or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

vinyl rip vs cd - Page 8

post #106 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

Maybe that's what it is...but i can hear it clear as day through several walls in a quiet house. I know the buzz in the flourescents you're talking about and those are very easy for me, almost sounds like a fly next to your ear, but these frquencies im talking about seem to be much, much higher that, no?

 

The perception of super audible frequencies is mostly through bone conduction I believe. Odds are what you are hearing is below 20kHz. Humans are unable to detect the pitch of sound above 5kHz, so that will give you an idea of how high up in the spectrum we're talking about.

post #107 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

The perception of super audible frequencies is mostly through bone conduction I believe. Odds are what you are hearing is below 20kHz. Humans are unable to detect the pitch of sound above 5kHz, so that will give you an idea of how high up in the spectrum we're talking about.

Thank you for the resources you posted earlier. In greater detail, the "sound" is most prevalent in TVs, whether it be CRT, LCD, LED or Plasma. I feel confident in saying i can detect this in about 50% of all televisions in a quiet environment through some or several walls. Is there oscilloscope/frequency graphs of these things somewhere? I would test myself if i had one (holiday gift maybe!).


Edited by brunk - 11/8/13 at 3:55pm
post #108 of 334

Ha! Google to the rescue... What you are hearing is the 15,734 hertz oscillator frequency ringing in one of the coils or coming from the high voltage transformer. 15.7 kHz!

post #109 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Ha! Google to the rescue... What you are hearing is the 15,734 hertz oscillator frequency ringing in one of the coils or coming from the high voltage transformer. 15.7 kHz!

Wow cool, but if i hear that, and most people can't, just how "limited" is the average person in high frequency hearing? If the majority of people can detect that frequency, then I'm afraid it may not be the answer google found for us.

 

EDIT: Thank you so much by the way for shedding light on what has been a complete mystery most of my life lol.


Edited by brunk - 11/8/13 at 4:22pm
post #110 of 334

15.7 kHz would be only about three notes on our musical scale away from the top. It's pretty close to the line where even the best hearing gets fuzzy.

post #111 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

Wow cool, but if i hear that, and most people can't, just how "limited" is the average person in high frequency hearing? If the majority of people can detect that frequency, then I'm afraid it may not be the answer google found for us.

 

EDIT: Thank you so much by the way for shedding light on what has been a complete mystery most of my life lol.

It could be 15.7 kHz transformer(s) etc. 

 

Try if you can hear 19 kHz pilot tone from stereo FM tuner. It is usually suppressed in level as much as possible, and so low in level and so high in frequency signal is audible to few. 

post #112 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

15.7 kHz would be only about three notes on our musical scale away from the top. It's pretty close to the line where even the best hearing gets fuzzy.

I just took this test under not so ideal conditions and i can definitely hear 19khz. This is with people talking, TV on, and doors being shut throughout the house. Coincidentally, 16khz is painful for me, I had to immediately stop listening. I may be able to hear higher than 19KHZ, i will do so tonight when it's quiet as a mouse.

 

EDIT Here's the link

 

http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php

post #113 of 334

Be very careful with tests like that. People want desperately to hear beyond the point they actually hear and turn the volume up until they "feel" the frequency. That is a recipe for frying your hearing.

 

Sounds like your hearing has a bump in it right where those TV sets sit.

post #114 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Be very careful with tests like that. People want desperately to hear beyond the point they actually hear and turn the volume up until they "feel" the frequency. That is a recipe for frying your hearing.

 

Sounds like your hearing has a bump in it right where those TV sets sit.

Yeah I started to turn it fairly loud, but realized i better not and just wait until the house is quiet as possible. So would it be my ear, or some type of bone that is causing this pain at this particular frequency? You telling me 15.7khz and then me a while after googling for a hearing test, it struck me by surprise that it hurt. So I guess i am ultra-sensitive to that frequency which explains why i can hear those TV sets through multiple walls and hardly anyone else can. Wow...mystery finally solved for me!


Edited by brunk - 11/8/13 at 5:05pm
post #115 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

Yeah I started to turn it fairly loud, but realized i better not and just wait until the house is quiet as possible. So would it be my ear, or some type of bone that is causing this pain at this particular frequency? You telling me 15.7khz and then me a while after googling for a hearing test, it struck me by surprise that it hurt. So I guess i am ultra-sensitive to that frequency which explains why i can hear those TV sets through multiple walls and hardly anyone else can. Wow...mystery finally solved for me!

Any hearing tests should be done at normal moderate level, otherwise it can indeed be dangerous for permanent damage.

 

Wow - peak in hearing at 15 or so kHz that can lead to pain must be rare. 

 

Just curious - if you ever use IEMs, do you get different sonic impressions than otherwise "average" listeners?

post #116 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
 

Any hearing tests should be done at normal moderate level, otherwise it can indeed be dangerous for permanent damage.

 

Wow - peak in hearing at 15 or so kHz that can lead to pain must be rare. 

 

Just curious - if you ever use IEMs, do you get different sonic impressions than otherwise "average" listeners?

Yeah I will definitely do it at normal volume.  I find listening impressions to be quite similar, but there is a noticeable divergence when they get to high frequencies in their impressions. Most people equate 8-10khz around here (head-fi) as high frequency, which i suppose it is, but I think it's more than that. One thing i can tell you is that the HE-6 is superior in 8khz+ HF content compared to HD800.

