Earplugs

[gareth magennis]

Hi,

so, some customers are asking for earplugs at a live event. (sometimes
including children)
As sound engineer, I feel it is my duty to do what I can and provide them
when requested.


What devices work well at reasonable cost?
(I am in the UK, which is no longer part of Europe, unfortunately)


Cheers,


Gareth.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
>so, some customers are asking for earplugs at a live event. (sometimes
>including children)
>As sound engineer, I feel it is my duty to do what I can and provide them
>when requested.

You get two choices, the cylindrical foam ones and the bullet-shaped foam
ones. I think the bullet-shaped ones are better but some people disagree
so I keep a bag of each. Both of them have 20dB or so reduction and aren't
really very flat, but are flat enough.

I get both kinds from Grainger, a big industrial supplier, and they are a
few pennies each. I think the EAR brand is what they last had.
You could try earplug-store.co.uk, but whatever you do, don't forget to
bill the customer for them! Never pass up an opportunity to bill the
customer!

You can get much higher quality earplugs, but they won't be pennies each
and you won't want to give them out. But if you're mixing at high levels
you might consider getting some custom-molded Etymotic ones. I would not
be able to survive steel bands without them.

I don't know about smaller ones for children. That might be a good plan
too.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 30/03/2017 11:57 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>> so, some customers are asking for earplugs at a live event. (sometimes
>> including children)
>> As sound engineer, I feel it is my duty to do what I can and provide them
>> when requested.
> You get two choices, the cylindrical foam ones and the bullet-shaped foam
> ones. I think the bullet-shaped ones are better but some people disagree
> so I keep a bag of each. Both of them have 20dB or so reduction and aren't
> really very flat, but are flat enough.
>
> I get both kinds from Grainger, a big industrial supplier, and they are a
> few pennies each. I think the EAR brand is what they last had.
> You could try earplug-store.co.uk, but whatever you do, don't forget to
> bill the customer for them! Never pass up an opportunity to bill the
> customer!
>
> You can get much higher quality earplugs, but they won't be pennies each
> and you won't want to give them out. But if you're mixing at high levels
> you might consider getting some custom-molded Etymotic ones. I would not
> be able to survive steel bands without them.
>
> I don't know about smaller ones for children. That might be a good plan
> too.
> --scott
>

The Etymotic type custom-moulded ones are great (with a range of value
attenuation 'capsules' available), but a pain to get in-and-out
frequently, even with KY.

I often use (for myself) the EAR ones with the the silicone flanges that
come with a little black container' - much more covenient for frequent
in-and-out.

But for giving out, the simple foam ones for sure. But if people had a
clue they'd bring their own to such an event.

However NEVER use a screwed up bus ticket even in an emergency. I
needled to go to the doc to get one removed after a distressingly loud
pub gig I went to unprepared once ;-0

geoff

[[email protected]]

gareth magennis wrote: "Hi,

so, some customers are asking for earplugs at a live event. (sometimes
including children)
As sound engineer, I feel it is my duty to do what I can and provide them
when requested.


What devices work well at reasonable cost?
(I am in the UK, which is no longer part of Europe, unfortunately)


Cheers,


Gareth. "


Ear plugs do not address the root cause of
the problem: The show is TOO LOUD.


As the engineer, you should explain to your
clients(the promoters, the organization hosting
the event, the band itself, etc.) in a tactful way
that the sound is too loud for some of the paying
customers. If, THEY, in the first place, cannot
grasp the concept of 'reasonably loud' for a given
event, then it is up to you to take appropriate
measures. The clients may not have asked it to
be at a certain volume; they simply don't get
what is reasonable and what is not. If they do
ask you to really 'crank it up' ahead of time, or
keep asking you to make louder during show, then
it is your duty to explain the consequences: that
customers are complaining and are starting to
demand ear plugs or other protection.


The need to wear ear plugs at an event where
the volume can be controlled indicates something
is wrong. This is not Nascar, or an indoor monster
truck event or airshow, where the engines cannot
simply be turned down. It is a concert or musical
where the sound is controllable.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 6:36:41 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> so, some customers are asking for earplugs at a live event. (sometimes
> including children)
> As sound engineer, I feel it is my duty to do what I can and provide them
> when requested.
>
>
> What devices work well at reasonable cost?
> (I am in the UK, which is no longer part of Europe, unfortunately)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Gareth.

