KVR Audio

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:00 pm

Lately there's been a lot of interesting EQ discussions and debates concerning:

asymmetric vs symmetric filters
tight vs loose bottom end
silky vs harsh top end
dongle vs non-dongle (haha just threw that in

)

Here's another one to throw on the pile - your individual Hearing! Here's a hearing test that went around the Cakewalk forum and others I'm sure, it's easy to make tones of this nature as most of us have done already.

When describing the high end of an EQ what is the baseline of your own hearing - and what does it have to do with silky or harsh high end or the psychoacoustics of the top end?

The Hearing Test (unscientific):
http://www.ultrasonic-ringtones.com/

sophonomoth · Post by **sophonomoth** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:58 pm

hehe.. the last 22.4 kHz file is empty.
On my calibrated k-14 monitoring, it was quite a pain to liseten these -9 dB rms files.
So be warned, turn down your monitoring by at least -30 dB before.

Also, as long as these files are MP3 (128kb !), 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...

btw, with this "test" I hear the 18.8 kHz file, & strart to guess the 19.9. I am 30 years old.
I know that with pure sinus wave file, we are quickly less proud of us.

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:13 pm

Good point sophonomoth listening to individual tones that loud can hurt - sorry bout that! It'd probably be better to create wav tones in Adobe Audition or something. This is kind of a quick test - I get the same results with the wave files though. I'm a little older than you and my hearing doesn't go quite so high!

I guess what I'm trying to get a feel for is not so much "how high is human hearing" you all know that argument - but how does the range and quality of our own hearing affect our opinions about different EQ's.

For example in the past few days I've read posts from a lot of different folks that know a thing or 2 all describing the same EQs as, loose, tight, silky, harsh, etc.

Besides the variables of program material, skill level, and monitoring I'm thinking hearing is the only other one variable to consider. What else explains 2 experienced folks loving or dissing the same EQ? Some kind of personal aura I'm guessing...

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:07 pm

I just created test tones myself (24bit, so artefacts should be reasonably low). With my new converters I can hear 20k, haven't tested higher. I'm almost 27 now. I was able to hear up to 24,5k at the age of 15 (tested myself with an ultrasonic signal generator in the physics department at school). I almost always wear ear protection in clubs and any loud surroundings, it's unbearable not to. I was in a very loud crowd at the world cup two months ago - a real pain (though Germany won

).

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:28 pm

Well - I know too many words - what's the real question here?

Question: If both bmanic and I were to review the Sonalksis EQ and one of us were to say it's highs are harsh, the other says the highs are silky - why is that? (Assuming we both have appropriate program material, monitoring and experience to judge such a thing).

Any more ideas about that kind of thing here?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:22 pm

kylen wrote:Question: If both bmanic and I were to review the Sonalksis EQ and one of us were to say it's highs are harsh, the other says the highs are silky - why is that? (Assuming we both have appropriate program material, monitoring and experience to judge such a thing).

all these adjectives are just too subjective: smooth, soft and silky, harsh, warm, wet etc. And my personal favourite "It has character"

there's your problem. People cannot possible agree on things as highly subjective as these. My warmth could be your muddyness.

As soon as you move to speaking in technical terms, things will get easier. For example, I once wrote a list of possible technical reasons of perceived [the most important word here] warmth, and the list had around twenty points in it, all scrutinisable by a discerning listener.

I've also noticed a little fact about relationships with people: the longer you know them, the better you get to know their subjective taste and preferences (so obvious it's stupid, yes). That's when you can, again, start spewing adjectives, as you'll likely land on familiar territory for the other person. Needless to say this cannot work on KVR.

martian · Post by **martian** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:28 pm

kylen wrote:Besides the variables of program material, skill level, and monitoring I'm thinking hearing is the only other one variable to consider. What else explains 2 experienced folks loving or dissing the same EQ? Some kind of personal aura I'm guessing...

placebo and/or unfair comparison.

i cant see how the upper limit of your hearing (within reason) will affect how you judge an eq relative to your experience with others, since most peoples ears bandwidth wont change much in a decent amount of time. so if someone describes an eq as harsh it will be relative to previous experience which should have been experienced with the same physical hearing. but the listener may not be at one with how their ears response adapts in the short term, or how a head movement of an inch changes the response of the highs in a rooms comb filter-like response.

multree · Post by **multree** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:00 pm

the ultrasonics I could hear very good up to 16.7kHz the 17.7kHz was Very quiet for me but I could make it out.... the rest was just silence for me

multree · Post by **multree** » Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:04 pm

multree wrote:the ultrasonics I could hear very good up to 16.7kHz the 17.7kHz was Very quiet for me but I could make it out.... the rest was just silence for me

could've been my headphones though

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:31 pm

OK - thanks again guys! I gotta think about this some more, I appreciate it!

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:42 pm

these files are totally f**ked up...

Left Headphone · Post by **Left Headphone** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:01 pm

"You are about 20 years old"... pretty close... 16.7khz

Jason Brian Merrill · Post by **Jason Brian Merrill** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:08 pm

I barely heard 18.8 -- weird tho, that they are using mp3s to test this...

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:17 pm

This test is flawed, as it relies on what your monitoring system is capable of. With my old converters I couldn't hear anything above 18K, now it's more than 20K...

GHOST19 · Post by **GHOST19** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:18 pm

It's simpler and more efficient to use a synth in Hz mode with smooth attack, release and no mp3 compression. I can here till 18 khz but with this test I had 18.8 and didn't even hear the noise at 22.4.

Individual Hearing vs EQ judgements