[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 19:08:24 +1100, Trevor wrote:

On 1/04/2017 5:16 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 14:21:28 +1100, Trevor wrote:

On 31/03/2017 6:55 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 07:46:18 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 18:33:50 +1100, Trevor wrote:
On 31/03/2017 6:13 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:10:03 +1300, geoff
wrote:
But what do you do when the years move on and some correction is
needed? Here's a pair of self-administered audiograms, from 2001 and
three days ago. I've actually won a bit of bass, but the top end is
vanishing fast.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/audiogram.png

These were taken with a nice pair of Stax phones, so they should be
pretty reliable. On the recent one you can see a masking peak at 4kHz
caused by tinnitus.

I take it that it is upside-down to the usual sense ?

No, that's a normal threshold curve. That is how loud sounds have to
be for me to just barely detect them.

Not a threshold curve as plotted by an audiologist however. Geoff is
right, it's upside down to what is normally accepted.

Well, just so we are clear - the x-axis is frequency and the y-axis is
SPL. I've plotted it the way it makes most sense to me.

Does this make more sense?

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/audiogram2.png


Yep, except the SPL axis should be +10 to -80dB.


I could change that axis, but then of course it would no longer be dB
SPL, just the rather less useful dB. If that is what audiologists do,
they should think again.

Nope. I seriously doubt you have a properly calibrated system to give
absolute SPL. And audiologists who do prefer their graph relative to a
"normal" hearing reference standard as more meaningful to users anyway.
But whatever works for you is fine *if* nobody else is involved.


My calibration is pretty good. I reckon I'm within 2 or 3dB of the
right level.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus