KVR Audio

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:20 pm

living sounds wrote: now it's more than 20K...

are you sure it's the high frequency content you are hearing?

There's a lot of low frequency content in the higher samples...

sophonomoth · Post by **sophonomoth** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:29 pm

I said it all in my first reply.

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:31 pm

sophonomoth wrote:I said it all in my first reply.

yup, indeed

don't be surprised to have the feeling to percive easily the higher ones, it is all about THD+Noise & intermodulation arefacts from mp3.
Understand these modulation are lower harmonics...

but I bet many have missed it...

sophonomoth · Post by **sophonomoth** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:35 pm

I guess that Kylen want to read about audition scientist , on his real topic:

non linear qualities of the ear from an individual to an another can be corellated with the linear
nature of EQ's judgment (which judgment is linear or not...).

Nice things to read on Refined Audiometrics FAQ.

sophonomoth · Post by **sophonomoth** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:20 pm

Well, I am not a scientist, but it seems logical that if anybody with treble loss will prefer pure wide shelving over these strange peaking hi-shelf. I think the first thing you are adjusting is to give a natural balance, (don't you?), then the peaking will just sound harsh in the hi-mid while searching to recover the air damping, the tape gap loss (old fashion) or.. your hearing. (oncomming fashion

)

Anyway, I don't know if my minute thought is worth as we adapt ourself to our (very own) equipment.

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:50 pm

Thanks sophonomoth - that's what I was getting at. I forgot about Refined Audiometrics - I remember the dev was working on EQ as a hearing aid when I bought one of his 3-band EQs a while back. I'll have to go over and read some of his stuff.

I also appreciate the Kingston 'flowery description' problem as well as the martian comb-monitoring issue that was brought up also. Huge issues when comparing individual EQ experiences...

sophonomoth · Post by **sophonomoth** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:01 pm

kylen wrote: I also appreciate the Kingston 'flowery description' problem as well as the martian comb-monitoring issue that was brought up also. Huge issues when comparing individual EQ experiences...

The comb filter effect will be avoided with headphones

Yes, terms, vocabulary... of course are an issue. Warmth can be bright or dull, A dull coldness, an harsh one. silky may be an other thing that softness. etc, etc...
Younger I loved to read audiophile magazines in which many reviewers had developed the art to alegorically describe the sound. Most of the time it just served me to dream about (gears) and to develop immaginary standards & develop my analytical ear (for gears).. leading of course to a finer listening of concerts or nature.

What an eq is judged for.. mastering or track?
Would you consider all your audio chain as a sculpting & coloring one or neutral & natural.

According to Martian, EQ judgment can also be a placebo/unfair comparaison, I agree!
As you, Kylen, were talking about, I was hating sonalksis eq before I controled some parameters with MIDI faders, It revealed me a dimension of its own I wasn't reaching before.
The gui is beautiful but not a real cool feeling when used with mouse.
(btw, This don't means I love this eq.)

I bet you already know it,
this can sound stupid, but it is very true. We are very infuenced by visuals.
Hence, my hearing didn't changed, but my concentration & control.

Actually I have totally been fooled be my prejudice about the dormant, old & ugly Sonic Timeworks compressorX. Despite there is no direct adjustment finesse with that one, at equal settings, it beats any leading monsters today.

.. for my transparency standard point of view.
IMHO actual time is totally bounded in the warmth fashion, mostly explaining my point.

Regards,
good night

Individual Hearing vs EQ judgements