 

No my peak/pain is definitely 16khz, serious issues going on there, less so at 15khz, less at 17khz too, so its definitely 16khz. I am not investigating that area anymore lmao.


Edited by brunk - 11/8/13 at 5:36pm
post #117 of 334

Ploppy, if you think any of those graphs meant anything at all, why do you think everyone just ignored them? They prove basically nothing.

 

When the average volume of the fundamentals in the song (which you never deigned to tell us the name of, or the artist or album... suspicious) range from between -12dB and -7dB (and you say these are the same master, if not the same song?), I can guarantee you one hundred percent that you cannot hear any kind of sound at -72dB below another tone. It just cannot happen, because it's been proven that you cannot hear below -45dB dynamic range (proof) at any given time at reasonable listening volumes. That could easily just be surface/ambient noise picked up by the turntable anyways.

 

Also, a single full-song frequency analysis is a joke when you're trying to point out anything in the music, aside from peaks or valleys in the music. Especially at the ridiculous and inconsistent values you put the scale in. How incredibly unscientific, bordering on intentional deception. And you have the nerve to call us wind-up merchants. Your evidence is a joke. :rolleyes: 


Edited by Tus-Chan - 11/8/13 at 11:21pm
post #118 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunk View Post
 

Yeah I will definitely do it at normal volume.  I find listening impressions to be quite similar, but there is a noticeable divergence when they get to high frequencies in their impressions. Most people equate 8-10khz around here (head-fi) as high frequency, which i suppose it is, but I think it's more than that. One thing i can tell you is that the HE-6 is superior in 8khz+ HF content compared to HD800.

 

No my peak/pain is definitely 16khz, serious issues going on there, less so at 15khz, less at 17khz too, so its definitely 16khz. I am not investigating that area anymore lmao.

OK, I have performed a listening test since the house has quieted down. I can indeed "hear" 20khz, but it's more of a "sensing" that it's there, almost like something other than my ear is picking up on it, if that makes any sense. It's an odd sensation. Doing the "blind test" version, I pass 16khz, but anything 17khz and above results in a guess. Sorry for the temporary hi-jacking of this thread, but the opportunity just so happened to present itself in an unusual way here with my "odd ability" lol.

 

EDIT: Then again, I was quickly fatigued after all the white noise on 16khz, so i will conduct a 17khz blind test tomorrow night.

 

Back on topic folks!

:beerchug: 


Edited by brunk - 11/9/13 at 12:12am
post #119 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post
 

Ploppy, if you think any of those graphs meant anything at all, why do you think everyone just ignored them? They prove basically nothing.

 

When the average volume of the fundamentals in the song (which you never deigned to tell us the name of, or the artist or album... suspicious) range from between -12dB and -7dB (and you say these are the same master, if not the same song?), I can guarantee you one hundred percent that you cannot hear any kind of sound at -72dB below another tone. It just cannot happen, because it's been proven that you cannot hear below -45dB dynamic range (proof) at any given time at reasonable listening volumes. That could easily just be surface/ambient noise picked up by the turntable anyways.

 

Also, a single full-song frequency analysis is a joke when you're trying to point out anything in the music, aside from peaks or valleys in the music. Especially at the ridiculous and inconsistent values you put the scale in. How incredibly unscientific, bordering on intentional deception. And you have the nerve to call us wind-up merchants. Your evidence is a joke. :rolleyes: 

:beerchug:

post #120 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tus-Chan View Post
 

Ploppy, if you think any of those graphs meant anything at all, why do you think everyone just ignored them? They prove basically nothing.

 

When the average volume of the fundamentals in the song (which you never deigned to tell us the name of, or the artist or album... suspicious) range from between -12dB and -7dB (and you say these are the same master, if not the same song?), I can guarantee you one hundred percent that you cannot hear any kind of sound at -72dB below another tone. It just cannot happen, because it's been proven that you cannot hear below -45dB dynamic range (proof) at any given time at reasonable listening volumes. That could easily just be surface/ambient noise picked up by the turntable anyways.

 

Also, a single full-song frequency analysis is a joke when you're trying to point out anything in the music, aside from peaks or valleys in the music. Especially at the ridiculous and inconsistent values you put the scale in. How incredibly unscientific, bordering on intentional deception. And you have the nerve to call us wind-up merchants. Your evidence is a joke. :rolleyes: 

 

In a later post I put the artist and album. That graph is from the song "Fade To Black" from the album Ride the Lightning by Metallica.

 

You can download the vinyl flac here: http://kickass.to/metallica-7-albums-vinyl-collection-1983-1997-24-192-flac-t7238737.html (you could pick any song off that album and get similar plot spectrums).

 

I ripped the other song from my CD, but I think you can download the same version here (needs checking) http://kickass.to/metallica-ride-the-lightning-flac-tntvillage-t3406701.html

 

But I don't expect you'll bother to look and listen yourself :wink_face:

 

It can't be surface noise, because the rip sounds very very crisp & clean. The fundamentals of the "noise" would be very loud and make the song unlistenable.

Like I said, the graph reflects exactly what I'm hearing through my studio monitors. And headphones. And hifi system.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd