earbuds

[RichD]

I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
How did these things become the standard design?
They suck.

So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
over $100?!? For something so small, how can there
be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?

They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
to compare. Even if there were, differences in
environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
discernment.

How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?

--
Rich

[Bill Graham]

RichD wrote:
> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
> armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
> How did these things become the standard design?
> They suck.
>
> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
> ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
> over $100?!? For something so small, how can there
> be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>
> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
> to compare. Even if there were, differences in
> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
> discernment.
>
> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?

You have to get somebody with ears that suck, to wear the earbuds that
suck..... You might try reading the reviews to find a set that is generally
well liked, but otherwise, you just have to risk the hundred bucks and take
a chance on quality vs. scam.... Good luck!

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Aug 12, 9:18*pm, RichD > wrote:
> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
> armband MP3 player. *It pops out every 2 minutes.
> How did these things become the standard design?
> They suck.
>
> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
> ear. *They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
> over $100?!? *For something so small, how can there
> be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>
> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
> to compare. *Even if there were, differences in
> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
> discernment.
>
> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>
> --
> Rich

http://www.etymotic.com/
Good product...stupid name. Biggest problem is losing them. Second
biggest problem is ear wax. They have replaceable filters, just don't
lose the kit you get when you buy them. Third biggest problem: they
fit tight in your ear canal. There is always a potential to damage
your ear due to the good fit. You can generate very high SPL levels.
Just use common sense.

Etymotic used to be really expensive, but I think the patent expired.
Lots of clones now. I really wouldn't advise getting the top of the
line. They are cheaper from 3rd party vendors than the factory
website.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"RichD" > wrote in message
...

>I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
> armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
> How did these things become the standard design?
> They suck.

I suspect you are talking about "ear buds" which sit inside the pinnae, but
do not have tips that insert into the ear canal.

> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
> ear.

Those aren't ear buds, those are earphones, or more technically IEMs for
in-ear-monitors.

> They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set, over $100?!?

Shure offers about 5 different kinds, and the top of the line run close to
$600. And, they are not alone. I suspect there are some really golden IEM's
that run up to $1 large, and beyond.

> For something so small, how can there be such a range?

For you today I have the usual answers: quality and hype.

> Is there really such quality difference?

Yes and no. Surprisingly, IEMs are a bit like speakers in that in all honest
truth, we don't know what quality *really* means.

> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
> to compare.

It is worse than that - local stores as a rule don't even cary the really
good ones. And, they are personal items like toothbrushes. After you stuck
them into your ears I don't want to buy them.

> Even if there were, differences in environment, time of day, etc. swamp
> perceptual
> discernment.

Yes and no.

> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?

The standard tools include a measurement microphone (small diameter, omni,
very flat and wide response) and an acoustical coupler.

Here's an example, for headphones:

http://www.bksv.com/products/transducersconditioning/acoustictransducers/couplers/4157.aspx

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:18:58 -0700 (PDT)) it happened RichD
> wrote in
>:

>I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
>How did these things become the standard design?
>They suck.
>
>So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>over $100?!? For something so small, how can there
>be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>
>They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>to compare. Even if there were, differences in
>environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>discernment.
>
>How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>
>--
>Rich

I bought some Sennheiser for maybe it was 10 Euro.
The sound quailty is orders of magnitide better than the other crap.
Also they do not fall out, to the point where they can rip the cable.
The other never lasted longer than a few month, these I have had for more
than a year.
They are my reference when I do audio editing.

[Globemaker]

On Aug 13, 12:18*am, RichD > wrote:
> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
> armband MP3 player. *It pops out every 2 minutes.
> How did these things become the standard design?
> They suck.
>
> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
> ear. *They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
> over $100?!? *For something so small, how can there
> be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>
> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
> to compare. *Even if there were, differences in
> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
> discernment.
>
> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>
> --
> Rich

Ear infections come standard, at a cost of intense pain. Never put
anything in your ears.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Globemaker
> wrote:

>On Aug 13, 12:18*am, RichD > wrote:
>> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>> armband MP3 player. *It pops out every 2 minutes.
>> How did these things become the standard design?
>> They suck.
>>
>> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>> ear. *They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>> over $100?!? *For something so small, how can there
>> be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>>
>> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>> to compare. *Even if there were, differences in
>> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>> discernment.
>>
>> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>
>Ear infections come standard, at a cost of intense pain. Never put
>anything in your ears.

A doctor got it right. Never put anything smaller than your elbow in
your ear.

d

[SuspendedInGaffa]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:18:58 -0700 (PDT), RichD >
wrote:

>I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
>How did these things become the standard design?
>They suck.
>
>So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>over $100?!? For something so small, how can there
>be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>
>They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>to compare. Even if there were, differences in
>environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>discernment.
>
>How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?

Actually,Shure had a set for $500 at one time.

