal. and indeed, Floyd's research does show "surprising" results. In every other aspect of things we judge subjectively taste and personal preference plays a major role but audio. In audio everyon likes the same thing even though there is no consistancy in the actual source material. makes perfect sense. No reason to doubt his conclusions at all.

http://audioskeptic.blogspot.com

 

[Analog Scott]

No, but its application in this context is erroneous. So people with hearing problems are not good at judging fidelity....well no shit Sherlock . BTW it also doesnt follow that people want to boost the HF response to "make up" for it.

You still dont see the contradiction in your assertions here do you? No consistency in source material, but you want to tune the response of replay in a fixed specific way, because apparantly thats your "preference".

I think perhaps, as I suggested earlier, you might benefit from reading about the research and you will gain further understanding of the behaviour of speakers (and humans listening to them).

And that is different from tuning the response to flat how? No, I don't see any contradictions. I don't see why if someone with normal hearing would like flat frequency response and full dynamic range why someone with aged hearing that has lost low level acuity and upper frequency aquity would not want those to be compensated for in their system. Why would they not?

 

[amirm]

In every other aspect of things we judge subjectively taste and personal preference plays a major role but audio. In audio everyon likes the same thing even though there is no consistancy in the actual source material. makes perfect sense. No reason to doubt his conclusions at all.

Many of us like spaghetti no matter who makes it and with what ingredient and recipe.

Many people also hate Durian fruit no matter how ripe or where it comes from:

For the record, if I close my nose I like eating it.

 

[RayDunzl]

I don't see why if someone with normal hearing would like flat frequency response and full dynamic range why someone with aged hearing that has lost low level acuity and upper frequency aquity would not want those to be compensated for in their system. Why would they not?

I have HF loss, probably always have. I blame Mother's genes or some unknown early life event.

I don't adjust the highs to compensate.

Why?

I suppose the stereo is intended to imitate 'real', and 'real' doesn't get a boost, so, measurably flat is what I go with. Sounds right to me.

 

[Wombat]

I have HF loss, probably always have. I blame Mother's genes or some unknown early life event.

I don't adjust the highs to compensate.

Why?

I suppose the stereo is intended to imitate 'real', and 'real' doesn't get a boost, so, measurably flat is what I go with. Sounds right to me.

Me too.

I agree.

I do lament the 'shortened' shimmer of the cymbals, though.

 

[j_j]

Restoring normal sensation when you have high-frequency threshold elevation is a complicated, time-varying process. But it can be done.

If you have no remaining sensation, or only very limited sensation, of course, then there's no chance.

 

[RayDunzl]

Restoring normal sensation when you have high-frequency threshold elevation is a complicated, time-varying process. But it can be done.

If you have no remaining sensation, or only very limited sensation, of course, then there's no chance.

I first noticed age 8 or so, with an LP Stereo Spectacular test record (1961), though I couldn't state at what frequency I cut off back then.

Both Mother and me were ready for the next track long before Dad was.

It doesn't bother me too much. The range I have seems well balanced and perceptive to good and bad when listening.

I know I miss a couple of octaves of tinkly stuff, and the top of the glockenspiel, but can't really imagine sounds higher than I can hear, so, ???.

I'd get a hearing test (other than the little bit that occurs at home) but don't want to be biased by any horrible findings.

It kept me out of the Army, which was probably a good thing at the time.

 

[fas42]

It doesn't bother me too much. The range I have seems well balanced and perceptive to good and bad when listening.

I know I miss a couple of octaves of tinkly stuff, and the top of the glockenspiel, but can't really imagine sounds higher than I can hear, so, ???.

Loss of the top end is not actually a problem, if perceiving an immersive soundfield is the goal. How I determined that is by the playing of very old, "poor quality" recordings, where the sparkly stuff never, ever got anywhere near being laid down and archived in the media of the time - playback of these sorts of recordings can be exceedingly tedious, boring; or excrutiatingly unpleasant, messy; or, a powerfully involving, emotional experience. Which of these it is is totally dependent on the SQ of the playback system - the level of valid - not spurious - HF is irrelevant.

