Went to the audiologist

[amirm]

I have the utmost respect for audiologists; the science and its practitioners are true professional who provide a valuable service to industry and medicine as well as many ordinary people who unfortunately have severe hearing loss. I don't think the vast majority of audiologists are interested in the outliers who have much better hearing than normal, because they have no reason to be. There is no real service they can provide to those people. It's a little bit like a pilot with 20/10 or 20/12 vision going to an optometrist, i.e. pointless.

The audiologist's job is not to care or not care. They provide you the data for each measurement point and relative to general public. In the mid-band frequencies where our hearing is most sensitive, my scores were well above average. You make it sound like they threw me out of the office when they found that out. I had told them at the start that my interest was "work related" and I needed to know how well I could hear. Both the ENT doctor and his audiologist were perfectly understanding.

Anyway, sounds like, pun intended , that you have not done such a test yet have strong opinions about it. I will leave you be with that...

 

[rbbert]

It's never a good idea to make too many assumptions. I have administered, taken and interpreted many PTA's over the years (easily 100 + all together), and suspect (but don't know) that I know more about the procedures, limitations and uses of these tests than any non-audiologist on this forum.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I have a hard time understanding why you wouldn't especially being an audiophile.

Because you have a volume control in your music system but not in real life, you do not need absolute measurements. Relative threshhold comparisons are adequate for audiophile purposes.

 

[rbbert]

The audiologist's job is not to care or not care. They provide you the data for each measurement point and relative to general public. In the mid-band frequencies where our hearing is most sensitive, my scores were well above average. You make it sound like they threw me out of the office when they found that out. I had told them at the start that my interest was "work related" and I needed to know how well I could hear. Both the ENT doctor and his audiologist were perfectly understanding...

And from what you posted earlier, pretty much unhelpful from an audiophile POV (which has been my point). Although sensitivity to absolute frequency extension is not the be all and end all for an audiophile's hearing, it has to rank as very important. "Notches" from acoustic trauma typically occur in the 2 kHz to 6 kHz region, and as we age almost all of us have some evidence of that; unless they are extremely deep (35-45 dB or more) it's difficult to extrapolate that information to frequency extension.

 

[Robh3606]

Because you have a volume control in your music system but not in real life, you do not need absolute measurements. Relative threshhold comparisons are adequate for audiophile purposes.

Hello Kal

I think I am missing your point. Obviously you don't need absolute levels but if you notice yourself turning it up more often than not don't you think its a good idea to actually understand and know what's happening as opposed to just guessing? I take my hearing very seriously as I am sure all off us do. In my mind there is no room for guessing.


Hello RBbert

"Notches" from acoustic trauma typically occur in the 2 kHz to 6 kHz region, and as we age almost all of us have some evidence of that; unless they are extremely deep (35-45 dB or more) it's difficult to extrapolate that information to frequency extension.

And how would you know if you have notches or how deep they were?? It's your hearing and it's not like you have a pink noise source in your head you can compare your hearing too the "normal" everyone else hears. What you hear is your normal. Just because what you hear sounds OK to you doesn't mean you don't have a issue you need to address. Maybe It's just me but I would rather know where I actually stand than guess.

Rob

 

[Gregadd]

As a brilliant dancer once said, by the time I perfected my craft, my legs were shot.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Hello Kal

I think I am missing your point. Obviously you don't need absolute levels but if you notice yourself turning it up more often than not don't you think its a good idea to actually understand and know what's happening as opposed to just guessing? I take my hearing very seriously as I am sure all off us do. In my mind there is no room for guessing.

There are two ways of looking at audiometry. One is clinical and its goal is to determine any significant degree of loss that would result in a communication disability. That is why the testing is usually restricted to speech range and the magnitude resolution is fairly coarse. It is conducted under controlled circumstances so that comparison with the rest of the tested population is possible for biostatistical purposes.

The other is what I thought was the topic here: Audiometry to see what a listener and, more particularly, a reviewer can perceive. Technically, it is more demanding since we seem to think that having equal sensitivity across a wide spectrum (20Hz-20KHz) is important. No one has a smooth threshold response curve (look at the equal loudness curves) and, frankly, no one listens to music at threshold levels. If the threshold response curve is similar in shape to the equal loudness contour, hearing for audio is normal. A loss of sensitivity across the entire spectrum (rare but as with a noise-reduction ear plug) can be compensated by just turning up the volume.