I bought a cheap pair, maybe $10 (USD), Wal-Mart, JVC, "Gummy". Sounds good to my ears.

Jack

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 11:20:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 6:36:41 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > so, some customers are asking for earplugs at a live event. (sometimes
> > including children)
> > As sound engineer, I feel it is my duty to do what I can and provide them
> > when requested.

Interesting

and I agree, I tend to wear earplugs because the mids and highs are too loud, sometimes painfully loud, but the bass is fine.

So the plugs work well because they attenuate the mids and highs and leave the bass alone.

I would not mind if the mix was adjusted to keep the bass very loud but cut down the mids and highs. The promoters might accept that, I'm pretty sure the audience would. Then w could listen without the ear plugs.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:54:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 11:20:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 6:36:41 PM UTC-4, gareth magennis wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > so, some customers are asking for earplugs at a live event. (sometimes
>> > including children)
>> > As sound engineer, I feel it is my duty to do what I can and provide them
>> > when requested.
>
>Interesting
>
>and I agree, I tend to wear earplugs because the mids and highs are too loud, sometimes painfully loud, but the bass is fine.
>
>So the plugs work well because they attenuate the mids and highs and leave the bass alone.
>
>I would not mind if the mix was adjusted to keep the bass very loud but cut down the mids and highs. The promoters might accept that, I'm pretty sure the audience would. Then w could listen without the ear plugs.
>

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.

d

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

[geoff]

On 31/03/2017 7:50 AM, Don Pearce 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 ?


geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:10:03 +1300, geoff >
wrote:

>On 31/03/2017 7:50 AM, Don Pearce 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.

d

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

[geoff]

On 31/03/2017 4:20 AM, wrote:

>
> I bought a cheap pair, maybe $10 (USD), Wal-Mart, JVC, "Gummy".
> Sounds good to my ears.


So ineffective at 3000 cycles then. In the band which is most painful....

Yes, relatively good ones can be not expensive.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > 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

What you do is you spend time listening to live sounds, so you know what
live sounds should sound like _through your ears_ and you can mix things
to sound like that.

>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 wouldn't trust anything above 4kc made with any standard headphones,
because tiny changes in headphone placement can make enormous differences
in the measurement. If the measurements were made with swept sines you'd
be able to see the comb filtering effects from the headphones, but since
they are made only with a few discrete tones, where those tones fall on
the comb makes a huge difference in accuracy.

The audiologists will use headphones designed for careful positioning
which gives you accuracy up to 8kc. Beyond that... you just have to use
your ears...
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 3:14:52 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 31/03/2017 4:20 AM, wrote:
>
> >
> > I bought a cheap pair, maybe $10 (USD), Wal-Mart, JVC, "Gummy".
> > Sounds good to my ears.
>
>
> So ineffective at 3000 cycles then. In the band which is most painful....
>
> Yes, relatively good ones can be not expensive.
>
> geoff

My plan is to induce tinnitus in every person on earth, then I will excel! :)

Jack

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 30 Mar 2017 17:01:32 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > 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
>
>What you do is you spend time listening to live sounds, so you know what
>live sounds should sound like _through your ears_ and you can mix things
>to sound like that.
>
>>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 wouldn't trust anything above 4kc made with any standard headphones,
>because tiny changes in headphone placement can make enormous differences
>in the measurement. If the measurements were made with swept sines you'd
>be able to see the comb filtering effects from the headphones, but since
>they are made only with a few discrete tones, where those tones fall on
>the comb makes a huge difference in accuracy.
>
>The audiologists will use headphones designed for careful positioning
>which gives you accuracy up to 8kc. Beyond that... you just have to use
>your ears...
>--scott

Tada! The measurements were not actually made with discrete tones,
but narrowband noise - at 10kHz it was about 100Hz wide. I was aware
of the problem with tones, and I've done my best to counter it. Here,
the spectrum of the 5k tone

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/5ktone.png

So no, maybe not audiology-accurate, but I totally believe the loss
above 5kHz.

d

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

[Trevor]

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.

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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.
>
>Trevor.
>

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.

d

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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.
>>
>>Trevor.
>>
>
>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.
>
>d
>
Does this make more sense?

