Sound Advice

[dynaco_dan]

Hi there;

Today has been a very interesting day.

I just came home from a free Hearing Clinic test.

This is the first hearing test I've had since 1974.

Both of my ears having the same end results, scary.

They tested from 250 hertz to 8,000 hertz.

Basicly my hearing is flat from 250 - 2,000 hertz.

About as flat a line as an AR-3A speaker graph plot.

At 2,000 hertz it drops down, considerably, up to 8,000 hertz and then continues to decline.

Sort of reminds me of an AR-2 graph except that the AR-2 starts to roll off at about 10,000 - 12,000 hertz.

They used pure tone for the test.

I passed the tone decay and speech recognition parts.

I am now recommended to get two new digital hearing aids.

The tester claims this is typical of the type of noise related damage, because of my work, that I've done all of my working life.

No wonder the highs that I hear are so smooth.

So smooth because I can't hear them.

I could have had blown tweeters for years and would never have known the difference.

I probably could have done without buying my replacement tweeters for my first used pair of LST's.

I will certainly save money by not buying any more, that is for certain.

Maybe electrostatic tweeters are the way to go.

Get your hearing tested for an eye opening experience.

[dynaco_dan]

Hi there;

Today has been a very interesting day.

I just came home from a free Hearing Clinic test.

This is the first hearing test I've had since 1974.

Both of my ears having the same end results, scary.

They tested from 250 hertz to 8,000 hertz.

Basicly my hearing is flat from 250 - 2,000 hertz.

About as flat a line as an AR-3A speaker graph plot.

At 2,000 hertz it drops down, considerably, up to 8,000 hertz and then continues to decline.

Sort of reminds me of an AR-2 graph except that the AR-2 starts to roll off at about 10,000 - 12,000 hertz.

They used pure tone for the test.

I passed the tone decay and speech recognition parts.

I am now recommended to get two new digital hearing aids.

The tester claims this is typical of the type of noise related damage, because of my work, that I've done all of my working life.

No wonder the highs that I hear are so smooth.

So smooth because I can't hear them.

I could have had blown tweeters for years and would never have known the difference.

I probably could have done without buying my replacement tweeters for my first used pair of LST's.

I will certainly save money by not buying any more, that is for certain.

Maybe electrostatic tweeters are the way to go.

Get your hearing tested for an eye opening experience.

Back again;

I see now that if I can't apparently hear much above 2,000 hz, I might as well live with AR-2's without the tweeters.

It has a crossover point of 2,000 hz.

AR didn't make an AR-2W speaker, but if they did, that would be my ideal speaker now.

To heck with replacing tweeters now.

It's ok that I bought a bunch of dead AR-2 dual tweeters, I can just look at them now and enjoy.

[soundminded]

About 3 years ago I had my hearing checked. My results showed flat response to 10 khz the limit of the test but a 5 db dip in the upper midrange. It didn't make sense because hearing loss usually occurs at higher frequencies more severly. Then I remembered the test. The setup stank. There was no sound proof booth. The "earphones" were the type you get on an airline, plastic tubes connected to a tranducer at the opposite end. The test was self administered with a computer where you tried to identify the softest sounds you could hear. I listened so hard I not only heard my own breath, I heard my own heart beating, the first time I ever remembered that. And then I realized why there was this 5 db dip, the building air conditioning system was masking the very low level sounds and I remember being most annoyed at the time of the test. So I am satisfied that my hearing is still pretty good. I'd seen on TV once that among members of certain African tribes which had never been exposed to loud noise, people who were 70 years old still had hearing as good as teenagers. I've tried very hard to avoid loud noises in my life and when they were unavoidable to use hearing protection. On my first job in a steel plant when I was required to visit some very loud areas, a rod and wire mill and a pipe mill as part of a group and I insisted that the medical department supply me with hearing protection, a lot of the other people in the group laughed at me. I didn't care. Now nearly 40 years later, my hearing is good, they are probably partly deaf. I have never attended a live rock concert or a discotheque in my life. The main source of loud sound I was exposed to was the subway and even there when I didn't have hearing protection, I put my fingers in my ears. Loud noise hurts...until you become deaf to it.

I've seen a lot of so called audio engineers whose equipment has received wide acclaim admit to having been exposed to very loud sound for prolonged periods. They invariably claim that the superiority of their designs is attributable to factors which cannot be measured but never prove they can even hear what they claim through double blind tests. John Curl is one such person. He admits to having been exposed to SPLs over 130 db on stage with the Greatful Dead at concert after concert. Another is Peter Qvortrop of Audio Note who regularly attends live rock concerts and whose most expensive speaker system, a two way 8" large bookshelf model sold for a mere $125,000 but that was about a year and a half ago, the price may have gone up. I won't mention the name of the engineer who posts here who spent much time at the Paradise Club in Boston where there was apparantly a lot of very loud rock music. It is impossible for me to take these people seriously but they do manage to convince a lot of others to buy their products. Maybe their best customers suffer with the same afflictions they do....severe auditory sensitivity loss. That would explain a lot.

[Carlspeak]

This weekend's edition of the WSJ has an article written by their drama critic, Terry Teachout, called 'The Deaf Audiophile'. He waxes about the onset of his age related case of presbycusis (hearing loss) and has evidently joined the ranks of MP3 owners. He has accepted his loss of high frequency resolution and resigned himself to simply enjoying the music he can hear thru his Ipod's earbuds which suit his listening spectrum nicely.

