I was curious about my own hearing so I just did a quick search online. I found an interesting site that will enable a person to find there own equal loudness curve (30hz-16k). I had to turn up the volume on my computer to hear the 16khz. I can't hear the 30hz, but It may be the cheap speakers for my computer. I don't have headphones, so tonight I will try when there is less background noise.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/hearing.html
Thanks, Phil!
I'll dig out the headphones tonight....
For this test to be really useful, you need to have a calibrated computer playback system... I'd bet most computer systems are far from accurate.Originally Posted by Phil H
It is a really cool link though.
Widget
Nice toy
Great, Phil! Thanks!
I tried it and got the following results with Sennheiser HD500 headphones. For the 12kHz and 16kHz tones, I only heard them in my left ear, thanks to my brother's jackass trick when we were kids. (See my post #2 above.)
Out.
Mr. Widget,
I didn't think it would be very accurate (especially with my soundcard and speakers). But, it gives a general idea. I was happy to hear the highest frequency. For many years, I took my hearing for granted and worked around loud equipment without using hearing protection.
I didn't mean it as a criticism, but rather to remind us that your cranking up 16KHz is quite possibly a combination of your actual hearing and the playback chain. With my crappy little USB headset, I cannot hear anything at 30Hz or 16KHz. It does seem that from looking at both your post and TiDome's, that the Fletcher Munson curve is roughly in evidence.
Widget
No it's not. Anyway not the cover. The CD is a Denon PCM Digital Recording from 1984 with the number 38C39-7149 printed on it.Rolf
I wonder if that is the same Denon CD check disc that I also happen to have, is it the one with a picture of a Denon amp on the front cover?
Here are the cover:
Well, that says a lot. Maybe my way of explaining this not the best way, but here it goes: I guess you don't know that a 20Hz tone travels better and faster in a thick wire than in a thin one. It's a bit like trying to move 10.000 gallons of water the fastest way. Witch pipe do you think get rid of the water first, a 1" or a 10"? It's also like using 10.000W of electric power needs a thicker cable than if you use only 100W.I spoke to him at the CES show about 15 years ago and commented on the beautiful construction of his products. With all the different geometry in his cables that time-align the lows, mids and highs, and the solid connectors at each end of the cable attached to the solid connectors at the amp and speakers...I asked him. "how do the electrons know which conductor to travel through, and why does your cable make a difference?"
He turned around and spoke to someone else. That explained it all.
Engineers is also agreed in that different frequencies likes different thickness of wire to get out of the other end of a cable without loosing to much of the signal that was on the input side.
If such a cable sounds better to our ears? Well that is another story, and is highly subjective.
Thom
Wrong! The same also applies to are eyesight, never point a telescope at the sun it blind you!
Rolf
I see I haven’t got that version, I’ve made a mental picture of it with that graphic design work, I’ll keep an eye out for it thanks.
Rolf
Yeah I think I understand what you’re saying there!
So if I where to replace the wiring on my passive X-over for the JBL control 5 three-screen, by re-wiring it, with a more thicker wire, high frequencies will translate a bit better, is that what you saying?
Not sure if this will upload!
Phil
Hay, how did you place the hearing graph on the screen? How did you upload it, thanks?
JBL 4645,
I took the quick and easy route; T-dome did a better job. I copied the active window to the clipboard by pressing Alt and Print Screen at the same time. Then, I pasted it into Paint and saved the file on my system as a jpeg. I uploaded this like any other picture. The active window can not be full size to do this; the file-size (and image size) would be too big for the forum.
Phil
You know you’re absolutely right I now remember some showing me this technique a short while ago, I’ll take the test again and follow what you said and hopeful it will upload! I’ll put the graph in the “edit mode” and resize the image to look reasonable.
Thanks mate.
Well, actually not quite. It is the low frequency that needs a thick ("fat") cable. The mids and nights are fine with a rather thin cable. That is why many speaker cable producers use different thickness of the Cordell's in the cable. The thick massive Cordell's will transport the deep frequencies, as they have very high current, and uses the most power of the amp. The mids and heights don't use so much power to do the same thing, so the Cordell's don't have to be so massive.Rolf
Yeah I think I understand what you’re saying there!
So if I where to replace the wiring on my passive X-over for the JBL control 5 three-screen, by re-wiring it, with a more thicker wire, high frequencies will translate a bit better, is that what you saying?
Try using the thinnest cable you have, connect it to the power outlet in you house and to a source that uses 40W, and all is fine. Connect it to a source that uses +2000W and the cable will get so hot it will burn of. This is why you need a thicker wire in your house on a 20 ampere than on a 10 ampere. (You probably know this)
In my bi-amp setup (with the 4343) I use the same cables for the woofer and for the rest. Inside the cabinet I use different kind of cables from the network to the different drivers. The cable to the woofer goes directly to the woofer.
In my ears this is a great improvement, and I have NEVER changed a cable or unit in my life if I could not hear an improvement.
Hope this explain my views.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote