Not bad at all for the upper limit. But I’m sure you can hear lower than 45Hz.
How old are you?
I’m 48 (sorry, I mean I have been 25 for a while ), I can hear distinctly up to 13.5 kHz. Not great. Less than two years ago, I could hear almost up to 16 kHz. It’s hard to get old…
But it’s not that bad. The highest note on a violin is ~4 kHz. So even with a limited hearing at 12kHz, we can hear up to the third harmonic of the highest violin note. That’s acceptable.
Although physically I can hold against the youngsters when I climb (in terms of performance and body shape) my ears and knees betray my age.
Ah, sorry, that was filtered through my speakers (Neat Motive SX3s) at the bottom end! I’ll try again with headphones and report back
14kHz was maybe a bit optimistic, it was fairly directionally/dynamically dependent. As in if I turned my head I’d pick it up, but kept in one place I found it difficult. Does that count!? X) 13 was repeatable I think. Will definitely try again with headphones though!
I’m 25 too (48). Done a fair bit of motorcycling in my time, but wore earplugs religiously. Can’t really mitigate the clubbing though X)
My kids now eclipsing me in all areas. From hearing to running and swimming. I have to say it’s the best feeling ever that they’re doing so too - they find it hilarious X)
At 62 and with 40 + years of loud motorcycles, open faced helmets and no earplugs I lose the tone somewhere around 12k but I’m pleased to hear my NBLs from 26Hz up. Another thing it pointed out was the number of room modes on the way up, boosting and attenuating the level as the tone passed through them. Speaker positioning is to the mm while listening to the effects on various pieces of music and maybe this has helped put some of them off pitch.
Just checked my hearing using a RCA test disc. 10khz is the highest I can hear. I am 71. When I was in my 40’s I could hear 20khz in auditory test in a medical check up. The lower end is more problematic. 40hz was fine but by 29hz my hearing seemed to be much diminished but I checked with a sound metre app and the volume was much lower from my system. Not sure how a pure test tone would compare with a musical instrument where you would hear ? the overtones.
Today a technician from PSI Audio came for a visit.
He brought an AVAA C20 demo unit.
We discussed the positioning of the 4 AVAAs I ordered.
He was very impressed with the listening room, saying this kind of treatment is unusual in a non-professional environment. He reassured me regarding my choices, which is quite nice to hear coming from a professional.
Well, now I have a demo unit. Not really useful, considering I can’t test it. But will allow me to build the alcoves, which will contain the AVAAs and be embedded in the CARUSO walls and .
I can hear from 43Hz to approx 16kHz via apple airpod headphones (bad fit) with some background noise that I can’t get rid of! Not perfect conditions I know but thought I would give it a bash!
Does this explain why I find a lot of HiFi equipment and cables a bit shrill? I have been to a lot of concerts and not really looked after my hearing as I probably should have done btw! I am 43 btw and suspect hearing diminishes a bit with age anyway.
Magico produces extremely neutral speakers with as little colouration as possible. This is especially true for the M series.
They are the “what you feed with is what you get” kind of speakers.
Magico makes objective measurements in an anechoic chamber, like any other loudspeaker company (well, I hope so).
The subjective evaluation should take place in a treated listening room. If this room is not properly treated then it is not possible to hear what the speakers are capable of.
Magico had a very well built and renowned listening room. Which, by the way, cost them quite a lot of money.
They built a new listening room that is even better than the previous one (which is a feat).
Their speakers are not voiced for a particular type of room, as it should be.
The Magico room was designed by SMT, a company from a very small town near the place I grew upp in Sweden. They are strong advocates of diffusion and very reluctant to use absorbtion. This can be seen if you watch the video closely. There are huge amounts of isolation added to the walls and ceiling, but this is then closed in completely with sheets of wood (or other) material. It seems to be used for sound proofing but not absorbtion. SMT advocate bass absorbers but the ones they use are mainly helmholtz resonators.
Well, Magico is voiced for a particular type of room, their own, whether it is an anechoic chamber or not. Not a bad thing, but there are very few potential customers who are capable or willing to build such a room.
I am also a believer. Diffusion is a great tool when you can apply it.
Unfortunately, it is not a good idea for small rooms to massively apply it.
First of all, the frequency band of all diffusors is limited. It starts and ends diffusing at precise frequencies, from the upper midrange to the highs. Everything before and after is reflected.
Then you must be at a certain distance from the diffusors for the sound waves to form.
And finally, it takes up a lot of surface that you can’t use for absorption. Whether it’s broad band or targeted absorption like membranes or hemoltz resonators. And for the latter, the problem is the same as for diffusion.
In short, for small rooms, one has to adopt a different strategy.
Acoustic treatment is not a science. It’s based on science, and a complicated one at that, but in the end it is craft. Every acoustician has his own recipes. What SMT offers is very nice!
The acoustics of small rooms is rather special. There is a whole literature on the subject.
Voicing a speaker in a treated room, or as you say an anechoic chamber (which is not the case for Magico) does not make much sense, it’s kind of an oxymoron if I may say so.
Magico takes great care and spends a lot of money to ensure that their speakers are not voiced for a particular room. I believe Wilson Audio does the same and most Swiss brands as well.
Having a well treated listening room for subjective evaluation of the loudspeakers, ensures that the speakers are heard without the influence of the room.
That’s a treated room’s very goal: reduce the room’s influence.
If the listening room was not treated, it would influence the fine-tuning of the speaker. And in this case, the speaker would be voiced for that particular room.
I have a listening room 7m x 4,65m and ceilings at 3,30m with open space around 120 square meters around and there is no need for any acoustic correction. There are couches and some thin rugs here and there. The room and house acoustics are important for the sound to propagate properly without being too tamed. I listen to music and don’t do recording or mixing.
But it is clear that in your context, there would be little to do.
Having ceilings of 3.30 metres is a real acoustic luxury! Enjoy it.
Just a correction, if I may.
It’s in the listening or mastering context that we treat a room.
As for recording, we like to record in a room with good acoustics, rather reflective and as natural as possible. The room is part of the recording. (except for pop music, which is recorded in “chunks”).
When playing a track, we want to hear the recording venue, not the reflections in the listening room.
