| Author |
Message |
Tommi M.
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:59 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOvE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:cunt2o$n9$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
| Quote: |
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:LqqdnSQSBe9hbZDfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
The mistake appears to be thinking that the limit of HF hearing is one
number that does not vary with the details and nature of the test.
Does this mean that any single person doesn't have a strict HF hearing
limit? If you have any links or info on that, I'd certainly be
interested..
|
D'oh, you apparently meant that the highest audible frequency varies with
the intensity of the sound, but there is always an upper limit to human
hearing and that limit is individual.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tommi M.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cul1re$a8u$1@panix2.panix.com...
| Quote: | I dunno. It's a very penetrating sound. The worst thing is that if you
look
at a really shocking number of commercial CD releases, you'll see a
visible
peak at the video sweep frequency from some monitor in the studio leak
into
something. It's usually just visible on an analyzer and not audible, but
occasionally it is quite audible. It's a personal pet peeve of mine.
--scott
|
So that's the weird spike I always notice on the FFT window on some
cd-ripped wavs?
I always thought it was a shortcoming of my audio ripper software. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Tommi M.
<tomppaaREMOvE@kolumbus.fi> wrote (in <cunt2o$n9$1@phys-
news1.kolumbus.fi>) about 'Speakers for High Frequency Sound', on Sun,
13 Feb 2005:
| Quote: |
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:LqqdnSQSBe9hbZDfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
The mistake appears to be thinking that the limit of HF hearing is one
number that does not vary with the details and nature of the test.
Does this mean that any single person doesn't have a strict HF hearing
limit? If you have any links or info on that, I'd certainly be interested..
What happens is that at some sufficiently high frequency the threshold |
of hearing gets up to the 130-140 dB level, and equals the threshold of
pain. So you can't hear it until it's loud enough to hurt ****and liable
to damage your hearing across the whole range****. DON'T experiment.
You have done at least temporary damage if you get 'ringing in the ears'
and a temporary loss of hearing sensitivity. You may have done permanent
damage if you get a 'tickling' in the ear.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Dorsey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
Tommi M. <tomppaaREMOvE@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
| Quote: | "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:LqqdnSQSBe9hbZDfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
The mistake appears to be thinking that the limit of HF hearing is one
number that does not vary with the details and nature of the test.
Does this mean that any single person doesn't have a strict HF hearing
limit? If you have any links or info on that, I'd certainly be interested..
|
If you get a full test done, you'll see that the high end response drops
off slowly enough that you can't really say there is a limit. You can say
"My hearing is down 30 dB at 16 KC" which is pretty dramatic a drop, but
even so you might still hear something at 16 KC if it is loud enough.
Now, the question of course, is how many different mechanisms are involved
in that top end corner. And it's certainly more than just one or two.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William Sommerwerck
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
| Quote: | So that's the weird spike I always notice on the FFT
window on some CD-ripped WAVs...
|
Yes, and you see it in Stereophile's FFT displays.
When I did FFTs myself I had the same problem. I had to make sure the monitor
was out-of-range of the mic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:40 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
| Thanks, Arny. I'll look at what Vifa has to offer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:46 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOvE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:cunt2o$n9$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi
| Quote: | "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:LqqdnSQSBe9hbZDfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
The mistake appears to be thinking that the limit of HF hearing is
one number that does not vary with the details and nature of the
test.
Does this mean that any single person doesn't have a strict HF hearing
limit?
|
Well, its just not just one number.
| Quote: | If you have any links or info on that, I'd certainly be interested..
|
Isn't that what the Fletcher Munson curves show? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
"Tommi M." <tomppaaREMOvE@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:cuntof$29g$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi
| Quote: | "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cul1re$a8u$1@panix2.panix.com.
...
I dunno. It's a very penetrating sound. The worst thing is that if you
look
at a really shocking number of commercial CD releases, you'll see a
visible
peak at the video sweep frequency from some monitor in the studio leak
into
something. It's usually just visible on an analyzer and not
audible, but occasionally it is quite audible. It's a personal pet
peeve of mine.
|
I've been known to ummm, make it go away. ;-)
| Quote: | So that's the weird spike I always notice on the FFT window on some
cd-ripped wavs?
|
It's also the spike that shows up in most of my live recordings. Sometimes
one of several at different frequencies.
| Quote: | I always thought it was a shortcoming of my audio ripper software.
|
Nope, its part of the recording. If you record at 24/96 or higher and have
really good mics, you find more above 30 KHz. Some harmonics of the 15.75
one, some from other sources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dale
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
"dale" <dallen@frognet.net> wrote in message
news:1108382187.974836.152180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
I think this paragraph summarizes pretty well:
"TO FULLY MEET the requirements of human auditory perception I believe that
a sound system must cover the frequency range of about 15Hz to at least
40kHz (some say 80kHz or more) with over 120dB dynamic range to properly
handle transient peaks and with a transient time accuracy of a few
microseconds at high frequencies and 1°-2° phase accuracy down to 30Hz. This
standard is beyond the capabilities of present day systems but it is most
important that we understand the degradation of perceived sound quality that
results from the compromises being made in the sound delivery systems now in
use. The transducers are the most obvious problem areas, but the storage
systems and all the electronics and interconnections are important as well."
