Yes. Experience & practise And people usually ignore the second hearing system we have that does not degrade as much as the part we measure.
And the height from where your hearing starts to degrade will be based on genes, environment, training, more.
dave
Thank you for your concern and advice, I mentioned Audacity because it is installed on my PC and came to mind quickly, but I also use other online programs regularly and have had hearing tests done.
Perhaps my good hearing is because I've always taken care of it, I use protectors when I work with machines, I don't listen at high volumes for a long time, I don't go to "dance clubs" (ha!) and I don't go to rock recitals (Roger Waters was here several times, a friend who attended the event told me that he left the concert with a slight ringing in his ears, I think the ex-Pink Floyd guys used about 50,000 Watts to sound the River Plate stadium, when I was young I liked Pink Floyd, I still have the vinyls. They made some music, but click on the You Tube attachments in the thread below and tell me what music you find there. For me, it's a show for masochists. Or for people who like to smoke marijuana or ingesting acids.
I feel sorry for those young people... Many are not anymore...
Roger bills good dollars in the meantime....
You can see my setup in my living room. The cabinets hit the sweet spot, there's room behind them and behind my couch. That arrangement is ideal for a good soundstage. It is necessary to have space.
By the way, not much has been said about the importance of recordings, many modern records do not have depth and yet I have found (surprisingly!) that some very old monophonic recordings do. It is interesting and I share Reed's opinion. (see answers to the attached thread, PSAudio)
I recommend reading "the art of recording" by William Moylan. A recording studio can have many people, but operating it is not an easy thing, a good recording engineer can achieve excellent sound spaces or get confused and reverse the channels, L instead of R and vice versa. It's a real case, by the way.
https://hearingtest.online/https://www.audiocheck.net/testtones_hearingtestaudiogram.phphttps://books.google.com.ar/books?i...q=soundstage in monophonics records ?&f=false
https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/the-mono-world/
https://www.vice.com/es/article/pa5ae7/roger-waters-nueve-veces-estadio-river-buenos-aires-the-wall
Attachments
Last edited:
Please note that no online test is valid either. It's a problem with transducer (headphone) calibration. Simply no way to know the specific SPL deliverd to your ears.
So glad to hear of someone else that has cared for his hearing. I've used hearing protection for everything, from power tools to high levels on stage. Protection definitely helps you retain hearing acuity (USA def), but it still goes away eventually. And then theres tinnitus, a fun time for all.
The Australian Oxford Dictionary describes acuity as: Keenness or sharpness, especially of sensation.
And the US still uses inches. The Ozzie definition is more akin to what i have always used it.
dave
I'm note sure how it helps the OP, however the definitive national dictionary and standard reference on Australian English is The Macquarie Dictionary. The Third edition (1997) which I have gives the definition as:
Acuity: noun sharpness, acuteness;
and gives the example: "She developed the acuity of a savage, in sound and smell."
That example implies acuity of the senses can improve with training and/or experience.
The online US Merriam-Webster has this entry:
Essential Meaning of acuity formal : the ability to see, hear, or understand something easily
mental/visual/political acuity [=acuteness]
her acuity [=keenness, sharpness] of perception
Full Definition of acuity: keenness of perception
hearing acuity
mental acuity
Both dictionaries support the word as I used it as far as I can see.
I don't recall the use of the word 'acuity' in any of the Workplace Health & Safety policy on occupational noise exposure, the Australian standards for hearing assessment or the reports of the audiometrist I engaged to record baseline hearing assessments of my audio department staff, and to make custom fitted flat frequency response earplugs for each, but that was in the 1980s and '90s and I don't have any of those documents anymore.
There are many references that use the term "acuity" in relation to the senses. With relation to hearing, it's easy to find many articles that use the term to describe a metric, an objective measurement, and an evaluation of the capability to hear, particularly at low levels.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/hearing-acuity
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095433707
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_1094
https://audioconsult.com/2017/01/reduced-heasring-acuity/
https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2019_AJA-18-0173Study uses acuity to describe a metric
https://copublications.greenfacts.o...usic-player-mp3/l-3/4-hearing-impairement.htm
So far I haven't found one to support the use of the term "acuity" as a learned or acuired skill. Perhaps someone else can find that.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/hearing-acuity
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095433707
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_1094
https://audioconsult.com/2017/01/reduced-heasring-acuity/
https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2019_AJA-18-0173Study uses acuity to describe a metric
https://copublications.greenfacts.o...usic-player-mp3/l-3/4-hearing-impairement.htm
So far I haven't found one to support the use of the term "acuity" as a learned or acuired skill. Perhaps someone else can find that.
