Went to the audiologist

[Rodney Gold]

It was only $30 and my health care pays 80% of it , so for $6 out of pocket..why not....at least he physically checked my ear canals and drum movement

 

[rbbert]

It was only $30 and my health care pays 80% of it , so for $6 out of pocket..why not....at least he physically checked my ear canals and drum movement

True, it's good for the economy to keep that money circulating!

 

[amirm]

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.

What free software? How do you calibrate the level in the headphones?

The kit I bought to do this at home cost $200 and came with headphone amp+headphone that were calibrated. And did a fraction of the tests that audiologist performed.

 

[rbbert]

Remember that an audiologist's purpose is really to assess need and/or suitability for hearing aids, not testing "audiophile" hearing. For our purposes, we are interested primarily in frequency response extension, not speech discrimination (if you are at that point, you may need to turn in your audiophile badge). So what we want is just a quiet room (not anechoic, 0-10 dB quiet), a good DAC/ headphone amp (or high-end sound card) and 'phones, and Audacity or the editing program of your choice. Headphones for music listening won't have ruler flat response, they won't even have the same response from person-to-person, but again that isn't essential or necessarily even desirable. A hearing notch of enough amplitude to be meaningful will still almost certainly be noticed. Heck, for most of us boomers, just put on the new Sgt. Pepper's at normal volume and see what you hear at the end of A Day in the Life

 

[Simon Moon]

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)

I also recently went to an audiologist, and this is exactly the same results! 3k on right ear, 4k on the left. And I am also 60.

But they only test out to 8k. After those dips at 3 and 4k, my hearing improved to normal and was pretty flat to 8K. At home, I tested myself with freq sweeps and cans, and was able to hear well to 14k on both ears.

I am more than happy with those results for critical listening.

 

[audioguy]

Anyone who fail the test and without fixing their hearing should not be a professional audio reviewer.

I'm curious. How are you suggesting they get their hearing fixed? Hearing aids are a REALLY bad idea and I am not aware of any surgery that can restore the hearing we had when we were 10.

 

[rbbert]

I'm curious. How are you suggesting they get their hearing fixed? Hearing aids are a REALLY bad idea and I am not aware of any surgery that can restore the hearing we had when we were 10.

Hearing aids are excellent treatment for people with significantly impaired hearing, but as I noted it's very unlikely you woud still be an audiophile if your hearing is that bad. Music lover is still reasonable, though

 

[rbbert]

So what do you hear at the end of Sgt. Pepper's?

 

[audioguy]

Hearing aids are excellent treatment for people with significantly impaired hearing, but as I noted it's very unlikely you woud still be an audiophile if your hearing is that bad. Music lover is still reasonable, though

I agree. When I said hearing aids are a bad idea, I meant for an audio reviewer.

The extreme example on this subject was a magazine founder/reviewer who was deaf in one ear. I can no longer remember his name or that of his quickly failed publication. He later showed up as the founder of an audio company that made a product that "enhanced" two channel music (there was a thread on WBF on this product -- I purchased one).

I never could wrap my head around an audio reviewer who was deaf in one ear. While he could certainly hear enough to note improper variances in frequency response (and a few other things), but nothing about the 3 dimensionality of an audio presentation.

 

[amirm]

Remember that an audiologist's purpose is really to assess need and/or suitability for hearing aids, not testing "audiophile" hearing. For our purposes, we are interested primarily in frequency response extension, not speech discrimination (if you are at that point, you may need to turn in your audiophile badge). So what we want is just a quiet room (not anechoic, 0-10 dB quiet), a good DAC/ headphone amp (or high-end sound card) and 'phones, and Audacity or the editing program of your choice. Headphones for music listening won't have ruler flat response, they won't even have the same response from person-to-person, but again that isn't essential or necessarily even desirable. A hearing notch of enough amplitude to be meaningful will still almost certainly be noticed. Heck, for most of us boomers, just put on the new Sgt. Pepper's at normal volume and see what you hear at the end of A Day in the Life

You can't produce the same data as the audiologist can. They measure your hearing at different frequencies and then compare it to same data for the general/healthy population. You then get a score as to whether you are better or worse than the large population. Without calibrated levels, you cannot do this yourself.

The test is NOT a measure of flatness of hearing response which does not exist anyway. Our hearing is highly non-linear and just because you can't hear the same tone at 12 Khz that you do at 1 Khz, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with your hearing.

I recommend getting the test done both for its medical value and audiophile purposes.

 

[rbbert]

You can't produce the same data as the audiologist can. They measure your hearing at different frequencies and then compare it to same data for the general/healthy population. You then get a score as to whether you are better or worse than the large population. Without calibrated levels, you cannot do this yourself.

The test is NOT a measure of flatness of hearing response which does not exist anyway. Our hearing is highly non-linear and just because you can't hear the same tone at 12 Khz that you do at 1 Khz, doesn't mean there is anything wrong with your hearing.

I recommend getting the test done both for its medical value and audiophile purposes.

As I said, we are not interested (or shouldn't be) in reproducing the data the audiologist gets. Do you really need/want to know how your hearing up to 8 kHz compares to the general population? Furthermore, unless you are not able to hear things you need or want to hear, and want that corrected, there is no medical reason to visit an audiologist, barring unusual situations such as monitoring for ototoxic effects of drugs, noise exposure, etc. Those are good reasons, but if they are significant you aren't really an audiophile anymore, and I'm pretty sure this discussion is about audiophiles' hearing.

I notice no one has yet answered my question about Sgt. Pepper's.

 

[Jim Smith]

I agree. When I said hearing aids are a bad idea, I meant for an audio reviewer.

