Separate names with a comma.
So after my post has been deleted, Ive decided to read a bit more about them.
As I understand how it works, there is a valve that lets air pressure out when the pressure becomes too high, mainly due to low frequencies. While air pressure (SPL) and volume and hearing loss are related, hearing loss is mainly due to higher frequency exposure. Letting the bass leak away (by opening a valve and letting surround sounds in, this is NOT a good way of protecting your hearing as you will have to INCREASE the volume to hear your surroundings less) is a silly idea. Just make an earphone that doesnt have much bass and excellent isolation if you believe the bass levels cause hearing damage. Which, again, is more caused by high frequency exposure. For that matter, it's better to have warm earphones than cold soundig. Because warmer sounds seem to sound louder (which they are not). This is just the same but completely otherwise.
Also, the most silly of this whole thing. The *science* behind it. I stand corrected, and please give me links to scientific papers or neurological textbooks and I will admit when Im wrong, but want to read it first.
People who have severe hearing damage, are NOT going to hear much better with an IEM that isolates sort of very well and lets some pressure out when it is too much. If this is all the ADEL does, there is certainly no point in it. If your nerve is damaged, letting less sound pressure in your ear is not at all going to work. I really dont understand why people would think that. You need higher volume (and thus higher air pressure) to hear better. Not less. What could help is preventing the acoustic reflex in your ear to happen, so that you need less loud music. But then again: you get only the attenuation of the higher frequencies as the bass it cut off. Just get a bass light earphone and your problem is solved. What the ADEL does with this strategy is letting people hear the sounds (mid and mid-high freq) that they are more sensible to, like every other human. Not only the deaf, though they have more benefits from it.
Now the other part of deaf people hearing 3d.
Our brain is not stupid and very plastic. Very fortunately it can learn things even when it couldnt. Deaf people (1 ear) could learn to hear more depth. That though has NOTHING to do with the sound traveling through the caveties in your head.
Said by Steve of ADEL: The sound is being conducted across your head, through the pockets behind your face (eye sockets and nasal cavities), to the cochleas on both sides. In somebody that has hearing in both ears, it creates unmatched spatial effects and imaging, because of the dual delivery.
What a nonsense (and could not explain why 1 ear deaf people can hear stereo again). Why would only their earphone cause sounds to be traveled from one ear to the other, through your skull? Surprise: it doesnt. There is really no reason only their earphone that lets sound pressure escape could make sound travel more through your cavities than any other earphone. It can go louder without directly causing the acoustic reflex to happen so more sound travels through your cavities to your other cochlea. And then? Your other cochlea thinks *hey this sound seems to come from the other side* no it doesnt work that way. All sounds picked up by the right cochlea come from the right. I even doubt that the sound of the ADEL will be loud enough to be heard significantly loud enogh in the other ear. What does happen though is, that your brain learns to hear with only one ear and adds depth to it but that has, again, nothing to do with this "special" earphone. Nothing. But again, point me at research or textbooks and I will read and correct my post when needed.
Also dont tell me how American advertising works.... maybe the girl in the video was hired.
And about hearing protection: great to have less air pressure with the same volume. Or lower volume, how you look at it. Cutting out the bass though makes people find the music to be a bit soft so they will crank up the volume.Also people are more sensitive for those freq range so would automatically turn down the volume because otherwise their ear WILL hurt because of the high frequency energy and not activated acoustic reflex but STILL not hearing enough bass. If this would work anybody would use earbuds because they let all the air pressure go and speakers should be even more safe. And what is the reason for the many having hearing loss at young age...? Was it the earbuds from the Walkmans and early Apple and friends that caused it, perhaps? hmmmm...
If a mod feels this is appropriate please point me at what to change instead of deleting the whole post again. Thanks.
I wasn't the mod who deleted your post (quoted below), but I do agree with its deletion:
At least your other post (quoted below) reads less like a trolling post:
At least you provide some discussion now that 64 Audio or Asius Technologies may respond to.
That lady in the video is not an actress. My wife is 100% deaf in her left ear, and had a nearly identical response. My 11-year-old son was with us, and hadn't seen the above video until after my wife tried it. He said of the above video afterwards, "Mom's response was almost exactly like hers!"
I can't speak to the hearing protection aspects of 64 Audio's IEMs, as I don't know enough about it. I can, however, attest to the fact that, though the Active ADEL (aka "bubbles") device does not restore hearing to my wife's left ear (nor do they claim it does), its effect was profound. Something about what it does made my wife feel like the music/sound was filling her head for the first time in over ten years. Also, while the ability to locate position by sound while wearing the device would need to be conditioned over time, she was sensing changes of sound location more than she had since her surgery, too.
