Thanks!
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
GoldenSounds passes apparently ABX test for DACs (NOT Really)
- Thread starter MacClintock
- Start date
My initial thoughts is that the result is due to some IMD or technical issue. Reading the HF content of this picture, it is quite intense at parts all the up to 22 kHz. The other filter would just add some continous noise at the blue area level about yellow colour, as I get it? This might cause very tiny pressure differences between the tracks but is there any human that could hear those at these frequencies? I doubt it but cannot be certain.
ads_cft222
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2023
- Messages
- 153
- Likes
- 42
Well cymbals have significant sound power above 20khz.
However I was wrong about fundamental and harmonics regarding cymbals as indeed there are no integer multiples of a lower frequency fundamental in cymbals as @kemmler3D suggested .
Now regarding the fletcher Munson curves and better the iso226:2003 you are about 10db less sensitive to high frequencies , however that does not mean you cannot hear a 20k if it is not at the same perceived loudness level ( +10db) than say 1k content . You can just perceive it as less loud if you can hear up to 20khz .
In any case I guess there is no relevance on how the filter reproduces the above 20khz freq with how the lower frequencies are perceived . Maybe frequency response is not enough to explain the differences
OT:The frequency range of musical instruments above 20khz
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
forum.audiob.us
Attachments
Last edited:
Now add the 15-20dB sensitivity difference of your ears between the stuff at 3khz and the stuff at 22khz and thats at least a 30db difference. You also have to consider the band width of the stuff below 10khz, a few octaves compared to a fraction of an octave above, there's a lot more power below 10khz than the peaks imply.
Geert
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 2,149
- Likes
- 4,216
What do you expect, that they test thousands of people? Who's going to pay for that? The participants were all tested for normal hearing in advance. Did you even read the study to see how much effort they put in obtaining accurate results?
Great. That means they only need to perform the ABX test at 130dB. Unfortunately, afterwards they'll no longer belong to that group of golden ears.
VientoB
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I think their results do show certain trends - the changes due to age, sensitivity at different frequencies, however I do think a larger number of participants at the younger age groups would be interesting. In particular if they could find people that can hear above 20kHz and measure them.
I’d also like to know what the volume level is in typical frequency sweep hearing tests. Because what bugs me is that everyone seemed to be able to hear 20kHz if the volume was wracked up high enough.
And the threshold drop from 19kHz to 20kHz bugs me.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 23,320
- Likes
- 43,538
This is from memory. Around 2% of young adults (28 years old and younger) can hear above 20 khz. That hearing is at highly elevated levels above 100 db SPL. Somewhere here I and others have posted the articles on that. Look at Fletcher Munson, the thresholds get steep above 15 khz. Even people who hear at 22 or 23 khz aren't getting a touch more air or detail from that extended response because those are not in music at 100 db plus levels.
On regular hearing tests they compensate for Fletcher Munson. I don't know how accurate that and headphone response is calibrated. Those are usually done at 8 khz and lower with tones. There are other versions, when I recently had one they compared it to my bone conduction hearing getting more or less the same results as over the headphones. The tones are not terribly loud as they are trying to establish your lower thresholds which means you don't need extremely loud levels for that.
VientoB
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Fair enough, thanks. The graph in this thread shows a lower limit of the high 80s to 90db for the bottom two age groups at 20kHz, which is down slightly from 19kHz (most noticeable in the second age group)
Geert
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 2,149
- Likes
- 4,216
It's explained in the test I referenced and the results are consolidated in the graph. It's not just a sweep. For each sample frequency it's a sequence of levels going up and down and participants needing to confirm their hearing threshold to obtain an accurate result. Samples that are not confirmed with sufficient confidence are dropped. Compare that approach to a YouTuber who doesn't even documents his testing protocol, doesn't account for factors that can invalidate the test, and has a sample size of 1.
VientoB
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I can see how they did it in that study, I was talking more generally.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 23,320
- Likes
- 43,538
Cymbals do have some power above 20 khz. Most is below that (otherwise why use them as we wouldn't hear them). They also are not the sharp transient people imagine. They build up over a few cycles a bit above 10 khz. Then decay. Here is a link to a capture done at 176 khz sampling.Well cymbals have significant sound power above 20khz.
However I was wrong about fundamental and harmonics regarding cymbals as indeed there are no integer multiples of a lower frequency fundamental in cymbals as @kemmler3D suggested .
