Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Simple Hearing Test (Read 87142 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #25 –
I could hear 18kHz at 24 years old.
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #26 –
With benski's file I can hear the sound at 19 kHz. I'm 22 years old by the way.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #27 –
17K @ 37 (I'm not old!), but that was with speakers (not headphones) in a less-than-ideal listening environment.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #28 –
between 17-18 khz 26 years old

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #29 –
12 kHz, I think (age 62). I heard several quiet up and down sweeps first, but then a solid high frequency tone just at the end.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #30 –
between 19-20 kHz in the right ear and 14-15 in the left, I'm 19.

I've been strictly wearing ear protection at concerts and just listened to low volume over my headphones... And then I got issues with blood circulation in my left ear. 
 

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #31 –
How do you get a 17kHz sine wave from a 48kHz sample?  ...You can't!  You can get a waveform with an average frequency of 17kHz.  And, that's good enough for regular audio reproduction...  I'm not trying to start-up another sample-rate debate. 

A 17kHz sine wave has alternating positive and negative peaks every 29.4 uS (a period of 58.8 uS).  At 48kHz, you get one sample every 20.8 uS.  Those original peaks are lost as soon as you sample.  There is just no way that the digital-to-analog converter can reproduce the original waveform!  The sample-points don't "line up" with where the positive/negative peaks need to be. 

I know Nyquist[/u] says you can theoretically reconstruct the original 17kHz sine wave (given enough samples over a long-enough time).  But, DACs and soundcards don't do that kind of mathematical analysis or processing...  They just spit-out a series of data-points (analog voltages), one at a time, with low pass filtering to smooth-out the waveform.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #33 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
How do you get a 17kHz sine wave from a 48kHz sample?  ...You can't!  You can get a waveform with an average frequency of 17kHz.  And, that's good enough for regular audio reproduction...  I'm not trying to start-up another sample-rate debate. 

A 17kHz sine wave has alternating positive and negative peaks every 29.4 uS (a period of 58.8 uS).  At 48kHz, you get one sample every 20.8 uS.  Those original peaks are lost as soon as you sample.  There is just no way that the digital-to-analog converter can reproduce the original waveform!  The sample-points don't "line up" with where the positive/negative peaks need to be. 

I know Nyquist[/u] says you can theoretically reconstruct the original 17kHz sine wave (given enough samples over a long-enough time).  But, DACs and soundcards don't do that kind of mathematical analysis or processing...  They just spit-out a series of data-points (analog voltages), one at a time, with low pass filtering to smooth-out the waveform.


This isn't an accurate description of how a DAC works at all.  PCM values are NOT voltage values of the waveform over time.  They are an impulse train that can be used to create a given waveform.  They are NOT values of that given waveform.  The fact that the waveform and the PCM values look nearly identical at values far less than Nyquist is what gives many people the impression that PCM values are supposed to mirror the analog waveform.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #35 –
17K with speakers and background noise.  34 years old.
Creature of habit.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #36 –
18k in the left ear, 17k in the right. 26.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #37 –
19k, 23.
--------------------

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #38 –
Quote from: uart on
Quote from: AliL on
I don't know if it's because I'm only 19, or my laptop's crummy soundcard or my crappy 3 year old iPod stock headphones, but I could hear all the frequencies from right at the beginning.

And from what I can tell, the sound doesn't start until he starts to say the word "two" in twenty-two.



Yeah I looked at the waveform in an editor and that's exectly where it starts, it's just after the word twenty and exactly at the begining of the word two. You must be part bat AliL

Thank you  *starts singing the batman theme*

However, Im confused. With the sample on the website I heard the noise right from the off, but using benski's file I can only hear it from just before the 18KHz, I guess about 18.2KHz. Which is the correct value?

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #39 –
I still couldn't hear anything at 12KHz.

64, using speakers. Tinnitus a little bit loud this morning.

Not too surprised, since on another test I started hearing the tone between 11 and 12 K.

Or, why I don't help with listening tests.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #40 –
Quote from: AliL on
However, Im confused. With the sample on the website I heard the noise right from the off, but using benski's file I can only hear it from just before the 18KHz, I guess about 18.2KHz. Which is the correct value?


What kind of soundcard do you have?  There's definitely audio right from 22khz in the file I posted.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #41 –
That's the thing, I don't really know what soundcard i have. It's inbuilt into my 5 year old laptop. A Toshiba Satellite A30-303. When I bring up the sounds menu in control panel and the device manager, it says Realtek AC97 Audio. I don't know if that means anything to you, but it means nothing to me.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #42 –
42 years old, 16kHz was the first one clearly audible (17kHz was more of a sense that there is a sound).
Teemu

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #43 –
17khz at 24 years old.
foobar 0.9.6.8
FLAC -5
LAME 3.98 -V3

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #44 –
About 16.5 to 17 khz, age 28.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #46 –
Hi,
Okay, here goes. I am the youngest member yet to have taken this test (I'm only 15).
I was able to hear a distinct shreek right when the voice started to say 21K, which doesn't surprise me because my similar personal tests are showing the same thing.
BTW, my stepdad, who is almost 47, and who used to listen to loud rock music with headphones, cannot hear 15KHZ tones, when my stepsister had her ears covered and her face buried in her shirt...

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #47 –
21khz @ 22 yo  I have tried with better headphones. Scary stuff

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #48 –
This is a neat test. Using speakers I heard 19k with the original file, and on benski's 48k file I heard 21k. I'm 36 and have played in loud bands since being teenage. I started using earplugs sometime in my 20s, but still I have slight tinnitus symptoms since about 4 years ago.

Simple Hearing Test

Reply #49 –
I heard a tone all the way through the original WAVE.

With Benski's I started hearing a tone after he said 20K and just before he said 19K.

I'll have to re-read this thread to see what this means, but from greynol's post above I guess I should only pay attention to Benski's file.

I am 38, listening on headphones.  I'm not sure that I've admitted my age on this board before. 

BTW, using foobar's tone:// feature (File > Add Location... > "tone://22000") I can hear tone://23000 but not tone://24000.  Is this relevant?

Edit: Hmm, just used "sweep://24000-10000,24" and that produces all sorts of weird and wonderful effects, so I guess this is still being affected by my soundcard (work machine, Aida32 reports it an ALi M5455 AC'97 Audio Controller).
I'm on a horse.