|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Mar 1, 2023 7:47:50 GMT -5
I’ve been following and reading this thread since the beginning. I gotta say, it makes me feel inadequate with knowledge of music 🎼. I’m now questioning everything I thought I knew and liked about just slapping an album on my I guess underwhelming system, cracking a beverage and smiling about what I hear. To my embarrassment, I still don’t really understand what a DAC is, was, or what might have been. Is my ERC-3 or Music Hall CD 25..2 CD player really garbage compared to buying a DAC.? Will my vinyl sound better through a DAC as opposed to my XSP-1 or Carver C-1? Does Makers Mark really need filtered ice in my rocks glass, or is the garden hose adequate? Many questions, few answers. I’m going to ask the magic 8 ball after a few good shakes. Makers Mark should never be mixed with anything more than an ice cube.😎 |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 1, 2023 8:29:04 GMT -5
But in the end ... personal preference prevails ... As it must - no two persons' ears are the same. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Mar 1, 2023 8:32:13 GMT -5
But in the end ... personal preference prevails ... As it must - no two persons' ears are the same. Nor brains!  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 1, 2023 9:17:06 GMT -5
Nor brains! And thank goodness for that! |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 1, 2023 11:57:18 GMT -5
I absolutely agree with everything that you've said there... But you've also accurately described the main problem... which is that we weren't at the live performance. So we really don't know what it actually sounded like. I also agree that you may have hit upon the best possible compromise. The catch is that, when you say "Live music is the ultimate reference", you need to specify WHICH live music, and WHERE, and WHEN. At BEST, when we listen to a recording of a trombone, we may hope that, on our system "it at least sounds like some sort of real trombone"... With luck we can pick out, and do our best to eliminate, "things that obviously sound unnatural"... But we need to be very careful when we do so... I recall spending several minutes once looking for "a jangled tweeter" before figuring out that I was actually hearing an annoying buzz on the snare drum that made it onto the recording. (We rarely hear things like that lately because, with modern software, it's gotten so easy to edit out the occasional buzz, or cough, or chair squeak.) One other thing is that, these days, unless you listen to classical music or jazz, the very concept of "a real live instrument" may be less definite than it used to be. For example, you can't really discuss the tonality of "the body of a violin", if it's one of those modern "skeletal violins" that doesn't even have a body. And, with a lot of pop music, the "instruments" are totally synthetic, or samples that have been quite heavily modified. And, to pick obvious examples, electric guitars and electronic drum sets don't sound like much of anything unless you include the electronic part of the deal. And, again, in cases like that, we're stuck choosing between "what we assume the recording engineer thought it should sound like" and "what we think it should sound like"... I also feel obligated to mention that I'm quite convinced that what a lot of audiophiles even "aim for" these days is somewhat of a fiction. I recall a recent review where the reviewer noted that, "with a certain recording, on a certain DAC, the cymbals sounded really harsh and unpleasant"... And the reviewer considered this to be a negative aspect of that particular DAC... But, when I read that, I though about the last few times I've had an opportunity to be close to an actual stage when someone really whacked the cymbals... With no mastering engineer handy... and no limiter cranked all the way up... And, yeah, live cymbals close up really are quite loud and quite unpleasant... (So maybe that mixing engineer was aiming for realism... and that DAC was doing a good job... and that reviewer just doesn't like what cymbals actually sound like.) It's also worth noting, for the benefit of people who don't ever attend live performances, that we are in fact drifting further and further from reality. For example, large rooms sound very different when they're crowded than when they're empty... (And a properly designed concert hall should be designed to sound good with "a typical crowd occupying the seats".) So, fifty years ago, if I were doing a recording in a concert hall, I would probably try to do so on a night where the seats were partly occupied... But today I might prefer to do my recording during a full rehearsal instead... That way I don't have to worry about the crowd making too much noise... And, if there isn't enough crowd "presence", or too much "empty hall ambience", well "I have sliders for that"... And, if the star performer isn't at that rehearsal, "I can record him or her later and drop them into the mix"... It's also worth noting that, these days, unless you really do attend "small intimate performances", most live performances still include a significant amount of "sound reinforcement". (Which is a nice way of saying that you're listening to THEIR audio system because otherwise you wouldn't be able to hear the performance properly.) And, in most cases these days, that means that there is a big console, and a mixing engineer, and some software involved there as well.) ............................................... What I said was: “To me the closer a live recording sounds to a live concert the more accurate it is.” I could not care less “what the recording