However, he adds there is no substitute for live music as opposed to the once removed format and listening system, no matter what they may be. I think we can all agree on that.

[soundminded]

This weekend's edition of the WSJ has an article written by their drama critic, Terry Teachout, called 'The Deaf Audiophile'. He waxes about the onset of his age related case of presbycusis (hearing loss) and has evidently joined the ranks of MP3 owners. He has accepted his loss of high frequency resolution and resigned himself to simply enjoying the music he can hear thru his Ipod's earbuds which suit his listening spectrum nicely.

However, he adds there is no substitute for live music as opposed to the once removed format and listening system, no matter what they may be. I think we can all agree on that.

The goal of high fidelity sound reproduction is to recreate the auditory experience of hearing live music. We could argue forever if reproduced recordings are or are not music, personally to me they are a facsimile, not the real thing but to many people recordings are music, and for some sadly the only music they ever hear. The one thing I think all people who can even be remotely called audiophiles (I resent the term being applied to myself but for this purpose I suppose I'll include myself in that category) is a fascination with the ability to create the illusion of hearing live music performed from a machine is quite captivating. Unfortunately, the technology to accomplish this is still very primitive, still inadequate to fool most people with normal hearing who are familiar with live musical sounds. The notion that that this experience cannot be duplicated is absurd. The explanation is that the understanding of acoustics and the mechanisms by which sound is perceived as well as the ability to manipulate the reproduction of recorded sound to meet the requirements of creating convincing illusions is just not within the realm of our knowledge yet. It's also clear that the current publicly known lines of research pursued by those who claim to be at the cutting edge reached a dead end a long time ago. This problem does not occupy the best minds of those who have the training to tackle and solve it, their interests lie elsewhere. Therefore what we have instead is an endless array of variants of essentially similar failed ideas, each new twist proclaiming itself as a major breakthrough. The products discussed on this blog site have mostly in common that they were developed at a time when this was not so and their value despite the passage of time has not escaped those who collect and use them.

[RoyC]

Fortunately, when our classics are properly restored, they are as pleasurable to LOOK at as to listen to. Of course there is also the matter of eyesight.

Roy

[rrcrain]

This is a cursed thread. Since reading this thread, I've come down with a case of tinnitus, my left ear ringing non stop.

Whatever it is, I'm begining to feel physical discomfort in my left ear and a Dr. visit may well be in order.

[Carlspeak]

This is a cursed thread. Since reading this thread, I've come down with a case of tinnitus, my left ear ringing non stop.

Whatever it is, I'm begining to feel physical discomfort in my left ear and a Dr. visit may well be in order.

I 'hear' you rrcrain (pun intended). I've had an 8 kHz whistle in my left ear for about 10 yrs. now. Luckily, it's not overy loud - just a background noise. I believe it's from an old injury caused by standing too close to a 50 mm machine gun with no ear protection. Man, that thing was loud.

Maybe some sympathy from me will remove your curse?

[rrcrain]

I 'hear' you rrcrain (pun intended). I've had an 8 kHz whistle in my left ear for about 10 yrs. now. Luckily, it's not overy loud - just a background noise. I believe it's from an old injury caused by standing too close to a 50 mm machine gun with no ear protection. Man, that thing was loud.

Maybe some sympathy from me will remove your curse?

I could only hope.

The white noise in the office is a bit to loud and doesn't help.

Then again, I've spent time around high pressure steam turbines, drop forges, grinders, hammer drills and a plethora of other oncredibly noisy machinery as well as guns but almost always wearing ear plugs, ear muffs or both.

My noise has increased in volumn in the last week and is now a bit uncomfortable. Me thinks 'tis time to see the local witch doctor.

Richard Crain

[dynaco_dan]

I could only hope.

The white noise in the office is a bit to loud and doesn't help.

Then again, I've spent time around high pressure steam turbines, drop forges, grinders, hammer drills and a plethora of other oncredibly noisy machinery as well as guns but almost always wearing ear plugs, ear muffs or both.

My noise has increased in volumn in the last week and is now a bit uncomfortable. Me thinks 'tis time to see the local witch doctor.

Richard Crain

Hi Richard;

We all do hope that whatever is wrong with your hearing is not serious and you recover to enjoy what we all are here for, Richard, the music.

I started this topic to raise awareness only.

I was using or at least around similar noises to you during my adult life, I'm 61 now.

I used a much humour as I could muster when I wrote here about my pacemaker impant.

We do not need to pay for the pacemaker or the digital hearing aids because of our medical system here.

I want to assure everyone that you need not fear an appointment with the correct medical person.

[rrcrain]

Hi Richard;

We all do hope that whatever is wrong with your hearing is not serious and you recover to enjoy what we all are here for, Richard, the music.

I started this topic to raise awareness only.

I was using or at least around similar noises to you during my adult life, I'm 61 now.

I used a much humour as I could muster when I wrote here about my pacemaker impant.

We do not need to pay for the pacemaker or the digital hearing aids because of our medical system here.

I want to assure everyone that you need not fear an appointment with the correct medical person.

The good news is I had a pinched nerve in my neck and a visit to a chiropractor fixed that problem. The bad news is, the ringing is noticeably dropped in volumn but has not gone away.

[soundminded]

"I was using or at least around similar noises to you during my adult life, I'm 61 now."

