What's the frequency response of your ears?

[bionic brown]

6moons.com - industry features

I mentioned subjective preferences. Do we always want flat? The human ear is not flat. By that I mean that we do not perceive every frequency at the same volume while listening to a flat frequency sweep. Simply put, the human ear and the brain to which it connects for data processing is designed with one primary goal in mind: To reproduce and interpret speech. This means specialization. It means a narrow band of frequencies that we hear more clearly than others. The generally accepted range of these 'speech' frequencies is from 500Hz to 5Khz. Because of this phenomena, we do not hear the registers above and below this range within the total 20-20,000 bandwidth as easily. Because of this, most people actually don't want a measurable flat frequency response. Also, because lower frequencies are harder to hear at lower levels, most people want a little added boost in the bottom end and, in many cases, gently tapering off as one gets into the upper octaves. If you've heard a system that you subjectively really liked, it would be interesting to graph its response and see how flat it really measured. Conversely, we've had clients that knew how their hearing in the higher octaves was not as good as it used to be. We actually designed rooms that allow for more of the energy -- and recommended speakers that excel -- in the higher octaves. Some people would potentially frown on this approach but music is ultimately for enjoyment, not measurement statistics. Measurements should be used as informational tools to attain that level of enjoyment. They should not dictate what constitutes enjoyment.

my neve sounds better to me as your api sounds better to you

[PT6.7UZR]

It does not matter that the ear is not flat.
You have gotten used to how it sounds.

Even if the ear is not flat you want your recording of a clarinet to sound the same as a live clarinet.

So even thought the ear is not flat you want your recording chain to be flat.

IOW the ear not being flat is no excuse for your equipment to not be flat.

[bionic brown]

It does not matter that the ear is not flat.
You have gotten used to how it sounds.

Yes, but my perception of the frequency response from my ears is inevitably different from yours

Even if the ear is not flat you want your recording of a clarinet to sound the same as a live clarinet.

But very subjective, as I've stated

So even thought the ear is not flat you want your recording chain to be flat.

Right, which means "warmth" added by an eq curve or harmonic distortion, is the antithesis of exact sound replication, correct?

IOW the ear not being flat is no excuse for your equipment to not be flat.

Which means that it comes down to personal preference. Which is why I said:

my neve sounds better to me as your api sounds better to you

[Clayphish]

Does one, who is colour blind, know he is before anyone tells him?

[bionic brown]

Originally Posted by Clayphish

Does one, who is colour blind, know he is before anyone tells him?

Imagination is more important than knowledge (c) Albert Einstein

[Sigma]

my dad had ear damage as a kid ..he got over a gross of gold/plat records..you adapt

[Jamzone]

[quote=PT6.7UZR;1680613]It does not matter that the ear is not flat.
You have gotten used to how it sounds.

Even if the ear is not flat you want your recording of a clarinet to sound the same as a live clarinet.

quote]

Is that true?

I think we want an enhanced and glorified version of the clarinet. Hopefully slightly surreal and mystical...

That for sure is'nt flat.


Best,


Jamzone

[Sigma]

Music and the Human Ear

interesting link from a non music guy ..so a different perspective ..

i ain't no fizz-a-cyst so he may be smoking bananna peels but it seems interesting non the less

[bionic brown]

[quote=Jamzone;1680677]

Originally Posted by PT6.7UZR

It does not matter that the ear is not flat.
You have gotten used to how it sounds.

Even if the ear is not flat you want your recording of a clarinet to sound the same as a live clarinet.

quote]

Is that true?

I think we want an enhanced and glorified version of the clarinet. Hopefully slightly surreal and mystical...

That for sure is'nt flat.


Best,


Jamzone

Yeah, but my point is that some people prefer something salty while others prefer something sweet

[Sigma]

[QUOTE=bionic brown;1680687]

Originally Posted by Jamzone

Yeah, but my point is that some people prefer something salty while others prefer something sweet

truth be told peole tend to like LESS strident things during direct comparison..even when comparing 16 bit digital and analoge music side by side..the hf curve had the most to do with choice preference not the format

don't ask i just remember reading it and it made alot of sense

[bionic brown]

[quote=Sigma;1680690]

Originally Posted by bionic brown

truth be told peole tend to like LESS strident things during direct comparison..even when comparing 16 bit digital and analoge music side by side..the hf curve had the most to do with choice preference not the format

don't ask i just remember reading it and it made alot of sense

thumbsup

[Sigma]

a good quote


Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear. It is based on the novel idea that, since audio equipment is made to be listened to, what it sounds like is more important than how it measures. This was a natural outgrowth of the 1950s high-fidelity "revolution," which spawned the notion that a component, and an audio system as a whole, should reproduce what is fed into it, without adding anything to it or subtracting anything from it.
Traditional measurements of such things as harmonic distortion, frequency response, and power output can reveal many things a product is doing imperfectly, but there have never been any generally accepted guidelines for equating the measurements with the way they affect the reproduced sound. And there was strong evidence that many of the things people were hearing were not being measured at all.

