Just going over some studies and pages related to hearing, and loss with age.
The average middle age and up individual cannot hear past 14khz.
Further, the sensitivity above 2khz begins to drop off with a slope of around 18db/oct and once you reach your 60's, a frequency of 4khz would need to be almost 20db louder compared to 250hz to sound the same as when you heard that tune in your twenties.
Holy crap.
And if you smoke or have high blood sugar it's worse... a smoker with the diabeetus who is exposed to over 85db on a regular basis would likely really love an uncompensated dipole.
"Due to the impact of continued exposure to loud noise over time, usually the younger we are, the better we hear. The ‘normal’ hearing frequency range of a healthy young person is about 20 to 20,000Hz. Though a ‘normal’ audible range for loudness is from 0 to 180dB, anything over 85dB is considered damaging, so we should try not to go there.
As we age, it’s the upper frequencies we lose first. So by the time we hit middle-age, we can expect to hear up to around 14,000Hz. Age related hearing loss (or presbycusis) naturally develops as we age and our hearing can begin to deteriorate as a result of external factors, including the environment and existing medical conditions."
"Sounds with frequencies above the realms of human ears are called ultrasound and those below are called infrasound. Though we’re capable of distinguishing between 1400-odd pitches, most of the important speech-related sounds fall within a narrow, relatively low spectrum.
The highest note of human speech is a soprano singer’s C7 (around 2048Hz) and the lowest note is the C2 of a bass singer (around 64Hz). Though we can’t scream much above 3000Hz, US singer Tim Storms has sung a note at 0.189Hz. Ironically, no human will ever hear it, although it is possible to feel it."
The above comes from The Normal Hearing Range | Hearing Health Blog | Amplifon
I would like to know what everyone thinks the implications of this are with regard to our beloved hobby, measurements and subjective impressions of different speakers?
The average middle age and up individual cannot hear past 14khz.
Further, the sensitivity above 2khz begins to drop off with a slope of around 18db/oct and once you reach your 60's, a frequency of 4khz would need to be almost 20db louder compared to 250hz to sound the same as when you heard that tune in your twenties.
Holy crap.
And if you smoke or have high blood sugar it's worse... a smoker with the diabeetus who is exposed to over 85db on a regular basis would likely really love an uncompensated dipole.
"Due to the impact of continued exposure to loud noise over time, usually the younger we are, the better we hear. The ‘normal’ hearing frequency range of a healthy young person is about 20 to 20,000Hz. Though a ‘normal’ audible range for loudness is from 0 to 180dB, anything over 85dB is considered damaging, so we should try not to go there.
As we age, it’s the upper frequencies we lose first. So by the time we hit middle-age, we can expect to hear up to around 14,000Hz. Age related hearing loss (or presbycusis) naturally develops as we age and our hearing can begin to deteriorate as a result of external factors, including the environment and existing medical conditions."
"Sounds with frequencies above the realms of human ears are called ultrasound and those below are called infrasound. Though we’re capable of distinguishing between 1400-odd pitches, most of the important speech-related sounds fall within a narrow, relatively low spectrum.
The highest note of human speech is a soprano singer’s C7 (around 2048Hz) and the lowest note is the C2 of a bass singer (around 64Hz). Though we can’t scream much above 3000Hz, US singer Tim Storms has sung a note at 0.189Hz. Ironically, no human will ever hear it, although it is possible to feel it."
The above comes from The Normal Hearing Range | Hearing Health Blog | Amplifon
I would like to know what everyone thinks the implications of this are with regard to our beloved hobby, measurements and subjective impressions of different speakers?
Attachments
My personal experience (left 10 kHz, right 7 kHz) is that I hear sounds above those frequencies, but they are aliases. By boosting sounds above the natural range, so they can be heard, what is heard is rather uncomfortable and annoying. I would support deliberate roll off of frequencies outside of what I call the natural range, rather than boosting them.
So you find compensating for the loss sounds unnatural? Interesting.
I'm 54 and I would have to agree. Too much treble or even a bright recording annoys me also.
On the face of it, you would think compensating might help. But my guess is it seems to be the opposite, as we've adjusted to our hearing in everyday life and it doesn't seem normal if compensated in a loudspeaker.
I've listened to more than one speaker that did not extend beyond 10khz and sounded fine to me. Actually helped on some stuff, like many Rush recordings for instance. What in the heck were they mixing those on anyway?
I'm 54 and I would have to agree. Too much treble or even a bright recording annoys me also.
On the face of it, you would think compensating might help. But my guess is it seems to be the opposite, as we've adjusted to our hearing in everyday life and it doesn't seem normal if compensated in a loudspeaker.
I've listened to more than one speaker that did not extend beyond 10khz and sounded fine to me. Actually helped on some stuff, like many Rush recordings for instance. What in the heck were they mixing those on anyway?
