Frequency Sensitivity of Our Ears

[microstrip]

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.

Ron,

Considering your posts about your preferences I think you are particularly sensitive to some type of distortions, not exactly to frequency response variations. Ralph Karsteen of Atmasphere posted on this subject sometime ago in WBF - it is related to the relations between specific harmonics.

We can find a hint here: http://www.atma-sphere.com/Resources/Paradigms_in_Amplifier_Design.php, but Ralph was more specific in his posts. Unfortunately I was not able to locate them.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I went for the hearing test today.

Each ear measures about the same, so my perception of balance should be accurate.

According to the test today I have approximately a 20dB to 25dB drop in sensitivity at 6 to 8 kHz, in just the frequency range I think I am sensitive to brightness and edginess. (The doctor said that a basic hearing test today does not test above 8 kHz -- that was disappointing!)

The doctor said the drop off in high-frequency response is likely not due to target shooting or rock concerts I went to in high school but rather to natural deterioration due to age.

I asked the doctor why I would be so sensitive to bright tweeters and screeching bus brakes in that frequency range if my sensitivity is down at least 20dB there? She answered that even though my hearing is significantly less sensitive at 6 to 8 kHz my dynamic range in that frequency range is commensurately reduced. Because of the reduced dynamic range in that frequency range my threshold of irritability is lower than at other frequencies. So even though my sensitivity is lower in that frequency range whatever I do hear in that frequency range is exponentially more irritating because of the reduced dynamic range.

 

[Barry2013]

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.

That is interesting.
I have been told by a number of people that it is not uncommon for professional musicians to own very modest systems for which the best explanation I was given was that they heard what they wanted to hear as opposed to the actual sound.

 

[Don Hills]

That is interesting.
I have been told by a number of people that it is not uncommon for professional musicians to own very modest systems for which the best explanation I was given was that they heard what they expected to hear as opposed to the actual sound.

 

[Don Hills]

...
I asked the doctor why I would be so sensitive to bright tweeters and screeching bus brakes in that frequency range if my sensitivity is down at least 20dB there? She answered that even though my hearing is significantly less sensitive at 6 to 8 kHz my dynamic range in that frequency range is commensurately reduced. Because of the reduced dynamic range in that frequency range my threshold of irritability is lower than at other frequencies. So even though my sensitivity is lower in that frequency range whatever I do hear in that frequency range is exponentially more irritating because of the reduced dynamic range.

That's a good explanation of the problem.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

She answered that even though my hearing is significantly less sensitive at 6 to 8 kHz my dynamic range in that frequency range is commensurately reduced. Because of the reduced dynamic range in that frequency range my threshold of irritability is lower than at other frequencies. So even though my sensitivity is lower in that frequency range whatever I do hear in that frequency range is exponentially more irritating because of the reduced dynamic range.

Very interesting. I don't doubt that theory - it makes a lot of sense but in my case it is the simplest answer is the right one. For me, I actually measure 5 dB above (as in better) than the 0 dB human hearing threshold at 8 kHz. I was surprised at that result because I did not think such a measurement was possible - I thought they simply stopped measuring at 0 and that was that (I think the equipment can actually measure up to 10 dB better than the 0 dB human thresholds). But I can't stand sound in that frequency range. It drives me absolutely completely nuts.

 

[rbbert]

Actually it is frequencies just below (and above, but there's usually less musical information at the higher frequencies above a typical notch) a hearing loss "notch" which usually sound harsh to us. it's probably the steep slope of the notch which is responsible for this, since the more gradual slope typically associated with age-related hearing loss usually doesn't result in perceived harshness. And although age-related hearing loss varies tremendously due to many factors, you (Ron) seem to young to have much of it?

 

[acousticsguru]

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?

