Audiophile test..

[bubbagump]

I stumbled upon this site recently: http://www.ultrasonic-ringtones.com/

Literally actually. If you don't know about StumbleUpon, it's a great website for discovering other websites. I have no affiliation with or interest in the website - this isn't a shameful plug. But I digress.

Aside from the ring tone aspect, it's also a quick way to see if you really need those six thousand dollar speakers. When listening to the tones, it's best to use a pair of headphones and be in a quiet room. I topped out at 15.8kHz so I guess it isn't wishful thinking to plan for a pair of Legacy Focus.

[atomicAdam]

interesting - i'm in the same camp as you are - but didn't listen on a good pair of earphones and am not in a totally quiet room.

at a certain point though, it isn't the max freq you can hear at, it is the way the speaker resolves what is on the CD, which of course means really the way everything you own resolves what is on the CD/LP. If I found speakers that were just amazing that only went from 40-15khz, that would be fine with me.

[mlsstl]

Two points.

First, there is a lot more to a good sounding speaker than just the top octave of higher order harmonics. Even with young people who have great hearing, human hearing is far more sensitive in the midrange (where voice and the fundamentals of instruments lie) so a speaker with a good midrange and lousy highs is going to sound better to most people than a speaker with a lousy midrange but an extended upper range.

Second, a few months back on another audio web site there was a similar discussion about doing listening tests using files downloaded from an internet site. When those files were checked on an analyzer it turned out that several were not quite what they pretended to be.

True hearing tests need to be done with calibrated equipment by a trained operator. The internet stuff can be entertaining, but I certainly wouldn't put too much credence in the results.

[nightflier]

Just because one cannot consciously hear higher frequencies, does not mean they are not heard or sensed. The brain has an amazing capacity to fill in gaps in our senses from other stimuli or even the absence of them.

[E-Stat]

Aside from the ring tone aspect, it's also a quick way to see if you really need those six thousand dollar speakers.

There is far, far more to one's ability to discriminate fine differences in components than bandwidth. When I was eighteen and worked for a hi-fi shop part time, I could hear the supersonic signature of the burglar alarm. It was actually very unpleasant. While my hearing at age 52 is limited to about 12k, I hear so much deeper into recordings than when I was that age.

One needs to build a mental library of sonic cues that comprise the live unamplified musical event. I aver that it is only when one has such maturity that truly superlative components can be fully appreciated.

On the qualitative front, did you see my "audiophile test" post a while back? It measured one's ability to detect varying amounts of distortion added to a signal. You might try that out and see how you do.

rw

[Happy Camper]

There is far, far more to one's ability to discriminate fine differences in components than bandwidth. When I was eighteen and worked for a hi-fi shop part time, I could hear the supersonic signature of the burglar alarm. It was actually very unpleasant. While my hearing at age 52 is limited to about 12k, I hear so much deeper into recordings than when I was that age.

One needs to build a mental library of sonic cues that comprise the live unamplified musical event. I aver that it is only when one has such maturity that truly superlative components can be fully appreciated.

On the qualitative front, did you see my "audiophile test" post a while back? It measured one's ability to detect varying amounts of distortion added to a signal. You might try that out and see how you do.

rw

That and lots of disposable income.

[E-Stat]

That and lots of disposable income.

Attending live concerts doesn't have to cost a lot of money.

rw

[poppachubby]

Two points.

First, there is a lot more to a good sounding speaker than just the top octave of higher order harmonics. Even with young people who have great hearing, human hearing is far more sensitive in the midrange (where voice and the fundamentals of instruments lie) so a speaker with a good midrange and lousy highs is going to sound better to most people than a speaker with a lousy midrange but an extended upper range.

Second, a few months back on another audio web site there was a similar discussion about doing listening tests using files downloaded from an internet site. When those files were checked on an analyzer it turned out that several were not quite what they pretended to be.

True hearing tests need to be done with calibrated equipment by a trained operator. The internet stuff can be entertaining, but I certainly wouldn't put too much credence in the results.