engineer wanted it to sound like.” Accuracy sounds like reality. Any deviation from reality is not accurate. There MUST be a reference. Acoustic instruments and human vocals are clearly the only remotely consistently repeatable references. Steve Guttenberg often speaks about albums he likes and says, “I was at the studio when the album was being recorded.” Sadly, we cannot all attend studio recording sessions, but It is not an impossibility to go to a live concert, listen to the artist and then compare what you heard in person to what you hear in your music room. I own several recordings of concerts I attended in person. If I can get my system to sound close to how I remember those concerts sounding I am happy. If you set your system up so that your live recordings sound close to live concerts you have heard it makes sense that those recordings are being reproduced as well as they can be. It also follows that if your system reproduces several live recordings, you are personally familiar with, in a way that sounds real to you that it is likely every live recording you play is probably being replayed as well as it can be. Live music is the ultimate reference. Setting up a system to match anything other than live music cannot possibly be the way to go. Who on earth knows how something like “Tubular Bells” actually sounds, no matter what the recording engineer wanted. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 1, 2023 16:09:05 GMT -5
It can be confusing... especially in the case of DACs... because the term has different meanings when used in different contexts. The term DAC means "digital-to-analog converter" (sometimes written as "D/A converter"). And the term itself refers to "a device that converts a digital number or signal into an analog value or signal". * This can refer to a separate audio device for converting digital audio to analog audio (which will generally have digital inputs and analog outputs)... * Or it can refer to the actual chip inside that device that actually performs the conversion process... (it can be made out of discrete parts but these days it is more often a chip - one chip per channel, or one stereo chip for two channels, or even one or two 8-channel chips for surround). * Or it can refer to the "process" as a "function block"... (when we say that "a cell phone has a DAC in it" we're simply saying that "it has something inside that does what a DAC does"). In this forum you'll mostly find discussion about AUDIO DACs - although there are other types (like video DACs and the ones you find in digital meters). And, in particular, this forum is for discussion about Emotiva's new DAC audio product (which we've been waiting for for a long time). So your cell phone has a DAC in it... And your computer's sound card has a DAC in it... And a CD player has a DAC in it (as long as it has analog outputs)... And, since they all internally process audio digitally, every AVR, pre/pro, and preamp with digital inputs also has one or more DACs in it... And our Big Ego+ is "a DAC"... And, because they have some digital inputs and analog outputs, and can be used as a DAC, some folks refer to our PT1 and PT2 as DACs (even though they also do other stuff)... The actual answer to your next question is a lot more complicated... DACs come in a very wide variety of prices and sound quality... (They literally range in price from about $7.99 to about $100,000 ; and you DON'T always "get what you pay for" either. ) The DACs in most phones are "OK but not great"... Likewise, the DACs in most computer sound cards are not very good, but there are a few notable exceptions... And, when it comes to CD players, the DACs in those honestly range from really bad to really good... Separate DACs also tend to have other features.... Like a whole bunch of different digital inputs... Or Bluetooth... And sometimes streaming.... (Although, while some good DACs include streamers, some streamers have really crappy DACs in them, and some have none at all...) In specific the DAC in the ERC-3 is actually quite good... I haven't heard the Music Hall but it's probably pretty good too. And, to answer your final question, if you're playing vinyl, through an XSP-1 or a Carver then there's no place to put a DAC in that signal chain... It wouldn't make any sense to convert that analog signal into a digital signal... just so you could use a DAC to convert it back again.... (Remember that the purpose of a DAC is JUST to convert a digital signal into analog... and not to alter it in any other way.) I’ve been following and reading this thread since the beginning. I gotta say, it makes me feel inadequate with knowledge of music 🎼. I’m now questioning everything I thought I knew and liked about just slapping an album on my I guess underwhelming system, cracking a beverage and smiling about what I hear. To my embarrassment, I still don’t really understand what a DAC is, was, or what might have been. Is my ERC-3 or Music Hall CD 25..2 CD player really garbage compared to buying a DAC.? Will my vinyl sound better through a DAC as opposed to my XSP-1 or Carver C-1? Does Makers Mark really need filtered ice in my rocks glass, or is the garden hose adequate? Many questions, few answers. I’m going to ask the magic 8 ball after a few good shakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 1, 2023 16:39:04 GMT -5
I've been lucky. My father played piano. Mrs. Corkren played organ in church. I played acoustic guitar in my youth, six and twelve strings. My daughter played violin both with chamber trios and with orchestras. I've had the opportunity to hear a lot of live acoustic music throughout my life, and in a lot of different venues.