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

d

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

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce wrote: "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 the VAST MAJORITY of people
looking at it, Don. Looked just fine
to me. Why anyone would reverse
the axes and plot it the other way
defies logic and common sense!

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce wrote: "Does this make more sense? "

Ok - now that looks just like a
typical audiogram from an
audiologist's exam. NOW
I get what geoff meant by
"upside down". :D

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>My live EQ is Anti Jack.
>
>There is A LOT of 3.15kHz taken out, and a reasonable amount either side.

This is usually a function of using PA speakers with a presence boost combined
with microphones (like the SM57) that have a presence boost. All that together
in a room means you often get way too much exaggeration in that region.

This is where a lot of my obsession with flat microphones like the 441 comes
from.

>50Hz is boosted, 40Hz also but not as much, or you will upset the
>management. 80Hz cut gets rid of a lot of room boom. 125Hz boosted a
>little, gives a lot of friendly warmth.

In small clubs, there are often big room modes in the 125 Hz range, sometimes
a little higher or lower. So I find myself often pulling out around there.

>This means you can be in the room for 8 hours without any ear fatigue, and
>it sounds like a good hi-fi used to sound, not some blaring club system
>trying to deafen you for some unknown reason.

I think the key to preventing ear fatigue is a combination of reasonable
levels, low distortion, and some degree of time alignment. Rooms that are
too live and have stuff coming back in all directions delayed cause issues
with clarity and intelligibility that can't be fixed, and attempts to boost
in the presence region to fix them just cause fatigue.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>So no, maybe not audiology-accurate, but I totally believe the loss
>above 5kHz.

It's believable, but is it quantified accurately?
Get tested! Go to the AES show in the fall and get a free test if nothing else.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 31 Mar 2017 09:07:08 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>
>>So no, maybe not audiology-accurate, but I totally believe the loss
>>above 5kHz.
>
>It's believable, but is it quantified accurately?
>Get tested! Go to the AES show in the fall and get a free test if nothing else.
>--scott

Too far for me. It may not be absolutely accurate, but I think it is
telling me what I need to know. I've since overlaid Fletcher-Munson
0db curve on it (no, I won't bore you with more plots) and my 2001
curve is within a half dozen dB from 100 to 10k.

d

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 3/31/2017 9:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> It's believable, but is it quantified accurately?
> Get tested! Go to the AES show in the fall and get a free test if nothing else.

I'm not sure if they're still doing that. I don't remember if they had
the hearing test van at the last LA show, and I know it wasn't at the
last two LA NAMM shows. Maybe they still do it in Europe.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:37:20 -0400, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 3/31/2017 9:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> It's believable, but is it quantified accurately?
>> Get tested! Go to the AES show in the fall and get a free test if nothing else.
>
>I'm not sure if they're still doing that. I don't remember if they had
>the hearing test van at the last LA show, and I know it wasn't at the
>last two LA NAMM shows. Maybe they still do it in Europe.

Probably giving too many people bad news - always shoot the messenger.

d

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

[Trevor]

On 31/03/2017 6:46 PM, 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.

Yep, that was clear already.


> I've plotted it the way it makes most sense to me.

Perhaps, but as stated, upside down to audiology convention.
No biggie though, until you see an audiologist. :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

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.

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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.
>
>Trevor.
>

No, the SPL axis is correct.

d

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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.
>
>Trevor.
>

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.

d

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

[Trevor]

On 1/04/2017 5:00 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.
>>
>
> No, the SPL axis is correct.


For YOU perhaps, but NOT as shown on an audiologists graph as I have
been saying. The figure is normally shown as the amount of loss relative
to "normal" hearing threshold. I suggest you check out graphs on any
hearing aid manufacturers site, or any audiologists site for reference.
YOU can use whatever YOU want of course if you don't want to worry about
convention.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

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.

