Question about low damping factor and low freq. response range

[so_ein_pech]

If I make a ticking noise seven times a second then obviously you can hear it. The fundamental frequency of this signal is 7Hz, but it would be hard to argue that hearing this sound equates to being able to hear down to 7Hz. The frequency you are hearing is that of the ticking sound itself. It is an overtone of the actual sound.

This is similar to how harmonic distortion in your speakers work. What you are probably hearing is a higher frequency sound created by distortion in the speakers and modulated at 7Hz. It gives the illusion of very deep bass, but is not in fact what your ears are detecting.

 

[Billy Dio]

I decided to experiment a little with what I have on hand. So that's the cheapy modded head phones, Koss PRO4AAAT, a Pioneer VSX D514S (old entertainment system amp I've had for awhile), a BOTL Sherwood about 5 years old, and my MCS 3245. Using this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rczdzvN7K00 as a reference tone maker for bass. I've also tried different bass sine waves in the same HZ and the linked vid was identical in the sound.

Anyways, the Sherwood (bass was turned up to it's max which isn't much, and unit has no loudness) started rolling off before 20hz and was dead silent by 19hz (couldn't even get vibration from the Koss at louder volume so the amp is cutting the sound). Both headphones detected this.

The Pioneer, same basic bass setting as the Sherwood oddly despite costing 3x as much new, with either the midnight or loudness on, managed to barely make it to 17hz, but the sound was more of a scratch sound at that point. Meaning something was there, but it stopped sounding like a softer bass note like 40 hz, 30 hz, etc. @ Lapslah I used 30 hz as an example. What I'm hearing at 30hz sounds just like 40 hz or 50hz with regards to the bass roll-on sound. Talking headphones here, not subs.

For what it's worth, I did a test tone test and I can detect 16khz but it's painful. (Edit, I went back and tried this again with the MCS cool and the 1.5k turnover instead of 3khz and 17khz was heard with cheapy headphones? But nothing above) All 3 amps and both headphones did the 16khz w/o issue. Very unsettling tone. Like ringing ears but very harsh and shrill (good way to bother young people or the neighbor's dog unknowingly I suppose ). 18khz was dead silent. With exception to the MCS at 17, 16khz seems more reliable, so I might be at my limit or the PC's sound card limit. I'd have to burn the signal to CD and see if my CD player can let me hear it higher or not. Here's that reference:
http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php
Just click the test tone box.


Actually, all you guys talking about hearing loss with regards to age was enlightening. I always assumed hearing loss was just loud sound related, genetic, or possibly a disease related side-effect. Even though I seem to be testing good still, I'm thinking of going to get a professional check up now and doing it semi-regularly to see if worsens as I enter my 40's and beyond.

 

[MNOx]

Hi - I'm very new here, so I hope this thread isn't too old for me to comment. Also, please let me know if this is too far afield from the main topic. I’m no engineer and am pretty remedial on many of the detailed audio electronic topics that are discussed on these forums. I’ve been trying to follow this thread, and I get that distortion could be playing harmonic tricks on the ear. At the same time, I think there’s another way the “un-hearable” frequencies may influence those we can hear.

I researched overtone series interactions from a different perspective: in the 80’s I took a vocal pedagogy course as part of my voice major. We had several in-class discussions as a result of our research on the topic. It was especially relevant as digital recording was on the rise and people were dumping their vinyl and turntables to purchase CDs. Our professors pointed out that while people can’t hear tone into the 30K range, their existence interacts harmonically with the tones we can hear, and influences how “rich” and “full” we perceive them to be. This influencing is not due to distortion, but to the harmonic interplay between the tones. We looked at the frequency range that was being captured for the digital recordings and noted that (especially on the high end) the new digital was chopping off a significant part of the sound produced. Assuming that you have a receiver/amp and speakers that can generate those highend frequencies, analog recordings should have a fuller high register than those digital recordings that truncate the performance data.

It could be that course was overly simplistic, as we didn't get into the engineering perspective. It did drive my purchase decision for my first serious system (both speakers and receiver responsive to 40K+). I’ve always thought the high end was fuller when I compared CD to vinyl through the system. I’d be curious if my conclusion holds any real water, or if its garbage (the power of suggestion can be very strong at times). Thanks!

 

[so_ein_pech]

Hi - I'm very new here, so I hope this thread isn't too old for me to comment. Also, please let me know if this is too far afield from the main topic. I’m no engineer and am pretty remedial on many of the detailed audio electronic topics that are discussed on these forums. I’ve been trying to follow this thread, and I get that distortion could be playing harmonic tricks on the ear. At the same time, I think there’s another way the “un-hearable” frequencies may influence those we can hear.

I researched overtone series interactions from a different perspective: in the 80’s I took a vocal pedagogy course as part of my voice major. We had several in-class discussions as a result of our research on the topic. It was especially relevant as digital recording was on the rise and people were dumping their vinyl and turntables to purchase CDs. Our professors pointed out that while people can’t hear tone into the 30K range, their existence interacts harmonically with the tones we can hear, and influences how “rich” and “full” we perceive them to be. This influencing is not due to distortion, but to the harmonic interplay between the tones. We looked at the frequency range that was being captured for the digital recordings and noted that (especially on the high end) the new digital was chopping off a significant part of the sound produced. Assuming that you have a receiver/amp and speakers that can generate those highend frequencies, analog recordings should have a fuller high register than those digital recordings that truncate the performance data.

It could be that course was overly simplistic, as we didn't get into the engineering perspective. It did drive my purchase decision for my first serious system (both speakers and receiver responsive to 40K+). I’ve always thought the high end was fuller when I compared CD to vinyl through the system. I’d be curious if my conclusion holds any real water, or if its garbage (the power of suggestion can be very strong at times). Thanks!

You raise an interesting point here about high frequencies interacting. For instance, two sine waves played at the same time will produce an audible "beat" frequency equal to the difference of the frequencies of the two sine waves. Say the two sine wave frequencies are too high to be inaudible, but the beat frequency produced is below 20kHz, will it be audible?

I can say with certainty that your speakers are probably excellent , but their frequency response up to 40kHz isn't reason your CDs sound better than your vinyl. A standard CD (encoded with a sampling frequency of 44.1kHz) contains no information above 22kHz. Read about the Nyquist theorem to understand why this must be true. (IRL, it's less than 22kHz to allow for non-ideal low-pass filters in the ADC, but 22.05kHz is the theoretical limit.)

 

[MNOx]

Actually, I was trying to say my vinyl sounds better than my CD's for that exact reason. I'm just confusingly convoluted and long winded . Should have said "compare vinyl to CD" instead of the other way around. Thanks!