You can't have one (accurate and fast reproduction of transients) without the other (good frequency response).
Frequency Sensitivity of Our Ears
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
You can't have one (accurate and fast reproduction of transients) without the other (good frequency response).
Excellent point, Ron!
I've noticed the same thing, in informal conversation with friends. Everybody could nail down their "preference" to specific attributes of their hearing, so people who prefer more midrange are less sensible in that region, once they go and have their ears checked...
I've participated in audio shows for a couple of years now, and it's always funny how different folks react differently to the presentation. I've had people walk up to me and say "where's the HF?" while others said I should lower the volume because the treble was too much for him
Repeat this for midrange and bass, and you can imagine how we end up at the end of the day
I've noticed the same thing, in informal conversation with friends. Everybody could nail down their "preference" to specific attributes of their hearing, so people who prefer more midrange are less sensible in that region, once they go and have their ears checked...
I've participated in audio shows for a couple of years now, and it's always funny how different folks react differently to the presentation. I've had people walk up to me and say "where's the HF?" while others said I should lower the volume because the treble was too much for him
Repeat this for midrange and bass, and you can imagine how we end up at the end of the day 
Ron, I quite like your suggestion here and I've often wondered if my particular ear-brain combo works in exactly the same way as others, because I'm often mystified by their sonic choices.
That said, if the goal of audio is, on some level, to reproduce the live event, wouldn't we find the same preferences and irritations when listening to live music? Even if we all hear differently, wouldn't we all be able to agree on what gets us closest to live sound? Apparently not, of course, but I'm not quite sure why.
That said, if the goal of audio is, on some level, to reproduce the live event, wouldn't we find the same preferences and irritations when listening to live music? Even if we all hear differently, wouldn't we all be able to agree on what gets us closest to live sound? Apparently not, of course, but I'm not quite sure why.
Why? That's a good question. Three quick suggestions:
1) We may all have our own psychological priorities for what we value the most in sound preproduction, and thus selectively pay attention, to both reproduced music and live music as reference, in a manner that is different for each individual.
2) We may all have different live experiences. Someone whose main live diet is classical music in a concert hall with smooth acoustics will perceive differently what live sound entails than someone who listens mostly in concert halls or smaller venues (e.g., jazz club) with harder acoustics. Again different will be the judgment of live sound by someone with experience of a larger variety of acoustic settings and seating positions.
3) The ear may hear differently when the listener has his/her eyes open or closed. We had a recent discussion here (staring with post #58):
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19025-The-Sound-of-Live-Music/page6
Someone who never closes their eyes during live music in order to assess critically the actual sound of what he hears, without visual distractions, may come to different conclusions about live sound than someone who engages in this exercise.
(Pedant hat on)
Good frequency response not the only requirement, though. The phase response is important too. A transient is made up of a mix of frequencies. They must have the correct amplitude relative to each other, and they must arrive at the correct time. Phase shift can cause the arrival times of some frequencies to differ. This is where the debate over filter types comes in.
I had my ears cleaned out today.
Tomorrow I am going in for a frequency response test. I am hoping it will provide some insight as to why I am so sensitive to any component with a bright, "edgy" type of sound.
Tomorrow I am going in for a frequency response test. I am hoping it will provide some insight as to why I am so sensitive to any component with a bright, "edgy" type of sound.
Most likely because you picking up on the distortion in the sound, and reacting to that. If you can listen happily to live instruments that are playing the sort of music, acoustically, at high volumes, that you find edgy in recordings, then you're sensing that the sound in the reproduction is "wrong" - just another word for distorted,
.
Frank, that could be. Or a component actually might have a peaky upper midrange/lower treble. Or maybe a component measures flat, but without either a richer than neutral upper bass/lower midrange, or without a dip in the treble, I perceive flat as bright.
Hi
This is a very interesting subject. The FM Curves, Fletcher Munson which made an apparition in this thread to quickly be dismissed as irrelevant (not verbatim but a few posts would intone that)...
Let's take an example I took from WBFer, Mitchco book;
Let's suppose a recording mastered in a studio at say an average SPL of 90dB... We suppose they have the best electronics, best room and the best speakers around ... To these mastering engineers the recording has serious bass ... and they're right. Now let us suppose a superb SOTA system capable of 8 Hz to 40 KHz linearly. Low distortion, great musicality, the best Vinyl gear, the whole nine yard.. but playing the same recording at an average of 75dB SPL. To most people the recording would sound as lacking bass, because our ears are not as sensitive to bass as they are to middle frequencies at those levels. Not a matter of taste or preference , a fact.. Thus it would be best to play said cut at 90 dB average SPL if your system is capable and your mood to accept this. That suggests to me there is an ideal listening level and it varies from recording to recording , even cut to cut.
