Frequency Sensitivity of Our Ears

[Ron Resnick]

What if much of our thoughtful and carefully considered audio and sonic preferences (tubes versus solid-state, analog versus digital, metal dome tweeter versus soft dome tweeter, etc.) is a function of undiagnosed, non-linear sensitivities of our ears to certain frequencies?

For example, I have some significant sensitivity to sounds like screeching bus brakes and heavy metal plates clanked together at the gym. Sounds like that literally give me an instant headache. In Manhattan I usually walk around the streets with silicone earplugs in my ears to attenuate all sounds on a neutral-density basis. I do not know which frequency it is that is the most irritating to me.

I do not know, but I have always suspected, that this sensitivity drives me to prefer tubes over solid-state, and analog over digital, and a warm tonal balance over a neutral tonal balance.

Beyond the standard non-linearities of human hearing in general does anyone else believe they have a particular sensitivity to a certain frequency or range of frequencies?

If so, do you you think this sensitivity inclines you (consciously or unconsciously) to prefer certain equipment or formats or component designs over others?

 

[PeterA]

Interesting question, Ron. Are you suggesting that digital and solid state emphasize certain frequencies over others? They each would seem to measure more accurately than analog and tubes. So maybe rather than an emphasis with the former, you are responding to some kind of deficit with the latter.

I have noticed that I am somewhat more sensitive than are my friends to "something" while listening to digital. I have always thought it was certain distortions or artifacts in the higher frequencies, and perhaps it was, but my recent experience of listening to the dCS Vivaldi stack changed that. I did not hear the issues that I had previously always associated with digital playback. This was a real surprise to me and evidence that perhaps real progress is being made and that analog and digital are both sounding more realistic and thus more alike.

Same with tubes and solid state. They used to sound fairly different to me, but I have heard examples of each which sound quite similar. And they too are sounding more and more like real music, and thus converging in sound, at least the best in each typology are, IMO.

So with better technology, I find that I am noticing fewer artifacts or distortions as gear improves. I don't think that my ears are becoming much less sensitive over time, because I still notice certain issues with lower quality gear.

I also often wonder if having phones up to our ears is effecting certain frequencies because I do notice a heightened sensitivity to higher frequencies after I have spent too much time listening to my iPhone and it is annoying.

 

[Joe Whip]

Not being an ENT or an audiologist, this could be true. Perhaps just like the taste buds brain interface. One man's Devine dish may be another's yuch. Perhaps sound perception is the same way. The brain can be a very unreliable sensory interface. Of course, your processing may vary!

 

[KlausR.]

I think the answer to this question is to be found in Shaw, "Earcanal Pressure Generated by a Free Sound Field", J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 39, 465 (1966)

http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/39/3/10.1121/1.1909913

In-ear frequency response of different individuals may be very different, see the graphs in the attached pdf. This simply means that we might perceive, and hence appreciate, the same sound event in a very different manner, depending on our personal response curve. This difference in response is a reason why judgements on or sonic descriptions of the sound of a system made by third parties such as reviewers may be completely irrelevant for you.

Klaus

 

[dallasjustice]

And then there's Fleischmann and later Sean Olive who each offer substantial evidence to support a preference to certain target curve responses.


http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16768

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16482

I think the answer to this question is to be found in Shaw, "Earcanal Pressure Generated by a Free Sound Field", J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 39, 465 (1966)

http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/39/3/10.1121/1.1909913

In-ear frequency response of different individuals may be very different, see the graphs in the attached pdf. This simply means that we might perceive, and hence appreciate, the same sound event in a very different manner, depending on our personal response curve. This difference in response is a reason why judgements on or sonic descriptions of the sound of a system made by third parties such as reviewers may be completely irrelevant for you.

Klaus

 

[Gregadd]

I am sure I am out of my league. Fletche-Munson tells us that our ears are not linear. They were not designed to hear music or propbaby to hear our wives talk.
We mostly need to detect threats to our survival.
A dripping faucet or a squeaky wheel drives me insaneQ. Some people are not bothered at all.
First our ears have to physically detect it. Then our brain decides if it wants to pay any attention and how much. What's that saying ,"you can't see the forest for the trees."