What they are, from an engineering standpoint, is a closed cell audio
environment, which wouldn't be much different than the engineering behind
the old, "acoustic suspension" speaker systems, where your inner ear is
the "speaker box" side. The transducers can blow out your eardrum if
they are made (read engineered) incorrectly. They have to be limited,
but the limitation cannot cause any dampening either.

Of course, you can blow your own ears out by cranking some amp though
them, but most headphone amps (battery operated) are limited.

Any of the good speaker makers would probably be a good choice.
Klipsch, Shure. I wouldn't pay for any hyped company like Monster
or those rapper 'products'. They only prove that 'sucker born every
minute' thing.

Mine cost $12 (JVC), and they sound great! I am sure something 2 or 3
times that would certainly sound better, I just do not have the cash for
something I do not use that often right now.

[Jamie[_2_]]

RichD wrote:
> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
> armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
> How did these things become the standard design?
> They suck.
>
> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
> ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
> over $100?!? For something so small, how can there
> be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>
> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
> to compare. Even if there were, differences in
> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
> discernment.
>
> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>
> --
> Rich
Epoxy works well.

Jamie

[SuspendedInGaffa]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:33:05 -0400, Jamie
> wrote:

>RichD wrote:
>> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>> armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
>> How did these things become the standard design?
>> They suck.
>>
>> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>> ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>> over $100?!? For something so small, how can there
>> be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>>
>> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>> to compare. Even if there were, differences in
>> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>> discernment.
>>
>> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>Epoxy works well.
>
> Jamie
>

You would have to make an artificial ear canal and place the
microphonic transducer at the 'eardrum'end of it, and the earbud
transducer at the test point end.

With that keeping each test on the same set-up, the results should all
track, even if the numbers are off or 'uncalibrated'.to a specific
measure. Until you calibrate it (the input to the mic), of course.

That would be dealing with the position and angle of the mic transducer
at the 'eardrum' end of the channel.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:24:42 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Globemaker
> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 13, 12:18*am, RichD > wrote:
>>> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>>> armband MP3 player. *It pops out every 2 minutes.
>>> How did these things become the standard design?
>>> They suck.
>>>
>>> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>>> ear. *They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>>> over $100?!? *For something so small, how can there
>>> be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>>>
>>> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>>> to compare. *Even if there were, differences in
>>> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>>> discernment.
>>>
>>> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich
>>
>>Ear infections come standard, at a cost of intense pain. Never put
>>anything in your ears.
>
>A doctor got it right. Never put anything smaller than your elbow in
>your ear.
>
"Never put anything into your ear, OTHER THAN your elbow." That said, I do
wear ear buds (with over-the-ear hooks) and a MP3 player when I mow the lawn.

[SuspendedInGaffa]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:12:00 -0500, "
> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:24:42 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Globemaker
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 13, 12:18*am, RichD > wrote:
>>>> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>>>> armband MP3 player. *It pops out every 2 minutes.
>>>> How did these things become the standard design?
>>>> They suck.
>>>>
>>>> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>>>> ear. *They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>>>> over $100?!? *For something so small, how can there
>>>> be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>>>>
>>>> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>>>> to compare. *Even if there were, differences in
>>>> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>>>> discernment.
>>>>
>>>> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich
>>>
>>>Ear infections come standard, at a cost of intense pain. Never put
>>>anything in your ears.
>>
>>A doctor got it right. Never put anything smaller than your elbow in
>>your ear.
>>
>"Never put anything into your ear, OTHER THAN your elbow." That said, I do
>wear ear buds (with over-the-ear hooks) and a MP3 player when I mow the lawn.


Several million men and women in this nation alone, wear ear protection
'buds' every day, and I am quite sure millions more around the world.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:24:33 -0700, SuspendedInGaffa
> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:12:00 -0500, "
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:24:42 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Globemaker
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Aug 13, 12:18*am, RichD > wrote:
>>>>> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>>>>> armband MP3 player. *It pops out every 2 minutes.
>>>>> How did these things become the standard design?
>>>>> They suck.
>>>>>
>>>>> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>>>>> ear. *They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>>>>> over $100?!? *For something so small, how can there
>>>>> be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>>>>> to compare. *Even if there were, differences in
>>>>> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>>>>> discernment.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rich
>>>>
>>>>Ear infections come standard, at a cost of intense pain. Never put
>>>>anything in your ears.
>>>
>>>A doctor got it right. Never put anything smaller than your elbow in
>>>your ear.
>>>
>>"Never put anything into your ear, OTHER THAN your elbow." That said, I do
>>wear ear buds (with over-the-ear hooks) and a MP3 player when I mow the lawn.
>
>
> Several million men and women in this nation alone, wear ear protection
>'buds' every day, and I am quite sure millions more around the world.

Several million men and women in this nation alone, drink or smoke cigarettes,
every day, and I am quite sure (there are) millions more around the world.

Just because it's done by "several million men and women" doesn't make it a
smart thing to do.