 

[rbbert]

Something else to remember is that an individual's auditory acuity can vary significantly (meaning by as much as 5-10 dB) from day to day or even from morning to evening. So a hearing test (of any kind) performed at one point in time is not really adequate to accurately assess an individual's hearing, if you are interested in fine differences. PTA's don't even attempt resolution at less than 5 dB, despite other research (posted in the past by Amir) showing that with some sounds the least detectable difference in loudness can be less than 0.5 dB.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

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

We'd all lose credibility because not one single person on this forum has hearing as good now as they did when they were 20 years younger, let alone 40 years younger given the average age around here.

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.

I can see that being a double edged sword, though I am seeing some clear examples where perhaps it should. The most recent example was Noel Keywood's review of the Tannoy Prestige GRF90. The speaker comes with a small panel on the front baffle where various press-in "jumpers" can be used to alter the frequency response. Noel remarked that when he got them out of the box (they'd already been run in at the factory) the high end frequency response seemed too bright and uncomfortable to him. But that was the setting that Tannoy engineers and testers had come up with at the factory as sounding "natural". But when Noel tested it the frequency response did have an upward tilt. So it was lucky the speaker could be adjusted. Now sure, this might have been partly a case of differing preferences but I know myself I cannot stand upward tilts at all - but especially at 4 Khz and 8 Khz where any upward tilt is quite uncomfortable for me (and sure enough, the audiogram I had a few years ago showed that I was 5 dB more sensitive than 0dBHL at 8 khz, though down 5 dB at 4 Khz thanks to 50 years of 20th and 21st century living).

 

[rbbert]

As noted above and well-known to audiologists, a person's hearing acuity can vary 5-10 dB from day to day or morning to evening. I find it hard to believe that if your hearing measured only 5 dB one way or the other at your test that the audiologist didn't tell you that.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

As noted above and well-known to audiologists, a person's hearing acuity can vary 5-10 dB from day to day or morning to evening. I find it hard to believe that if your hearing measured only 5 dB one way or the other at your test that the audiologist didn't tell you that.

I'll tell her that resident amateur forum audiologist rbbert told me that. She will have a good laugh. Mine has measured consistently that way in three tests done over 5 years. There isn't any variation in the plots in any of them. Though of course they only plot in 5 dB increments, so there could be variances of 2 dB. But not everyone goes up and down so much. I think unless you are an audiologist with 30 years experience like mine is, perhaps you ought to stop acting like one in this thread. And yes, she tells me everything she measures because she knows I find it all of technical interest. Are you satisfied now or would you like to debate these issues with her?

By the way, if people do not get much noise exposure, live in quiet areas with little external noise and have good health, there won't be much variation in their tests. But I guess your audiologist did not tell you that! The loudest noises I get in a day is the noise of the water coming out of the shower head. I just do not get enough noise exposure these days for my thresholds to shift more than the tolerances needed to vary the plot outputs.

 

[rbbert]

I'll tell her that resident amateur forum audiologist rbbert told me that. She will have a good laugh. Mine has measured consistently that way in three tests done over 5 years. There isn't any variation in the plots in any of them. Though of course they only plot in 5 dB increments, so there could be variances of 2 dB. But not everyone goes up and down so much. I think unless you are an audiologist with 30 years experience like mine is, perhaps you ought to stop acting like one in this thread. And yes, she tells me everything she measures because she knows I find it all of technical interest. Are you satisfied now or would you like to debate these issues with her?

By the way, if people do not get much noise exposure, live in quiet areas with little external noise and have good health, there won't be much variation in their tests. But I guess your audiologist did not tell you that! The loudest noises I get in a day is the noise of the water coming out of the shower head. I just do not get enough noise exposure these days for my thresholds to shift more than the tolerances needed to vary the plot outputs.

That's OK. We have yet to have an audiologist post here, or for that matter find one who has interest in actually doing meaningful testing for an audiophile. But what is really lacking is common sense and self-awareness; that isn't news to anyone who has been around the audiophile world as long as I have.

 

[infinitely baffled]

OK I'll be the first to admit I may be being a little mischievous here
But what if you turn the premise on it's head.
What if bad hearing makes you a more reliable judge of high quality audio?

Say you are functionally deaf
And yet when you listen to music through the Butchsnuffle Fogclearers you can understand every word and hear every note, at the same volume other speakers / amps / gramophones are unintelligible

Could that be a reliable endorsement?

'I'm deaf as a post but even I can hear these !

 

[rbbert]

...The loudest noises I get in a day is the noise of the water coming out of the shower head. I just do not get enough noise exposure these days for my thresholds to shift more than the tolerances needed to vary the plot outputs.

It would help your credentials as an audiophile to admit that you occasionally listen to music