 

[March Audio]

And that is different from tuning the response to flat how? No, I don't see any contradictions. I don't see why if someone with normal hearing would like flat frequency response and full dynamic range why someone with aged hearing that has lost low level acuity and upper frequency aquity would not want those to be compensated for in their system. Why would they not?

? You are not tuning it to flat, you are achieving fidelity to the input signal. A good speaker does this. Would you buy a CD player with a skewed non flat frequency response? No you wouldnt. Why are you so keen to have a speaker with a non flat / smooth on axis response (and certainly worse off axis) ? I am very intrigued as to why you obviously think that a neutral speaker with a flat on axis and smooth off axis response response would sound bad?

Regarding hearing loss compensation see the comments above from Ray etc. BTW I am a qualified noise officer (occupational health), so know a little about it.

Have you watched the video that I linked to of Floyd Toole lecture? It really is worth an hour of your time. I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with your dogma because you arent going to take on board what I say. The information is there if you so choose to partake of it. Floyds book which I also linked to is also essential reading.

 

[March Audio]

Many of us like spaghetti no matter who makes it and with what ingredient and recipe.

Many people also hate Durian fruit no matter how ripe or where it comes from:

For the record, if I close my nose I like eating it.

recently holidayed in Malaysia. tried Durian fruit chocolate.......yyyeeeewwwww!

 

[Jakob1863]

I havent read the link. What are you saying? That the rooms (because they dont conform to any standard) affect the sound so much that a neutral speaker would sound bad? If so your assertion is not supported by the research. Toole talks about the ablilities of people to "hear through" rooms.

Why haven´t you read the link? It´s interesting as is Mäkivirta´s paper which i´ve linked too.
Just for
recollection, i´ve stated quite often that no broadly accepted definition of "high fidelity" overall exists. My entry point in this (sub)discussion was an assertion from purite audio (which i thought would be backed up by you) that a (?totally?) linear reproduction system would deliver the highest degree of fidelity.
I objected to it and wrote that the only system delivering the highest degree of fidelity would certainly be the system used during the production, because in the record are embedded all variable factors of the production environment.

So a recording done on a nonlinear production system will not make the speaker sound bad, but would mean that the recording might sound bad when reproduced with the (?totally?) linear system. Obviously then we did not realize the highest degree of high fidelity for this recording.

I don´t confuse "fidelity" with "preference" but if we take into consideration that there is no broadly accepted definition of the meaning of "high fidelity" and there is usually no information given if the production environment was of the (?totally?) linear kind, and given the fact that two channel stereo reproduction is a very lossy version of reality and that the realized illusion depends strongly on individually different processes, i must object to the assertion that a (?totally?) linear reproduction system delivers per se the highest degree of fidelity.

If you watch Toole´s talk then you´ll notice that right from the beginning he is connecting the replay to the idea of "preserving the ART" which btw was the reason, beside remembering his book paragraph , while i wrote that his conclusions wrt reproduction of recordings done under nonlinear conditions are quite similar to mine.
If you reproduce this "nonlinear" recording via a totally linear reproduction system you might be able to evaluate and describe the "flaws" of the recording in a more accurate manner, but considering the idea of "preserving the ART" which is embedded in that recording you most likely miss the goal. (Of course it would have been much better if the recording would have been done under better conditions)

 

[Frank Dernie]

And that is different from tuning the response to flat how? No, I don't see any contradictions. I don't see why if someone with normal hearing would like flat frequency response and full dynamic range why someone with aged hearing that has lost low level acuity and upper frequency aquity would not want those to be compensated for in their system. Why would they not?

