"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Notice that I didn't simply say "profound loss", I said "pretty profound
loss". IOW less than a complete profound loss. Here's what I said, and
that
that you somehow decided to butcher:

No butchering IMO.

"The price you pay for hearing loss in a comparison test, is loss of
ability
to hear small differences or hear them reliably. But, that takes a pretty
profound hearing loss. Trouble is, there are lots of people with pretty
profound hearing losses"

And I was making the point that even 20 dB loss, is not "pretty profound"
but will still screw up your dynamic range and in most cases in a non linear
fashion wrt frequency. It goes unnoticed though if it happens over time. And
if a hearing test shows that to be the case, what are you going to do about
it?
It's simply a fact of life that we all hear things differently.


I agree with you, the OP's situation did show a loss of high frequency
dynamic range. He's probably able to hear high frequencies at high levels
where he probably listens critically, but not hear them at the lower
levels
used in hearing tests.

Yes, that could properly be called loss of dynamic range at high
frequencies. It means that he's probably not going to be able to delicate
high frequency reverb tails, for example. But he can still hear that
something is not right at 10 or maybe 12 KHz if he listens at a higher
level.

Right.

In most cases, by the time someone has a profound loss, they have
almost no ability to hear high frequencies at any level. And very
limited dynamic range at lower frequencies.

That's one reason why I used the comparative form - "pretty profound
loss",
not the simple form: "profound looss" Sorry for any confusion that might
have caused.

Yes, but how profound is "pretty profound" then? "Severe" or just
"Moderate".
The statement "Trouble is, there are lots of people with pretty profound
hearing losses" becomes rather meaningless.

TonyP.