The Tyranny of Pop Music

[MrGongGong]

Whether you think its rude or not I do think Doversoul has a point and I think an appointment with an audiologist would be worth considering.
The relationship between the ear and the brain is very complex and you do appear to have some unusual perceptions of dynamics.
The ability to differentiate between sounds also varies enormously with individuals and contexts.

[NatBalance]

Whether you think its rude or not I do think Doversoul ....

Well it wasn't just his rudeness to which I was referring.

[MrGongGong]

Well it wasn't just his rudeness to which I was referring.

I'm perfectly aware of that, thank you very much.

I'd still go to the audiologist.

[Serial_Apologist]

his

Hers, just for the information.

[gradus]

It has occurred to me when reading reviews of high-end audio gear that the 'golden ears' of the 'expert' have to be taken on trust and it might be interesting to have the experts ears reviewed, as it were. Don't we all suffer hearing loss especially with higher frequency sounds as we age? Many of my friends are (ahem) 'mature' and often can't hear what is said to them first time - I do not exclude myself from this observation. Lord alone knows what happens to the hearing of musicians who have to endure very high levels of amplification when playing, brass players too perhaps?

[P. G. Tipps]

Could it also be the case that 'everyone is different' so hearing can be a very 'individual' thing.

Maybe those who are blissfully unaware that the aforementioned presenter A. McGregor lowers his voice dramatically towards the end of some sentences have the 'hearing problem', and not those who quite clearly hear that he does?

Easy, personal comments about a member's hearing can be flung in either direction!

[Ferretfancy]

[QUOTE=gradus;520914]It has occurred to me when reading reviews of high-end audio gear that the 'golden ears' of the 'expert' have to be taken on trust and it might be interesting to have the experts ears reviewed, as it were. Don't we all suffer hearing loss especially with higher frequency sounds as we age? Many of my friends are (ahem) 'mature' and often can't hear what is said to them first time - I do not exclude myself from this observation. Lord alone knows what happens to the hearing of musicians who have to endure very high levels of amplification when playing, brass players too perhaps?[/QUOTE

Being somewhat (ahem) mature myself, I'm very aware of the pitfalls but I've never claimed to have golden ears even though I worked in sound.

Not long ago I went to the audiology clinic at my local hospital for a very meticulously conducted hearing test, and sure and behold i suffer age related hearing loss.
I was supplied with two excellent hearing aids and went home happy. However, although conversational hearing was improved it proved impossible to wear the aids when listening to my sound system. Everything sounded excessively strident. All was not lost , because I was able to experiment with the hearing aids. They have a six step sensitivity adjustment, and I found that reducing this made a great difference. In fact the sound that I hear without altering the settings on my sound system is now much improved with clearer detail and stereo information.

Now, here's the point, my partner is older than me by a couple of years. What quality is he hearing? Obviously I can't give him a hearing test, so although we are equally keen on music we are not hearing the same standard of sound reproduction. Now, put three golden eared specialists in front of a high end system, how do they describe it and what language do they use to depict their subjective responses? This debate has raged for years, and in the end we should surely be guided by repeatable scientific measurement and follow that with a choice based on personal taste.

I enjoy my home listening, and like live performance even more, now, off this boring computer and back to a nice bit of Mozart!

[MrGongGong]

There are no "golden ears" but there are situations where the ability to hear detail in an audio stream are compromised.
From what Natty keeps referring to it would be a sensible option to investigate this a bit more.
I've just been to visit a specialist ASD school where i'm doing a project next year, some of the children in the group I met are unable in some circumstances to separate sound into discreet elements so that the noise of the computer fan is perceived as loud as the voice of the teacher. This is a fairly well known phenomena (which is why one sometimes sees folks wearing ear defenders on the bus).

We all loose higher frequencies as we get older BUT it's not as simple as thinking that all one has to do is to crank up the EQ in the high end to compensate.

[NatBalance]

OK, this is all I can find as an example that I can link and also download and actually see the levels. It's Radio 3's Choral Evensong but the volumes are virtually the same on any R3 programme between presenter and music. Listen to the volume of the presenter at the beginning, then listen to the volume of the choral music:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8ijR0QL1r8&list=PLJzKMBrrjkfQj67Eg8gbjc53H69h5nHLT

If you can't hear that they are all the same at their loudest then if you've got software like Audacity, or are lucky enough to have Audition, then download it and pop it in there and look at the levels. You will see that the presenter's voice at the beginning introducing the service and at the end of the service is virtually the same level as the high points of the service itself and that most of the time the choir is quieter.

[Ferretfancy]

There are no "golden ears" but there are situations where the ability to hear detail in an audio stream are compromised.
From what Natty keeps referring to it would be a sensible option to investigate this a bit more.
I've just been to visit a specialist ASD school where i'm doing a project next year, some of the children in the group I met are unable in some circumstances to separate sound into discreet elements so that the noise of the computer fan is perceived as loud as the voice of the teacher. This is a fairly well known phenomena (which is why one sometimes sees folks wearing ear defenders on the bus).