Doing that may make something sound the way you heard it when you were 20, if you can remember, but nothing like your every day experience, since you hear real life events with your actual hearing as it is now.
If you want a hifi to sound something like you listen to live any attempt to correct for hearing loss since an earlier age will guarantee that it does not.
Life isn't fair though. I worked in F1 motor racing for best part of 40 years and despite not always having good protection my hearing is still acute and reasonably extended for my age (67). OTOH my wife, a professional musician almost never went to a race but is quite deaf now, though she hates the sound balance she got with hearing aids and doesn't wear hers. I think it must be genetic, my grandmother could hear what people were saying in the next room when she was 100 years old. You had to be careful what you said...

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

And that is different from tuning the response to flat how? No, I don't see any contradictions. I don't see why if someone with normal hearing would like flat frequency response and full dynamic range why someone with aged hearing that has lost low level acuity and upper frequency aquity would not want those to be compensated for in their system. Why would they not?

Depends. No question that my hearing has diminished with age. However, I try to make my reference the sound I remember from recent live concerts, which are also heard with my diminished hearing. So, I try to tune my system's frequency response for what you are calling "flat" (which is really measurably smoothly downward sloping in the room with increasing frequency, the same as someone with normal, undimished hearing would typically want for perceptually flat sound).

In other words, I want my system to try to deliver maximum faithfulness to the original sound as my ears perceive it now, not as I once at some point in my early 20's may have perceived it, assuming I can even remember that sound from decades ago. In order to do that, my system must be as neutral and high fidelity as possible with no attempts at adjustments for the current state of my hearing.

 

[Cosmik]

I objected to it and wrote that the only system delivering the highest degree of fidelity would certainly be the system used during the production, because in the record are embedded all variable factors of the production environment.

So a recording done on a nonlinear production system will not make the speaker sound bad, but would mean that the recording might sound bad when reproduced with the (?totally?) linear system. Obviously then we did not realize the highest degree of high fidelity for this recording.

I don´t confuse "fidelity" with "preference" but if we take into consideration that there is no broadly accepted definition of the meaning of "high fidelity" and there is usually no information given if the production environment was of the (?totally?) linear kind, and given the fact that two channel stereo reproduction is a very lossy version of reality and that the realized illusion depends strongly on individually different processes, i must object to the assertion that a (?totally?) linear reproduction system delivers per se the highest degree of fidelity.

If you watch Toole´s talk then you´ll notice that right from the beginning he is connecting the replay to the idea of "preserving the ART" which btw was the reason, beside remembering his book paragraph , while i wrote that his conclusions wrt reproduction of recordings done under nonlinear conditions are quite similar to mine.
If you reproduce this "nonlinear" recording via a totally linear reproduction system you might be able to evaluate and describe the "flaws" of the recording in a more accurate manner, but considering the idea of "preserving the ART" which is embedded in that recording you most likely miss the goal. (Of course it would have been much better if the recording would have been done under better conditions)

Controversial, I would say. In the past I've recorded my own little bits and pieces of music, monitoring on headphones, or maybe not-so-good speakers. In later years I have been quite keen to hear the music played 'properly' on a good system. Sometimes the result has been "Wow! It sounds so much better when you hear the slam of the bass". Maybe once or twice it might have been "Oh dear, there's too much bass", but I'm just throwing that in as a possible outcome in principle - I can't actually think of an example.

In my opinion, the aim shouldn't be to mimic the monitoring in the studio, but to maximise the integrity of the various elements of the recording. Maybe the recording was made with 27 microphones, some of which were artificially compressed, and some of which were EQ'ed, etc. Maybe the monitoring in the studio was much louder than I want to listen at, with crappy speakers. But that's no reason to just say "Anything goes" with the replay, or the convincing-but-mythical notion of "I will maximise my preference through my choice of coloured gear" - it doesn't work on so many practical levels.