I was surprised at the derision I got from other people in the steel mills I worked in for using ear protection. I had the distinct impression that they considered subjecting oneself to very loud noise was a macho thing, some strange sign of manhood. This was before OSHA required it for all workers exposed to sound over 86 dbA. To me, exposing yourself to loud sounds is like looking directly into the sun, one shouldn't be surprised when sensitivity is damaged, often for life. You only get one pair of ears and so far, medical science hasn't figured out a way to repair this kind of damage yet.

I've given some thought to why many audiophiles prefer to listen to music at much louder levels than live music, especially say classical music where accuracy is supposedly the primary goal. (live rock concerts are often intentionally performed at deafening sound levels.) I think there are several factors involved. But what it boils down to in many cases is an effort to hear the minimal quantities of temporal and spatial dimensions of sounds captured on recordings, far less as a percentage of the total sound compared to hearing a live performance. For complex reasons I won't go into, I've concluded that the perception of recorded musical instruments reproduced by loudspeaker systems as sources of sound in home listening environments are judged as feeble compared to real musical instruments at live performances unless the speakers are played at very loud volumes. I've often considered that some of Edgar Villchur's customers who bought the products he produced later in his life, hearing aids may have acquired the need for them by abusing the products he made and sold earlier life, loudspeaker systems.

Some of the most respected people in the audio industry have admitted to being exposed to very loud sounds at rock concerts repeatedly and for sustained periods. Many of these same people claim that the superiority of their products cannot be demonstrated by measurements, they can only be appreciated by listening to them. Naturally I do not take these people seriously myself.

[rrcrain]

>>I've given some thought to why many audiophiles prefer to listen to music at much louder levels >>than live music, especially say classical music where accuracy is supposedly the primary goal.

Live concerts here (Peoria , IL) are often held in the civic center hockey arena and as a general rule, are extremely loud with horrible acoustics and to be honest, I do not find them enjoyable. Unfortuantely, one can hear far more fidenity at home on a modest stereo than they can live under these conditions. Low draw artists hold their concert in the civic center theater which has very good acoustics.

[soundminded]

>>I've given some thought to why many audiophiles prefer to listen to music at much louder levels >>than live music, especially say classical music where accuracy is supposedly the primary goal.

Live concerts here (Peoria , IL) are often held in the civic center hockey arena and as a general rule, are extremely loud with horrible acoustics and to be honest, I do not find them enjoyable. Unfortuantely, one can hear far more fidenity at home on a modest stereo than they can live under these conditions. Low draw artists hold their concert in the civic center theater which has very good acoustics.

Clearly a concert hall is far more than a place of assembly for musical performers and an audience, it is an integral part of the music itself. If "it's all about the music" as some say and you fail to reproduce the overwhelming contribution of the acoustics of venue, it's hard to see how you can claim to have an accurate reproducer of music.

I have pretty strong opinions about places serious music should be performed. Clearly a sports arena was not intended as a musical performance venue, it's being comandeered to perform double duty for that function clearly a serious compromise. Perhaps it's the only available convenient site which would house an audience as large as is expected to buy tickets but why anyone would pay money to hear a live performace which doesn't sound as good as a recording beats me. This brings us to concert halls which use electronic reinforcement of sound. IMO, no matter how skillfully or subtly this is applied, it is an unforgivable compromise and distortion I am not willing to accept. I'm also puzzled as to why those who are prepared to spend the $100 million or more it takes to build a concert hall would prefer something unique where you are at risk of poor acoustics to something likely to be acoustically excellent even if it's is not one of a kind. Were I the decider of how such a large sum of money would be spent on such an investment, I'd direct my architects to build as exact a clone of the best concert hall in the world as I could. And that just might be Boston Symphony Hall. When the lights dim and the musicians start to play, architectural statements which advertise the inventiveness of the architect are meaningless and only the sound matters. Maybe that makes me a subjectivist :-)

[dynaco_dan]

Hi again;

To add to this topic, the audiologist suggested my getting 2 digital hearing aids.

She said they can program them to increase the output where it is needed in my missing frequencies.

Does this not sound like an octive equalizer to everyone. LOL

The small inserts that go into the ear canal but do not block off the canal passage totaly.

It basicly sits in the canal so that the rest of the ambient sound in the area can travel down the canel un-impeded.

My understanding is that a regualr hearing aid basicly blocks all of the canal and passes sound through the hearing aid only.

[rrcrain]

Hi again;

To add to this topic, the audiologist suggested my getting 2 digital hearing aids.

She said they can program them to increase the output where it is needed in my missing frequencies.

Does this not sound like an octive equalizer to everyone. LOL

The small inserts that go into the ear canal but do not block off the canal passage totaly.

It basicly sits in the canal so that the rest of the sound in the area can travel down the canel un-impeded.

My understanding is that a regualr hearing aid basicly blocks all of the canal and passes sound through the hearing aid only.

I don't have hearing aids so don't know much about them first hand, but have heard several tidbits second hand.

I'v heard that hearing aids can actually accelerate hearing loss because they amplify and add to existing nerve damage.

This would concern me, and I'd be asking the Dr if it's true or not.

[dynaco_dan]

I don't have hearing aids so don't know much about them first hand, but have heard several tidbits second hand.

I'v heard that hearing aids can actually accelerate hearing loss because they amplify and add to existing nerve damage.