[SuspendedInGaffa]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:47:45 -0500, "
> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:24:33 -0700, SuspendedInGaffa
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:12:00 -0500, "
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:24:42 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT), Globemaker
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Aug 13, 12:18*am, RichD > wrote:
>>>>>> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>>>>>> armband MP3 player. *It pops out every 2 minutes.
>>>>>> How did these things become the standard design?
>>>>>> They suck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>>>>>> ear. *They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>>>>>> over $100?!? *For something so small, how can there
>>>>>> be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>>>>>> to compare. *Even if there were, differences in
>>>>>> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>>>>>> discernment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>
>>>>>Ear infections come standard, at a cost of intense pain. Never put
>>>>>anything in your ears.
>>>>
>>>>A doctor got it right. Never put anything smaller than your elbow in
>>>>your ear.
>>>>
>>>"Never put anything into your ear, OTHER THAN your elbow." That said, I do
>>>wear ear buds (with over-the-ear hooks) and a MP3 player when I mow the lawn.
>>
>>
>> Several million men and women in this nation alone, wear ear protection
>>'buds' every day, and I am quite sure millions more around the world.
>
>Several million men and women in this nation alone, drink or smoke cigarettes,
>every day, and I am quite sure (there are) millions more around the world.
>
>Just because it's done by "several million men and women" doesn't make it a
>smart thing to do.

With the distinct difference being that the devices they are putting in
their ears are 100% OSHA approved, and cigarettes hardly qualify for any
"seal" of approval from any agency other than Satan's minions, and the
Worldwide Bona Fide Causes of Cancer Registry.

[Howard Eisenhauer]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:18:58 -0700 (PDT), RichD
> wrote:

>I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
>How did these things become the standard design?
>They suck.
>
>So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>over $100?!? For something so small, how can there
>be such a range? Is there really such quality difference?
>
>They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>to compare. Even if there were, differences in
>environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>discernment.
>
>How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
Ya wanna be stylish or ya wanna be practical?

http://oldheadphones.com/crystal/phones/phones.htm

H. :)

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

RichD wrote:
> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
> armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
> How did these things become the standard design?

Kids these days...

> They suck.
>

Yep. The cheap ones tend to sound bad, too.

> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
> ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
> over $100?!?

They have sets over $400.

> For something so small, how can there
> be such a range?

It's a micro machined (or cast or molded) thing.
It's a transducer.

> Is there really such quality difference?
>


Yeah, there apparently is. They are, as you note, a total
pig in a poke.

I would tend to resort to brand name choice, mainly Shure,
because Shure get used as in-ears by people who perform with
them for a living. We're down to what amounts to folklore,
since you can't try them on.

> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
> to compare. Even if there were, differences in
> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
> discernment.
>
> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>
> --
> Rich

I am not Shure :) I'd estimate my ear canal geometry, use
a model of that to connect them to a measurement mic or
a standalone, Panasonic omni electret element, and run
an impulse ( and maybe white noise and maybe swept sine
tones ) through 'em. That's got to be fraught with
error - my tympani is not much like the back of an
electret element.

What would be interesting ( and might even be worth $20
or so ) would be a subscription service where people do
empirical reviews of these items. Problem is: how do
you establish credibility? Do people even care? If I
were considering such a purchase, and I could hedge 10:1
a purchase error, I'd probably do it.

I don't see one, so I figure there's a good reason
for the lack of them.

--
Les Cargill

[Phil Hobbs[_2_]]

On 08/13/2011 07:44 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> RichD wrote:
>> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>> armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
>> How did these things become the standard design?
>
> Kids these days...
>
>> They suck.
>>
>
> Yep. The cheap ones tend to sound bad, too.
>
>> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>> ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>> over $100?!?
>
> They have sets over $400.
>
>> For something so small, how can there
>> be such a range?
>
> It's a micro machined (or cast or molded) thing.
> It's a transducer.
>
>> Is there really such quality difference?
>>
>
>
> Yeah, there apparently is. They are, as you note, a total
> pig in a poke.
>
> I would tend to resort to brand name choice, mainly Shure,
> because Shure get used as in-ears by people who perform with
> them for a living. We're down to what amounts to folklore,
> since you can't try them on.
>
>> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>> to compare. Even if there were, differences in
>> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>> discernment.
>>
>> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>
> I am not Shure :) I'd estimate my ear canal geometry, use
> a model of that to connect them to a measurement mic or
> a standalone, Panasonic omni electret element, and run
> an impulse ( and maybe white noise and maybe swept sine
> tones ) through 'em. That's got to be fraught with
> error - my tympani is not much like the back of an
> electret element.
>
> What would be interesting ( and might even be worth $20
> or so ) would be a subscription service where people do
> empirical reviews of these items. Problem is: how do
> you establish credibility? Do people even care? If I
> were considering such a purchase, and I could hedge 10:1
> a purchase error, I'd probably do it.
>
> I don't see one, so I figure there's a good reason
> for the lack of them.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