If I have a neutral system, I at least maximise the separation of the various elements of the recording, and I maintain the integrity of each of those elements. If the people making the recording didn't hear it so well, that's their bad luck. They couldn't have 'corrected' things like distortion and poor stereo imaging so that I hear it 'over-corrected' on my better system. Conceivably they might have got the EQ wrong - but I suspect that if they know their job, they won't have gone too far off. If I really feel strongly about it, I could maybe play with tone controls, but I certainly won't feel like swapping between speakers, cartridges, valve amplifiers and transformer taps on a per-recording basis! (which is surely the logical implication of "I will maximise my preference through my choice of coloured gear".)

 

[March Audio]

Why haven´t you read the link? It´s interesting as is Mäkivirta´s paper which i´ve linked too.
Just for
recollection, i´ve stated quite often that no broadly accepted definition of "high fidelity" overall exists. My entry point in this (sub)discussion was an assertion from purite audio (which i thought would be backed up by you) that a (?totally?) linear reproduction system would deliver the highest degree of fidelity.
I objected to it and wrote that the only system delivering the highest degree of fidelity would certainly be the system used during the production, because in the record are embedded all variable factors of the production environment.

So a recording done on a nonlinear production system will not make the speaker sound bad, but would mean that the recording might sound bad when reproduced with the (?totally?) linear system. Obviously then we did not realize the highest degree of high fidelity for this recording.

I don´t confuse "fidelity" with "preference" but if we take into consideration that there is no broadly accepted definition of the meaning of "high fidelity" and there is usually no information given if the production environment was of the (?totally?) linear kind, and given the fact that two channel stereo reproduction is a very lossy version of reality and that the realized illusion depends strongly on individually different processes, i must object to the assertion that a (?totally?) linear reproduction system delivers per se the highest degree of fidelity.

If you watch Toole´s talk then you´ll notice that right from the beginning he is connecting the replay to the idea of "preserving the ART" which btw was the reason, beside remembering his book paragraph , while i wrote that his conclusions wrt reproduction of recordings done under nonlinear conditions are quite similar to mine.
If you reproduce this "nonlinear" recording via a totally linear reproduction system you might be able to evaluate and describe the "flaws" of the recording in a more accurate manner, but considering the idea of "preserving the ART" which is embedded in that recording you most likely miss the goal. (Of course it would have been much better if the recording would have been done under better conditions)

Purites assertion is broadly correct. The problem is that studios dont conform to any monitor standards. Thats where the skew happens. The fundamental problem is not at home, its in the studio. A neutral speaker does provide the highest fidelity to its input signal. Period. Ill go back (yet again) to the cd player analogy. Would you buy a cd player withva skewed frequency response? No you wouldnt.

You cant preserve the art with perfect fidelity because you dont know what the studio has done. That doesnt however justify a non linear replay system. You will never improve fidelity with a non linear system because you simply dont know what the error was in the first place.

No one is saying that having a neutral speaker therefore means that the sound is replayed exactly as it was in the studio. You are mistaken if you think this.

 

[Don Hills]

Music producers go to some trouble to check that the music will translate to a variety of likely reproduction systems. For example, something that sounds great in the studio might sound like ass in a car, so they will compromise to make it acceptable there too. So unless the music comes from a boutique studio aiming at the audiophile market, you're often getting something less than the artists' and producers' original vision. Striving for absolute fidelity to the studio is, in my opinion, a waste of time. As BE718 said, aim for a linear system with no significant vices (room included) and enjoy the music.

 

[j_j]

Of course, the right way to do this is to correct for the destination AT the destination, and yes, this is not hard to do.

 

[tomelex]

So, I don't worship at the stereo shrine of playback. Its a bit weird really the way some of it is mixed and mastered.

I came to terms of the limitations of stereo in my twenties, when I had tons of time to play with electronics and audio and sit around in all kinds of folks rooms listening to all kinds of speakers and electronics and source material. Those were the days my friend, when a young man was able to put together a pretty decent system for a couple of months pay.

Everybody is turned on by different things in this hobby and for some obsession. Knowledge, like what we have on this forum, frees you from chasing your tail and audio myths and focusing on getting the most from your system that is compatible with actual audible results.