I do like electronica, but understand that there's no real "there" there. I just enjoy it for whatever it is.
I've also been very lucky to maintain high frequency hearing despite working in loud industrial environments for 25 years. When I first applied to work at the plant, I was introduced to "Old Sam" who had worked there most of his adult life. When I walked into his control room, Old Sam roared at me "You don't need those earmuffs! I've worked here for years and never bothered with them." Sam was speaking VERY loudly, but it seemed "normal" volume to him. That convinced me then and there to ALWAYS use plugs, muffs, or both. The fact that I still have high frequency hearing speaks volumes to the value wearing hearing protection in ALL loud situations (gunfire, industrial noise, lawn mowers, unmuffled engines, etc.).
|
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Mar 1, 2023 22:29:19 GMT -5
I've been lucky. My father played piano. Mrs. Corkren played organ in church. I played acoustic guitar in my youth, six and twelve strings. My daughter played violin both with chamber trios and with orchestras. I've had the opportunity to hear a lot of live acoustic music throughout my life, and in a lot of different venues. I do like electronica, but understand that there's no real "there" there. I just enjoy it for whatever it is. I've also been very lucky to maintain high frequency hearing despite working in loud industrial environments for 25 years. When I first applied to work at the plant, I was introduced to "Old Sam" who had worked there most of his adult life. When I walked into his control room, Old Sam roared at me "You don't need those earmuffs! I've worked here for years and never bothered with them." Sam was speaking VERY loudly, but it seemed "normal" volume to him. That convinced me then and there to ALWAYS use plugs, muffs, or both. The fact that I still have high frequency hearing speaks volumes to the value wearing hearing protection in ALL loud situations (gunfire, industrial noise, lawn mowers, unmuffled engines, etc.). I think everyone should consider a hearing test to determine how their hearing works. And to determine if they have any deficits. They might even be able to use Dirac, or something similar, to compensate to some degree. With headphones you can do some amazing things with Roon and its software as well as other EQ programs. I like to see my grandchildren wear hearing protection around all kinds of noisy devices like lawn mowers and blowers. An Apple Watch can alert one to overly loud sounds which could be helpful. It is never too early to start using hearing protection. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Mar 2, 2023 4:31:36 GMT -5
I've been lucky. My father played piano. Mrs. Corkren played organ in church. I played acoustic guitar in my youth, six and twelve strings. My daughter played violin both with chamber trios and with orchestras. I've had the opportunity to hear a lot of live acoustic music throughout my life, and in a lot of different venues. I do like electronica, but understand that there's no real "there" there. I just enjoy it for whatever it is. I've also been very lucky to maintain high frequency hearing despite working in loud industrial environments for 25 years. When I first applied to work at the plant, I was introduced to "Old Sam" who had worked there most of his adult life. When I walked into his control room, Old Sam roared at me "You don't need those earmuffs! I've worked here for years and never bothered with them." Sam was speaking VERY loudly, but it seemed "normal" volume to him. That convinced me then and there to ALWAYS use plugs, muffs, or both. The fact that I still have high frequency hearing speaks volumes to the value wearing hearing protection in ALL loud situations (gunfire, industrial noise, lawn mowers, unmuffled engines, etc.). I think everyone should consider a hearing test to determine how their hearing works. And to determine if they have any deficits. They might even be able to use Dirac, or something similar, to compensate to some degree. With headphones you can do some amazing things with Roon and its software as well as other EQ programs. I like to see my grandchildren wear hearing protection around all kinds of noisy devices like lawn mowers and blowers. An Apple Watch can alert one to overly loud sounds which could be helpful. It is never too early to start using hearing protection. I did a crazy thing with headphones and the signal generator in REW. I turned each tone down until I couldn't hear it and then noted the level on the volume control. Now I don't think this is accurate in an absolute sense ... I can't believe I have a 60db difference from 1280Hz to 8KHz. But it at least shows a slight difference ear to ear, which is what I was really after. I used Sennheiser HD280 Pro headphones. A test from an audiologist would be more accurate, but from my experience and what I've heard from others, they concentrate on the speech range and don't give you the whole spectrum. Good ear hygiene is important too.  |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 2, 2023 10:57:20 GMT -5
