MBritts profiles again - hearing test

    I followed the thread about MBritts profiles where everybody freaked out over the quality of the sounds. But some including me were disappointed and found the profiles way too dark and low mid pronounced. I was wondering how somebody could like the profiles. Surely, the used guitar and the monitoring equipment must be one key. But there could be another.


    A few weeks I had an very painful outer ear infection. After it was gone a few problems still remained and I had to see the doctor again. He didn't find anything, so it must be something else. This time he did a heraing test. The results I already knew. I have a drop at 4000 hz.
    At the same time a bought myself 2 new active speaker (Yamaha DBR-12). The speaker sounded quite good with cd music, but the KPA really sucked.


    Then I remembered my defective hearing and I tried to compensate the loss at 4000 hz by enhancing this frequency with an equalizer in the X slot. I boosted 4000 hz up to 8 db. You know what? I seem to like most of MBritts profiles.


    What I want to point out with this thread is, that we try to compare a sound and comment on it, not knowing how others are able to hear it. The drop at 4000 hz is normal for people who are working in loud environments (many musician) and also for aging people.
    In order to judge the comments of others it may be helpful to know how the audiogram of somebody looks like.


    There are very helpful hearing test apps for mobile phones. Maybe everybody should give it a try. I compared the test with the one from the doctor and they both are identical.


    What do you think about it?

    good point...I'm one of those who really like m britts profiles...but I agree, if I play at bedroom levels thet are a bit dull. but the main thing for me is to find profiles that sound right when played VERY loud and this is where his profiles come alive with my gear. I find many profiles on the RE are way too bright when played loud. I'll check into those hearingtests...what app are you using?

    I see a downside to tweaking based on your own hearing -- playing to an audience whose hearing isn't the same way. Perhaps it's more apt to take note of those frequencies that are lost and do the compensation in your head rather than on the Kemper.


    Of course, if you're toting around your own backline, it would make more sense to have multiple EQ options for multiple outputs, so that you could have this tweak solely on your monitors, rather than the overall PA mix. But this is a feature that is absent from the Kemper at present.


    Also, some people have different ideas of tone. If you don't like something, you don't like it. I never understood the arguments over the M Britt profiles. It's such a subjective thing.

    Quote from nightlight

    ...... It's such a subjective thing.


    exactly! on my side I don't thing I ever found a rig that was ready to rock as it came. I always had to use one of my favourite tills cabs.


    I have various Britt's profiles which I found great......but the cab is no longer the same Michael's profiled. but this is me............so a total personalized approach. I bet if I share my profile several might consider it bad sounding.......

    "...why being satisfied with an amp, as great as it can be, while you can have them all?" michael mellner


    "Rock in Ecclesia" - new album on iTunes or Google music

    I'm getting one done in February for the first time, so I'll be sure to ask for some layout of my frequency deficiencies.


    Then I guess I'll have to create a Graphical EQ compensation plugin on my Master track to compensate so the rest of you can agree with my tastes!! ;)


    I've thought about this a lot lately, actually, so I'm glad you started the thread Bluesman. I had a similar opinion of Pack 1, but when I tried Pack 2 I loved them entirely. So what I need to find out is the frequency difference between the packs and how to arrange a correction for me, haha.

    Just to avoid that I get misunderstood. It's not about MBritts profiles. I know that taste is a subjective thing. I wanted to point out, that when we discuss sound, we sometimes don't discuss the same thing. It's like we discuss a painting and for instance some like the blue color of the ocean and others think, what is he talking about? It's grey.
    I will not change my profiles going out to the front, but I will try to adjust the monitor on stage a little. And I will force everybody to play on lower levels so that my curve don't drop further. I tried ear plugs years ago, but I couldn't work with it.


    Here is a very good hearing test for android: https://play.google.com/store/…=mobile.eaudiologia&hl=de

    For me i had the same experience with the 1st pack and i am not using any of the profiles.
    I think it must be the guitar cab monitoring that made them dull sounding or perhaps i am not using
    enough volume with FRFR wedge.. I saw that M.britt does not have his guitarcab in his face so maybe he has way more volume :)
    I guess i could use an EQ to try and fix it but i hate tweaking as i get tone deaf very quickly, i can only do minor adjustments at a time to not get lost, so i find its easier to look for a plug&play rig.


    On the other hand, my favorite profiles from TAF can get a bit too bright at high volume, but this is usually when the whole band should turn down a bit.

    The equipment that you listen and play through can make a night and day difference as you indicated. Guitars/pickups and your personal variables all play a part. Good points to present and reasons to get your hearing tested.

    "More Guitar in the Monitors" :thumbup:

    Just out of curiosity I would like to ask you how you listen to professionally recorded and perfectly produced music.
    Do you always compensate for this 4kHz loss to make the experience enjoyable for you, even on your home stereo or cellphone or any other device used to listen to music?
    I mean, if there is an issue with your ears, then this problem will accompany you in every situation in life, not only with your own guitar tone, no?

