ADEL Technology - Discussion Thread - Update: March 27, 2016: Please Read 2nd Post of the Thread
post-12479231
Post #121 of 336

BiggerHead

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
204
Reaction score
20
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Posts
204
Likes
20
 
 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.
 
In other words... the iem can maybe more efficiently transfer pressure to the ear drums at low frequency than some other speaker.  That pressure is called VOLUME. So what?  We're saying iem's are efficient? (duh) bass heavy?(depends on the iem I guess)  We're saying they're  too loud?  You don't have a volume knob?  This is all still just volume.
 
What's being tossed around is the idea that there is some kind of voodoo oscillatory pressure on an ear drum that is not related to volume, that's pushing harder than it sounds like it's pushing. That sounds like bunk to me.  Your ear drum either has pressure or it doesn't and you can convert that pressure from time domain to frequency and that's the volume of the various frequencies.  That's it.  There's no voodoo silent pressure. 
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479299
Post #122 of 336
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
13,315
Reaction score
24,259
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Posts
13,315
Likes
24,259
Why are you so aggressive with this?  Throwing terms like "bunk" around  - but I've read both papers and what has been suggested seems plausible (to me anyway).  It's working on theories from earlier research (Beranek), and then theorises how the closed ear canal can introduce pressure oscillations.
 
Unfortunately because of copyright I can't quote sections from the paper - but I've read through both of them and especially the AES paper seems to be working on some pretty solid material - especially around pages 5-7.  Anyway they've later modelled it, expounded a theory, and then tested that theory.
 
The work they've done has been published by the Acoustical Society of America through the American Institute of Physics, and its been good enough that funding has been granted by the NSF to continue their research.  This isn't given out for "bunk" theories.
 
Not only that, but they've used resource and experts at Stanford to help them with the modelling.
 
You can carry on with the voodoo comments, and trying to cast aspersions - but I for one am really interested in the actual science of this.  If you don't have actual proof that these theories cannot work - then perhaps kindly allow those of us who are genuinely interested to have the chance to discuss them with an open mind.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Canyon Runner
post-12479311
Post #123 of 336

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
9,015
Reaction score
4,353
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
9,015
Likes
4,353
  In other words... the iem can maybe more efficiently transfer pressure to the ear drums at low frequency than some other speaker.  That pressure is called VOLUME. So what?  We're saying iem's are efficient? (duh) bass heavy?(depends on the iem I guess)  We're saying they're  too loud?  You don't have a volume knob?  This is all still just volume.
 
What's being tossed around is the idea that there is some kind of voodoo oscillatory pressure on an ear drum that is not related to volume, that's pushing harder than it sounds like it's pushing. That sounds like bunk to me.  Your ear drum either has pressure or it doesn't and you can convert that pressure from time domain to frequency and that's the volume of the various frequencies.  That's it.  There's no voodoo silent pressure. 
 I wasn't advocating in favor or against the ADEL, just explaining how I understood why a distinction was made in the way the pressure is transmitted. and indeed that leads to making the bass louder when sealed, so I imagine the all problem would depend on the original signature of the IEM, and how well we notice when there is too much sub bass on a sealed IEM. the main point seems to recommend avoiding massively boosted sub. not sure if the way to achieve this really matters, but it's still potentially good advice.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479312
Post #124 of 336

ken6217

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
782
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Posts
1,838
Likes
782
This is much ado about nothing. Making something seem very complicated and saying they have a solution. It's like George Bush with the fuzzy math.

So let's skip to the chase. You're playing music directly in your ear. If you play it loud you could be facing hearing loss. Plain and simple. No need to get involved in any other conversation on the matter.

Presure or no pressure, it's the volume that counts. And no I can't play my A12's lower.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479331
Post #125 of 336
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
13,315
Reaction score
24,259
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Posts
13,315
Likes
24,259
Well before writing it off - I'd like to be able to see whats behind it (if that's OK with you) 

 
I have a pair of U6, and I AM noticing less flare ups with my permanent tinnitus, and I AM able to listen at a lower level.  So while you may not be noticing any changes - I am.  And that is why I'd really like the chance to learn more about it.
 