This would concern me, and I'd be asking the Dr if it's true or not.

Hi Richard;

Interesting comment.

I'll need to follow up your advice, thank you.

Obviously we need more factual information here.

Follow-up Nov 22/07

I checked back with the Audiologist and I was suggested to contact an Ear, Eyes and Throat Specialist.

Because this would not be an official medical appointment, it would cost me several hundred dollars, so I will need to pass on this one.

I am hoping to have more feedback here from those members that need more tweeters and/or use a graphic equalizer with a need for mid -high boost.

[soundminded]

How I listen (long....even for me )

I've given some thought to the distinction between hearing and listening. I think there is an important difference. To me hearing is what stimulation reaches my brain based on the physiological capabilities of my ears and the way my brain processes sound. Listening is the cognitive process I apply to focusing on and consciously analyzing what I hear. While hearing inevitaby deteriorates over time with age or accident, or infection, or foolish or unfortunate abuse, I think you can improve your ability to listen considerably, perhaps without limit. This focuses on your ability to make distinctions between sounds and music and improves both your acoustic memory and appreciation.

When I was very young, as a child, I listened to music and that was pretty much it. But as I grew older, circumstances in my family got me to listen carefully to performances. An old game among music lovers is called "drop the needle" which refers to a game where someone plays a phonograph record starting anywhere and you have to guess what piece of music it is. In my house, the twist was that you had to guess who the violinist or pianist was, the name of the composition itself being of secondary importance. Starting in the mid 1980s I began to listen very critically to the sound of musical instruments themselves and to the way they were reproduced by electronic equipment whether live or on recordings. Even the way the recordings are made have come under my scrutiny. I think my abilities in this regard have improved considerably as a result even as my hearing has probably deteriorated slightly.

As there is no standard way to make a recording and no standards as to how electronic equipment must perform in the user's home as opposed to how it performs on a technician's test bench, the variations are wild but generally, it is rare if ever that commercially available equipment can come even close to sounding like real musical instruments. (That's what prompted my own investigations and experiments to understand and improve my loudspeakers.)

Anyway, there are no hard and fast rules but here's what I listen for based on trying to be as familiar with live music and remember it as well as I can. For bass I am particularly attentive to the sound of plucked double basses and cellos. I've noticed that this sound often gives symphony orchestras their sense of power and defines the bass line. Even where they are on a recording (often missing) they never seem to be reproduced properly. I also listen to the bottom two octaves of pianos, their solidity and tone very critical to making a piano sound right. For the deepest bass, pipe organ pedals are of course a must and most speakers just can't cut it. Not only do they not have the capability to go that low, most rooms in most homes are too small to provide acoustic reinforcement at those frequencies so not only do speakers have to have inherent capabilities in those regions, they have to be adjusted (placement and equalization) to overcome the room's characteristic to cut off sound at too high a frequency. Tubas are often badly recorded but even when when they are done well, they are often thinly reproduced. At the other extreme, I've become very highly attuned to the sound of violins. Real violins like pianos have musical timbre which varies all over the lot but they have certain characteristics in common which recorded music rarely has, their timbral proportionality and when listening to outstanding violins, their extreme sweetness of tone. Some also add astonishing power. This is not merely a matter of playing louder, they sound bigger than their physical size suggests. (If you've ever had the rare privelege to hear a priceless Guarnari del Jesu close up, it's an experience you don't easily forget.) Massed strings have a silky characteristic but you can often hear individual bowing and pizzacato (the Witch's sabbath in a good recording of Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique is a prime example of this. The third movement of Tchaikowsky's fourth symphony is an outstanding test too.) Any recording which has cymbals, especially jazz recordings where they are close miked should have a clearly metalic sound to them. These instruments have considerable energy around 11 khz. Violins should not sound metalic but often do, especially on the E string. This is peculiar to cds but rarely to LPs. One interesting difference I've noticed between CDs and LPs is the way pianos sound. I think it is possible to much more closely mike pianos for a CD than for an LP because of their superior dynamic range. Either that or LPs of pianos have enormous dynamic compression. As a result, you can often hear the spurious sound of one string not struck in a piano when other notes are played. There's also a lot of other spurious sounds such as squeaky piano benches, the action of the pedals operating the dampers, and fingernails clicking on the keys I hear. Billy Taylor's recording "Ten Fingers, One Voice" is a prime example of this. You can also hear him humming in the background at times. Another recording with spurious sounds in its last cut is George Shearing's disc Breakin' out. It sounds like the drum is actually rattling slightly during his piano solo and you'd think there was something wrong with your speaker if you didn't realize it. Sometimes you can even hear conductors humming along with the music as they conduct. There is a very critical range between 2 and 4 khz. If the FR rises even slightly as frequency increases, many instruments, especially brass will sound hard, too bright, and brittle. If it falls, they will not have sufficient bite. Piccolos have to be the worst recorded of all instruments. This small high pitched flute is supposed to be heard occasionally as a kind of dash of spice. Often recorded much too loud, its shrillness can be ear piercing in what is otherwise a fine recording. Trumpets when properly reproduced have a surprsingly mellow sound. In many instruments that are blown through, winds and reeds you can hear the breathing of the musician. If the recording is made close up, this is normal. Clarinets when properly recorded and played back have a very pleasing treble range in its highest octave and soars but is not shrill. Making a distinction between oboes and english horns is very hard for me, they are nearly identical instruiments except for their bell and mouthpiece I think. The english horn sounds more nasal and more like a gourd type instrument you normally associate with the Middle East. You should be able to easily hear the sliding of pitch in a trombone when played that way and French Horns should have their own particular mellow sound. You often see French Horn players put their hands in the bell to mute them while trombone and trumpet players have a variety of mutes and you should be able to easily tell the difference in tone they create. (French horn and oboe players have a reputation for eventually going nuts, possibility the difficulty of blowing through them affects their brains.) One thing I noticed in better made more modern speakers is their ability to better reproduce the characteristic attack transient of pianos many older speakers with poorer treble can't. For me this is often a dead giveaway between tube and transistor amplifiers.