Well said. I have been in several recording studios with a plethora of insanely high tech gear. To me, this is the only exacting way to know what you are truly hearing. Precise machinery that can tell you with accuracy. Somehow, a ringtone just doesn't seem like it should even be in a sentence with audiophile, let alone being used as an audio "barometer".

I am certainly not a gear head and don't know even half of the science of audio. This is why I trust what my own ears hear, and try not to worry about what any component or source is actually outputing.

[Mr Peabody]

I agree there has to be some educating of the ear as to what to listen for. A frequency response is good for reproducing harmonics. Though we may not be able to hear so high the harmonics do effect what we experience.

MLSSTL, you helped me out of a great depression I didn't go as high on that test as I thought I might. I was just using my computer speakers though. I wonder if these are typical tones or are they something different to better keep them from being heard. I have a sweep on a test disc and I can hear those tones alright but I haven't played that sweep in a while, hmmmmm, maybe time to pull that out

[Auricauricle]

I would lean towards misstl's comments that reproduction of frequencies is best obtained via carefully calibrated equipment. I would add that my computer is by no means such a beast and that the instrument provided by bubbagump is, at best, a nice screen. As well, the transmission of these frequencies should be held constant and headphones that are used to convey such signals should be able to do so. My AT's are adept enough to pick things up pretty well, and I would not use Walkman or I-Pod 'phones.

Here, below, is another test. It is a sweep through the various frequencies. Although it is yet another screen, the reproduction of frequencies is presented in a different fashion than the bubba's. This makes me wonder: Do practice effects make a difference? Does exposure to long periods of sound affect discernment?

Just a few thoughts and flies, friends....

[Mr Peabody]

I don't think experience will make you hear better it will just help you use what you have more effectively. Like if you took a hearing test today then wore a blindfold for a month I bet you use your hearing more effectively but before removing the blindfold take another hearing test and the result should be the same as the prior test. Same with audio, you hear good equipment and what it can do, take in a few quality concerts and eventually you start to be able to discern differences between CD players or speakers etc. I wouldn't recommend Rock concerts as the sound is seldom audiophile and the SPL are to the extreme with large percentages of distortion.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This test cannot be done on computer speakers or consumer headphones. It becomes more of a test of the speakers than the ears. My computer speakers wouldn't even reproduce the 15k tone, but my hometheater speakers could. My last professional hearing test showed I could hear up to 16k, but I could not hear the 15k test tone. Go to my small hometheater room with much better speakers, and I could hear the 15k tone quite clearly. 17.4khz was a little sound, and a lot of pressure on my ears.

[Happy Camper]

Attending live concerts doesn't have to cost a lot of money.

rw

It's not the live music that breaks ya, it's the gear.

[Mr Peabody]

This test cannot be done on computer speakers or consumer headphones. It becomes more of a test of the speakers than the ears. My computer speakers wouldn't even reproduce the 15k tone, but my hometheater speakers could. My last professional hearing test showed I could hear up to 16k, but I could not hear the 15k test tone. Go to my small hometheater room with much better speakers, and I could hear the 15k tone quite clearly. 17.4khz was a little sound, and a lot of pressure on my ears.

Was that pressure or just the breeze going through?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Was that pressure or just the breeze going through?

Well Mr. P, I have brain to stop the breeze from passing through, based on this nasty fight starting comment, you don't. Don't ask for trouble if you don't really want it. That comment was totally unnecessary, I have not said anything nasty to you.

[Mr Peabody]

Well Mr. P, I have brain to stop the breeze from passing through, based on this nasty fight starting comment, you don't. Don't ask for trouble if you don't really want it. That comment was totally unnecessary, I have not said anything nasty to you.

* Lighten up dude, just giving you some crap, didn't you see the smiley.

[Chamai]

heard up to 21.1.

18.8 is hardest for me to hear. i barely feel it in my ears.
22.4 had no sound at all.so good for the person who can hear it.

EDIT- i don't think this test is accurate at all.

[Auricauricle]

....another wrinkle in the fold: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=113938566

[Mr Peabody]

Chamai, how old are you? You're talking about the Ultrasonic test?