Now regarding the fletcher Munson curves and better the iso226:2003 you are about 10db less sensitive to high frequencies , however that does not mean you cannot hear a 20k if it is not at the same perceived loudness level ( +10db) than say 1k content . You can just perceive it as less loud if you can hear up to 20khz .
In any case I guess there is no relevance on how the filter reproduces the above 20khz freq with how the lower frequencies are perceived . Maybe frequency response is not enough to explain the differences
OT:The frequency range of musical instruments above 20khz
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?
At the risk of bringing hell down on me, the worst offenders were Genelecs. I swear it must have something to do with their port design choices, because despite being nowhere near the limits of the speaker the low end turned to mush. It wasn't even like I was really activating the room - I can...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Now jangling keys have more energy above 20 khz than below. You can jangle and record them hearing the little tinkling sound, but most of the energy is above 20 khz.
OP
MacClintock
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- May 24, 2023
- Messages
- 652
- Likes
- 1,260
- Thread Starter
- #333
I am am 55 and have tried to ABX them. I got a very expected 50/50. My hearing goes to about 14kHz (not sure about the SPL). So for me it is virtually impossible to pass the test. But I also don't buy this hearing above 20kHz explanation, everything there, even if at principle audible, is totally masked by the rest of the music. Yet I have no alternative explanation as well. Besides cheating.
sam_adams
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Messages
- 1,301
- Likes
- 3,307
Here's the graph with the explanation—for those who didn't read the paper—plus the explanation of the test stimulus:
The red and green lines indicate—as closely as possible— the levels of sensitivity.
Here's the stimulus explanation:
Continuous tones were not used as a stimulus in this test. The test stimulus was a shaped 'chirp' at the frequency of interest. I imagine that it would be experienced as more of a 'click' with a certain 'tonal balance' than anything else.
What's most important to take away from the data above, is that of all the subjects who were tested and that met the convergence criteria for the test, all were able to discern the high frequency stimulus as long as it was loud enough. Younger subjects had higher sensitivity but greater variability in sensitivity as indicated by the CI for each data point.
The red and green lines indicate—as closely as possible— the levels of sensitivity.
Here's the stimulus explanation:
Continuous tones were not used as a stimulus in this test. The test stimulus was a shaped 'chirp' at the frequency of interest. I imagine that it would be experienced as more of a 'click' with a certain 'tonal balance' than anything else.
What's most important to take away from the data above, is that of all the subjects who were tested and that met the convergence criteria for the test, all were able to discern the high frequency stimulus as long as it was loud enough. Younger subjects had higher sensitivity but greater variability in sensitivity as indicated by the CI for each data point.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
This^^
I remember talking to Arny K (RIP) way back when I detected one of his impossible tests, and later found it was the usual soundcard IMD. I played a while with the ears own IMD, Tartini tones. While they where fun, I don’t remember if I ever got to conclude if they have any role at higher frequencies. I don’t remember if there was anything published as well.
The only way would be IMD either equipment or ear. I’ve never heard or read of HF Tartini tone audibility though.
Combination tones: Demonstrating the nonlinearity of the human ear
Experience combination tones and understand how they arise from nonlinear transmission in the human ear.
szhorvat.net
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Can someone, versed with DW, post the (audio) diff file (not boosted in amplitude)
and perhaps a 50% slowed down version of that diff file so older folks can get an idea of the differences that exceed audiophiles hearing.
Also it might be wise to consider that due to the driver size and type of the Susvara the frequency response above 15kHz may be quite peaky/dippy and vary well over 20dB (also depends on the pinna) which may well be a clue as to why a young individual with extended hearing at louder volumes might be able to pull a successful ABX.
Cameron also said his earlier attempts (captured on video or not ?) were not as good.
Training usually helps (knowing what to look for).
Concluding that there must have been tells/cheating simply because the vast majority (except Cameron and Sharur ?) cannot hear differences/pass the ABX is not really scientific. There are always outliers and they don't need to lie.
And, as Sam Adams already said... it takes quite a lot of dB to hear high frequency sine waves.
The thing is that even if one can pull it off to hear 21kHz (by cranking up a headphone to say... 100dB) that does not mean they can also hear 60dB or 70dB 20kHz+ content in music with masking tones being present.
I remember in my younger years (have been in audio from age 16) I could 'detect' 20kHz but did not sound as tone, had to crank up the volume and could detect it as a 'pressure' being present which disappeared when switched off. Not like something useful in music.
There are too many variables and no real-life witnesses (that can also hear 20kHz+) and verify the test was valid so it boils down to believing Cameron did all he could to make the test valid or he is an dishonest person and had some (deliberate or not) tells. His reaction at 18/20 result does not appear fake to me.