IMO the most important thing a high fidelity sound systems and loudspeaker should be able to do is make recordings of musical instruments sound like musical instruments but they rarely do. Not only are they usually inherently incapable of it but modern sound systems often have no way to compensate for even the grossest differences in the way the recordings were made. I've been listening carefully to the sound of different makes of pianos, Steinway and Baldwins being my favorites. Both have brilliant clear treble, powerful bass, and a beautiful ringing tone. Steinways sound more forward and warmer to me, Baldwins cooler and more neutral. I ascribe this to a slight difference between the relative balance between harmonics. A good piano should have a consistant tone across its entire enormous range. Probably only a pipe organ has a greater range than a piano. On the other hand, I don't give a hoot if the trombone player sat two feet to the left or right of the trumpet player or a foot in front or behind him. So called imaging is not one of the elements of music. Tonality is. IMO, the more live music you listen to, the more you will enjoy and appreciate your recordings and your audio equipment....and the more you will realize that recordings are ONLY a facsimile of real music, usually a poor one.

[rrcrain]

Hi Richard;

Interesting comment.

I'll need to follow up your advice, thank you.

Obviously we need more factual information here.

Follow-up Nov 22/07

I checked back with the Audiologist and I was suggested to contact an Ear, Eyes and Throat Specialist.

Because this would not be an official medical appointment, it would cost me several hundred dollars, so I will need to pass on this one.

I am hoping to have more feedback here from those members that need more tweeters and/or use a graphic equalizer with a need for mid -high boost.

It may well depend on how severe the hearing loss is or so I'm guessing.

I have an aunt, now in her upper 70's that had to start wearing double hearing aids a number of years ago. At the time, they told her not to wear the hearing aids all the time because her hearing was so bad, and the hearing aids cranked up so loud that they would actually accelerate her hearing loss.

Todays digital hearing aids that ca be tuned to a persons hearing loss may not present the risks from 20 years ago, but the bottom line is this. I don't know from first hand experience or conversation and am going totally on second hand information.

[dynaco_dan]

How I listen (long....even for me )

I've given some thought to the distinction between hearing and listening. I think there is an important difference. To me hearing is what stimulation reaches my brain based on the physiological capabilities of my ears and the way my brain processes sound. Listening is the cognitive process I apply to focusing on and consciously analyzing what I hear. While hearing inevitaby deteriorates over time with age or accident, or infection, or foolish or unfortunate abuse, I think you can improve your ability to listen considerably, perhaps without limit. This focuses on your ability to make distinctions between sounds and music and improves both your acoustic memory and appreciation.

When I was very young, as a child, I listened to music and that was pretty much it. But as I grew older, circumstances in my family got me to listen carefully to performances. An old game among music lovers is called "drop the needle" which refers to a game where someone plays a phonograph record starting anywhere and you have to guess what piece of music it is. In my house, the twist was that you had to guess who the violinist or pianist was, the name of the composition itself being of secondary importance. Starting in the mid 1980s I began to listen very critically to the sound of musical instruments themselves and to the way they were reproduced by electronic equipment whether live or on recordings. Even the way the recordings are made have come under my scrutiny. I think my abilities in this regard have improved considerably as a result even as my hearing has probably deteriorated slightly.

As there is no standard way to make a recording and no standards as to how electronic equipment must perform in the user's home as opposed to how it performs on a technician's test bench, the variations are wild but generally, it is rare if ever that commercially available equipment can come even close to sounding like real musical instruments. (That's what prompted my own investigations and experiments to understand and improve my loudspeakers.)

