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
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
  1. Ruben123
    Im just wondering, about the one ear deaf people. Im very sorry but I just do not at all believe that they do hear more or better with the ADEL, not because of its frequency response (which is focused on the sensitive part of the human ear) but because of the pressure-relieving membrane.
    Why would anybody deaf not hear the same with a good headphone? Most of the time because they isolate less, they have to be set at a higher volume than in-ears, resulting in *more music traveling from the one side of the ear to the OTHER cochlea* by their logic. Also headphones (even closed!) need a bit higher SPL (sound PRESSURE) level to get the same perceived volume, which means only more pressure in the ear!! How problematic, fortunately only IEMs have that problem. It seems. I wonder if making a small hole in any in-ear/closed headphone will *do the same* as adels idea. Only having less isolation, a very very tiny bit less (dont tell me a small membrane does isolate more than no membrane).
  2. Canyon Runner
    You're confusing two different products. The 64 Audio IEMs are not what helps the people with severe hearing loss/deaf in one ear. That's the bubble. They're very different things and deliver the sound much differently. If you watch the videos, you'd see that, as well as hear the explanation of how it works.

  3. Ruben123

    Ah, I didnt know that. Thanks. Though to be fair Im even more interested in how this should work.
  4. Canyon Runner
    Ok guys, a few of you have requested the white papers on alot of the studies. There's a handful of others but I'm not sure how relevant they are to this very discussion, so we'll just start with these. Copy and pasting directly to head-fi proved to be really tricky (it looked a mess and the graphs wouldn't show up). So I've uploaded two of them and they're avalible for you to download as a PDF file.


    Brooko likes this.
  5. ezekiel77
    Thanking you in advance.
  6. castleofargh Contributor
    first, thanks for providing those papers. I wish I had seen such paper a few years back when I was desperately trying to make sense of audiophiles claims about hearing. overall it's instructive.(for others, the second paper is mostly a short version of the first one just showing a different implementation of the same concept with the same results).

    ok so let's see if I get this right:
    A/ the basic concept is that the listener will look for a desired perceived loudness, and because our protection mechanism reduces our sensitivity to sound, when triggered, we tend to increase the volume to compensate for that reduced sensitivity thus making the protection mechanism even more needed.
    this makes sense to me. is anybody contesting this part?
    B/ in a sealed ear canal the low frequencies will be boosted compared to the same IEM not sealed.
    again, this is very obvious to anyone using closed IEMs, losing the seal also means losing a lot of low frequencies.
    there is also mention of phase shift, which is normal as far as I know in any analog change brought to the frequency response. be it a rolled off amp, an EQ or some acoustic tuning. if the signature changes, the phase will also be altered.
    anybody has a problem with those ideas?
    C/ the stapedius reflex uses a muscle and the hypothesis here is that a long use of that muscle could be a cause of listener's fatigue.
    looks like a solid possibility to me, clearly not the only cause of perceived fatigue(pressure in the ear from the tip/shell, some nasty distortions, very spiky signatures, the lack of crossfeed...), but listening to loud sounds for a long period is certainly fatiguing, so be it that the stressed muscle is painful, or that when the muscle fails, we get fatigue from hurting the ear with too loud a sound, the result is the same. so I agree with the hypothesis here.
    D/ the papers suggest that a sealed ear canal may be more likely to trigger the stapedius reflex(protection mechanism) than a vented IEM(or something with a flexible membrane for the ADEL or the inflatable thing). they also suggest that the extra low frequencies could be the trigger for the stapedius reflex to kick in sooner.
    I'm guessing all those careful opinions exist because of all the variables that represent different IEMs with different signatures, and different individuals in different listening situations. overall I've seen no strange claims, the papers implies some possibilities(not all to my taste) but the claimed parts seem solid to a newbie like myself doing low-fi IEM measurements.

