Went to the audiologist

[Rodney Gold]

Went to see the optometrist last week and saw that an audiologist had set up shop nearby so I decided to book an appointment to have my hearing tested .. just for interests sake.
I think these folk are more into hearing devices etc rather than testing an OCD audiophile.... but it will be interesting to see how they test , what they test , and how it pertains to to my hifi listening

I have just come back....

The audiologist 1st checked my ears with a pressure thing and earplugs , no wax build up and the drums function perfectly .. however my right ear Eustachian tube needs a swallow to unblock , if I do that both ears are in synch ..

Right ear is slightly insensitive to 3k and left at 4k but the response is very good for my age .. according to audiologist .. much better than he expected (im 60)

The response was plotted by me sitting in a closed anechoic type chamber and having different freq test tones played at various levels , you hit the button when you hear the tone .. played by an over ear closed set of headphones.. each ear done separately

Freq range of the test instrument is 200hz to 10k .. he also did a test with a bone transmission device ..

I suppose one has to bear in mind these instruments are mainly used for speech freqs ..so IMO are a bit limited for the nth degree of audiophile testing
Took 20 mins and cost me $30....

 

[infinitely baffled]

I'd get it done.
And then keep quiet if my results were less than good....imagine the loss of credibility on audio forums where everyone knows your hearing is shot

 

[DaveC]

Took 20 mins and cost me $30....

So about $3k in the US...

 

[Rodney Gold]

Faulty hearing is like a faulty bathroom scale that doesnt show you the right weight , but it still shows whether you gained or lost..

 

[marty]

A visit to the audiologist is fine but it should always be tempered by the fact that a less than perfect performance is no reason to go into a deep funk. As we get older, almost nobody has hearing that is as flat as a typical amplifier response. Not only do we lose high frequencies, but there are also selective frequencies which may be down or in some cases suffer "recruitment" (they are down at lower volumes but these notches disappear or improve at higher volumes). Harry Pearson addressed this years ago. His main comment was that no matter what you're hearing frequency response is, you are still referencing the world of live sound with whatever frequency response your ears have. And in the world of home audio reproduction that is still a useful reference. Let's go a bit beyond that. When you attend a concert, think about the hearing of the other 3,670 people (at Carnegie Hall). They mostly all have less than perfect hearing. That doesn't stop them from enjoying the music, does it! Nor do the orchestra members likely all have perfect hearing. And that doesn't limit their performing. So let's not become despondent because our hearing is likely different from when we were 20.

Two more quick points. For critical listening, I will often first play a pink noise signal for a listener to adjust their center balance. Getting the balance right can be very helpful and is often overlooked for not just guests, but all of us. For goodness sake, that's what the balance control is for. Don't hesitate to use it. Many listeners need a 1-2 click adjustment for the sound to come from dead center. Making that adjustment can not only be rewarding, but will not count against you when you try to gain admittance to the great listening room in the sky.

Second, although I don't think hearing tests should be de rigueur for hobbyists, I really think they should be published for all professional reviewers. They should in no way disqualify a reviewer if their hearing isn't perfect, but it does help convey to the reader useful information. Much like the information reviewers often post about the gear they use for evaluation, it provides some useful context for some sonic impressions they might have. Of course this will never happen. No reviewer will want to risk what they perceive as a loss of prestige even though there is no shame in documenting one's hearing for readers to see in the same way they look at a reviewer's room, gear, and occasionally, published preferences (I like music loud, I prefer bass that hits me in the chest, I like single ended-triode amps, I use little metal round things on my walls. I turn to the east and pray before every listening session etc.) to get a sense of a reviewer's bias.

 

[Lee]

So about $3k in the US...

I laughed. Like all good humor, a good bit of truth in this one.

 

[ack]

(they are down at lower volumes but these notches disappear or improve at higher volumes).

This is very true and I discussed it with my audiologist well over a decade ago. Their audio tests assess sensitivity at very low volumes in an anechoic chamber, but the sensitivity increases with high volumes.