Subjective reviewing simply skirts the question of how objective test results relate to what we hear, endeavoring to describe what the reproducing system sounds like.

But what should it sound like? The pat answer, of course, is that it should sound like "the real thing," but it's a bit more complicated than that. If the system itself is accurate, it will reproduce what is on the recording. And if the recording itself isn't an accurate representation of the original sound, an accurate sound won't sound realistic. But what does the recording sound like? That's hard to tell, because you can't judge the fidelity of a recording without playing it, and you can't judge the fidelity of the reproducing system without listening to it---usually by playing a recording through it. Since each is used to judge the other, it is difficult to tell much about either, except whether their combination sounds "real." But it can be done.

Even after more than 116 years of technological advancement (footnote 1), today's almost-perfect sound reproduction still cannot duplicate the sound of "the real thing" well enough to fool someone who has learned to listen analytically---a trained listener. But the goal of literal realism, or "accuracy," remains the standard against which a subjective reviewer evaluates any audio product design.

The casual audiophile hears reproduced sound as a whole, and judges its quality according to whether it sounds "good." Many reviewers never reach that stage of perception because---convinced by their measurements that all competing products sound "essentially the same"---they never make the effort to listen critically to reproduced sound. The reason a subjective reviewer hears more than the "objective" reviewer is not that his auditory equipment is superior. It's because he has accepted the premise that identical measurements do not necessarily ensure identical sound, and has trained himself to hear the differences when they exist.

The experienced listener does not just hear the totality of reproduced sound. He hears into it, observing how the component or system handles a variety of sonic attributes which make up the whole. Instead of simply "all the highs and all the lows," he may hear a coloration that his experience has shown to indicate a treble peak. Or he may hear a lengthening of normally brief bass notes which he has learned to equate with a low-frequency resonance or a lack of woofer damping. Of course, both these problems would be revealed by measurements, but equating their measured severity with their adverse effects on the sound is another matter. To do that, we need words to attach to these effects. Those words are what we call subjective terminology.

The language of subjectivity has been around since before Edison. Musicians have long been familiar with terms like "mellow," "strident," "rich," and "euphonic," but the advent of reproduced music introduced new kinds of sonic qualities for which new descriptive terms were needed. The 1953 Radiotron Designer's Handbook---for its time, the "bible" of electronics design---listed more than 70 terms, most of which are still in use today.

[Clayphish]

Originally Posted by bionic brown

Imagination is more important than knowledge (c) Albert Einstein

Maybe so, but when is trying to apply 4 dimensions to the 3 dimensional world, that you experience on a daily basis, going to give you a greater sense of satisfaction? The same goes for sound: If you are audibly conditioned, especially with regards to neuro-pathway development and function, when is the sonic characteristics of your ears going to become more important then what one has become accustom to already?

To add, strident things can also be favored. Take a fiddle, bag pipes, or a cymbal for that matter. So how does one measure what is favored by the frequency pick-up of the ears when conditioning has a integral part in developing our personal tastes?

[bionic brown]

"Human hearing is not flat" - Right. They're called the Fletcher-Munson Curves. If you don't know about them, google it, because you should. That's hearing / audio 101.

Yeah, Bell Labs, 1933, I'm well aware

It's a fact that we do not perceive sound the same. Our ears (from the visible pinna (outer ear) to the middle and inner workings) are physically different, and our brains work differently to interpret what we hear. We also base what we hear on our life's experiences, which are differ greatly.

The KEY is - what DO we agree on?

A lot of audio people agree on how good Beatles, Sinatra, and Steely Dan albums sound. A lot of engineers agree on the Neumann U47, the Neve preamp, the LA-2A compressor. Comparatively few agree on which U47 clone is the best, or whether plug-ins generally sound good.

This, by the way, is exactly why companies who design audio products based on specs rather than sound often fail (or are unrespected).

What we agree on? Oh please! Last time I checked, this was gearslutz.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Clayphish

To add, strident things can also be favored. Take a fiddle, bag pipes, or a cymbal for that matter. So how does one measure what is favored by frequency pick-up of the ears?

One doesn't.

The differences in the response curves of people's ears strikes me as being something independent from their personal preferences.

I could be for example hyper-sensitive to high frequencies. I might therefore seek out darker sounds to compensate, but I could just as easily crave more more more of those lovely high frequencies. the physiological and psychological basis of my hearing does not dictate my emotional responses to a particular sound or range of sounds.

There seems to be an unwarranted assumption floating around here that we are motivated to seek 'flat' as our ears perceive it. Why? Why would we?

Artistic intention is also uncorrelated with perception

Monet's cataracts influenced him to paint yellowed, blurry paintings which reflected the world as he was seeing it. I know another painter with cataracts who used ever bolder and brighter colors trying to counteract the 'insipid' paintings he was afraid he was making.