One approach would be to make a casting of the outer part of your ear
canal with something like ShapeLok. I've been meaning to try that myself.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 07:44 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> RichD wrote:
>>> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>>> armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
>>> How did these things become the standard design?
>>
>> Kids these days...
>>
>>> They suck.
>>>
>>
>> Yep. The cheap ones tend to sound bad, too.
>>
>>> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>>> ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>>> over $100?!?
>>
>> They have sets over $400.
>>
>>> For something so small, how can there
>>> be such a range?
>>
>> It's a micro machined (or cast or molded) thing.
>> It's a transducer.
>>
>>> Is there really such quality difference?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, there apparently is. They are, as you note, a total
>> pig in a poke.
>>
>> I would tend to resort to brand name choice, mainly Shure,
>> because Shure get used as in-ears by people who perform with
>> them for a living. We're down to what amounts to folklore,
>> since you can't try them on.
>>
>>> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>>> to compare. Even if there were, differences in
>>> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>>> discernment.
>>>
>>> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich
>>
>> I am not Shure :) I'd estimate my ear canal geometry, use
>> a model of that to connect them to a measurement mic or
>> a standalone, Panasonic omni electret element, and run
>> an impulse ( and maybe white noise and maybe swept sine
>> tones ) through 'em. That's got to be fraught with
>> error - my tympani is not much like the back of an
>> electret element.
>>
>> What would be interesting ( and might even be worth $20
>> or so ) would be a subscription service where people do
>> empirical reviews of these items. Problem is: how do
>> you establish credibility? Do people even care? If I
>> were considering such a purchase, and I could hedge 10:1
>> a purchase error, I'd probably do it.
>>
>> I don't see one, so I figure there's a good reason
>> for the lack of them.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> One approach would be to make a casting of the outer part of your ear
> canal with something like ShapeLok. I've been meaning to try that myself.
>

I never stick anything in my ear smaller than my elbow. There's
obviously the Etymotic thingies, but they cost too much.

A piece of surgical tubing seems close enough. It'd
be like making measurements at the end of an organ pipe, so it
all sounds eminently futile :)

I've been using Koss PRO35A on-the-ears for more than ten
years now. Good known quantity. And I don't want to
play music loud enough to justify earplugs any more.

> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>

--
Les Cargill

[Phil Hobbs[_2_]]

On 08/13/2011 08:01 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> On 08/13/2011 07:44 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> RichD wrote:
>>>> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
>>>> armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
>>>> How did these things become the standard design?
>>>
>>> Kids these days...
>>>
>>>> They suck.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep. The cheap ones tend to sound bad, too.
>>>
>>>> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
>>>> ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
>>>> over $100?!?
>>>
>>> They have sets over $400.
>>>
>>>> For something so small, how can there
>>>> be such a range?
>>>
>>> It's a micro machined (or cast or molded) thing.
>>> It's a transducer.
>>>
>>>> Is there really such quality difference?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, there apparently is. They are, as you note, a total
>>> pig in a poke.
>>>
>>> I would tend to resort to brand name choice, mainly Shure,
>>> because Shure get used as in-ears by people who perform with
>>> them for a living. We're down to what amounts to folklore,
>>> since you can't try them on.
>>>
>>>> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
>>>> to compare. Even if there were, differences in
>>>> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
>>>> discernment.
>>>>
>>>> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich
>>>
>>> I am not Shure :) I'd estimate my ear canal geometry, use
>>> a model of that to connect them to a measurement mic or
>>> a standalone, Panasonic omni electret element, and run
>>> an impulse ( and maybe white noise and maybe swept sine
>>> tones ) through 'em. That's got to be fraught with
>>> error - my tympani is not much like the back of an
>>> electret element.
>>>
>>> What would be interesting ( and might even be worth $20
>>> or so ) would be a subscription service where people do
>>> empirical reviews of these items. Problem is: how do
>>> you establish credibility? Do people even care? If I
>>> were considering such a purchase, and I could hedge 10:1
>>> a purchase error, I'd probably do it.
>>>
>>> I don't see one, so I figure there's a good reason
>>> for the lack of them.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Les Cargill
>>
>> One approach would be to make a casting of the outer part of your ear
>> canal with something like ShapeLok. I've been meaning to try that myself.
>>
>
> I never stick anything in my ear smaller than my elbow. There's
> obviously the Etymotic thingies, but they cost too much.
>
> A piece of surgical tubing seems close enough. It'd
> be like making measurements at the end of an organ pipe, so it
> all sounds eminently futile :)
>
> I've been using Koss PRO35A on-the-ears for more than ten
> years now. Good known quantity. And I don't want to
> play music loud enough to justify earplugs any more.
>

It isn't _my_ music that justifies the earplugs. Properly fitted
earplug headphones are far safer than ordinary ear buds in noisy
environments such as airplanes (I just got to gold frequent-flyer
status, so I care about that. If business continues to be good, I may
make platinum this year.)