He's says that this is part of his belief system, and I think he's telling
it like it is. Thing is, the paper really doesn't provide evidence that
supports his stated belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that dale <dallen@frognet.net> wrote
(in <1108382187.974836.152180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>) about
'Speakers for High Frequency Sound', on Mon, 14 Feb 2005:
Having described how the system works, he just states his opinion that a
bandwidth wider than 20 kHz is necessary. I, too, did experiments with
tweeters, when I could hear properly. The response above 20 kHz matters
IF there is any signal up there. The point is that there is **amplitude
non-linearity** in any transducer, so that spectrum components above 20
kHz intermodulate to produce difference-frequency signals which are
quite audible.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:32 pm Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
We have an AMC near my home, but I rarely go to a movie theater. Most
of the movies that I watch are on DVD, played on my computer. That
high-pitched sound that I hear, the "TV sound," is recorded on home
video, among other places.
Heh, wouldn't it be funny if someone were using it as copy protection?
More likely, I think, it is accidental, though I don't know why it so
regularly shows up for scary scenes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nicholas O. Lindan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:32 am Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote
| Quote: | Isn't that what the Fletcher Munson curves show?
|
Though widely quoted as gospel, I was under the impression F&M have been
discredited.
ISTR that F&M were also responsible for the (also bogus) finding that anything
less
than 3% distortion is inaudible.
From rane.com:
"In the '30s, researchers Fletcher and Munson first accurately measured and
published a set of curves showing the human's ear's sensitivity to pure tone
loudness verses frequency ("Loudness, its Definition Measurement and
Calculation," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 5, p 82, Oct. 1933). They conclusively
demonstrated that human hearing is extremely dependent upon loudness. The curves
show the ear most sensitive to pure tones in the 3 kHz to 4 kHz area. This means
sounds above and below 3-4 kHz must be louder in order to be heard just as loud.
For this reason, the Fletcher-Munson curves are referred to as "equal loudness
contours." They represent a family of curves from "just heard," (0 dB SPL) all
the way to "harmfully loud" (130 dB SPL), usually plotted in 10 dB loudness
increments.
D. W. Robinson and R. S. Dadson revised the curves in their paper, "A
Redetermination of the Equal-Loudness Relations for Pure Tones," Brit. J. Appl.
Phys., vol. 7, pp. 156-181, May 1956. These curves supersede the original
Fletcher-Munson curves for all modern work with pure tones. Robinson & Dadson
curves are the basis for ISO: "Normal Equal-Loudness Level Contours," ISO
226:1987 -- the current standard.
Users of either of these curves must clearly understand that they are valid only
for pure tones in a free field, as discussed in the following by Holman &
Kampmann. This specifically means they do NOT apply to noise band analysis or
diffused random noise for instance, i.e., they have little relevance to the real
audio world. A good overview is T. Holman and F. Kampmann, "Loudness
Compensation: Use and Abuse," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 26, no. 7/8, pp. 526-536,
July/August 1978.
For real audio use, the Steven's curves are more applicable: S. S. Stevens,
"Perceived Level of Noise by Mark VII and Decibels (E)," J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
vol. 51, pp. 575-601, 1972. [Used to create ISO 532:1975 and ASA S3.4-1980] See
Holman & Kampmann above for discussion. "
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil Allison
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
"Nicholas O. Lindan"
| Quote: | "Arny Krueger"
Isn't that what the Fletcher Munson curves show?
Though widely quoted as gospel, I was under the impression F&M have been
discredited.
|
** Neat how you eliminated the context so you could change it to your
hobby horse.
| Quote: | ISTR that F&M were also responsible for the (also bogus) finding that
anything
less than 3% distortion is inaudible.
|
** Think there is a decimal point missing.
| Quote: | From rane.com:
They represent a family of curves from "just heard,"
|
** The only on topic bit.
| Quote: | Users of either of these curves must clearly understand that they are
valid only
for pure tones in a free field,
|
** Seems to apply to folk with headphones on OK.
Audiology relies on it.
| Quote: | This specifically means they do NOT apply to noise band analysis or
diffused random noise for instance, i.e., they have little relevance to
the real
audio world.
|
** I note this is your totally whacko opinion and not a quote as you are
trying to pretend.
The threshold SPLs and frequency limits of human hearing are ENORMOUSLY
important to "real audio world ". It is hardly possible to design a piece
of audio equipment or an audio system without taking them into account.
............ Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:11 am Post subject:
Re: Speakers for High Frequency Sound |
|
|
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message
news:ZN8Qd.656$9J5.524@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
| Quote: | "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote
Isn't that what the Fletcher Munson curves show?
Though widely quoted as gospel, I was under the impression F&M have
been discredited.
|
I think that orthodox wisdom is that F&M are accurate and representative as
far as they go.
| Quote: | ISTR that F&M were also responsible for the (also bogus) finding that
anything less than 3% distortion is inaudible.
|
I don't know how you made that leap. My diving board isn't that springy, it
seems.
| Quote: | Users of either of these curves must clearly understand that they are
valid only for pure tones in a free field,
|
Obviously you're way behind on your reading, as I've made many posts in the
recent and distant past about putting the F&M numbers into context. If you
take them simplistically, they are usually very optimistic about what might
be heard in most real world contexts, if for no other reason that they
ignore masking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in