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 18:58:46 +1100, Trevor > wrote:

>On 1/04/2017 5:00 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.
>>>
>>
>> No, the SPL axis is correct.
>
>
>For YOU perhaps, but NOT as shown on an audiologists graph as I have
>been saying. The figure is normally shown as the amount of loss relative
>to "normal" hearing threshold. I suggest you check out graphs on any
>hearing aid manufacturers site, or any audiologists site for reference.
>YOU can use whatever YOU want of course if you don't want to worry about
>convention.
>

Sure, but I wasn't interested in the relative measurement - why would
I be when I had measured the much more useful absolute data?

d

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

[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

[Trevor]

On 1/04/2017 7:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 18:58:46 +1100, Trevor > wrote:
>
>> On 1/04/2017 5:00 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, the SPL axis is correct.
>>
>>
>> For YOU perhaps, but NOT as shown on an audiologists graph as I have
>> been saying. The figure is normally shown as the amount of loss relative
>> to "normal" hearing threshold. I suggest you check out graphs on any
>> hearing aid manufacturers site, or any audiologists site for reference.
>> YOU can use whatever YOU want of course if you don't want to worry about
>> convention.
>>
>
> Sure, but I wasn't interested in the relative measurement - why would
> I be when I had measured the much more useful absolute data?


HOW did you calibrate your system to provide "absolute SPL' then?
Bet it doesn't! Relative is a lot easier.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/04/2017 7:09 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> 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.


And you know this how exactly?

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 19:12:21 +1100, Trevor > wrote:

>On 1/04/2017 7:08 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 18:58:46 +1100, Trevor > wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/04/2017 5:00 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the SPL axis is correct.
>>>
>>>
>>> For YOU perhaps, but NOT as shown on an audiologists graph as I have
>>> been saying. The figure is normally shown as the amount of loss relative
>>> to "normal" hearing threshold. I suggest you check out graphs on any
>>> hearing aid manufacturers site, or any audiologists site for reference.
>>> YOU can use whatever YOU want of course if you don't want to worry about
>>> convention.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but I wasn't interested in the relative measurement - why would
>> I be when I had measured the much more useful absolute data?
>
>
>HOW did you calibrate your system to provide "absolute SPL' then?
>Bet it doesn't! Relative is a lot easier.
>

I used an SPL meter and a fixture. Stax headphones make this a
reliable method because the sound generating area is so large. You can
move the measuring mic around by tens of millimetres and the level
doesn't change.

d

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 19:13:20 +1100, Trevor > wrote:

>On 1/04/2017 7:09 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>And you know this how exactly?
>

I'm used to measurement. I spent several years as chief engineer of
Marconi Instruments. I know how to make root-sum-square calculations
of the effects of the various uncertainties in any system. And more
importantly, I know how to tell the difference between good
measurements and unreliable ones.

d

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:37:20 -0400, Mike Rivers >
>wrote:
>
>>On 3/31/2017 9:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> It's believable, but is it quantified accurately?
>>> Get tested! Go to the AES show in the fall and get a free test if nothing else.
>>
>>I'm not sure if they're still doing that. I don't remember if they had
>>the hearing test van at the last LA show, and I know it wasn't at the
>>last two LA NAMM shows. Maybe they still do it in Europe.
>
>Probably giving too many people bad news - always shoot the messenger.

They were basically using the attendees as part of a long-term study, since
so many people came back to the show year after year. They developed a
database of many people with measurements made over something like a thirty
year period, for use in all kinds of long-term hearing studies. So it's not
like they were doing this entirely out of the goodness of their hearts.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 1 Apr 2017 05:59:25 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:37:20 -0400, Mike Rivers >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/31/2017 9:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> It's believable, but is it quantified accurately?
>>>> Get tested! Go to the AES show in the fall and get a free test if nothing else.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure if they're still doing that. I don't remember if they had
>>>the hearing test van at the last LA show, and I know it wasn't at the
>>>last two LA NAMM shows. Maybe they still do it in Europe.
>>
>>Probably giving too many people bad news - always shoot the messenger.
>
>They were basically using the attendees as part of a long-term study, since
>so many people came back to the show year after year. They developed a
>database of many people with measurements made over something like a thirty
>year period, for use in all kinds of long-term hearing studies. So it's not
>like they were doing this entirely out of the goodness of their hearts.
>--scott

If that is so I would have to question their protocol. A venue where
everybody is involved in audio production is far from average - in
fact it could fairly be described as a pathological extreme. I'd be
interested to know if - and what - they eventually published. And how
it was peer-reviewed.

d

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 4/1/2017 6:54 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> If that is so I would have to question their protocol. A venue where
> everybody is involved in audio production is far from average - in
> fact it could fairly be described as a pathological extreme.

Sure, it's a special interest group, but it's a group of people who
should be taking care of their hearing, and who could well benefit from
knowing when it's changing.