Anyway, there are no hard and fast rules but here's what I listen for based on trying to be as familiar with live music and remember it as well as I can. For bass I am particularly attentive to the sound of plucked double basses and cellos. I've noticed that this sound often gives symphony orchestras their sense of power and defines the bass line. Even where they are on a recording (often missing) they never seem to be reproduced properly. I also listen to the bottom two octaves of pianos, their solidity and tone very critical to making a piano sound right. For the deepest bass, pipe organ pedals are of course a must and most speakers just can't cut it. Not only do they not have the capability to go that low, most rooms in most homes are too small to provide acoustic reinforcement at those frequencies so not only do speakers have to have inherent capabilities in those regions, they have to be adjusted (placement and equalization) to overcome the room's characteristic to cut off sound at too high a frequency. Tubas are often badly recorded but even when when they are done well, they are often thinly reproduced. At the other extreme, I've become very highly attuned to the sound of violins. Real violins like pianos have musical timbre which varies all over the lot but they have certain characteristics in common which recorded music rarely has, their timbral proportionality and when listening to outstanding violins, their extreme sweetness of tone. Some also add astonishing power. This is not merely a matter of playing louder, they sound bigger than their physical size suggests. (If you've ever had the rare privelege to hear a priceless Guarnari del Jesu close up, it's an experience you don't easily forget.) Massed strings have a silky characteristic but you can often hear individual bowing and pizzacato (the Witch's sabbath in a good recording of Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique is a prime example of this. The third movement of Tchaikowsky's fourth symphony is an outstanding test too.) Any recording which has cymbals, especially jazz recordings where they are close miked should have a clearly metalic sound to them. These instruments have considerable energy around 11 khz. Violins should not sound metalic but often do, especially on the E string. This is peculiar to cds but rarely to LPs. One interesting difference I've noticed between CDs and LPs is the way pianos sound. I think it is possible to much more closely mike pianos for a CD than for an LP because of their superior dynamic range. Either that or LPs of pianos have enormous dynamic compression. As a result, you can often hear the spurious sound of one string not struck in a piano when other notes are played. There's also a lot of other spurious sounds such as squeaky piano benches, the action of the pedals operating the dampers, and fingernails clicking on the keys I hear. Billy Taylor's recording "Ten Fingers, One Voice" is a prime example of this. You can also hear him humming in the background at times. Another recording with spurious sounds in its last cut is George Shearing's disc Breakin' out. It sounds like the drum is actually rattling slightly during his piano solo and you'd think there was something wrong with your speaker if you didn't realize it. Sometimes you can even hear conductors humming along with the music as they conduct. There is a very critical range between 2 and 4 khz. If the FR rises even slightly as frequency increases, many instruments, especially brass will sound hard, too bright, and brittle. If it falls, they will not have sufficient bite. Piccolos have to be the worst recorded of all instruments. This small high pitched flute is supposed to be heard occasionally as a kind of dash of spice. Often recorded much too loud, its shrillness can be ear piercing in what is otherwise a fine recording. Trumpets when properly reproduced have a surprsingly mellow sound. In many instruments that are blown through, winds and reeds you can hear the breathing of the musician. If the recording is made close up, this is normal. Clarinets when properly recorded and played back have a very pleasing treble range in its highest octave and soars but is not shrill. Making a distinction between oboes and english horns is very hard for me, they are nearly identical instruiments except for their bell and mouthpiece I think. The english horn sounds more nasal and more like a gourd type instrument you normally associate with the Middle East. You should be able to easily hear the sliding of pitch in a trombone when played that way and French Horns should have their own particular mellow sound. You often see French Horn players put their hands in the bell to mute them while trombone and trumpet players have a variety of mutes and you should be able to easily tell the difference in tone they create. (French horn and oboe players have a reputation for eventually going nuts, possibility the difficulty of blowing through them affects their brains.) One thing I noticed in better made more modern speakers is their ability to better reproduce the characteristic attack transient of pianos many older speakers with poorer treble can't. For me this is often a dead giveaway between tube and transistor amplifiers.

IMO the most important thing a high fidelity sound systems and loudspeaker should be able to do is make recordings of musical instruments sound like musical instruments but they rarely do. Not only are they usually inherently incapable of it but modern sound systems often have no way to compensate for even the grossest differences in the way the recordings were made. I've been listening carefully to the sound of different makes of pianos, Steinway and Baldwins being my favorites. Both have brilliant clear treble, powerful bass, and a beautiful ringing tone. Steinways sound more forward and warmer to me, Baldwins cooler and more neutral. I ascribe this to a slight difference between the relative balance between harmonics. A good piano should have a consistant tone across its entire enormous range. Probably only a pipe organ has a greater range than a piano. On the other hand, I don't give a hoot if the trombone player sat two feet to the left or right of the trumpet player or a foot in front or behind him. So called imaging is not one of the elements of music. Tonality is. IMO, the more live music you listen to, the more you will enjoy and appreciate your recordings and your audio equipment....and the more you will realize that recordings are ONLY a facsimile of real music, usually a poor one.

Hi soundminded;

I certainly enjoyed this very interesting write-up tonight, thank you.

[dynaco_dan]

Hi again;

I've now received confirmation that my claim is now being investigated, by our Workers Compensation Board.

They could only reply that way, or not considered.

The letter stated that it is a 4 - 6 month waiting period for a final decision.

Maybe they are hoping my hearing improves. LOL

I can disconnect my AR-2 tweeters until then. LOL

[soundminded]

Hi soundminded;

I certainly enjoyed this very interesting write-up tonight, thank you.

Which is a more accurate sounding radio, Atwater Kent or Crosley? Sounds like a silly question doesn't it? Two antique radios people loved in the 1930s and 1940s. Someone gave me an old Philco, wish I still had it. It could take a lifetime to rebuild something like that, looking for all those ancient tubes, trying to figure out what half those components were and finding modern equivalents. Still it was fun and you can imagine millions of people sitting around during the depression listening to them, The Lone Ranger, Green Lantern, Captain Midnight, and dancing to Guy Lombardo. Doesn't bring back memories for me, that was before my time, but you can imagine. It's hard to think that if and when real progress is ever made in this "art" of recording and reproducing music so that the product actually sounds like music and not like electronic equipment trying to sound like music, people in the future may look back on the best equipment the art of our era could produce the same way we look at Atwater Kents, fun but not anything technologically meaningful in their terms. Any components such as electronic amplifiers still around will be in a form so cheap and common they won't give it a second thought, they will be mere building blocks the way we would look at a switch or a transistor and laugh at the obsession some of our era preoccupied themselves with regarding this subject.