WHat the FM curves don't seem to show is how much our High Frequencies perception fall with age, and for most of people above 50 , we don't hear anything above 15 KHz and it requires a lot of SPL for many of us to even discern that. There are such tests on the Internet. They suggest that as we age for us to hear certain frequencies, we need sometimes to raise the volume, to increase the SPL. SOme have hypothesized that such was the basis of many so-called High End speakers to have a lifted treble. A trend some here at WBF have mentioned. Yet not hearing the top frequencies is not as serious an impediment as some would think. We will recognize a violin regardless. We may not hear all the overtones but we will know it is a violin... or a Cello.
While we would love to think we hear that differently, we don't. Our hearing apparatuses are very similar. The processing may differ which manifest itself in our choices. Culture and biology have us preferring some sounds over others, they're picked up through very similar devices nonetheless.
This is a very interesting subject. The FM Curves, Fletcher Munson which made an apparition in this thread to quickly be dismissed as irrelevant (not verbatim but a few posts would intone that)...
Let's take an example I took from WBFer, Mitchco book;
Let's suppose a recording mastered in a studio at say an average SPL of 90dB... We suppose they have the best electronics, best room and the best speakers around ... To these mastering engineers the recording has serious bass ... and they're right. Now let us suppose a superb SOTA system capable of 8 Hz to 40 KHz linearly. Low distortion, great musicality, the best Vinyl gear, the whole nine yard.. but playing the same recording at an average of 75dB SPL. To most people the recording would sound as lacking bass, because our ears are not as sensitive to bass as they are to middle frequencies at those levels. Not a matter of taste or preference , a fact.. Thus it would be best to play said cut at 90 dB average SPL if your system is capable and your mood to accept this. That suggests to me there is an ideal listening level and it varies from recording to recording , even cut to cut.
WHat the FM curves don't seem to show is how much our High Frequencies perception fall with age, and for most of people above 50 , we don't hear anything above 15 KHz and it requires a lot of SPL for many of us to even discern that. There are such tests on the Internet. They suggest that as we age for us to hear certain frequencies, we need sometimes to raise the volume, to increase the SPL. SOme have hypothesized that such was the basis of many so-called High End speakers to have a lifted treble. A trend some here at WBF have mentioned. Yet not hearing the top frequencies is not as serious an impediment as some would think. We will recognize a violin regardless. We may not hear all the overtones but we will know it is a violin... or a Cello.
While we would love to think we hear that differently, we don't. Our hearing apparatuses are very similar. The processing may differ which manifest itself in our choices. Culture and biology have us preferring some sounds over others, they're picked up through very similar devices nonetheless.
Mitch's thesis makes a lot of sense. There are so many recordings which have no bass and many of them are rock recordings from the 70s. Were they mastered too loud? Maybe.
What if the mastering was done at 100db? Should we be listening that loud for extended periods of time? I try not to, even though my system can easily handle it.
Once one accepts that there's no way to 100% reproduce the artist's intent, it seems logical to judiciously apply EQ. Especially if the system is consistently yielding unpleasant results in a certain frequency range. The EQ is already there in all systems. The crossovers are an EQ. The phono preamp is another EQ. And for many folks, all of the components and cabling behave like an EQ. Whats wrong with taking control over the situation to produce a more pleasant result?
Michael.
AGreed with the above.
I believe to strive for linearity and then screw it if needs be ...
AGreed with the above.
I believe to strive for linearity and then screw it if needs be ...
Indeed, screw it. Who the hell knows what kind of bad studio monitors these guys did the mastering with anyway? (So much for the "artist's intent".) There are many complaints about the 1994 remastering of Led Zep's Physical Graffiti as being bass-shy, for example. I simply turn up my sub, and it sounds great. Then there are albums with fat bass. I turn down the sub. Of course, if you cannot properly EQ the bass, too bad.
Agreed. Measures flat in the room at your ears via a mike is perceptually bright sounding. There is a lot of research supporting this. Also, Gordon Holt knocked me off my chair somewhere back in the 70's when he extolled the virtues of speaker response in your room that was downward sloping with increasing frequency. That was the first time I heard of the idea.
