Which is the highest frequency that You can hear? Options

[greynol]

I think it is appropriate to add noise to the silent sample that it be identical to that used to dither the tones. I think noise should also adequately mask the modulation introduced due to volume ramping as well as the small burst that occurs when the ramping up ends and the ramping down begins. Perhaps this is what is happening in the samples just uploaded by bandpass.

EDIT: I assumed the noise would be LSB dither, this is overkill. Regardless, if the samples were at 44.1k and I tried them on something like an SB Live! I have my doubts that would be enough to mask resampling artifacts introduced by the card. I also am concerned about people claiming to hear 22kHz because they hear something, not unlike the person claiming to hear a tone because it was "rumbling." Honestly, I think the previous samples were better, but am more than happy to see how these go over.

This post has been edited by greynol: Mar 3 2012, 22:50

[extrabigmehdi]

Well, I found the background noise too loud for being able to ABX 18khz from silence (I was able before) , but I can still ABX 17 khz.
And I had to use convert mono to stereo , in dsp chain otherwise I have playback problems, and I prefer to use both ears.

[stranhoROX]

Just to clarify:

If I have found that 15k seemed louder than 14k, does that mean my test was invalid? (aliasing, or other problems?) [I'm on Windows XP and I couldn't find an option to fix the sample rate].

By the way, I could hear up 17k. [I'm 20 years old]. I'm not going to vote until I'm sure the test was properly realized.


Another thing: listening to the samples was pretty uncomfortable. I set foobar2000 volume control to -15dB when listening regular music with Replaygain. I had to set to -60dB during the test. Is it supposed to be THAT loud?

[bandpass]

Honestly, I think the previous samples were better, but am more than happy to see how these go over.

With the new samples, the signal to noise is much better controlled than in the previous samples; specifically, they are:

1 less dependent on playback volume
2 less susceptible to playback aliasing
3 not subject to the spectral splurge (and other unexplained artefacts) caused by using a linear fade instead of half-cos-wave fade

The amount of masking noise (-30dB) is just sufficient to mask aliasing from the pulseaudio (linux) playback chain, but insufficient to mask aliasing from for example, cubic interpolation. I've uploaded another set of samples with the noise 20dB lower, so the first set I uploaded allows listening tests of relatively 'quiet' (i.e. small signal to noise) tones and the second set relatively loud (higher signal to noise) tones. If you're sure that your playback chain does not resample 48k, or that it does but has half-decent resampling, then it should be okay to use the second set; otherwise, stick with the first.

[C.R.Helmrich]

The amount of masking noise (-30dB) is just sufficient to mask aliasing from the pulseaudio (linux) playback chain.

Your original upload from yesterday (-30dB, Hearing_maximum_frequency_test2.zip) also has sufficient noise to mask aliasing in Windows Vista and 7. Still, of course, we should keep the user instruction to configure the OS to avoid resampling.

Chris

[musicreo]

With the new files I can easy hear 18 KHz but this time I can't ABX 19-22 Khz.

[extrabigmehdi]

I'd say same result with both last tests, 17 khz is the last frequency I manage to ABX "easily".

[C.R.Helmrich]

If I have found that 15k seemed louder than 14k, does that mean my test was invalid?

Not really, such results are possible. The frequency responses of headphones are usually not flat and also depend on the shape of your head/ears and how you wear the headphones. But you should try again with bandpass's new set of files.

Chris

[db1989]

Wait, the poll says "Total Votes: 74 - You have already voted in this poll", where neither of this is true. I count only 56 votes.

I don't remind, but there might be a "null option" for people that only want to see results.

That’s correct; see the button “View Results (Null Vote)”.

I can’t speculate about why it thought Chris had already voted if he hadn’t.

This post has been edited by db1989: Mar 4 2012, 22:15

[IgorC]

Now when there are new files are we all ok with the current poll or new one should be opened?

It will be worth if a members who have voted for >=20 kHz will perform the test with the latest files.
We also can go farther and create ABX sessions as for public tests (but probably will receive less results/votes).

This post has been edited by IgorC: Mar 5 2012, 16:01

[onkl]

I'd say just add the new files to the opening post and ask people that score 19khz and higher to doublecheck with these.

[IgorC]

I'd say just add the new files to the opening post and ask people that score 19khz and higher to doublecheck with these.

The files have been updated a few days ago.


Important update:
New set of files was uploaded. Now tones also have additional background noise to mask aliasing.
People shouldn't be shy if they can't hear theoretical 20 kHz. It's absolutely normal.
It will be much more useful to inform real hearing abilities. Nobody will be accused of anything that's for sure.
Maybe after all there are some individuals who can hear anything at 20 kHz and above.

I will ask those of members who have voted for 20 kHz and higher (well, other as well) to run a test with a new set of files again if it's not much to ask.

Thank You.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Mar 6 2012, 05:41

[2012]

I'd say just add the new files to the opening post and ask people that score 19khz and higher to doublecheck with these.

The files have been updated a few days ago.


Important update:
New set of files was uploaded. Now tones also have additional background noise to mask aliasing.
People shouldn't be shy if they can't hear theoretical 20 kHz. It's absolutely normal.
It will be much more useful to inform real hearing abilities. Nobody will be accused of anything that's for sure.
Maybe after all there are some individuals who can hear anything at 20 kHz and above.

I will ask those of members who have voted for 20 kHz and higher (well, other as well) to run a test with a new set of files again if it's not much to ask.

Thank You.

Is It possible to change my vote?

When I read "AT NORMAL LOUDNESS LEVEL", I assumed the second part is for loud levels(read the last option carefully after voting) so I answered 22. With the new samples, I can ABX 17 but the best I can really easily hear is 16.

[IgorC]

Is It possible to change my vote?

I don't know if administrators can see or change the votes.

I will open a new topic with ABX sessions (like ones for public test ) instead of poll.
The question is which version of noise we should adapt instead of providing two sets of files.

Also the readme.txt will be updated as the listener should start to perform the test at 8-12 kHz at normal loudness level and then continue to increase the frequency without changing the volume.
Now it will be more close to call it a valid experiment

This post has been edited by IgorC: Mar 7 2012, 16:45

[bandpass]

I'd suggest to say 'comfortable' level rather than 'normal' level since the test signals are not normal listening material.

If only one set of test files, I'd suggest my first set (...2.zip) since the risk of other effects is lower and testing at a particular signal to noise level is a perfectly valid and useful thing to do, so even if future tests are done at other levels the data gathered will still be useful as part of an overall picture.

Cheers,
Rob

[extrabigmehdi]

I managed to abx 18khz with difficulty at the end ( Only 5 try on abx test, as this annoy me, result 3%)
Also I m using now a different pc, with onboard soundcard instead of xonar stx.
I thought that my realtek soundcard might add distortions that helped in the abx test.

[C.R.Helmrich]

Apparently, as reported in a separate thread, Microsoft offers a hotfix to improve its resampler in Windows 7 and later.
Edit: I tried it, and it works for me (no more audible aliasing). I wish they would have offered this hotfix before the poll(s) started

Chris

This post has been edited by C.R.Helmrich: Mar 9 2012, 22:08

[matt the cat]

Apparently, as reported in a separate thread, Microsoft offers a hotfix to improve its resampler in Windows 7 and later.
Edit: I tried it, and it works for me (no more audible aliasing). I wish they would have offered this hotfix before the poll(s) started

Chris

Thanks for notifying about that, installed it for my machine now.