Audiophile or Audio-Fooled. How good are your ears

[PHC1]

I was wondering where all the mosquitos went last few years.

[bart]

Originally Posted by PHC1

I was wondering where all the mosquitos went last few years.

Haha, unfortunately I can still hear them...

At almost 53 years, I have the impression I hear quite well.
But when I test myself, there is not much left above 14 kHz.

[PHC1]

Standard audiometers which a physician uses are calibrated for Pure-tone testing and present tones across the speech spectrum (500 to 4,000 Hz) to determine if the patient's hearing levels fall within normal limits.

[crwilli]

Originally Posted by edkoz

At 70, my hearing leaves something to be desired. It seems that I have a problem within a frequency specific range. That in its self is not too bad but, It happens to be the frequency range my wife speaks within

#METOO

There is a wife frequency that I most times, simply cannot hear.

[Soundmig]

It would be interesting to know what DAC, amplifier and headphones were used for the test. It looked like a set of A-T - m50x headphones which are very good but not "great". I don't know if a better, more resolving playback system would influence the results, but the subject was an experienced listener and actually 4 out of 6 (with three variables) is not a bad showing. I'd love to see if using a ladder DAC instead of a D/S DAC along with higher quality amps and Headphones could/would change the results.

I listen to spotify premium sometimes and it is a 320kbs stream. It sounds pretty good, but it always seems to me to have a bit of an "edge" to the sound that my higher rez files don't have - coming through the Gumby. I'd like to think that I could do well on such a test (using equipment I'm familiar with), but who knows - maybe not. I know that nothing much above 14kHz is really audible to me any longer, so .... I'm 58 btw

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Soundmig

It would be interesting to know what DAC, amplifier and headphones were used for the test. It looked like a set of A-T - m50x headphones which are very good but not "great". I don't know if a better, more resolving playback system would influence the results, but the subject was an experienced listener and actually 4 out of 6 (with three variables) is not a bad showing. I'd love to see if using a ladder DAC instead of a D/S DAC along with higher quality amps and Headphones could/would change the results.

I listen to spotify premium sometimes and it is a 320kbs stream. It sounds pretty good, but it always seems to me to have a bit of an "edge" to the sound that my higher rez files don't have - coming through the Gumby. I'd like to think that I could do well on such a test (using equipment I'm familiar with), but who knows - maybe not. I know that nothing much above 14kHz is really audible to me any longer, so .... I'm 58 btw

I posted that test in another thread. I got 5 out of 6 and it's just like the article says, it has little to do with hearing. Using Gumby, a high quality headphone amp and my most resolving headphones, it is evident but I know what I need to focus on and not all recordings will reveal the differences easily.

It's not easy to tell when you are not dissecting the sound like an audiophile would. Most casual listeners and even musician often can't tell and that's the whole point of the compressed music in the past decades.

What I noticed is that when the woman in the video did get it wrong, she actually chose the lowest, most compressed file as the right answer.


Here is the test. https://www.npr.org/sections/thereco...-audio-quality

[PHC1]

Dissecting the above test.

Suzanne Vega track.

There is an obvious and artificial reverb/echo present like a ghost image that is not present with the higher samples. The increase in artificial sibilance is noticeable by comparison to other two higher res samples.

The higher quality files possess analog warmth and naturalness to her vocals. The second giveaway is that her breath between the two parts of the song is artificial sounding on the 320 vs WAV where it sounds like a breath should, air rushing down the windpipe.

[jdandy]

Originally Posted by edkoz

At 70, my hearing leaves something to be desired. It seems that I have a problem within a frequency specific range. That in its self is not too bad but, It happens to be the frequency range my wife speaks within

[PHC1]

Murray Perahia question.

Other than the 128kbps sample presenting a cooler and artificially icy piano notes and sounding like there is glare on the upper registers, it is hard to tell the 320 from WAV.

[Rex Anderson]

A very telling test: listen to some classical music that was recorded in a good concert hall with a decent length natural reverb (2 seconds or more). Pay close attention to the ends of movements when the reverb tail dies off before silence/hall noise.

Reverb time (RT60) is defined as the time it takes to drop 60 dB, basically to inaudibility.

If you turn up the volume as the sound level decays so you can hear detail, you will hear a natural sound with higher resolution files and a good DAC. With lesser quality A/D encoding and on down the line, reverb tails sound "grainy".

Good headphones may help hear detail, but a great system with loudspeakers could/should be used for tests like this. I'm not a big fan of headphones, so my speakers are much better at resolving detail than the headphones I own.