Warning signs are yellow, but a yellow sign isn't necessarily a warning. It is the same with the use of words that have multiple uses, just because a word has one use with a defined meaning does not mean the same word isn't used in other ways.
I already gave you one. The US is one country in ~200 and no one outside of the US has to follow US conventions. Start another thread if you must but can we just move back to the topic in this one.
Last edited:
As for the word "clear" in audio...it means almost nothing or means everything imho for more precise languages as the french or german ones...
Finally if the op is old enough he can toe in the units for delaying first side walls spl bouncings. The loss in the highs will be ok with reduced treble off axis angle without being bright (the 6k to 8k hz). It is worthing to experiment before swaping with new loudspeakers. Of course some easy spl power response eq with a free drc as Camilla on a Rpi could be ok for a better diagnose.
Finally if the op is old enough he can toe in the units for delaying first side walls spl bouncings. The loss in the highs will be ok with reduced treble off axis angle without being bright (the 6k to 8k hz). It is worthing to experiment before swaping with new loudspeakers. Of course some easy spl power response eq with a free drc as Camilla on a Rpi could be ok for a better diagnose.
That is contemplated here, so I gather that you have not read it.
https://www.audiocheck.net/testtones_hearingtestaudiogram.php
Seriously? No....SERIOUSLY?????:
"Calibration
Audiograms require a properly calibrated audio system. As we have no idea how loud your sound level has been turned to as you listen to our sound files, running an online audiogram test requires a trick. As imprecise as it is, it will be good enough to provide you with a rough estimate of your hearing loss, if any.First, we need you to adjust your computer's level to match a known reference. Here is the trick: rub your hands together, in front of your nose, quickly and firmly, and try producing the same sound as our calibration file. You are now generating a reference sound that is approximately 65 dBSPL. As you play back our calibration file, adjust your computer's volume to match the sound level you just heard from you hands. Proceed back and forth - preferably with your eyes closed, to increase concentration - until both levels match. Then, do not touch your computer's volume knob anymore. Calibration is done: your computer's volume knob has been set to match 65 dBSPL. This procedure should give us a confidence of approximately 10 dBHL in the next hearing test.
Although headphones for this test are highly recommended, they must be taken off when listening to the reference sound made by your hands."
So, how "rough" do you think this estimate will be? They say "good enough" for "rough". 10dBHL...plus or minus? A 10dB change in volume is perceived as a doubling of halfing of loudness. Also, without immediate switching, the human ability to compare sounds, even for level shift, diminishes rapidly with time. The time and change in acoustic perspective in putton on and taking off headphones reduces comparative ability significantly.
To test this, I rubbed my hands quickly and firmly at "nose distance" (actually the equivalent of the distance from my nose to ears) in front of my calibrated SPL meter which measured 56dB SPL, -9dBSPL from their expected reference. So how is my meter calibrated? I have an SPL meter calibrator, a precision acoustic tone generator that is pysically coupled, air tight, to the SPL meter. It generates a precision reference tone, and the meter is adjusted to match that level. I've verified the accurace of my calibrator against about a dozen SPL meters, it's pretty much dead on.
So much for their calibration method. Their test, at best, has entertainment value. In other words, a toy.
Their instructions actually make my point for me. Are you aware of the efforts put into real audiometric calibration? And even that can be of by +/- 2dB.
Go for it, man. Whatever makes you feel good.
I was just pointing out your error in stating that online programs are useless because they don't have any kind of calibration.
As you can see, and have you tried, that is not so.
My result shows that I have "slight hearing loss", it is not so bad at my almost 72 years.
And if I consider that the margin of error is +/- 10 DbHL , I will take (-) and it could be even better..... 😉
What values has the test given you?
How old are you ?