    I don't compensate music to my 4Khz loss. But if you describe a certain profile and I know that you have a massive loss at a specific frequency, it helps me to judge your comment. If I am satisfied with a sound and others say they don't like it, because it is too bright, I have a clue why.
    Regarding my example with MBritts profiles it may be possible, that the ones who found it dull, also have a nodge in their curce. If you can't see blue color as a painter you still can paint a blue ocean.
    I just find it interesting, to know that we discuss about sound, knowing that we are not talking about the same thing, if you look at it from an objective point. Objective would be a young ear with no freqency losses. Don't know how to describe it.

    Quote from Bluesman

    If you can't see blue color as a painter you still can paint a blue ocean.


    Yeah, I completely agree with this (and the rest of your post). I just added the thought that (in your example) the painter will have seen many other paintings with blue oceans or maybe he even sat on the dunes while painting the ocean, so he has something to compare / reference to.


    Probably the mistake of my thoughts is, that there's 2 completely different (valid) approaches.
    Either you make it sound the "same" like your favourite recording artists ... using others' work for reference ...
    Or you just take advantage of EQs to make sounds please your own ears. Like a painter who uses much stronger and saturated blue to compensate for his vision problems?


    Now I know you're used to listen to music with your ears. Un-EQed. Would be interesting to know how it would sound to you if you started to listen to the same music including the same EQ settings you tend to use for your guitar sound. Strange experience in the first couple of minutes / hours? Would you have to get used to it? Or would it be an immediate WOW?


    Again, there's no critisizm. It's just interest in how these differences translate into your "real life". :)
    Hope I explained well. Sometimes I fear my english isn't good enough to discuss complicated topics.


    Cheers
    Martin

    Hi Martin,
    ha ha - I have the same problem with my english. When it gets more sophisticated, I don't know how to put it right. On top of it, the written word can easy lead to misunderstandings, because you can not read the mood of somebody.
    The aproach with taking a reference for building own sounds is good, but if you don't use the same equipment (guitar, speaker etc.) it will be hard to dial it in like the original. I don't try to copy tones, even though there are many sounds I would like to call my own. I rather would like to have their playing technique :)


    Listening to music with compensating the hearing loss is a mixed thing. Some music sounds more transparent to me. Some a little overdone. Depends on the music, I guess. But one thing is important to know. Our brain compensates the loss by itself. Al least it tries to do so. That's why we all are not aware of a hearing loss until it gets so bad that we are having difficulties in daily life.

    Quote from Bluesman

    ... Our brain compensates the loss by itself. Al least it tries to do so. That's why we all are not aware of a hearing loss until it gets so bad that we are having difficulties in daily life.


    Very true, I know this effect from my father who had pretty bad vision for decades until he got his eyes lasered. He has always been an ambitioned photographer and he really knew how to develop great photo prints in his small hobby photo lab. I would call his skills in color/contrast grading close to professional. After he got his eyes lasered he said: "Wow, everything is so much brighter, crisper, more saturated." Actually he was kind of confused by this new experience for a few weeks/months. But then he got used to it and it had no further impact on his photography. He didn't reduce saturation or contrast to compensate for his changed vision.
    So for me that's a perfect example of our brain being pretty smart.


    The only difference (and hence my interest in your situation), he never tried to compensate for his bad vision. Maybe he always stuck to the approach of keeping things in reference to what he saw. I'm 100% sure that if he had tried to make his pictures more saturated, more contrast, sharper, it wouldn't have felt right to him ... although it might have given him a kind of "preview" of what he would experience after the laser.


    Sorry for this lengthy anecdote. :)
    Your situation is probably very different, but to me it read like you're somehow undecided between the 2 approaches I tried to describe. That's perfectly fine for yourself. Most important is, that you enjoy what you do, no matter how and what. :) And I don't even think I need to give any suggestion to you. But it was interesting to learn and understand your situation.

    Yes, this is a nice example with a similar problem. I think guitar player who use the KPA are caring for a good sound for the audience. So do I. That's why I don't compensate (4khz) in my main out sound. The monitor will be adjusted like everybody else do. Just to my taste. But now that I am aware of the drop in my curve, I keep an eye also on the 4khz.


    There is one thing that makes me smile a little bit. ^^ You talking about "my situation". I am pretty sure that many others here are in the exact same situation. I wood estimate at least 20-30 % of all users. If not more. Almost everybody who is past 40 will have a drop at 4khz and the ones who play often at loud levels anyway. Then the ones who hang out in discotheks a lot . . .etc.


    It's a common thing. That's why I brought it up.


    "Show me your audiogram, and I know what you hear!" :D


    Agreed. ;)