A year and a half ago, TAS magazine editors wrote an article lamenting that the best technology could offer was in no way convincing to music lovers. Gordon Holt founder of Stereophile magazine recently said in an interview with the current editor John Atkinson pretty much the same thing and plans to offer a more extensive article sometime in the not too distant future. If any real progress is being made in this endeavor, it's a well kept secret. Nothing on the horizon looks promising in the way of substantive improvements. Rather disappointing that the best all those scientists and engineers who are working on the problem have not done a whole lot better by now, certainly not what was expected of them several decades ago when at least some people dared real innovation even if it failed. Speaks to the quality of their education and lack of imagination and insight into problem solving IMO. A computer is their answer to everything...including...no especialy lack of thinking by their own brains.

[dynaco_dan]

Hi there;

I just came home from a free Hearing Clinic test.

This is the first hearing test I've had since 1974.

Both of my ears having the same end results, scary.

They tested from 250 hertz to 8,000 hertz.

Basicly my hearing is flat from 250 - 2,000 hertz.

About as flat a line as an AR-3A speaker graph plot.

At 2,000 hertz it drops down, considerably, up to 8,000 hertz and then continues to decline.

Sort of reminds me of an AR-2 graph except that the AR-2 starts to roll off at about 10,000 - 12,000 hertz.

They used pure tone for the test.

I passed the tone decay and speech recognition parts.

I am now recommended to get two new digital hearing aids.

The tester claims this is typical of the type of noise related damage, because of my work, that I've done all of my working life.

No wonder the highs that I hear are so smooth.

So smooth because I can't hear them.

I could have had blown tweeters for years and would never have known the difference.

I probably could have done without buying my replacement tweeters for my first used pair of LST's.

I will certainly save money by not buying any more, that is for certain.

Maybe electrostatic tweeters are the way to go.

Get your hearing tested for an eye opening experience.

To continue on;

My test showed that my hearing, equally, is down 6.6 dB each ear.

Knowing that 3 dB is half or double will give you some idea of my loss.

There is no advantage or disadvantage to them being equal, just easier to keep track of.

If we assume that at birth we can hear from 20 - 20,000 Hz and it normally diminishes as we get older.

I don't have any statistics as to what ranges they are at, at what age for men or women.

My claim for Workers Compensation was accepted.

All of adult work life had a damaging affect to my hearing.

Banging metal, hammering, sawing, drilling, pnuematic tools, Army shooting, loud music when younger perhaps, etc.

I received a pair of digital hearing aids Friday, at no cost to me.

I started using them about 2:00 PM and took them out about 9:00 PM.

During the installation I was astounded by what I could now hear in the office.

The Audiologist's voice now had highs, transparency and clarity that was not there earlier.

Excellent transient response as well. LOL

The last thing I did before removing them, was by accident.

I opened my mail, such a small thing, you think?

He actually gets mail? MMMMM LOL

The paper actually had a crinkle to it when handling it.

I cried as to what I have been missing all these years, crinkling paper. LOL LOL

My understanding of what a hearing aid does or at least was going to do for me in it's totality was wrong.

The actual sound increase with the hearing aid is not out to 20,000 Hz, but maybe between 5,000 - 10,000 Hz depending on the device used.

The device lower limit may be as low as 250 Hz, where my normal hearing takes over.

In my case the upper highs, up to about 6 - 8,000 Hz is all there is going to be.

The amplification is only for speech recognition.

Music is not a consideration.

So to recap everything, I can hear or feel to maybe below 100 Hz, this to be determined later on my own and up to about 8,000 Hz where it tends to naturally roll-off.

For a person who enjoys music as much as I do, this is the best I can get.

I can still enjoy music, I just need to accept that the triangles won't be there or as loud. LOL

My are of the open canal type, where I hear all other normal noises through the canal, plus, the amplified sound.

The AR-3A's/AR-LST's tweeters will not be needed anymore, maybe I should sell them. LOL

Perthaps if you are finding you need to replace mids/tweeters for higher output ones, increasing the amplifiers treble control or need to boost mids/highs with an equalizer, it may be time to get your hearing tested.

Do not be afraid to get your hearing tested.

[JeffS]

To continue on;

My test showed that my hearing, equally, is down 6.6 dB each ear.

Knowing that 3 dB is half or double will give you some idea of my loss.

There is no advantage or disadvantage to them being equal, just easier to keep track of.

If we assume that at birth we can hear from 20 - 20,000 Hz and it normally diminishes as we get older.

I don't have any statistics as to what ranges they are at, at what age for men or women.

My claim for Workers Compensation was accepted.

All of adult work life had a damaging affect to my hearing.

Banging metal, hammering, sawing, drilling, pnuematic tools, Army shooting, loud music when younger perhaps, etc.

I received a pair of digital hearing aids Friday, at no cost to me.

I started using them about 2:00 PM and took them out about 9:00 PM.

During the installation I was astounded by what I could now hear in the office.

The Audiologist's voice now had highs, transparency and clarity that was not there earlier.

Excellent transient response as well. LOL

The last thing I did before removing them, was by accident.

I opened my mail, such a small thing, you think?

He actually gets mail? MMMMM LOL

The paper actually had a crinkle to it when handling it.