The Active ADEL pieces are different, as they're pressurized/inflated from an external source. Again, I'll let 64/Asius address this discussion, as I'm not qualified beyond what I've already said. Again, though, I can tell you now that my wife responded almost exactly as the lady in the video above did.
In my opinion, the mere fact that someone is attempting to benefit the hearing impaired, or for that matter all of our hearing, at the very least warrants a degree of diplomacy when presenting an opposing point of view. Civility certainly won't weaken your argument.
Ever heard of people wanting to make money? I did, and to be fair it is a nice strategy: protecting the hearing and helping the hearing impaired, on a way I have not seen any scientific papers of. Many people are willing to "believe" it because the claims are so nice, but until I have seen evidence I'm very sceptic. They could've made an earphone with a frequency response with a great peak at the 400-4000hz range, where our hearing is the most sensitive. No need for hard to understand the science behind it valves etc
(Maybe even he really benefits from the believing and not looking for evidence people, who think finally a "treatment" is there. Makes me think about homeopathy...)
Still we have to separate a profound psychological effect from a profound clinical effect. Testimonials help us in our search for the latter, but they aren't strong evidence by themselves. My first reaction is, well, open circumaural headphones also don't seal up the ear canal, so why not a similar effect there? So yes, at this point we need an explanation of why this particular technology should be so different. Neither this video not the video on their home page really seems to say much. I thought it was quite a humongous leap from the home-page video's "We want to prevent excess eardrum movement and provide a more spacious experience" to this video's "We want to restore hearing to the hearing-impaired."
I agree. My wife will be participating as much as opportunity allows, and I'll take her down to Vanderbilt as often as they're interested in seeing her.
Agreed. I think asius has some videos posted explaining their theories... but of course more extensive studies (probably longitudinal with controls... so somewhat unfeasible) would have to be done to prove the benefit.
From theory though it seems like they are trying to mimic open headphones. From my interpretation of the asius videos it seems that there isn't any benefit of this tech versus open headphones... or really headphones at all. I think the problem is that sealed IEM that have been associated with hearing damage have done so because the sealed speaker is so much closer to the eardrum that there is more impact and possibly less defense as well as from the acoustic reflex (generally associated with acoustic nerve to facial nerve to stapedius but also has contribution from CNV facial sensory to tensor tympani). Therefore by adding a second diaphragm some of this pressure is alleviated.
Compared to open/closed headphones or speakers this issue doesn't exist to the same degree. Of course too loud is too loud and hearing damage will occur regardless but it seems the goal of the adel tech is the 'open' the sealed IEM enviroment thus bringing the risk of hearing damage back to a similar level as open headphones/speakers.
Curious for a source on the claim that high frequency noise damages hearing more than low frequency. You lose high frequency hearing first due to the anatomy of the organ of corti... but I've only ever read of db affecting actual damage not frequencies.
Dutch textbook for medical student, translated as "ENT and neck surgery"(kno en hoofd/halschrirugie), dr Huizing, page 88: "the hearing loss depends on the frequency (higher frequencies cause more damage to the hearing), intensity (loudness), total time of exposure and the sensitivity to damage."
If I come across an English source I'll share it.
Interesting... I wonder if this is refering to higher frequency sound having more energy. As I understand it though, in audio playback the low frequencies are generally amplified to make up for the inherent differences in energy across frequencies to give a perceived 'flat' response. If this were the case it seems like low frequencies (after amplification for 'flat response') could actually end up having more energy thus cause more damage.
Human hearing is also more sensitive for higher freqs, which is a bless sometimes but not always. For our hearing is not linear and most people like a bit more bass, they will increase the volume of their player which is an even bigger problem for the high freqs played and their degree of damaging the hearing.
Excuse me for English is not my native language, hope you understand it.
Is there evidence that IEM's have caused hearing damage?
Just real quick, here's this article.
All of these things have been explained numerous times, on the 64 thread as well as this thread. Here is the entire playlist of reaction videos with explanations of the Active ADEL, which would be alot of actors to pay off... https://youtu.be/DRbgwNmymH4?list=PL0YGE_456HaP3Q3VJWWBEt4dmgIEczspy
We will be doing a SpreeCast with Stephen, this upcoming week with another Head-Fi member, going over all the top questions people have. If you'd like to be apart of it, please PM with your name & email address and I'll make sure you're included. This will allow you to have the science explained to you directly by Stephen and he can answer any of your questions face to face. Then have it posted in both threads for future viewers, to have their questions answered as well.
It is worth mentioning that ADEL is the only tech on Head-Fi that has been funded millions of dollars by the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, all of which require peer reviews from some of the top minds in their fields.
I guess I don't understand how people aren't hearing those extra 7-9dB and are not adjusting the volume accordingly. Also the terminology seems to be combining external buds with IEMs.