You have to crank up the volume so high to get any S/N ratio that you
can easily damage your hearing. Give me the occasional case of diver's
ear any day.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs



--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:23:10 -0400, the renowned Phil Hobbs
> wrote:


>It isn't _my_ music that justifies the earplugs. Properly fitted
>earplug headphones are far safer than ordinary ear buds in noisy
>environments such as airplanes (I just got to gold frequent-flyer
>status, so I care about that. If business continues to be good, I may
>make platinum this year.)
>
>You have to crank up the volume so high to get any S/N ratio that you
>can easily damage your hearing. Give me the occasional case of diver's
>ear any day.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

Bose noise-cancelling headphones. Well worth the cost if you spend
more than 20 hours a year in aircraft.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[Phil Hobbs[_2_]]

On 08/13/2011 09:19 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:23:10 -0400, the renowned Phil Hobbs
> > wrote:
>
>
>> It isn't _my_ music that justifies the earplugs. Properly fitted
>> earplug headphones are far safer than ordinary ear buds in noisy
>> environments such as airplanes (I just got to gold frequent-flyer
>> status, so I care about that. If business continues to be good, I may
>> make platinum this year.)
>>
>> You have to crank up the volume so high to get any S/N ratio that you
>> can easily damage your hearing. Give me the occasional case of diver's
>> ear any day.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> Bose noise-cancelling headphones. Well worth the cost if you spend
> more than 20 hours a year in aircraft.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany


Are they the around-the-ear or the mash-the-ear-flat kind? I have some
Panasonic ones that work fine but squash my ears hard enough that they
hurt after an hour or so.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:32:12 -0400, the renowned Phil Hobbs
> wrote:

>On 08/13/2011 09:19 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:23:10 -0400, the renowned Phil Hobbs
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It isn't _my_ music that justifies the earplugs. Properly fitted
>>> earplug headphones are far safer than ordinary ear buds in noisy
>>> environments such as airplanes (I just got to gold frequent-flyer
>>> status, so I care about that. If business continues to be good, I may
>>> make platinum this year.)
>>>
>>> You have to crank up the volume so high to get any S/N ratio that you
>>> can easily damage your hearing. Give me the occasional case of diver's
>>> ear any day.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>> Bose noise-cancelling headphones. Well worth the cost if you spend
>> more than 20 hours a year in aircraft.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Spehro Pefhany
>
>
>Are they the around-the-ear or the mash-the-ear-flat kind? I have some
>Panasonic ones that work fine but squash my ears hard enough that they
>hurt after an hour or so.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

They don't go around your ear... they have very soft cushions that go
against your ears. And they don't have the background hisssssss that
I've heard with some of the (much) cheaper Japanese ones.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[Phil Hobbs[_2_]]

On 08/13/2011 09:43 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:32:12 -0400, the renowned Phil Hobbs
> > wrote:
>
>> On 08/13/2011 09:19 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:23:10 -0400, the renowned Phil Hobbs
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It isn't _my_ music that justifies the earplugs. Properly fitted
>>>> earplug headphones are far safer than ordinary ear buds in noisy
>>>> environments such as airplanes (I just got to gold frequent-flyer
>>>> status, so I care about that. If business continues to be good, I may
>>>> make platinum this year.)
>>>>
>>>> You have to crank up the volume so high to get any S/N ratio that you
>>>> can easily damage your hearing. Give me the occasional case of diver's
>>>> ear any day.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>
>>> Bose noise-cancelling headphones. Well worth the cost if you spend
>>> more than 20 hours a year in aircraft.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Spehro Pefhany
>>
>>
>> Are they the around-the-ear or the mash-the-ear-flat kind? I have some
>> Panasonic ones that work fine but squash my ears hard enough that they
>> hurt after an hour or so.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> They don't go around your ear... they have very soft cushions that go
> against your ears. And they don't have the background hisssssss that
> I've heard with some of the (much) cheaper Japanese ones.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany

Thanks. I might try a pair, but all the ear-squashing ones I've worn
get uncomfortable pretty fast on a coast-to-coast flight. It isn't that
they aren't soft enough, it's just that they have to grip fairly hard
just to stay on.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:51:02 -0400, the renowned Phil Hobbs
> wrote:

>
>Thanks. I might try a pair, but all the ear-squashing ones I've worn
>get uncomfortable pretty fast on a coast-to-coast flight. It isn't that
>they aren't soft enough, it's just that they have to grip fairly hard
>just to stay on.
>
>Cheers

I typically leave them on for most of a 15+-hour flight so you should
be able to handle them for four or five hours. ;-)


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[Phil Hobbs[_2_]]

On 08/13/2011 09:55 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:51:02 -0400, the renowned Phil Hobbs
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks. I might try a pair, but all the ear-squashing ones I've worn
>> get uncomfortable pretty fast on a coast-to-coast flight. It isn't that
>> they aren't soft enough, it's just that they have to grip fairly hard
>> just to stay on.
>>
>> Cheers
>
> I typically leave them on for most of a 15+-hour flight so you should
> be able to handle them for four or five hours. ;-)
>
>
> Best regards,
> Spehro Pefhany

Just because you have ears of steel is no reason to go round being all
superior about it. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Trevor]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>>Ear infections come standard, at a cost of intense pain. Never put
>>anything in your ears.
>
> A doctor got it right. Never put anything smaller than your elbow in
> your ear.