That's an interesting idea... and not crazy at all. What you're measuring is the minimum threshold for each frequency. And, while the sensitivity of our ears to various frequencies will actually be different at different levels, it does track to a significant degree. Here's a link you might find interesting: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/eqloud.htmlAs you can see there is a significant difference in sensitivity with frequency... and it gets far more extreme at very low levels... And it's also worth noting that headphones are usually designed with a response that is far from actually flat... but rather "to sound accurate at normal listening levels". (Anyone who tries to measure headphones hates the fact that they're almost impossible to measure accurately and the measurements always seem to come out really odd.) I think everyone should consider a hearing test to determine how their hearing works. And to determine if they have any deficits. They might even be able to use Dirac, or something similar, to compensate to some degree. With headphones you can do some amazing things with Roon and its software as well as other EQ programs. I like to see my grandchildren wear hearing protection around all kinds of noisy devices like lawn mowers and blowers. An Apple Watch can alert one to overly loud sounds which could be helpful. It is never too early to start using hearing protection. I did a crazy thing with headphones and the signal generator in REW. I turned each tone down until I couldn't hear it and then noted the level on the volume control. Now I don't think this is accurate in an absolute sense ... I can't believe I have a 60db difference from 1280Hz to 8KHz. But it at least shows a slight difference ear to ear, which is what I was really after. I used Sennheiser HD280 Pro headphones. A test from an audiologist would be more accurate, but from my experience and what I've heard from others, they concentrate on the speech range and don't give you the whole spectrum. Good ear hygiene is important too. View Attachment |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Mar 2, 2023 11:22:37 GMT -5
That's an interesting idea... and not crazy at all. What you're measuring is the minimum threshold for each frequency. And, while the sensitivity of our ears to various frequencies will actually be different at different levels, it does track to a significant degree. Here's a link you might find interesting: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/eqloud.htmlAs you can see there is a significant difference in sensitivity with frequency... and it gets far more extreme at very low levels... And it's also worth noting that headphones are usually designed with a response that is far from actually flat... but rather "to sound accurate at normal listening levels". (Anyone who tries to measure headphones hates the fact that they're almost impossible to measure accurately and the measurements always seem to come out really odd.) I did a crazy thing with headphones and the signal generator in REW. I turned each tone down until I couldn't hear it and then noted the level on the volume control. Now I don't think this is accurate in an absolute sense ... I can't believe I have a 60db difference from 1280Hz to 8KHz. But it at least shows a slight difference ear to ear, which is what I was really after. I used Sennheiser HD280 Pro headphones. A test from an audiologist would be more accurate, but from my experience and what I've heard from others, they concentrate on the speech range and don't give you the whole spectrum. Good ear hygiene is important too. View AttachmentFletcher-Munson of course. If I had listened at 120db I would have gotten a flatter curve ... Yikes!!! So then Harmon did all these studies with headphones, getting lots of listeners and playing a very limited selection of popular music, and asking them to change bass and treble controls until they liked the sound. Harmon wanted to know how to make headphones that people would like. So what do people do with these curves today? They use them as Dirac targets!  |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 2, 2023 11:50:32 GMT -5
The endless quest for the holy grail... or the silver bullet... or the magic number... or whatever they're calling it these days. How about "The ideal curve of ultimate bliss" ? When will it ever end? (Probably never.)  That's an interesting idea... and not crazy at all. What you're measuring is the minimum threshold for each frequency. And, while the sensitivity of our ears to various frequencies will actually be different at different levels, it does track to a significant degree. Here's a link you might find interesting: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/eqloud.htmlAs you can see there is a significant difference in sensitivity with frequency... and it gets far more extreme at very low levels... And it's also worth noting that headphones are usually designed with a response that is far from actually flat... but rather "to sound accurate at normal listening levels". (Anyone who tries to measure headphones hates the fact that they're almost impossible to measure accurately and the measurements always seem to come out really odd.) Fletcher-Munson of course. If I had listened at 120db I would have gotten a flatter curve ... Yikes!!! So then Harmon did all these studies with headphones, getting lots of listeners and playing a very limited selection of popular music, and asking them to change bass and treble controls until they liked the sound. Harmon wanted to know how to make headphones that people would like. So what do people do with these curves today? They use them as Dirac targets! |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,950
|
Post by hemster on Mar 2, 2023 12:54:44 GMT -5
A self-described audiophile friend spent a lot of time tweaking this, tinkering that and finally decided he had reached audio nirvana. When I listened to his rig, I found it to be really great (using album tracks I am very familiar with).
Then months later, he invites me back and says he's improved it even further! Turns out he felt his rig was changing the audio quality but it was his hearing that was changing. After prompting by his PCP. he visited an audiologist to have his ears professionally cleaned. Came home and found his rig was "crap". So he tweaked it more and was then very happy with it and invited me to demonstrate. Well, I took along my recordings and found his rig to be worse than I previously remembered!! It was of course no good arguing with him. I left his place with a business card of his audiologist!
