[RebeccaWise]

Would it be too much to ask for reviewers to submit Audiogram results to validate their hearing as a basis for their reviews?

I mean we all perceive sound a bit differently but what if a reviewer who has the capability to sway buyers really has hearing loss to some degree.

Imagine a food critic who writes articles about restaurants who has no sense of taste, but writes reviews solely based on looks, presentation and texture of food, while making an assumption that the food must taste good or bad based on those qualities only.

 

[msing539]

If they're older, I just assume they already have some degree of hearing loss. Same goes for audio engineers.

Unlikely that any reviewer would submit this though. They'd lose credibility and I don't know why companies would want to send products for review to someone that can't hear certain frequencies.

 

[cirrus101]

I don't think any normal degree of hearing loss caused by natural aging is any relevant compared to that reviewer's lifetime expertise with audio equipment and experience. A trained ear can accutely distinguish a lot more than a green, unseasoned young person's ear who is still catching up on what he is supposed to look (listen) for. An ear of a musician is especially even more so distinguished in its training. The hearing loss that comes with age will often just subdue super high frequencies which usually aren't part of music. It comes as a matter of common sense for the reviewer to retire if he's suffered anything more serious regarding his hearing.

 

[bigshot]

Audiophiles tend to think that the quality of sound depends on the frequencies at the bleeding edge of human hearing, but that isn't the case. The balance of frequencies in the middle have a lot more to do with cans sounding good or bad than frequencies above 10kHz.

 

[earmonger]

Also remember that from 10K-20K is only one octave. The highest note on a piano is 7902 Hz. No doubt there are some overtones way up there, but most of the musical information isn't.

 

[baskingshark]

Would it be too much to ask for reviewers to submit Audiogram results to validate their hearing as a basis for their reviews?

I mean we all perceive sound a bit differently but what if a reviewer who has the capability to sway buyers really has hearing loss to some degree.

Imagine a food critic who writes articles about restaurants who has no sense of taste, but writes reviews solely based on looks, presentation and texture of food, while making an assumption that the food must taste good or bad based on those qualities only.

This is an extremely relevant question.

I work in the medical line and perform audiometries and sign off on them daily.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ganization-for-Standardization_fig1_338597788



Generally the treble frequencies are first to be lost with older age (presbycusis > 50 years old). A 17 year old is gonna hear treble very differently from a 70 year old.

Also some folks suffer from noise induced hearing loss (occupational/leisure induced), and they lose the 4/6 kHz areas more than other frequencies - this is cause the hair cells that transmit these frequencies are found nearer to the outer ear and are the first to die with prolonged loud noise.

Of course there are exceptions, but in general, some things like hearing loss are unfortunately a part of normal ageing.

The thing is an audiometry test isn't that readily accessible and I doubt anyone would happily share their results in public. There's medical confidentiality and insurance and employment issues that may be jeopardized.

The most important is that you follow some reviewers or headfiers who u know have a similar preference to you. Like if he/she reviewed something and you heard it similarly, then probably that's someone's advise worth taking.

 

[gregorio]

I mean we all perceive sound a bit differently but what if a reviewer who has the capability to sway buyers really has hearing loss to some degree.

Pretty much all adults have “hearing loss to some degree”, even older teenagers typically do. And, we do all perceive sound differently, sometimes a “bit differently” and sometimes a lot differently. The important fact to consider is that listening skills and perception are NOT directly correlated to hearing ability. Obviously a severe hearing loss is going to affect listening skills and perception but it does depend on the severity, as well as the nature of the loss and the time period over which it has occurred. An obvious example, a highly experienced professional music engineer in say their late 50’s or 60’s will have very significantly poorer hearing than say a typical teenager but will have very significantly better listening skills.

The highest note on a piano is 7902 Hz.

True and there are a couple of other instruments which go that high or even higher, some church pipe organs for example. However these musical “notes” are not really used as notes, they are used as overtones/effects rather than notes. The highest note (rather than just an effect) is C8, which roughly corresponds to the highest note on a piccolo flute and is slightly below 4,000Hz. There are probably a few exceptions that have actual notes higher than 4kHz but the vast majority of music doesn’t even go as high as C8 and have actual notes pitches probably no higher than around 3kHz. Of course there’s plenty of content higher than 3kHz, harmonics, noise (say voice sibilance, unpitched percussion instruments, etc.), transients in some cases (again unpitched metal perc for instance) and distortion for example.

This is an extremely relevant question.