And yet people with hearing aids wear them every day without a problem!
I can't recall a doctor saying they should never be worn either. Of course
it does help if you clean them occasionly, but I am willing to bet the
people who use them everyday don't clean them everyday. And don't get ear
infections every week either.

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:29:42 +1000, "Trevor" > wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>>>Ear infections come standard, at a cost of intense pain. Never put
>>>anything in your ears.
>>
>> A doctor got it right. Never put anything smaller than your elbow in
>> your ear.
>
>And yet people with hearing aids wear them every day without a problem!
>I can't recall a doctor saying they should never be worn either. Of course
>it does help if you clean them occasionly, but I am willing to bet the
>people who use them everyday don't clean them everyday. And don't get ear
>infections every week either.
>
>Trevor.
>

I use my Etymotic buds frequently, and I wash the ear seals every
time. I couldn't imagine doing otherwise. Infection is unlikely as I
don't let other people use them, but it would give me the creeps to
put them in dirty.

The doctor was, of course, talking about Q-tips when he made his elbow
remark. For a normal, healthy person the ears are self-cleaning and
need no extra prodding, which is more likely to push the accumulated
wax up against the ear drum than remove it.

d

[Trevor]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> The doctor was, of course, talking about Q-tips when he made his elbow
> remark.

A point that seems to have been lost in the retelling.

>For a normal, healthy person the ears are self-cleaning and
> need no extra prodding, which is more likely to push the accumulated
> wax up against the ear drum than remove it.

Yeah, I could never see much point in Q-tips for the ears. They do have
other uses IME.

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 20:10:23 +1000, "Trevor" > wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> The doctor was, of course, talking about Q-tips when he made his elbow
>> remark.
>
>A point that seems to have been lost in the retelling.
>

Change of context is all part of the fun of language.

>>For a normal, healthy person the ears are self-cleaning and
>> need no extra prodding, which is more likely to push the accumulated
>> wax up against the ear drum than remove it.
>
>Yeah, I could never see much point in Q-tips for the ears. They do have
>other uses IME.
>

Plenty of other uses, none of which involve poking them into body
orifices. They are designed entirely wrongly for such purposes.

d

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 22:16:21 -0400, the renowned Phil Hobbs
> wrote:


>Just because you have ears of steel is no reason to go round being all
>superior about it. ;)

;-)

Just went onto their website to order a replacement cord ($15
shipped), and I notice the offer an around-the-ears version as well:

http://www.bose.com/controller?url=/shop_online/headphones/noise_cancelling_headphones/index.jsp



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

[Bill Graham]

Trevor wrote:
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Ear infections come standard, at a cost of intense pain. Never put
>>> anything in your ears.
>>
>> A doctor got it right. Never put anything smaller than your elbow in
>> your ear.
>
> And yet people with hearing aids wear them every day without a
> problem! I can't recall a doctor saying they should never be worn either.
> Of
> course it does help if you clean them occasionly, but I am willing to
> bet the people who use them everyday don't clean them everyday. And
> don't get ear infections every week either.
>
> Trevor.

....and there is no way to "clean them" with your elbow. You have to get that
ear wax out with a q-tip or pickup key or something a lot smaller than an
elbow.......
Another problem with ear buds is they don't breathe, so they get hot....
They block out air circulation that allows the heat to disperse. this is why
I prefer the small, non noise blocking earphones. But as has ben pointed out
above, these don't block out noise. So, you need to find something that
blocks out noise, but allows air to circulate inside the ear, and I don't
know anything that can do both of these two things that's small enough to
wear.

[Trevor]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> Another problem with ear buds is they don't breathe, so they get hot....
> They block out air circulation that allows the heat to disperse. this is
> why I prefer the small, non noise blocking earphones. But as has ben
> pointed out above, these don't block out noise. So, you need to find
> something that blocks out noise, but allows air to circulate inside the
> ear, and I don't know anything that can do both of these two things that's
> small enough to wear.

Many hearing aids don't allow the ear to breathe (BTE with ear moulds in
particular), and yet people manage to wear them all day. While it may not be
ideal, especially on hot days, I don't know of any medical risk, or surely
they would not be sold by the million? Presumably it's a case of getting
used to it.