But, many full range DSP room EQ packages have a default target curve that follows this downward sloping response idea. And, you can often tweak that target curve to your liking while still retaining smoothness of response, which is important. I am sold on the idea because, to me, it makes the highs sound more like live music, in addition to providing better, smoother, non-boomy bass freed of much of the big response peak and valley roller coaster caused by room modes.
This downward sloping response idea in the highs might be one reason "digititis" is not the problem in some systems that it is in others. I think many systems, even very expensive ones, are too hot in the highs in some rooms. Note, Ron, my Martin Logans also had a measured top octave peak that was fairly sizeable. Room EQ easily conquered that. The system sounds really quite good to me with EQ. It would have been difficult to achieve the same results with passive treatments and impossible without measurements.
Of course, audiophiles have for eons seen flat measurements for electronics, so they assume that is also how in-room measurements for speakers should behave. I find that is not true at all.
+1
And I must add that it's not just your opinion. There's listening test objective data which demonstrates that's what a statistically significant number of listeners will say they prefer.
http://seanolive.blogspot.ca/2009/11/subjective-and-objective-evaluation-of.html?m=1
And I must add that it's not just your opinion. There's listening test objective data which demonstrates that's what a statistically significant number of listeners will say they prefer.
http://seanolive.blogspot.ca/2009/11/subjective-and-objective-evaluation-of.html?m=1
Fitzacaraldo215 said
I believe there were at one point a push in HIgh End Audio toward those exaggerated highs. IMHO the Martin Logan CLS (original) had it... And it started a whole debate about "transparency" to the point that the term is often used as derogatory. The thing that has eluded me for a while was the very notion you are touching upon, in some rooms, some speakers sound bright, same speakers different room and treatments and not so, of course electronics could be the reason or ... cable.
In the early days of digital there was that tendency to sound too peaky , could have been the DAC of the days or perhaps the mastering with too hot a treble to showoff the "transparency" of digital. Similar to those ealrly days stereo ping-pong LPs. The idea stuck that digital had to sound peaky and harsh treble... It took me a long time to realize it didn't have to be so, even on really early CD and of course early Digital-sourced LPs
I believe there were at one point a push in HIgh End Audio toward those exaggerated highs. IMHO the Martin Logan CLS (original) had it... And it started a whole debate about "transparency" to the point that the term is often used as derogatory. The thing that has eluded me for a while was the very notion you are touching upon, in some rooms, some speakers sound bright, same speakers different room and treatments and not so, of course electronics could be the reason or ... cable
. In the early days of digital there was that tendency to sound too peaky , could have been the DAC of the days or perhaps the mastering with too hot a treble to showoff the "transparency" of digital. Similar to those ealrly days stereo ping-pong LPs. The idea stuck that digital had to sound peaky and harsh treble... It took me a long time to realize it didn't have to be so, even on really early CD and of course early Digital-sourced LPs
The interesting thing I found many years ago is that the better the intrinsic SQ is with regard to lack of distortion, audible artifacts, then the less important is the FR. I just accepted that as a by the way then, but just recently gained the understanding of what's happening: the field of Audio Scene Analysis explains the process of hearing as being a balance what what actually impinges on the ears, and what the brain expects next, as a result of a lifetime of acquired knowledge about how sounds behave. The clever thing is, that our minds automatically adjust what we perceive so that it always makes sense, so long as the actual sound waves coming in confirm that inner prediction; this is why real things always sound real, and we can move very close and very far away to a musical instrument, say, and its tonality and presentation are always consistent - we 'expect' a certain quality depending upon everything, and the sound waves then confirm it.
All bets are off with most audio systems, because often the sound waves from it contradict what the mind thinks should be there - the system is insufficiently competent to get the messages across well enough. Result, the rig doesn't sound good, it's obviously "fake".
So getting back to FR ... if the sound reaching the ears "fits the mind's template" then all EQ'ng is done in the head, automatically - it continually balances the the ear's input with what it anticipates should be the reality, the correlation is maintained at all times. And this gives one, in the head, convincing sound.
This may not work for all people, but it certainly does for me.
All bets are off with most audio systems, because often the sound waves from it contradict what the mind thinks should be there - the system is insufficiently competent to get the messages across well enough. Result, the rig doesn't sound good, it's obviously "fake".
So getting back to FR ... if the sound reaching the ears "fits the mind's template" then all EQ'ng is done in the head, automatically - it continually balances the the ear's input with what it anticipates should be the reality, the correlation is maintained at all times. And this gives one, in the head, convincing sound.
This may not work for all people, but it certainly does for me.
Similar threads