I cried as to what I have been missing all these years, crinkling paper. LOL LOL

My understanding of what a hearing aid does or at least was going to do for me in it's totality was wrong.

The actual sound increase with the hearing aid is not out to 20,000 Hz, but maybe between 5,000 - 10,000 Hz depending on the device used.

The device lower limit may be as low as 250 Hz, where my normal hearing takes over.

In my case the upper highs, up to about 6 - 8,000 Hz is all there is going to be.

The amplification is only for speech recognition.

Music is not a consideration.

So to recap everything, I can hear or feel to maybe below 100 Hz, this to be determined later on my own and up to about 8,000 Hz where it tends to naturally roll-off.

For a person who enjoys music as much as I do, this is the best I can get.

I can still enjoy music, I just need to accept that the triangles won't be there or as loud. LOL

My are of the open canal type, where I hear all other normal noises through the canal, plus, the amplified sound.

The AR-3A's/AR-LST's tweeters will not be needed anymore, maybe I should sell them. LOL

Perthaps if you are finding you need to replace mids/tweeters for higher output ones, increasing the amplifiers treble control or need to boost mids/highs with an equalizer, it may be time to get your hearing tested.

Do not be afraid to get your hearing tested.

Hi Vern,

I just read this thread today and have to say that it is a great one.

Hopefully it inspires folks to safeguard their hearing.

I have been fortunate enough to work for employers who required annual hearing tests most of my working life. I started working in a plastic films manufacturing facility when I was ~ 20 yrs young and the company provided and encouraged the use of hearing protection. However, most people ignored it, which was surprising since at least two of them had to use hearing aids and they were only in their late 20's at the time! One of my fellow employees used the yellow foam EAR brand plugs religiously and inspired me to do the same. I'm glad I did! I'm 49 now and when I get my hearing checked I'm told that it's normal for my age. Normal for my age seems to be a depression of 3-4 dB around 3kHz, and I really can't hear anything above 13kHz.

Part of my current job is operating a vibration table to test the durability of batteries. The table can be programmed to operate from 5Hz up to 2kHz and the room where the unit is installed can routinely reach around 90dB. I expressed my concerns to our supervisor, who ordered hearing protection for everybody in our lab. Human nature being what it is, and hearing loss being so gradual, most people opt not to use protection (you can lead a horse to water....).

This reminds me of a Rodriques cartoon in Stereo Review years ago where a salesperson, trying to sell a pair of loudspeakers, told the buyer that part of the deal was that when the buyer reached 60 or so years of age, he could bring the speakers back to the store for free removal of the tweeters.

Glad to hear that your new digital hearing aids have restored a good portion of your hearing.

Jeff S

[dynaco_dan]

Hi Vern,

I just read this thread today and have to say that it is a great one.

Hopefully it inspires folks to safeguard their hearing.

I have been fortunate enough to work for employers who required annual hearing tests most of my working life. I started working in a plastic films manufacturing facility when I was ~ 20 yrs young and the company provided and encouraged the use of hearing protection. However, most people ignored it, which was surprising since at least two of them had to use hearing aids and they were only in their late 20's at the time! One of my fellow employees used the yellow foam EAR brand plugs religiously and inspired me to do the same. I'm glad I did! I'm 49 now and when I get my hearing checked I'm told that it's normal for my age. Normal for my age seems to be a depression of 3-4 dB around 3kHz, and I really can't hear anything above 13kHz.

Part of my current job is operating a vibration table to test the durability of batteries. The table can be programmed to operate from 5Hz up to 2kHz and the room where the unit is installed can routinely reach around 90dB. I expressed my concerns to our supervisor, who ordered hearing protection for everybody in our lab. Human nature being what it is, and hearing loss being so gradual, most people opt not to use protection (you can lead a horse to water....).

This reminds me of a Rodriques cartoon in Stereo Review years ago where a salesperson, trying to sell a pair of loudspeakers, told the buyer that part of the deal was that when the buyer reached 60 or so years of age, he could bring the speakers back to the store for free removal of the tweeters.

Glad to hear that your new digital hearing aids have restored a good portion of your hearing.

Jeff S

Hi Jeff;

Thank you for your write-up, Jeff.

It might be summed up that I worked in construction.

Even office workers where air conditioners and cooling fans that are used seasonally can cause a hearing injury.

Office equipment, computer fans, copier fans, fumes from laser printers/copiers, poor or inadequte lighting.

When I am on the bus I can hear music from the small headphones used by Ipods, etc, from half way down the bus.

Your mention of the EAR brand foam plugs was great, inexpensive and great isolation.

Cotton batton was given out at a local gun club, absolutely useless and even worse, it opens up the ear canal moreso.

I worked for the local gas company back in the '70's and they provided, Clarke, considered one of the best for noise isolation at that time, headphone style and also EAR foamies for the shop workers.

During my employment there, I sometimes used both and just removed the Clarkes when my ears were too hot.

My apprenticeship started in 1965 and there was no safety practices set up for the next 9 years.

Losing the highs or even the mids is a slow process, it creeps up and then it's too late.

Other writers down the road may also comment on the bass end loss of our hearing due to their work or other injury.

Other noises I now hear are the hydroplaning of tires on the wet road, crumpling of paper of course, and just the normal ambient noise in a public space near a busy street.

Most everyone is probably taking the above for granted.

Thank you again, Jeff.