The conclusion is that with age you can get away with cheaper tweeters withot loosing accuracy. 😉
Regards
Charles
(Hearing up to 14 kHz approx)
Regards
Charles
(Hearing up to 14 kHz approx)
Makes sense, if you listen to any live music, it wont be equalized. We don't really remember what cymbals used to sound like when we were children
last test was 13.5 khz limit for me
After than ... nothing
But i do remember that cymbals sounded different when i was young 😀
Goon news , no need of supertweeters 😀
After than ... nothing
But i do remember that cymbals sounded different when i was young 😀
Goon news , no need of supertweeters 😀
The difference between 14 KHz and 20 KHz is roughly the difference between the note "A" and the note "D#" above the A, which is six semitones - a half an octave.
Very few musical instruments have any useful energy in that half-octave. However, a few do, and, we also listen to sounds other than music. Birds come to mind.
Lastly, it's important to keep in mind that not everyone who listens to reproduced sound is over 50. 😉
Very few musical instruments have any useful energy in that half-octave. However, a few do, and, we also listen to sounds other than music. Birds come to mind.
Lastly, it's important to keep in mind that not everyone who listens to reproduced sound is over 50. 😉
My loss above about 15KHz is greater than 20 dB; it starts around 8KHz. I use a very high output Fostex T90A bullet type horn super tweeter. This greatly improves the highest frequencies for me even though I obviously can't hear all of them anymore. Using a cheaper tweeter, etc. just does not do it for me. So, even if you are like me with a high frequency loss, a very high quality tweeter in the top octave (or more) still makes a HUGE difference. Many people try to say otherwise but take that as something they obviously haven't experienced for themselves and move on!
It seems that in the 2khz to 4khz range, the age related decline is actually flattening the most sensitive range of our hearing and bringing it more in line with frequencies below that.
Above that it's making the cut off even steeper.
When considering certain individuals subjective preference for particular speakers, it certainly needs to be taken into account. A small mid that gets in your face a bit when transitioning to half space radiation in the most sensitive area of hearing may become more tolerable, or even preferred.
Or less tolerable because it seems more unnatural as the individual has adapted to the loss of sensitivity...I definitely have some experimenting and reflecting to do on this.
I appreciate the different takes everyone has on this. I've definitely started to lean toward small full ranges in my designs. A good 2" to 4" fullrange that gets out to 12khz or higher is...well...actually a true fullrange for me lol
Above that it's making the cut off even steeper.
When considering certain individuals subjective preference for particular speakers, it certainly needs to be taken into account. A small mid that gets in your face a bit when transitioning to half space radiation in the most sensitive area of hearing may become more tolerable, or even preferred.
Or less tolerable because it seems more unnatural as the individual has adapted to the loss of sensitivity...I definitely have some experimenting and reflecting to do on this.
I appreciate the different takes everyone has on this. I've definitely started to lean toward small full ranges in my designs. A good 2" to 4" fullrange that gets out to 12khz or higher is...well...actually a true fullrange for me lol
Attachments
Adjustment does happen. However it probably takes some subconscious effort. Hearing aids make speech clearer due to high frequency boost so the equivalent should happen for music.
I'm going to bust out the alligator clips and set up some small fullrangers crossed to 3/4" tweeters that I can easily disconnect and reconnect in the shop this weekend and do some AB testing while I'm working.
And then drink about it for a while.
And then drink about it for a while.
Polarizing titles bring in people that are more likely to freely share their opinions.
In marketing terms it's called "made you look".
In marketing terms it's called "made you look".
I tested my hearing to beyond 20khz as follows.
I set up a signal generator for 7khz and switched between a sine and a square signal. There was an audible difference. I also used a B&K microphone and an HP fourier analyzer to confirm the signal spectrum. There was 21khz component.
I set up a signal generator for 7khz and switched between a sine and a square signal. There was an audible difference. I also used a B&K microphone and an HP fourier analyzer to confirm the signal spectrum. There was 21khz component.
So with the square wave, which has harmonics the sine wave does not, you were able to hear the third harmonic of the 7khz signal.
Nice hearing. Did you test any higher than 7000hz?
Nice hearing. Did you test any higher than 7000hz?
Just stumbled upon this video on hearing the differences between sine waves and square waves. Never really considered this before.
Can you hear the difference between a sine wave and a square wave? - YouTube
Can you hear the difference between a sine wave and a square wave? - YouTube
There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz
I have seen graphs that show harmonics and overtones of many musical instruments that go up to 20 KHz and beyond...I will see if I can find an example or two. I just discovered the above, long read but clearly states there is energy that is very high in frequency. Some pipe organs even have fundamentals as high as 20 KHz!
I have seen graphs that show harmonics and overtones of many musical instruments that go up to 20 KHz and beyond...I will see if I can find an example or two. I just discovered the above, long read but clearly states there is energy that is very high in frequency. Some pipe organs even have fundamentals as high as 20 KHz!