 

[NorthStar]

This professional audio test should be part of all professional audio reviewers. And the results should be shared in all professional audio reviews.
Anyone who fail the test and without fixing their hearing should not be a professional audio reviewer.

That's my opinion.

Audiologist, and optometrist (for professional movie reviewers).

 

[Rodney Gold]

Yes.. the volume of the test tones WAS very low..
The audiologist was fascinated tho .. youngish guy , 30 or so .. was quite taken aback that the reason I wanted the test was audiophile related

 

[Steve Williams]

This professional audio test should be part of all professional audio reviewers. And the results should be shared in all professional audio reviews.
Anyone who fail the test and without fixing their hearing should not be a professional audio reviewer.

That's my opinion.

And how would you define "failing the test"? Stone deaf or just not a flat frequency response. Do you really think that all of the reviewers as they age won't have a deficit in some frequencies?

 

[NorthStar]

And how would you define "failing the test"? Stone deaf or just not a flat frequency response. Do you really think that all of the reviewers as they age won't have a deficit in some frequencies?

Steve, if a person cannot hear some frequencies of the audio spectrum with reasonable measure, and if his ears are not 100% in sync with each other, ...

I understand what you are saying. Any profession in life; being an accountant, a lawyer, a carpenter, ...requires an official diploma.
Why not the same with a professional audio reviewer?

 

[infinitely baffled]

Well it might explain why a reviewer has a preference for one type of presentation over others?
Or give a pointer that to younger ears a given piece of equipment might sound bright...or lacking bass extension etc

 

[amirm]

The test I took stopped at 8 Khz. They said the only full response test they have is for cancer patients where they want to find small changes in hearing response.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Playing test tones on my speakers..I can hear perfectly to 12.5k ..15k is a distant whine and thereafter ..nada
It's a little better if I use cans..15k more audible but still nothing thereafter

 

[Kal Rubinson]

And how would you define "failing the test"? Stone deaf or just not a flat frequency response. Do you really think that all of the reviewers as they age won't have a deficit in some frequencies?

Your point is well-taken given that virtually no one over 30 has a perfectly flat threshold response curve. Just like their readers.

However, the points raised by Marty and Rodney are significant. Regardless of how our auditory system filters the input, that same filter is applied to all listening in the real world including at like music events and it is that experience to which our audio comparisons are made.

 

[jazdoc]

One hopes that as we age and our hearing fades, our ability to listen improves through experience.

 

[amirm]

I had to recuse myself from testing audio when I realized one day I could not hear high frequency distortions which were a) audible to a much younger person and b) we found the cause and fixed it. So for proper audio evaluation that includes high frequency hearing, I/we are worthless.

In the band that I do hear, my audiologist report showed more heightened sensitivity than average so I have something to hang my hat on.

 

[JackD201]

For kicks I tried some screening tests including that of Beltone. The results are all "appear to have no problems" these tests mainly check ability to discern speech under different conditions. While it definitely becomes more difficult as ambient noise goes up it appears I was able to discern the words well enough to answer correctly. Consonant sounds are mostly HF so I guess my HF is still passable. I wish I could say the same for my eyes which went from 15/20 to 160/160 farsighted in 3-4 years. The predictions were right, the 40s is when eyes are likely to go. They say it's the mid-fifties for sound. That buys me a decade. Fortunately the ability to compensate albeit to a limited extent is well documented.

 

[BruceD]

Yoh Guys, If you haven't had this procedure--I'd say do it!-

-Ear Micro Suction--about $50 and takes 15mins approx--no water/etc just tickles --ha--serious!

Helped me enjoy my listening immensely !--get my Audiology test figures and I'm 77 next birthday !

BruceD

 

[rbbert]

...
I suppose one has to bear in mind these instruments are mainly used for speech freqs ..so IMO are a bit limited for the nth degree of audiophile testing
Took 20 mins and cost me $30....

One can perform a much more audiophile-relevant test on your home computer using free software. Going to an audiologist is for help getting a hearing-aid.