This diatribe is a PSA to ensure you pay attention to your hearing. Because it's hear today, gone tomorrow!
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 2, 2023 15:50:00 GMT -5
Hmmmm.... We have calibration curves for microphones... And we calibrate rooms... And we sometimes see an optometrist's office next door to an eyeglass shop... Perhaps the next big thing will be to set up an audiologist's shop next to a high end audio store... That way you can get your ears tested... Then take the graph next door and have them calibrate your equipment to your ears for you... (And, of course, when you get home, and set up that gear, you'll enter all of that calibration data into your room correction system.)  A self-described audiophile friend spent a lot of time tweaking this, tinkering that and finally decided he had reached audio nirvana. When I listened to his rig, I found it to be really great (using album tracks I am very familiar with). Then months later, he invites me back and says he's improved it even further! Turns out he felt his rig was changing the audio quality but it was his hearing that was changing. After prompting by his PCP. he visited an audiologist to have his ears professionally cleaned. Came home and found his rig was "crap". So he tweaked it more and was then very happy with it and invited me to demonstrate. Well, I took along my recordings and found his rig to be worse than I previously remembered!! It was of course no good arguing with him. I left his place with a business card of his audiologist! This diatribe is a PSA to ensure you pay attention to your hearing. Because it's hear today, gone tomorrow! |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Mar 2, 2023 21:46:19 GMT -5
I think everyone should consider a hearing test to determine how their hearing works. And to determine if they have any deficits. They might even be able to use Dirac, or something similar, to compensate to some degree. With headphones you can do some amazing things with Roon and its software as well as other EQ programs. I like to see my grandchildren wear hearing protection around all kinds of noisy devices like lawn mowers and blowers. An Apple Watch can alert one to overly loud sounds which could be helpful. It is never too early to start using hearing protection. I did a crazy thing with headphones and the signal generator in REW. I turned each tone down until I couldn't hear it and then noted the level on the volume control. Now I don't think this is accurate in an absolute sense ... I can't believe I have a 60db difference from 1280Hz to 8KHz. But it at least shows a slight difference ear to ear, which is what I was really after. I used Sennheiser HD280 Pro headphones. A test from an audiologist would be more accurate, but from my experience and what I've heard from others, they concentrate on the speech range and don't give you the whole spectrum. Good ear hygiene is important too. View AttachmentGreat idea. Have you tried to compensate with your headphones according to your test? I agree with the standard hearing test by an Audiologist having a limited range, but if you tell them why you are testing the doctor can make sure the test covers the entire hearing spectrum. In any event, I think many folks could improve their listening experience. |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Mar 2, 2023 22:16:11 GMT -5
That's an interesting idea... and not crazy at all. What you're measuring is the minimum threshold for each frequency. And, while the sensitivity of our ears to various frequencies will actually be different at different levels, it does track to a significant degree. Here's a link you might find interesting: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/eqloud.htmlAs you can see there is a significant difference in sensitivity with frequency... and it gets far more extreme at very low levels... And it's also worth noting that headphones are usually designed with a response that is far from actually flat... but rather "to sound accurate at normal listening levels". (Anyone who tries to measure headphones hates the fact that they're almost impossible to measure accurately and the measurements always seem to come out really odd.) Fletcher-Munson of course. If I had listened at 120db I would have gotten a flatter curve ... Yikes!!! So then Harmon did all these studies with headphones, getting lots of listeners and playing a very limited selection of popular music, and asking them to change bass and treble controls until they liked the sound. Harmon wanted to know how to make headphones that people would like. So what do people do with these curves today? They use them as Dirac targets! I think Harman curves begin their bass boost too high in frequency resulting in a loss of vocal clarity. Think not? Set up a perfectly flat Dirac curve and compare it to a Harman Curve just for music. For movies you could start the boost of the harman curve below 100Hz while maintaining the same curve shape to get clearer vocals and plenty of boost for movies. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Mar 3, 2023 2:50:09 GMT -5