    here is my personal problem with this D/ part. all the talk and measurements are done showing the same given sound source with and without a seal. but as perfectly shown in the papers, one of the very obvious impact will be a strong change in frequency response. that in itself will have enough psycho acoustic repercussions for an estimated loudness or fatigue to mean close to nothing at all. that brings up an obvious question, what about a sealed IEM in sealed conditions, that gives about the same frequency response as a vented one in vented conditions? have any perceived loudness tests been done for that?
  7. mkarikom
    I considered the A12, but having missed the kickstarter train and being unable to stomach the current $2k price tag, I went for the K10 SLA, which I love, especially for its resolution of punchy low-end production elements and consider a great value at $1400.  I'm just curious about your impressions of the isolation that the A12 provides?  I would imagine it is somewhat less than the K10 when the auto ADEL module is being used.
  8. ken6217

    Honestly I do not hear any difference in terms of sealing. I no longer have the K10's but still have custom Roxannes and they seem the same to me as far as sealing outside noise. There is no more outside noise with the A12 as with the Roxannes.

    The hole in the module is tiny. You couldn't fit a pin through it.
  9. krismusic Contributor
    Does the ADEL unit mean that the CIEM leaks sound to the outside world?
  10. ken6217

    No leakage as far as I can tell. When I first got them I asked my wife to listen and let me know if she could hear the music while I wore them as I use them on a train everyday and didn't want to get that nasty glances. She couldn't hear anything.
  11. krismusic Contributor
    Thanks for the info. :)
  12. mkarikom
    Wow thats great.
  13. BiggerHead
    I'm amazed at how many posts there are just buying into this idea that air can have two kinds of pressure, "sound" pressure and "pneumatic" pressure.  What nonsense is this?  And pressure "building up"?  From an alternating signal?  Air pressure is air pressure.  Period.  You can I suppose have a DC pressure offset.  Maybe this is what is meant?  Is this caused when you put the earphones in and never leaks down?  It can't be caused by the diaphragm oscillations, because they are oscillations.  If DC or static pressure is what is meant then why don't people just say that?  Instead we have weird posts about "magnifying" sound pressure into "pneumatic pressure"   wait, are we talking about the sound.. ie oscillations, or are we talking about static pressure?  Oscillations are oscillations and the oscillating pressure is what it is and that is the volume,. There aren't two kinds of pressure waves in air.
    At any given instant there is only pressure.  The only possible variable I see here is static, or at least very low frequency pressure, vs normal hearing range  pressure waves.
    I'm not saying there's nothing to do this, but I'm not very impressed by tossing around some slightly too oily sounding words, publicity events, and kickstarter campaigns.
    In the end I only have one question.  Where are the peer reviewed articles? And no, conference proceedings editions don't count unless you can convince me that they went through the same scrutiny as a regular submission. 
  14. BiggerHead
    From the Montreal conference proceedings:  "From the 1960s to the present, Stephen D. Ambrose has been investigating..." "... the fact that he was both an engineer and a vocal performer gave him a unique grasp of the full range of drawbacks..."
    It's a little unusual to build ethos and refer to one's self in the third person in the introduction to a scientific paper,  or even an engineering paper. 
  15. castleofargh Contributor

    I believe the point made is that for low frequencies, the driver is pushing slowly enough for the entire ear canal to stabilize itself at a new compressed level from the volume lost when the membrane pushed forward. and the lower the frequency, the more time the air in the ear canal would have to adjust to the new condition of internal pressure. so instead of the sound wave moving freely in the air until it reaches the eardrum, we're in a situation where we also have a small tube with 2 membranes on each sides, and pushing one from a value ends up pushing the other from the sheer fact that the inside of the tube is being compressed. and that would provide more push on the eardrum than just the sound wave alone in free air.
    up to the point where the frequency is too fast for the pressure in the ear canal to (almost) stabilize, and so the higher the frequency, the less this has an actual impact.
    I could be completely wrong but that's how I visualized the all idea of pneumatic pressure as used so far. and losing the seal=losing mainly low frequencies would be for that reason.
    Canyon Runner likes this.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Share This Page