1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

ADEL Technology - Discussion Thread - Update: March 27, 2016: Please Read 2nd Post of the Thread

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by eaglewings, Mar 7, 2016.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
  1. ken6217

    OK. I'll call it volume. Loud = No Good. Now tell me how the module makes it less loud!
  2. redrising98

    "Loud volume" doesn't cause hearing damage... The energy associated with perceived high volume damages the structures from eardrum to cochlea. You can play a super loud tone through a cochlear implant and cause no hearing damage.
  3. gregorio
    By your definition, it doesn't really matter what the module does or doesn't do! It and every other IEM can just be turned down until it doesn't sound loud to you. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily mean you will avoid noise induced hearing damage because that type of hearing damage is caused by sound pressure not by loudness. But hey, they're your ears and you can believe whatever you want and damage them however much you want.
  4. ken6217
    Let make it a little simpler. Prove 
    OK prove (not opinion) to me in your next reply that the module will save my hearing and protect my ears. While you're at it, prove to me that using the module will give the same listening level and pleasure at that same level as other IEM's without the module.
  5. Canyon Runner
    This poster goes over everything you're asking about Ken.
    Again, sorry it's in PDF form, so I can't post it directly here.

    Brooko likes this.
  6. redrising98

    Thanks for link.

    "lower absolute levels for the same perceived loudness"

    I think that sums up the issue here. 'Volume' is perceived and can be varied versus absolute pressure levels which cause the actual damage.
  7. gregorio
    No, let me make it even simpler still: You are neither reading nor understanding what I have written.
    1. I stated that I am NOT arguing either for or against Adel's claims!
    2. Perceived loudness does not correlate with SPL (sound pressure level). As hearing damage is caused by high SPL, it's therefore entirely possible to suffer noise induced hearing damage from noise which does not sound especially loud!
  8. BiggerHead
    I don't think you get how conference proceedings work. Yes, they're published by big name organizations.  No they're almost never held to  nearly as high a standard as regular submissions.   There could be exceptions in some conference in some field, but it would be an exception.  And the NSF funded some research.  That doesn't mean they endorse these specific claims.  None of this makes the work wrong, but if these guys are boasting peer reviewed work, then why didn't they publish it properly?  Nobody publishes good work in conference proceedings alone.
    As for these arguments about volume being different than pressure and using 3khs vs whatever as an example.  We all get that the volume to pressure relationship varies with frequency, but at any one frequency, it is what it is.
  9. Brooko Contributor
    I "get" how it works.  You're the one crying fraud without even giving them a chance to put their case across. I'm not 100% convinced - but I'd like to actually hear what Asius say.  And unlike you, I've taken my opportunity to invest in the tech.  If that makes me an idiot, only time will tell.  But I would say we're early in the research at this stage.  And the mere fact that there is funding granted, that there is enough science behind it to make to conference level, that there have been papers written with what looks like credible hypothesis - indicates to me at least that there might be something in this.  Enough that I personally want to learn more.
    The issue I have at the moment is that you're on this thread, crying down every attempt to actually get explanations, and as soon as something is forwarded explaining the research you cry foul. Every time you've asked for something it has been provided if they have it.  I don't see them making a single claim about having their research peer reviewed.  You brought that up and then claim they're not giving examples - but I went right through their KS, and they've never claimed it.
    My question to you - seeing as how you are so vocal on it it - is why?  Why are you so negative on their campaign - enough to introduce and debunk claims they haven't even made. Why aren't you at least interested in the possibility that this may bring new scientific knowledge or understanding of how we might be able to better protect our hearing, and enhance our musical enjoyment?  Why are you so quick to dispute everything - when it clear to me that you have no interest in actually seeing if the tech could actually be real. If you're not going to buy into it, and if you have no interest, then would it be possible to let those of us who have an interest actually find out about it?
    And the questions about perceived volume and pressure have already been answered - including trial results.  Did you even bother to read what was provided?
    Canyon Runner likes this.
  10. krismusic Contributor
    I don't understand why people cannot accept that the 64 ears are terrific CIEM's and the ADEL tech can only be helpful in preserving our hearing. I don't see a downside.
    The endorsements you site are good enough for me to accept that no one is being conned!!!
    Incidentally can anyone point me to reviews of the A6?
  11. Brooko Contributor
    I just want to clarify - I'm not entirely sold 100% on the tech yet, but I'm interested enough to want to learn more. I'm very satisfied with my purchase - but I'm also still really curious to see these new theories tested further.  It could really be a breakthrough for future generations (including my own teenagers).  The last thing I want to see is them having the same issues being experienced by an entire generation of earphone listeners. Tinnitus is not fun, and it is avoidable.
  12. krismusic Contributor
    I suppose my reservation would be the implication that other IEM/CIEM damage hearing even if used sensibly.
  13. Brooko Contributor
    Yep - that's what I'd really like to learn more about too.
  14. BiggerHead
    Brooko. You seem way more emotional about it all than you claim me to be. Nobody called you and idiot. I haven't moved the bar as you say and I haven't even made nearly as many posts as you seem to imply (two, in sequence actually before you started attacking me, no more other than a couple many pages back about a specific issue where I was actually playing along). I'm talking about the issue (which IS the credibility off this work) at hand and you've managed to turn it into a discussion about me, and now you.
    I made one inquiry and only one because I genuinely wanted to know if there is a real publication so I could see it. I guess there's not. That's moving the bar every time I get new information? One post and one request? You seem to have me confused with someone else who may have commented before that.
    If they aren't boasting about peer reviewed work then great, but effectively others, including you have been. The prestige of the publisher (propped up only by the peer review process associated with it) or the fact that some research is funded is not relevant to evaluating the specific claim. It's a conference proceeding. Half of what conferences exist for is to bounce unproven ideas off peers. You don't want me to ask about credible review yet you invoke prestige of the publisher. None of us are expert enough in this field, so of course credible review matters. And yes, the intro smells very funny, un-academic. That doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. You don't have to be academic to be right.
    But let's keep the jargon out of it. Pressure is pressure and in the end all there is is pressure on, possibly different parts of, the ear at different times. There is nothing else. Calling some of that "sound" and some of that "pneumatic" creates a sense that something is understood when it provides questionable actual new detail. If this "pneumatic" stuff is well defined as some particular pattern of pressure, ok, but let's understand that we're still talking about a pattern of pressure, and that can be expressed as spl vs frequency. There is no ppl vs spl except to the extent some frequencies are in-naudible, or possibly to the extent we're talking about pressure differences on different parts of the ear.  Other than than that,  it's all just pl.
    I was and am very receptive to the (either gregorio or castle's I forgot) argument that pressure at sub-bass frequency might not be heard. But if we're just talking about sub-bass volume, then let's say that.
  15. BiggerHead
    Come on G.  Of course it correlates.  I know you didn't really mean that. You mean it's not a direct correlation.  Sure frequency and hearing damage alter it.  For a given ear, at a particular frequency, I'd say it's a direct correlation.  There is another thing that I argued about earlier though which is volume of multiple frequencies.  Volume perception can certainly be altered some by the overall distribution of frequencies.  That's why "loudness" buttons on some amps just increase the bass.  It's funny, while bass itself produces less volume for the same spl, music which is relatively heavy in bass maybe sounds louder.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Share This Page