In reality there is so much IMD distortion in our playback its a wonder it sounds as good as it does to us. This IMD is one of the key reasons (outside of linear distortions such as FR etc) things sound different. I call this harmonic spray. It varies with program material amount of tones, it varies with amplitude of signals, its some crazy stuff.

What is weird, is sometimes it (IMD) helps you hear things better, other times it makes things sound worse. Take the seventh harmonic, one of the more nasty odd harmonics, it does not sound good. However, the third harmonic (think reel to reel) can give some edge to the sound, kind of tighten it up some. Second harmonic does not do much of anything to perceived sound in most gear, just a bit of silk if the evens get too high.

Given my experience of these things, what I look for from a system is that it be able to resolve the most perceived detail, longest tails from cymbals, quietest quiet times, and to do these thing the IMD must be low, and that suggests the most linear system you can put together. But, if you want some flesh on your music, some may say musicality, you might want that SET sound, the dynamic chorus effect is what I call it. You might want that LP sound, with all its inter-channel phasiness and selective crosstalk with signal strength and low rumblings which harken to the echo sounds in an actual room or hall, you know that sound of being in a large auditorium, the LF sounds, they make me want to go to sleep, thank goodness they are only minor levels on LP or LP would have put me to sleep..ahhhahahah

So, put me down for a linear playback system, but also put me down for someone who damn well chooses what he wants to hear or how he wants to hear it, and satisfying our ears preference is ok, just like its ok to drink alcohol, if you are in control, and not the alcohol or the audio-Imagineering, then make your self happy.

Disclaimer, not afraid to use tone controls, audio enhancers of all kinds, as add ins, when the mood suits me, but I want as clean a signal path I can get before I start playing as the mix and master engineer.

 

[March Audio]

So, I don't worship at the stereo shrine of playback. Its a bit weird really the way some of it is mixed and mastered.

I came to terms of the limitations of stereo in my twenties, when I had tons of time to play with electronics and audio and sit around in all kinds of folks rooms listening to all kinds of speakers and electronics and source material. Those were the days my friend, when a young man was able to put together a pretty decent system for a couple of months pay.

Everybody is turned on by different things in this hobby and for some obsession. Knowledge, like what we have on this forum, frees you from chasing your tail and audio myths and focusing on getting the most from your system that is compatible with actual audible results.

In reality there is so much IMD distortion in our playback its a wonder it sounds as good as it does to us. This IMD is one of the key reasons (outside of linear distortions such as FR etc) things sound different. I call this harmonic spray. It varies with program material amount of tones, it varies with amplitude of signals, its some crazy stuff.

What is weird, is sometimes it (IMD) helps you hear things better, other times it makes things sound worse. Take the seventh harmonic, one of the more nasty odd harmonics, it does not sound good. However, the third harmonic (think reel to reel) can give some edge to the sound, kind of tighten it up some. Second harmonic does not do much of anything to perceived sound in most gear, just a bit of silk if the evens get too high.

Given my experience of these things, what I look for from a system is that it be able to resolve the most perceived detail, longest tails from cymbals, quietest quiet times, and to do these thing the IMD must be low, and that suggests the most linear system you can put together. But, if you want some flesh on your music, some may say musicality, you might want that SET sound, the dynamic chorus effect is what I call it.

So, put me down for a linear playback system, but also put me down for someone who damn well chooses what he wants to hear or how he wants to hear it, and satisfying our ears preference is ok, just like its ok to drink alcohol, if you are in control, and not the alcohol or the audio-Imagineering, then make your self happy.

Disclaimer, not afraid to use tone controls, audio enhancers of all kinds, as add ins, when the mood suits me, but I want as clean a signal path I can get before I start playing as the mix and master engineer.

I've no objection to tone controls per se. If you want to adjust to personal taste and for wayward recordings then fine. A fixed tuned system to a sound, no.

The thing I found is that the more neutral my speakers have become, the less I have felt the need to bugger around with things like tone controls. Less recordings sound objectionable.