Again, not so much. A far more relevant question is listening skills and perception. The human brain is particularly adept at acclimatising/compensating over time for sonic “issues”, be they weaknesses in hearing or in the actual sound entering our ears, room acoustic issues for example (Floyd Toole has published a great deal of research in this area). An audiogram only gives us a threshold for pure tones and only a part (and not necessarily a particularly important part) of the entire picture of aural perception, the two are not directly correlated. Again, I’m sure some of the top music engineers probably have some pretty horrendous looking audiograms but their perception/listening skills are far superior to those with perfect looking audiograms. That’s why few, if any would publish their audiograms, because many would assume a correlation between the audiogram and their listening/perception ability.

The most important is that you follow some reviewers or headfiers who u know have a similar preference to you. Like if he/she reviewed something and you heard it similarly, then probably that's someone's advise worth taking.

That’s another whole can of worms, which also can have little/nothing to do with hearing ability! For example, why did you hear something similarly to a reviewer? Is it because you have similar hearing to the reviewer, is it because you have similar preferences, is it because your perception has been biased by reading the review or have both you and the reviewer been biased by some audiophile marketing? In the audiophile world, the last two possibilities are hugely downplayed despite the fact they’re far more prevalent and relevant than the first two!

G

 

[Roseval]

Who cares about a sighted test?

 

[BoomerD]

This is an extremely relevant question.

I work in the medical line and perform audiometries and sign off on them daily.


https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ganization-for-Standardization_fig1_338597788



Generally the treble frequencies are first to be lost with older age (presbycusis > 50 years old). A 17 year old is gonna hear treble very differently from a 70 year old.

Also some folks suffer from noise induced hearing loss (occupational/leisure induced), and they lose the 4/6 kHz areas more than other frequencies - this is cause the hair cells that transmit these frequencies are found nearer to the outer ear and are the first to die with prolonged loud noise.

Of course there are exceptions, but in general, some things like hearing loss are unfortunately a part of normal ageing.

The thing is an audiometry test isn't that readily accessible and I doubt anyone would happily share their results in public. There's medical confidentiality and insurance and employment issues that may be jeopardized.

The most important is that you follow some reviewers or headfiers who u know have a similar preference to you. Like if he/she reviewed something and you heard it similarly, then probably that's someone's advise worth taking.

I'm not far from 70 y.o., and that chart is pretty accurate for me. When I run one of the "what frequencies do you hear" vids on youtube, by 9,000 hZ, all goes quiet...with an occasional "gurgle" around 12-15,000...then silent again.
I was a heavy equipment operator for more than 30 years...when I first started, if the noise was too loud, "rip the filter off a couple of cigarettes, stick them in your ears" was the norm.
No wonder my wife keeps nagging me to get my hearing tested. (I think she just hasn't figured out that most of my "hearing problems" are just selective...

 

[castleofargh]

I'm not far from 70 y.o., and that chart is pretty accurate for me. When I run one of the "what frequencies do you hear" vids on youtube, by 9,000 hZ, all goes quiet...with an occasional "gurgle" around 12-15,000...then silent again.
I was a heavy equipment operator for more than 30 years...when I first started, if the noise was too loud, "rip the filter off a couple of cigarettes, stick them in your ears" was the norm.
No wonder my wife keeps nagging me to get my hearing tested. (I think she just hasn't figured out that most of my "hearing problems" are just selective...

off topic but it's not advised to remain without hearing aid(or without glasses), once the degradation gets serious because it can be bad for the brain in other areas than "just" hearing or vision.
It's hard to say exactly how serious it is or even how big the relation is because every study says something somewhat different, and wants to correlate everything to whatever they happen to be researching. Plus, almost all of them are pushed by the guys selling you solutions(the joy of modern science). But there seem to be one common conclusion: it's bad for the brain to leave it alone for too long.

 

[BoomerD]

off topic but it's not advised to remain without hearing aid(or without glasses), once the degradation gets serious because it can be bad for the brain in other areas than "just" hearing or vision.
It's hard to say exactly how serious it is or even how big the relation is because every study says something somewhat different, and wants to correlate everything to whatever they happen to be researching. Plus, almost all of them are pushed by the guys selling you solutions(the joy of modern science). But there seem to be one common conclusion: it's bad for the brain to leave it alone for too long.

Meh...for the most part, I hear just fine...(whadyousay? I've had proper hearing tests over the years...last one was over 20 years ago...and other than some minor loss in the "conversational range," my hearing was fine...

 

[cirrus101]

(I think she just hasn't figured out that most of my "hearing problems" are just selective...

I know quite a few people like that, but much younger. You have a good alibi at least...!