We all loose higher frequencies as we get older BUT it's not as simple as thinking that all one has to do is to crank up the EQ in the high end to compensate.

Cranking up the high end is certainly not the only solution. Modern aids have quite sophisticated settings which can also alter perceived directionality among other factors. One thing that is often ignored is simply that as we age we become absent minded and simply don't listen. I'm often on the receiving end of complaints that -"i've already said that once!' of course, but I was too pre-occupied to pay attention while perfectly able to hear what was said.

[Bryn]

OK, this is all I can find as an example that I can link and also download and actually see the levels. It's Radio 3's Choral Evensong but the volumes are virtually the same on any R3 programme between presenter and music. Listen to the volume of the presenter at the beginning, then listen to the volume of the choral music:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8ijR0QL1r8&list=PLJzKMBrrjkfQj67Eg8gbjc53H69h5nHLT

If you can't hear that they are all the same at their loudest then if you've got software like Audacity, or are lucky enough to have Audition, then download it and pop it in there and look at the levels. You will see that the presenter's voice at the beginning introducing the service and at the end of the service is virtually the same level as the high points of the service itself and that most of the time the choir is quieter.

Sorry, but as an example, a heavily data compressed YouTube clip of unknown provenance is less than useless. Is its source FM, DAB, the iPlayer ... ? Please try citing a recent example still available in Radio 3's HD Sound via the iPlayer. That has less chance of being dynamically compressed to the extent that FM is. I think it quite likely that the peak levels of the presentation and the musical content will be approximately similar (why would you expect it to be otherwise?). That will quite likely also mean a higher average RMS level, leading to perceived greater 'loudness' from the presentation. Human speech during such activities as broadcast presentation is pretty certainly going to have a narrower dynamic range than most 'classical music' performances.

[MrGongGong]

OK, this is all I can find as an example that I can link and also download and actually see the levels.

(As Bryn also points out) you have to be really cautious about what you mean by "seeing the levels".
For example, if you have a sound file with a +6db signal at 16000 Hz all the way through it it will look like the whole thing is massively loud and distorted WHEN in actual fact you can't hear the 16000 HZ sound (unless you are a dog or other animal with better than human high frequency abilities).
Often there are peaks at the edge of pitch perception or above it that will confuse what you see.
AND all this depends massively on what you are listening through as the ability of equipment to actually PLAY what you can see varies enormously (and I do mean ENORMOUSLY)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

For example, if you have a sound file with a +6db signal at 16000 Hz all the way through it it will look like the whole thing is massively loud and distorted WHEN in actual fact you can't hear the 16000 HZ sound (unless you are a dog or other animal with better than human high frequency abilities).

I could hear in that range until I was in my early 40s. Cathode ray TVs in a shop gave a hideous squeal at 15,625 Hz.

[NatBalance]

Sorry, but as an example, a heavily data compressed YouTube clip of unknown provenance is less than useless. Is its source FM, DAB, the iPlayer ... ? Please try citing a recent example still available in Radio 3's HD Sound via the iPlayer.

Radio 3's HD sound? I don't listen to R3 in HD on my portable or HiFi. I'm not that familiar with the iPlayer, couldn't find R3 on it. The reason I chose the YouTube clip was because I could, and hopefully someone else could, download it and look at the actual levels. I can't download from iPlayer and look at the levels. Can you? I am familiar with what compression sounds like and I can't hear any more compression in that YouTube clip than in the R3 broadcast straight off the radio.

I think it quite likely that the peak levels of the presentation and the musical content will be approximately similar (why would you expect it to be otherwise?).

Aaah, now this is interesting. If I understand correctly you are asking why would I expect a choir to be anything other than approximately the same volume as the presenter? If so, then there is the answer to our differences in opinion. Nobody else expects or wants the levels to replicate their natural state, they want them leveled out (which is why I think this subject is relevant to this thread). They only want / expect music to sound loud via the shape of the sound wave, not via its actual amplitude.

(As Bryn also points out) you have to be really cautious about what you mean by "seeing the levels".

Oh I know, as I stated in an earlier post ….

Yes, I would be interested to see the actual values in Adobe Audition or Audacity but then I also know that some sounds can actually sound louder than they actually show on a graph.

…. but I have to clutch at straws here. I can't think of any other way of proving my point.

Jean - I've just found your post at #408 about the Criteria of Good Sound as discovered in Bryn's link. Thanks very much for that, don't know how come I missed that one. They mention the "Natural dynamics (differences in volume) of the instruments" which is excellent but I would add a No. 7 to their list related to that:-

7. Natural dynamics (differences in volume) between different audio items i.e. different musical performances (including the spoken word).

[rauschwerk]

I'm not that familiar with the iPlayer, couldn't find R3 on it.

It's iPlayer Radio you should be looking at.

[/I]They only want / expect music to sound loud via the shape of the sound wave, not via its actual amplitude.

I haven't the foggiest idea what that statement means. Looking at a waveform is purely a means by which we avoid overloading recording and broadcast media, which will result in digital clipping. It tell us very little about subjective loudness, as has been noted already by others.