The kids listening to concerts that are too loud are represented by the
audio engineers who (a) mix those concerts, and (b) turn up the monitors
too loud when tracking or mixing in the studio. AES isn't just for audio
lab rats. Musicians who play too loud on stage also attend. And those
like me who are in our 70s and still have pretty good hearing represent
a good baseline for people who take care of their ears and haven't had
any illnesses that degrade hearing. And people like me who have
measurable hearing loss represent just plain old people.

So, I don't see it as a skewed study, just one where the subjects care
about how they're hearing.

> I'd be
> interested to know if - and what - they eventually published. And how
> it was peer-reviewed.

I have no idea. I think that the reason why the hearing test van is no
longer at every show is because of money. There was always a sponsor or
two. Shure did it for many years, and one of the "protect your hearing"
organizations was also a sponsor. It was good publicity for them. But
money is tighter, and no new knights in shining armor have stepped forward.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 09:10:15 -0400, Mike Rivers >
wrote:

>On 4/1/2017 6:54 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> If that is so I would have to question their protocol. A venue where
>> everybody is involved in audio production is far from average - in
>> fact it could fairly be described as a pathological extreme.
>
>Sure, it's a special interest group, but it's a group of people who
>should be taking care of their hearing, and who could well benefit from
>knowing when it's changing.
>
>The kids listening to concerts that are too loud are represented by the
>audio engineers who (a) mix those concerts, and (b) turn up the monitors
>too loud when tracking or mixing in the studio. AES isn't just for audio
>lab rats. Musicians who play too loud on stage also attend. And those
>like me who are in our 70s and still have pretty good hearing represent
>a good baseline for people who take care of their ears and haven't had
>any illnesses that degrade hearing. And people like me who have
>measurable hearing loss represent just plain old people.
>
>So, I don't see it as a skewed study, just one where the subjects care
>about how they're hearing.
>
>> I'd be
>> interested to know if - and what - they eventually published. And how
>> it was peer-reviewed.
>
>I have no idea. I think that the reason why the hearing test van is no
>longer at every show is because of money. There was always a sponsor or
>two. Shure did it for many years, and one of the "protect your hearing"
>organizations was also a sponsor. It was good publicity for them. But
>money is tighter, and no new knights in shining armor have stepped forward.

Even if the group wasn't one that was exposed to overly-loud sounds
(and I would certainly dispute that), the fact that it is a group with
special attention of any kind to its hearing would, for me, rule it
out of a study unless it was a study of specifically that phenomenon

d

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

[geoff]

On 2/04/2017 8:33 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
> Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>> My live EQ is Anti Jack.
>>
>> There is A LOT of 3.15kHz taken out, and a reasonable amount either side.
>
> This is usually a function of using PA speakers with a presence boost
> combined
> with microphones (like the SM57) that have a presence boost. All that
> together
> in a room means you often get way too much exaggeration in that region.


Today I am doing a function where they have specified a SM57 for violin
- yuk ! Or "Ouch'.

I will take and demonstrate to them some alternatives.

geoff

[Trevor]

On 1/04/2017 7:27 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>> HOW did you calibrate your system to provide "absolute SPL' then?
>> Bet it doesn't! Relative is a lot easier.
>>
>
> I used an SPL meter and a fixture. Stax headphones make this a
> reliable method because the sound generating area is so large. You can
> move the measuring mic around by tens of millimetres and the level
> doesn't change.
>

Is your SPL meter calibrated? How do you calculate the difference
between the SPL at microphone position and ear drum? Why do you care
anyway? Relative SPL is all that matters for a frequency plot.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 1/04/2017 7:29 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 19:13:20 +1100, Trevor > wrote:
>>> My calibration is pretty good. I reckon I'm within 2 or 3dB of the
>>> right level.
>>
>>
>> And you know this how exactly?
>>
>
> I'm used to measurement. I spent several years as chief engineer of
> Marconi Instruments. I know how to make root-sum-square calculations
> of the effects of the various uncertainties in any system. And more
> importantly, I know how to tell the difference between good
> measurements and unreliable ones.

OK What calibration certificates do you have?
What is your uncertainty and confidence level of those measurements?
How did you determine the sources of error?
Pure guess right?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 2/04/2017 7:06 AM, geoff wrote:
> Today I am doing a function where they have specified a SM57 for violin
> - yuk ! Or "Ouch'.