Trevor.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Aug 13, 4:47*pm, Phil Hobbs
> wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 07:44 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > RichD wrote:
> >> I have the standard earpod set, which came with my
> >> armband MP3 player. It pops out every 2 minutes.
> >> How did these things become the standard design?
>
> > Kids these days...
>
> >> They suck.
>
> > Yep. The cheap ones tend to sound bad, too.
>
> >> So now i'm looking for the earbud style, i.e. inside the
> >> ear. They range from $8 to $40, and Shure offers a set,
> >> over $100?!?
>
> > They have sets over $400.
>
> >> For something so small, how can there
> >> be such a range?
>
> > It's a micro machined (or cast or molded) thing.
> > It's a transducer.
>
> >> Is there really such quality difference?
>
> > Yeah, there apparently is. They are, as you note, a total
> > pig in a poke.
>
> > I would tend to resort to brand name choice, mainly Shure,
> > because Shure get used as in-ears by people who perform with
> > them for a living. We're down to what amounts to folklore,
> > since you can't try them on.
>
> >> They are all sealed in blister packs, there's no chance
> >> to compare. Even if there were, differences in
> >> environment, time of day, etc. swamp perceptual
> >> discernment.
>
> >> How would you go about testing these things, in the lab?
>
> >> --
> >> Rich
>
> > I am not Shure :) I'd estimate my ear canal geometry, use
> > a model of that to connect them to a measurement mic or
> > a standalone, Panasonic omni electret element, and run
> > an impulse ( and maybe white noise and maybe swept sine
> > tones ) through 'em. That's got to be fraught with
> > error - my tympani is not much like the back of an
> > electret element.
>
> > What would be interesting ( and might even be worth $20
> > or so ) would be a subscription service where people do
> > empirical reviews of these items. Problem is: how do
> > you establish credibility? Do people even care? If I
> > were considering such a purchase, and I could hedge 10:1
> > a purchase error, I'd probably do it.
>
> > I don't see one, so I figure there's a good reason
> > for the lack of them.
>
> > --
> > Les Cargill
>
> One approach would be to make a casting of the outer part of your ear
> canal with something like ShapeLok. I've been meaning to try that myself.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal Consultant
> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
>
> 160 North State Road #203
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> 845-480-2058
>
> hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net

http://www.etymotic.com/customfit/index.html
Etymotic will do custom fits too. I find their off the shelf stuff is
fine, but note the noise isolation can be too good. I certainly don't
recommend walking around the city with 40db of attenuation. They are
great for air travel.

[jersey123]

Browns coach Pat Shurmur revealed starting wide receiver Mohamed Massaquoi has an injured bone in his left leg. Massaquoi, who wore Kevin Kolb Cardinals Jersey (http://www.nflcustomjersey.com/goods-4333-Kevin+Kolb+Cardinals+Jersey+-+Red+Premier+Stitched+Arizona+Cardinals+%234+Jerse y.html) and showed up at training camp with a cast on his leg. He has not yet practiced and spent the workouts on an exercise bike and watching from the sideline. Shurmur did not divulge any details about Massaquoi’s injury until Monday, when he confirmed it was a bone problem. The Browns have not said how long they expect Massaquoi, who had 36 receptions as a rookie, to be out. You can log on our Online Kevin Kolb Cardinals Jersey (http://www.nflcustomjersey.com/goods-4333-Kevin+Kolb+Cardinals+Jersey+-+Red+Premier+Stitched+Arizona+Cardinals+%234+Jerse y.html) and select our best quality Kevin Kolb Cardinals Jersey if you are true fans of Cleveland Browns.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

> wrote in message
...

> Just because it's done by "several million men and women" doesn't make it
> a
> smart thing to do.

Just because you have a seriouis and self-destructive phobia about using
generally recognized and accepted safety appliances does't make you any kind
of a reliable authority.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>Ear infections come standard, at a cost of intense pain. Never put
>>>anything in your ears.
>>
>> A doctor got it right. Never put anything smaller than your elbow in
>> your ear.

> And yet people with hearing aids wear them every day without a problem!

That's because they use ordinary sanitary practices like keeping them and
their ears rasonably clean.

Let's face it, there is a well-known phobia that a tiny minority have about
putting things like this in the ear. It's probably related to OCD.

[Winston[_2_]]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

(...)

> One approach would be to make a casting of the outer part of your ear
> canal with something like ShapeLok. I've been meaning to try that myself.

One would want to cast around a hollow plastic tube
to vent air back into the canal in order to avoid
an ER visit to remove the finished casting... :)

--Winston

[Phil Hobbs[_2_]]

Winston wrote:
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>> One approach would be to make a casting of the outer part of your ear
>> canal with something like ShapeLok. I've been meaning to try that myself.
>
> One would want to cast around a hollow plastic tube
> to vent air back into the canal in order to avoid
> an ER visit to remove the finished casting... :)
>
> --Winston
>

I wasn't suggesting pushing it all the way down to the eardrum, silly.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:20:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>
>> Just because it's done by "several million men and women" doesn't make it
>> a
>> smart thing to do.
>
>Just because you have a seriouis and self-destructive phobia about using
>generally recognized and accepted safety appliances does't make you any kind
>of a reliable authority.