Ron

I haven't read through the whole thread, so I apologize it this has been addressed, but are you sure that what you're thinking of irritating sounds that give you a headache isn't a sign you may be suffering from migraines (I do, and can relate to what you're relating), and that it's just a trigger (I have several, apart from noises/sound, which includes that of many CD players and DACs, oscillation in particular, but also certain qualities of light such as neon and some types of modern car headlights)? Most migraine patients learn to avoid their triggers (clinical anamnesis is partly based on a patient's avoidance strategy/-ies), in my case I can only confirm that yes, this "oversensitivity" will make me prefer certain audiophile equipment, formats etc. The resultant choice, however, stands in no contrast to what others who do not suffer from a like condition consider to be of high quality - on the contrary, it seems to me that there's a direct relation to realism and a "naturalness" of the sound reproduction (although I'd sure hate to be a viola player sitting in the row in front of the piccolos…).

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[kinch]

The complaint of irritating high pitches is due to recruitment, in which there is an abnormal progression of loudness perceived with deterioration in nerve hearing. Effectively, your dynamic range is reduced at these frequencies, and what is perceived as comfortably loud is abnormally close to what is "too loud". Uncomfortable loudness levels (ULL) can be measured across the frequency range. Extended high frequency testing (EHF) could give you more info about the higher pitches. Other less likely causes could include middle ear tendon abnormalities. Reflex and wideband energy reflectance testing can delineate these. At issue is the disproportionate loss of outer hair cells when sensorineural loss, even mild, comes into play. Get these tested via otoacoustic emissions and you'll have a clearer picture of the timbre and tone retrieving potential of your hearing. Ohc likely mediate the "harmonic spray" of the music we are trying to understand. Which is why, even with mild high freq hearing loss, the loss of ohc can influence how and what we hear. Does this push some to tubes, and can this influence opinion about wideband high resolution equipment...

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

The complaint of irritating high pitches is due to recruitment, in which there is an abnormal progression of loudness perceived with deterioration in nerve hearing. Effectively, your dynamic range is reduced at these frequencies, and what is perceived as comfortably loud is abnormally close to what is "too loud". Uncomfortable loudness levels (ULL) can be measured across the frequency range. Extended high frequency testing (EHF) could give you more info about the higher pitches.

Something I would love to see introduced are high quality "audiophile" compressor / limiters in a normal home high end audio environment. Before people say I am mad, I think there is a sound basis for this. I too cannot tolerate the same dynamic range that I did when I was 20 years old and like I suspect most people my age, I have hearing deterioration which is a combination of a life time of noise exposure and age.

But notwithstanding that, even when I was very young, I always preferred to listen to FM radio over the actual original recording. The reason is that over FM they used very high quality compressors and limiters. Obviously in the modern pop world these things are used far too much, but in the classical world where I belong, often the opposite is true. The dynamic range of, for example, Reference Recording titles and many of the great late analogue era recordings is extremely high - so high that it is almost impossible to find any single comfortable volume setting. And I have always found that to be the case - right from when I was a young teenager hearing really good hifi for the first time right through to today. I listened to a Mehta Mahler 2 last week (Speakers Corner vinyl no less) and I could not find a suitable volume level. I would have loved to have employed a very high quality compressor / limiter. As it was, I had to vary the volume by around 8 db or so over the course of the work. As you can imagine this takes the shine off the listening experience.

But I have looked around and all compressors/ limiters are aimed at either professional studios or for balanced systems (though still intended to studio use). Basically if your system is not balanced throughout, you are out of luck. I have tried all the ones that work in the digital domain and the quality is not impressive - they do not achieve the same results that the high end analogue ones do - many of which cost a decent amount of money - $4,000 plus - just for two channels.

Maybe this is a subject for another thread but I honestly think that people in the boat that Ron and I are in would often benefit from some very high quality compression. Mind you, there is compression and there is compression. Back when classical music FM first started in Australia, the compression quality was excellent. You could barely tell it was even being used unless you know the original recording. You never heard the low levels "creep up" and you never heard the peaks squashed. Yet both of those things were happening - it is just that is was very high quality equipment and the setting swere not overly-aggressive. But since the 90s, they just go all out and the compression is horrible. Way over the top for someone just looking for a "comfortable" listening experience.

But I would love for a well-known audiophile manufacturer of home audio equipment to bring out a really nice fully-analogue compressor. Sadly, I do not know of anyone who does this. As I say, it is all aimed at the studio market.