The extreme example on this subject was a magazine founder/reviewer who was deaf in one ear. I can no longer remember his name or that of his quickly failed publication. He later showed up as the founder of an audio company that made a product that "enhanced" two channel music (there was a thread on WBF on this product -- I purchased one).

I never could wrap my head around an audio reviewer who was deaf in one ear. While he could certainly hear enough to note improper variances in frequency response (and a few other things), but nothing about the 3 dimensionality of an audio presentation.

Larry Kay

 

[marty]

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.

Jack, it's not that gloomy a picture for eyesight. When you say the eyes are "likely to go" in your 40's, technically what you are most likely referring to is the ability to accommodate. That is, the ability to read things close up without reading glasses. In this case, all that reading glasses allow you to do is recover focus at near. The point is, as long as you can see well at the distance you require (with or without glasses), the eye's haven't really "gone" anywhere. In other words, if your best corrected vision is excellent, your eye's are functioning well and will continue to do so as you age unless something intervenes such as cataracts, macular degeneration or glaucoma. Even in the case of cataracts, removal with placement of an intraocular lens can still get most people back to go old 20/20. In general, it's only when damage occurs to the retina (i.e. the film in the camera), that the eye's will truly degrade, sometimes permanently, and this typically occurs in the 6th decade or later.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Im not sure what sgt pepper I was supposed to be listening to .. Im listening to the remix on the Deluxe version (tidal)
Comes to a crescendo and then tails off forever with a low bass note and buzz till is not audible for 2 secs and then here is some weird singing jumping between l and r speakers
Was there something else?

 

[Robh3606]

Do you really need/want to know how your hearing up to 8 kHz compares to the general population?

Hello Rbbert

I have a hard time understanding why you wouldn't especially being an audiophile. I had mine tested specifically because I was concerned about hearing loss from seeing live shows over the years. I have always used some kind of ear protection and was curious what was happening. I had also noticed I was having issues hearing above 12-15k or so while I was doing driver impedance plots. Turned out I was fine and had very good hearing for my age and showed no sign of hearing loss and tested "normal" using the standardized test. I now have a baseline if I notice any issues down the line. Also tells me that the effort taken to limit my SPL exposure at shows is working and well worth the effort.

Rob

 

[rbbert]

Hello Rbbert

I have a hard time understanding why you wouldn't especially being an audiophile. I had mine tested specifically because I was concerned about hearing loss from seeing live shows over the years. I have always used some kind of ear protection and was curious what was happening. I had also noticed I was having issues hearing above 12-15k or so while I was doing driver impedance plots. Turned out I was fine and had very good hearing for my age and showed no sign of hearing loss and tested "normal" using the standardized test. I now have a baseline if I notice any issues down the line. Also tells me that the effort taken to limit my SPL exposure at shows is working and well worth the effort.

Rob

Because the standardized test goes only to 8 kHz and measures threshold hearing. If your hearing is lost below 8 kHz I think it's hard to call yourself an audiophile, but that's JMO I guess.

 

[rbbert]

Im not sure what sgt pepper I was supposed to be listening to .. Im listening to the remix on the Deluxe version (tidal)
Comes to a crescendo and then tails off forever with a low bass note and buzz till is not audible for 2 secs and then here is some weird singing jumping between l and r speakers
Was there something else?

After the brief silence there is several seconds of a 15 kHz sine wave (pure tone) just before the weird singing

 

[amirm]

As I said, we are not interested (or shouldn't be) in reproducing the data the audiologist gets. Do you really need/want to know how your hearing up to 8 kHz compares to the general population? Furthermore, unless you are not able to hear things you need or want to hear, and want that corrected, there is no medical reason to visit an audiologist, barring unusual situations such as monitoring for ototoxic effects of drugs, noise exposure, etc. Those are good reasons, but if they are significant you aren't really an audiophile anymore, and I'm pretty sure this discussion is about audiophiles' hearing.

If you want to have an opinion about audio and want to express it to others as useful information, then you better know how you fare compared to the rest of the population. 8 Khz is more than sufficient to indicate if you have nerve damage or age related hearing loss. That is why they stop there. I asked my ENT doctor about going to 20 Khz but once he read my results at 8 Khz, that I need not bother. Nerve damage had occurred.

Now when I go to shows and such and something sounds bright to me, I know that it must be really bright to others with better hearing than me. That is useful information to have.

And oh, despite having high frequency loss, I consider myself an audiophile. Where did that definition of yours come from? How about going to audiologist and have your hearing checked? Maybe you are no longer an audiophile by your own definition!

 

[amirm]

Because the standardized test goes only to 8 kHz and measures threshold hearing. If your hearing is lost below 8 kHz I think it's hard to call yourself an audiophile, but that's JMO I guess.

The test doesn't say you don't or do hear 8 Khz. It says how well you hear and how well general public does. We all have lower sensitivity above a few Khz:

Question is the shape for you versus the norm.

 

[rbbert]

I want to correct the Sgt Pepper's info; I had read that it is a 15 kHz tone, but it is actually 16 kHz at -10 dB, the same tone a CRT television makes in the USA. I hear it with the rest of the music playing at a comfortable volume, although it is very faint and by my own testing near the upper frequency limit of my hearing (I'm 64).

The more I read about audio, music and hearing in topics like this one, the less respect I have for the hearing abilities of all too many self-described audiophiles, sorry. You can't hear and you can't think, sorry if that is insulting, but that's the way I read it. I have spent enough time listening to systems with a variety of people whose hearing and cognitive abilities I do respect, because they hear what I hear; barring that experience, it's hard for me to take an opinion seriously, but that's me.

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.