I did a crazy thing with headphones and the signal generator in REW. I turned each tone down until I couldn't hear it and then noted the level on the volume control. Now I don't think this is accurate in an absolute sense ... I can't believe I have a 60db difference from 1280Hz to 8KHz. But it at least shows a slight difference ear to ear, which is what I was really after. I used Sennheiser HD280 Pro headphones. A test from an audiologist would be more accurate, but from my experience and what I've heard from others, they concentrate on the speech range and don't give you the whole spectrum. Good ear hygiene is important too. View AttachmentGreat idea. Have you tried to compensate with your headphones according to your test? I agree with the standard hearing test by an Audiologist having a limited range, but if you tell them why you are testing the doctor can make sure the test covers the entire hearing spectrum. In any event, I think many folks could improve their listening experience. I met a woman on a birding trip who brought a recording of the sounds of a couple birds to her audiologist so he could tune her hearing aides so she could hear them. Yes I think if you tell them it's not just about speech they can do better than the usual process. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 9, 2023 9:15:15 GMT -5
Although patience is a virtue, it’s one I’ve seldom been accused of…. So a little less talk and a lot more action, if you please. Does anyone have a semi-solid prediction as to when (concerning the new Emotiva DAC): A pre-release publicity blurb will emerge stating the device features (if not the release date) A “final features” list will appear giving an idea of what is (and isn’t) going to be available on the DAC A final release date could be announced Enquiring minds want to know!  Postscriptum- If it isn’t ready yet, then it isn’t ready. I understand that and can wait. But it won’t prevent me from asking occasionally (“Is it Christmas yet? Is it?”) - LOL |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 9, 2023 9:47:15 GMT -5
There are still a couple of features that are being finalized. And, yes, that does mean that it looks like we'll be adding a few more things that we thought wouldn't be included. (That's a nice way of saying that we know better than to promise them until we're sure they're working right and we can deliver them.) It's getting quite close now. You'll know when it's definite and we go into production. Although patience is a virtue, it’s one I’ve seldom been accused of…. So a little less talk and a lot more action, if you please. Does anyone have a semi-solid prediction as to when (concerning the new Emotiva DAC): A pre-release publicity blurb will emerge stating the device features (if not the release date) A “final features” list will appear giving an idea of what is (and isn’t) going to be available on the DAC A final release date could be announced Enquiring minds want to know! Postscriptum- If it isn’t ready yet, then it isn’t ready. I understand that and can wait. But it won’t prevent me from asking occasionally (“Is it Christmas yet? Is it?”) - LOL |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 9, 2023 10:00:14 GMT -5
Good idea... but I would change the procedure a bit for that... I suspect that, in most cases, the audiologist is going to be testing or tuning a hearing aid for "maximum intelligibility"... And, specifically, for being able to hear small sounds coming from different directions, and recognize what they are and where they're coming from. And this is NOT exactly the same as "flattest or most accurate response". (In fact, tuning a speaker or PA system for "maximum intelligibility" is quite different than tuning it for "accuracy" or "best sound quality".) When you EQ speakers or headphones you want to adjust things so that all frequencies are audibly at the same level at your listening level. For one thing this means that, as per the Fletcher Munson curves, this is only going to be "right" at one particular listening level. (So your best bet is to do it "at your favorite listening level".) However, it's also true that your "minimum audibility thresholds" don't necessarily track your "perceived loudness curves"... The minimum level at which you can hear each frequency does NOT necessarily track with how loudly they sound relative to each other at higher levels. For that, rather than doing the minimum levels, you would want to play those tones at a more typical listening level. Then see what adjustments are required so that they "sound like they're all playing at the same level". I don't honestly know how most audiologists do this test these days. It seems to me that one way would be to play pink noise at a certain level in one ear... (somewhere around normal conversational level). Then play the test tone in the other ear... And, for each frequency of test tone, record how much you would need to adjust it "so that it seems to be at the same perceived level as the pink noise". Do this for one ear... then swap ears and repeat for the other ear. (Basically just adjust the test tones so they seem to be at the same level... using the pink noise in the other ear as a fixed reference level.) I did a crazy thing with headphones and the signal generator in REW. I turned each tone down until I couldn't hear it and then noted the level on the volume control. Now I don't think this is accurate in an absolute sense ... I can't believe I have a 60db difference from 1280Hz to 8KHz. But it at least shows a slight difference ear to ear, which is what I was really after. I used Sennheiser HD280 Pro headphones. A test from an audiologist would be more accurate, but from my experience and what I've heard from others, they concentrate on the speech range and don't give you the whole spectrum. Good ear hygiene is important too. View AttachmentGreat idea. Have you tried to compensate with your headphones according to your test? I agree with the standard hearing test by an Audiologist having a limited range, but if you tell them why you are testing the doctor can make sure the test covers the entire hearing spectrum. In any event, I think many folks could improve their listening experience. |
|
