"TonyP" wrote in message
u

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

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

No butchering IMO.

That's your opinion!

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

And I was making the point that even 20 dB loss, is not "pretty
profound"

I don't believe in haggling over hedge words.

but will still screw up your dynamic range and in most
cases in a non linear fashion wrt frequency.

About that I wholeheartedly agree.

It goes unnoticed though if it happens over time.

Agreed, and also true of a wide range of perceptual changes. One reason why
reliable listening tests are so important.

IME most hearing tests are pretty crude. Many of them can be falsified,
positive or negative, by any listener with the urge to do so.

And if a hearing test shows that to be the
case, what are you going to do about it?

A particularly good question for people who work with music and critical
adjustments and choices in audio.

It's simply a fact of life that we all hear things differently.

Right, and its also a fact of life that hearing usually degrades as people
get older. IME the degradation might be in force at the age of 20. After
that, its all downhill.


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

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

Right.

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

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

Yes, but how profound is "pretty profound" then? "Severe" or just
"Moderate".

From the context pick...

....moderate.

The statement "Trouble is, there are lots of people with pretty
profound hearing losses" becomes rather meaningless.

That's life with hedge words. ;-) They sap meaning.

However, if we go for the unhedged form, the statement "Trouble is, there
are lots of people with
profound hearing losses" is also true, More than a few of them work in
audio.