OP: I am sorry to be forced to participate in the hijacking of this thread, it is not my intention, but, "he who is silent, grants" and I do not want anyone to draw the wrong conclusions about me, I never reject a good debate.
As has been said before, jaddie should start a separate thread since she shows so much interest in this topic.
As you can see, and have you tried, that is not so.
My result shows that I have "slight hearing loss", it is not so bad at my almost 72 years.
And if I consider that the margin of error is +/- 10 DbHL , I will take (-) and it could be even better..... 😉
What values has the test given you?
How old are you ?
OP: I am sorry to be forced to participate in the hijacking of this thread, it is not my intention, but, "he who is silent, grants" and I do not want anyone to draw the wrong conclusions about me, I never reject a good debate.
As has been said before, jaddie should start a separate thread since she shows so much interest in this topic.
Last edited:
It is exactly as I said. I +/- 10dB error, or even a +/- 5dB error is NOT calibration, it is a HUGE error. Nobody operating within the realm of science, even peripherally, would accept that kind of error as "calibrated".
I don't care what your results are. That is immaterial to the thread, as is all of this discussion (as you pointed out). And I don't take erroneous hearing tests, I goto a certified audiologist with real, calibrated, equipent so I can make decisions based on the real results.
I will continue to respond to any post that contains erroneous information that could mislead the OP or any other reader. I don't have any other interest in this topic. But I am professional in the audio industry with a low tollerance for nonsense.
You may address me as Mr., not Ms., Mrs., or Miss. Thank you.
Mr. jaddy
I have a decibel meter on my smartphone.
But the measurements of these online programs give me an approximate result that works for me, so I will not waste time in corroborating your data, because I am not interested in an accuracy such as what you would consider "scientific".
I have nothing to prove here, or show card's or titles in anything.
I see that you do not want to give your own measurement data or your age, I thought that hiding your age is a custom for ladies, we gentlemen know how to carry our years with pride. Keep up the good work and take care of your nerves. 😉
PS: The translator does not work well with masculine or feminine genders, it is possible that you have misunderstood something. My native language is Spanish.
I have a decibel meter on my smartphone.
But the measurements of these online programs give me an approximate result that works for me, so I will not waste time in corroborating your data, because I am not interested in an accuracy such as what you would consider "scientific".
I have nothing to prove here, or show card's or titles in anything.
I see that you do not want to give your own measurement data or your age, I thought that hiding your age is a custom for ladies, we gentlemen know how to carry our years with pride. Keep up the good work and take care of your nerves. 😉
PS: The translator does not work well with masculine or feminine genders, it is possible that you have misunderstood something. My native language is Spanish.
Last edited:
Um...Thanks for the Mr., but it's jaddie. No "y".
Unless it has been calibrated, phone meters should be assumed no closer than +/- 3dB, which is what I've tested on phonse and inexpensive meters. The also may not have the correct polar response for a true SPL meter, which should be dominantly omni-directional. The old Radioshack SPL meter from years ago could actually be calibrated fairly well, but wasn't correct from the manufacturer. I went through dozens of RS meters and verified this with my G/R SPL calibrator. The G/R calibrator is a precision tone source that couples to an SPL meter or mic with a tight acoustic seal.
And there it is. For me, the reason to strive for accuracy in everything is to convey true information, as opposed to myth.
My measurement data...of what? My own hearing? That would be irrelevant. My age has no relevance to the information I've given on this thread, though I have stated the length of my career, so you could come close.
I understand. Frankly, however you are translating seems to be working well.
I'm glad you understand my limitations of lenguage. But my basic knowledge of English helps me to correct very rude errors in Google Translate. Now, qualifying these online programs as "myths" seems to me to be nonsense on your part. They are very useful for many people who do not have the possibility of going to a professional, especially in these times of pandemic. I also use online calculators whenever I have to do calculations, sometimes quite simple because I have forgotten them. But I see that your brain activity is still intact despite your years, the calculations and reasoning help! Well there!
The online programs aren't myths, but the results are very inaccurate. When someone uses them then believes the result to be true and correct, that's where the myth begins. The one you cited admits to an extremely large error margin.
Online calculators are different. They are mathematically correct. I use some of them too, they are useful tools.
There are days....
Let me just add....your translations seem to be quite good.