What exactly was the reason for Cameron to reach 18/20 I guess we will never know with 18/20 certainty.
and perhaps a 50% slowed down version of that diff file so older folks can get an idea of the differences that exceed audiophiles hearing.
Also it might be wise to consider that due to the driver size and type of the Susvara the frequency response above 15kHz may be quite peaky/dippy and vary well over 20dB (also depends on the pinna) which may well be a clue as to why a young individual with extended hearing at louder volumes might be able to pull a successful ABX.
Cameron also said his earlier attempts (captured on video or not ?) were not as good.
Training usually helps (knowing what to look for).
Concluding that there must have been tells/cheating simply because the vast majority (except Cameron and Sharur ?) cannot hear differences/pass the ABX is not really scientific. There are always outliers and they don't need to lie.
And, as Sam Adams already said... it takes quite a lot of dB to hear high frequency sine waves.
The thing is that even if one can pull it off to hear 21kHz (by cranking up a headphone to say... 100dB) that does not mean they can also hear 60dB or 70dB 20kHz+ content in music with masking tones being present.
I remember in my younger years (have been in audio from age 16) I could 'detect' 20kHz but did not sound as tone, had to crank up the volume and could detect it as a 'pressure' being present which disappeared when switched off. Not like something useful in music.
There are too many variables and no real-life witnesses (that can also hear 20kHz+) and verify the test was valid so it boils down to believing Cameron did all he could to make the test valid or he is an dishonest person and had some (deliberate or not) tells. His reaction at 18/20 result does not appear fake to me.
What exactly was the reason for Cameron to reach 18/20 I guess we will never know with 18/20 certainty.
Geert
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 2,149
- Likes
- 4,216
I don't believe we can conclude that from the study, because of: "Note that thresholds for all age groups plateau at 105 dB SPL, essentially because of a ceiling effect imposed by the maximum output of the hardware. This is considered “no response” as it represents the output limit of our equipment and does not represent true thresholds".
In the table on page 9 you see that in the 95% of people in each age group there are people who score that fake threshold of 105dB at high frequencies, actually meaning they couldn't here the test signal with the limits imposed by the equipment.
Audiometric Test
The hearing requirement for an audiometric test is based on hearing loss only at the 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz frequencies that are typical of normal conversation. The test results are for an audiometer calibrated to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z24.5-1951 standard. When an audiometer that is calibrated to a different standard is used, the test results must be converted to the ANSI standard. To convert International Organization for Standardization (ISO) test results to the ANSI standard, subtract from the ISO test results: 14 dB for 500 Hz, 10 dB for 1,000 Hz, and 8.5 dB for 2,000 Hz.Most employers recognize this as a minim and many require a complete base line of 30hz-18khz, BUT hypersensitive testing goes all the way to 25khz and down
to at least 25hz. The threshold between hearing and feeling. 19 years I was in a study group because of my occupation and the fact we had exposure levels in
excess of any limits set by OSHA. Many men/women were loosing their hearing in less than 10 years and they put double protection in place. Xdb plugs, and fitted
125db FR ear muffs.
Driving with the window down was causing operators to go deaf! So soundproofing the cab, the ear canal, and the outer ear was a requirement on many of the
sites operators and support staff frequented. The metal/fab shop was off limits to any personnel other than safety personnel. Even the BOSS had to stay out.
I loved it.
Many hearing problems are 100% environmentally introduced. Half of my Uncles were clinically deaf by the age of 75, the other half had exceptional hearing at 85
behind the job they did and the care taken to preserve their hearing. The half that were deaf all were involved in WWII and one in Korea also.
Youth has it's at advantages BUT it's by no means absolute. Some people refine their hearing skills no different than a hunter. BTW deaf hunter don't do so well.
I prefer working with people that can hear for a reason. Why are they deaf? Then I take a ride with them and it all falls into place. Windows down, music blaring
loud exhaust and a they ask me what's up with the muffs? I would sign back it's to _uckin' loud for me. They were 25 and I was 65, guess who had the better
hearing?
I've worked with some exceptional mechanics and every one that was, had extremely good hearing. Two were blind and one of them I worked with for 3 years.
Rudy Salazar. He was very well know in the Bay Area, the other was Earl from Earls transmission. They were TRAINED to hear and FEEL things we all have the
ability to do but lack the discipline of protecting what you have. Rudy was used exclusively in new car prep and pre-delivery road test. He liked Frank Zappa too!
Regards
Similar threads
