Highest Tone You Can Hear

Off-Topic
21

Ok, I did this test and I have to report the following discrepancies.

My iMac has built in speakers, using those I could not hear anything above 16000 hz, I was freaking out and very sad like others in this thread.

Then I plugged in my monitors (Edirol MA-20D) and re-did the test. I could hear up to 19000 hz no problem, I could hear 20000 hz if I amplified the volume to around 50% of the speaker maximum.

My conclusion is that doing this test yourself, isn’t the best way. Especially if you don’t know your equipment capabilities.

22

“The hearing range of humans gets worse with age. People lose the ability to hear sounds of high frequency as they get older. The highest frequency that a normal middle-aged adult can hear is only 12-14 kilohertz. Also, the hearing range for men worsens more quickly than the hearing range for women. This means that women will have the ability to hear notes of higher pitch than men of the same age do.”

Frequency Range of Human Hearing
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisD…sDAmbrose.shtml

23

I would say that the least important part of music is the frequency range that we can hear.

Music is not about hearing 18.000 hertz, its about composing melodies and arrangements and rythm and communicating or awakening feelings with the music. Hearing 18.000 hertz does not have anything to do with how good a composer you are…

24

Humiliation.

25

sure… thats why i said that you can compose without higher freqs also. But still… it dont hurt to have good hearing :)

But if you work in mixing/mastering field mostly then i would say that hearing full freq range is quite important.

You can do one test if you want to. Put an earplugs to your ears and dont take them off for half a day or something. And then you take them off… you will be amazed how much detail you will hear in the surrounding world and in music :) try to mix some track right after that aslo :) i’m sure you will want that kind of hearing to last and without the need for earplugs… :)

i wouldnt say “pitch”, its really not about pitch, its about hearing highest harmonics and “detail”

26

I’ve also read that alcohol effects the highest frequency we can hear, so excessive drinking will deteriorate your hearing faster. Kind of a worry. :)

27

i’m waiting for your reply that says “just kidding!”, cuz that sounds really bogus man!!

edit: are you sure what you heard doesn’t just mean “while you are drunk”? it would be really odd for alcohol to do cumulative damage to your hearing

28

unless you’re…

BAT-MAN!!!

omg that was so stupid, i’m sorry.

29

No, I’m serious, unfortunately. :)

I’m sure I read it in a Bob Katz book or tutorial somewhere.

30

that is true… i can hear for miles when im drunk.
cough syrup works really well & amphetamines work too.

so in essence, if your stomach could handle it you could get f u c k e d u p on cough syrup & master your latest piece.

31

yeah, i really dont understand tannoy reveal new monitors i mean it plays up to 51kHZ :blink: who the hell will need that? maybe dolphin trainer? :unsure:

32

well i was reading about vinyl records a few months ago (i can’t find the article now, i searched), and it said they have an “equivalent” sample rate of about 96,000hz, (even though i know they are analogue, it is just an analogy to the subjective quality of the reproduction of sound)… now correct me if i’m wrong, but isn’t the highest possible output frequency of sampleplayback the samplerate divided by two? i.e. 44.1khz divided by 2 (left and right channels) = up to 22050hz tones being reproduced? so technically can’t 96k playback reproduce tones up to 48,000hz. anyway, the argument that i read about vinyl (or high samplerate digital audio), states that even though the frequencies above about 20khz can’t be perceived, they still contain information about the music that would be “missing” if those frequencies weren’t being reproduced. very non-tangible stuff like room ambience and things like that… stuffy super-nerdy audiophile stuff basically. i’m not saying that i could personally tell the difference between a 44100 and a 96000 recording, but i know some people can.

tell me if i have no idea what i’m talking about… this is just what i read somewhere. and you know the internet isn’t 100% reliable. :)

33

yes It is called nyquist theorem that says that the highest alias-free frequency you can reproduce is half the sampling frequency. if you will go higher then instead of original frequencys will occur lower alias freqs.

but…

…this is about sound in digital domain, where information about sound is not continuous signal but rather “sampled points”. So the more frequently you measure those samples the more true representation of the signal you get. So samplingh at 96 KHz and even higher makes sense to me.

But when we talk about speaker capabilities then the signal is in analogue (continuous) domain already and i cant see how those high frequencys should improve the sound if we cant hear them…

but i’m not some PhD though :) so dont take my word on it ;)

EDIT: i dont know if i got you correctly but if i did then just wanted to mention that nyquist theorem have nothing to do with left and right channel…

34

i think you’re right on the money, i must have made up the part about left right because i have a really bad memory :(

35

this is from the site “how stuff works”

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
(its also the texture i used on the wallpapers that i made a few months ago)

the difference to me between 44.1 an 96 is like comparing a sound without reverb to the same sound with reverb, so to me its a big difference.

i guess to put it correctly, i seem to hear more grain, clarity & depth when switching between them