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I am sure I am out of my league. Fletche-Munson tells us that our ears are not linear. They were not designed to hear music or propbaby to hear our wives talk.

The latter is incorrect. The FM curves typically are normalized. OTOH, direct measurements of threshold indicate that our lowest thresholds (highest sensitivity) are in the range of conspecific communication signals and there are no exceptions for marital status.

We mostly need to detect threats to our survival.

Hmm. Knowing what your spouse is about might fit that criterion.

 

[Gregadd]

So what you are saying Kal is we choose to ignore or spouse.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Yeh..Im sensitive in a way ..to bass..if its not right and tight the music loses drive for me..
I'm a bit of a basshead..not too sure I should be admitting that tho...

 

[amirm]

For example, I have some significant sensitivity to sounds like screeching bus brakes and heavy metal plates clanked together at the gym.

You bring back memories of my high-school days where I took the public bus to and from and endured so much of that nasty sound. I think if we recorded that sound vast majority of people if not all would find it unpleasant. It is not unique to an individual.

While this I don't think is supportive of your thesis, I do believe in the conclusion that you derive for tubes and LP.

 

[KlausR.]

Hi,

And then there's Fleischmann and later Sean Olive who each offer substantial evidence to support a preference to certain target curve responses.

I'm not into headphones, so I don't have those two papers. From Olive's paper on preferences of in-room response of loudspeakers it becomes clear that the differences between the individual preferences are quite substantial, see attached pdf. Matter of in-ear response or matter of taste, that's the question.

Klaus

 

[amirm]

Hi,



I'm not into headphones, so I don't have those two papers. From Olive's paper on preferences of in-room response of loudspeakers it becomes clear that the differences between the individual preferences are quite substantial, see attached pdf. Matter of in-ear response or matter of taste, that's the question.

Klaus

Fascinating. I wonder if the preference for lower high frequencies in headphones versus speakers is due to headphones imparting less sensation of bass so we like to have less highs to go with it??? I have been remiss in not reading Sean's headphone papers so perhaps I should do that first instead of that pontification.

 

[spazmatron]

Yeh..Im sensitive in a way ..to bass..if its not right and tight the music loses drive for me..
I'm a bit of a basshead..not too sure I should be admitting that tho...

I find that but for timing reasons/ issues as well.. Bad bass can indeed ruin the dynamics and hang around killing the new sounds..

 

[rbbert]

Frequencies near an individual's high-frequency limit are commonly irritating.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Frequencies near an individual's high-frequency limit are commonly irritating.

That's analogous to prices near an individual's spending limit.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

So what you are saying Kal is we choose to ignore or spouse.

Perhaps but it is also physiological and can be learned. The phenomenon of habituation diminishes the neural impact of signals that we have determined, through repeated exposure, to have reduced significance. None the less, it is not due to the sounds failing to be transduced and conveyed to the brain.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Kal - I am sorry you told me this. I am now going to have to lie to my wife and tell her it's just my aging ears, not my brain.

But, yes, there does seem to be a focusing/attention mechanism in our hearing, partly conscious, partly unconscious. You have written about this before. We have all experienced it, especially my wife when she talks to me. Good thing she is generally a good sport about it.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal - I am sorry you told me this. I am now going to have to lie to my wife and tell her it's just my aging ears, not my brain.

Dunno. Blaming it on your ears might make her less tolerant of your audio expenditures. Figure out something else.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Dunno. Blaming it on your ears might make her less tolerant of your audio expenditures. Figure out something else.

Excellent point!!

 

[YashN]

What if much of our thoughtful and carefully considered audio and sonic preferences (tubes versus solid-state, analog versus digital, metal dome tweeter versus soft dome tweeter, etc.) is a function of undiagnosed, non-linear sensitivities of our ears to certain frequencies?

Frequencies are vastly over-rated.

Much more important are the accurate and fast reproduction of transients, especially attack transients.

IMO, good frequency response is a solved problem.