Most specs I see usually state : Instruments SM57 *or better*, Vox SM58
*or better*. Obviously you can do better. :-)

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:13:51 +1000, Trevor > wrote:

>On 1/04/2017 7:27 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>> HOW did you calibrate your system to provide "absolute SPL' then?
>>> Bet it doesn't! Relative is a lot easier.
>>>
>>
>> I used an SPL meter and a fixture. Stax headphones make this a
>> reliable method because the sound generating area is so large. You can
>> move the measuring mic around by tens of millimetres and the level
>> doesn't change.
>>
>
>Is your SPL meter calibrated? How do you calculate the difference
>between the SPL at microphone position and ear drum? Why do you care
>anyway? Relative SPL is all that matters for a frequency plot.
>
>Trevor.
>

Calibrated? Yes. I still have access to Marconi's NAMAS standards lab.
And SPL at the ear drum is not the parameter that matters. The SPL
presented to the ear is what matters. And obviously I care what the
absolute level is - I'm assessing my hearing, not drawing pretty
pictures.

Look, can we stop here? Your attempts to pull apart my measurement are
getting increasingly desperate and stupid.

d

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:19:24 +1000, Trevor > wrote:

>On 1/04/2017 7:29 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 19:13:20 +1100, Trevor > wrote:
>>>> My calibration is pretty good. I reckon I'm within 2 or 3dB of the
>>>> right level.
>>>
>>>
>>> And you know this how exactly?
>>>
>>
>> I'm used to measurement. I spent several years as chief engineer of
>> Marconi Instruments. I know how to make root-sum-square calculations
>> of the effects of the various uncertainties in any system. And more
>> importantly, I know how to tell the difference between good
>> measurements and unreliable ones.
>
>OK What calibration certificates do you have?
>What is your uncertainty and confidence level of those measurements?
>How did you determine the sources of error?
>Pure guess right?
>
>Trevor.
>
>
See my other post. And I don't need certificates as I am doing this
for myself. And I'm not supplying you a tutorial on metrology. I'm
done.

d

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

[Trevor]

On 3/04/2017 4:46 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:13:51 +1000, Trevor > wrote:
>
>> On 1/04/2017 7:27 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> HOW did you calibrate your system to provide "absolute SPL' then?
>>>> Bet it doesn't! Relative is a lot easier.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I used an SPL meter and a fixture. Stax headphones make this a
>>> reliable method because the sound generating area is so large. You can
>>> move the measuring mic around by tens of millimetres and the level
>>> doesn't change.
>>>
>>
>> Is your SPL meter calibrated? How do you calculate the difference
>> between the SPL at microphone position and ear drum? Why do you care
>> anyway? Relative SPL is all that matters for a frequency plot.
>>
>
> Calibrated? Yes. I still have access to Marconi's NAMAS standards lab.
> And SPL at the ear drum is not the parameter that matters. The SPL
> presented to the ear is what matters. And obviously I care what the
> absolute level is - I'm assessing my hearing, not drawing pretty
> pictures.

Keep telling yourself that! :-)

>
> Look, can we stop here? Your attempts to pull apart my measurement are
> getting increasingly desperate and stupid.


In fact all I said was that absolute SPL is not important for a
frequency plot, something you still seem to dispute?
Your unsupported claims that you have a calibrated system at home
because you have access to one with unknown capability somewhere else is
what looks desperate and stupid IMO.
But I do agree it is NOT important to me what you do, so yes let's stop.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 2/04/2017 7:06 AM, geoff wrote:
>> Today I am doing a function where they have specified a SM57 for violin
>> - yuk ! Or "Ouch'.
>
>Most specs I see usually state : Instruments SM57 *or better*, Vox SM58
>*or better*. Obviously you can do better. :-)

Oh, I get plenty of folks who absolutely have to have an SM58 on their vocal,
and can't abide anything else. I have one SM58 with an AKG element inside,
another with a B&K element inside, and usually one of those two will do it.

That said, in a small room with something like a dance band, the fiddle usually
is mostly heard acoustically anyway, and only needs a little punching up in
the PA to bring it out. An SM-57 with about 6dB pulled out centered around
3 or 4 kc can do the job in a pinch if that's all you have.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."