You're even more clueless than DimBulb. Good job!

[Winston[_2_]]

Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Winston wrote:
>> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> One approach would be to make a casting of the outer part of your ear
>>> canal with something like ShapeLok. I've been meaning to try that
>>> myself.
>>
>> One would want to cast around a hollow plastic tube
>> to vent air back into the canal in order to avoid
>> an ER visit to remove the finished casting... :)
>>
>> --Winston
>>
>
> I wasn't suggesting pushing it all the way down to the eardrum, silly.

I didn't figure you were.
Casting a piston to the inside of the ear
canal and then removing it is gonna cause
a significant vacuum. Sounds painful, at least.
At worst, a burst eardrum and inner ear
infection? Ewww!

--Silly Winston

[Trevor]

"Winston" > wrote in message
...
> Casting a piston to the inside of the ear
> canal and then removing it is gonna cause
> a significant vacuum. Sounds painful, at least.
> At worst, a burst eardrum and inner ear
> infection? Ewww!

Nope, that's how ear moulds are made for hearing aids, and custom fitted
IEM's. Of course one should probably know what they are doing before
attempting it.

Trevor.

[Naomi Price]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:37:36 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> wrote:

>Winston wrote:
>> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> One approach would be to make a casting of the outer part of your ear
>>> canal with something like ShapeLok. I've been meaning to try that myself.
>>
>> One would want to cast around a hollow plastic tube
>> to vent air back into the canal in order to avoid
>> an ER visit to remove the finished casting... :)
>>
>> --Winston
>>
>
>I wasn't suggesting pushing it all the way down to the eardrum, silly.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs


Doesn't matter. A half a gram of media is enough to rip your eardrum
if you are pulling a vacuum on it as you draw out the casting. Even if
it only goes half way in.

Good call, Winston.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Trevor" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Winston" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Casting a piston to the inside of the ear
>> canal and then removing it is gonna cause
>> a significant vacuum. Sounds painful, at least.
>> At worst, a burst eardrum and inner ear
>> infection? Ewww!
>
> Nope, that's how ear moulds are made for hearing aids, and custom fitted
> IEM's. Of course one should probably know what they are doing before
> attempting it.

It appears that a critical step is blocking the ear canal with a cotton ball
that has a thread attached to it so that you can pull it back out easily and
reliably.

[Winston[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Casting a piston to the inside of the ear
>>> canal and then removing it is gonna cause
>>> a significant vacuum. Sounds painful, at least.
>>> At worst, a burst eardrum and inner ear
>>> infection? Ewww!
>>
>> Nope, that's how ear moulds are made for hearing aids, and custom fitted
>> IEM's. Of course one should probably know what they are doing before
>> attempting it.
>
> It appears that a critical step is blocking the ear canal with a cotton ball
> that has a thread attached to it so that you can pull it back out easily and
> reliably.

Trevor and Arny, I guess that means there is a large
enough air pocket in the canal that a dangerous level
of vacuum is not attained. This will be what I learned
today.

--Winston

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Winston" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Casting a piston to the inside of the ear
>>>> canal and then removing it is gonna cause
>>>> a significant vacuum. Sounds painful, at least.
>>>> At worst, a burst eardrum and inner ear
>>>> infection? Ewww!
>>>
>>> Nope, that's how ear moulds are made for hearing aids, and custom fitted
>>> IEM's. Of course one should probably know what they are doing before
>>> attempting it.
>>
>> It appears that a critical step is blocking the ear canal with a cotton
>> ball
>> that has a thread attached to it so that you can pull it back out easily
>> and
>> reliably.
>
> Trevor and Arny, I guess that means there is a large
> enough air pocket in the canal that a dangerous level
> of vacuum is not attained. This will be what I learned
> today.

Until I understood the process a whole lot better than I do, I would retain
the services of professional who is trained and experienced in doing this
kind of thing.

[Winston[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Casting a piston to the inside of the ear
>>>>> canal and then removing it is gonna cause
>>>>> a significant vacuum. Sounds painful, at least.
>>>>> At worst, a burst eardrum and inner ear
>>>>> infection? Ewww!
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that's how ear moulds are made for hearing aids, and custom fitted
>>>> IEM's. Of course one should probably know what they are doing before
>>>> attempting it.
>>>
>>> It appears that a critical step is blocking the ear canal with a cotton
>>> ball
>>> that has a thread attached to it so that you can pull it back out easily
>>> and
>>> reliably.
>>
>> Trevor and Arny, I guess that means there is a large
>> enough air pocket in the canal that a dangerous level
>> of vacuum is not attained. This will be what I learned
>> today.
>
> Until I understood the process a whole lot better than I do, I would retain
> the services of professional who is trained and experienced in doing this
> kind of thing.

That makes sense.

I was aiming for a visceral understanding of the physics
rather than a 'how to' guide. :)

--Winston