The problem lies with some here who are already crying "foul" without being open minded enough to actually allow the man to have his say, and further explain some of the research. I know Steven is trying to set up a Spreecast so he can answer some of the questions.
 
Ken - did you actually read the papers?
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479362
Post #126 of 336

krismusic

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
4,334
Reaction score
704
Location
London
Joined
May 10, 2009
Location
London
Posts
4,334
Likes
704
Age
64
Well before writing it off - I'd like to be able to see whats behind it (if that's OK with you) :wink:

I have a pair of U6, and I AM noticing less flare ups with my permanent tinnitus, and I AM able to listen at a lower level.  So while you may not be noticing any changes - I am.  And that is why I'd really like the chance to learn more about it.

The problem lies with some here who are already crying "foul" without being open minded enough to actually allow the man to have his say, and further explain some of the research. I know Steven is trying to set up a Spreecast so he can answer some of the questions.

Ken - did you actually read the papers?
Brooko, I have a pair of CIEM's that I love but certain tracks set my Tinnitus ringing like a bell! Do you find that the ADEL stops this happening?
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479389
Post #127 of 336
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
13,315
Reaction score
24,259
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Posts
13,315
Likes
24,259
It seems to be helping, but that's why I want to learn more. What ive found is that if I'm A/Bing against another IEM, I tend to listen to both louder. But if I'm listening exclusively to the U6 then I tend to have the volume lower, and my tinnitus doesn't seem to be as strong.

I can only guess this might have something to do with the acoustic reflex being triggered with the introduction of the 2nd IEM - but that's why I'd like to actually quiz Stephen on it and see what he thinks. I simply don't know enough about it.

I do agree with Ken on one thing though - if you keep the volume loud, it won't matter if you have the Adel module or not. You're going to damage your hearing. What I'm liking with the U6 so far is that I can listen softly and still get gobs of detail. And I'm wondering if that is the benefit of Adel .......
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479425
Post #128 of 336

Hawaiibadboy

BANNED
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
9,326
Reaction score
10,486
Location
Hawaii/Japan/Your Head
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Location
Hawaii/Japan/Your Head
Posts
9,326
Likes
10,486
  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?

  I am going to quote this guy because like him...this makes too much sense aside from the one point in question which is "D".
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479439
Post #129 of 336

ken6217

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
782
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Posts
1,838
Likes
782
  Well before writing it off - I'd like to be able to see whats behind it (if that's OK with you) 

 
I have a pair of U6, and I AM noticing less flare ups with my permanent tinnitus, and I AM able to listen at a lower level.  So while you may not be noticing any changes - I am.  And that is why I'd really like the chance to learn more about it.
 
The problem lies with some here who are already crying "foul" without being open minded enough to actually allow the man to have his say, and further explain some of the research. I know Steven is trying to set up a Spreecast so he can answer some of the questions.
 
Ken - did you actually read the papers?

I didn't because I have one argument only. Volume in ones ear. You can't escape that fact. I don't care if the module relieves pressure, makes me dinner, can wash my car, and drive me to work. Volume is what is damaging to your ears. Go check OSHA's standards in the workplace and see if sound decibels matter.
 
As I have said many times, leaf blowers, chain saws, constructions equipment, loud venues can all cause hearing loss after extended periods of exposure.
 
Now I will say that I love the sound of my A12's and I think that I can listen to them without fatigue. This may be the module, but it is doing nothing for me in terms of playing it lower and saving my hearing.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479449
Post #130 of 336

BiggerHead

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
204
Reaction score
20
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Posts
204
Likes
20
 I wasn't advocating in favor or against the ADEL, just explaining how I understood why a distinction was made in the way the pressure is transmitted. and indeed that leads to making the bass louder when sealed, so I imagine the all problem would depend on the original signature of the IEM, and how well we notice when there is too much sub bass on a sealed IEM. the main point seems to recommend avoiding massively boosted sub. not sure if the way to achieve this really matters, but it's still potentially good advice.
 


I can certainly respect this reply. The point about not noticing sub-bass sounds like much more grounded way of looking at things to me, than trying to make funny linguistic distinctions about "pneumatic" or "sound" pressure. Sure, huge volume 10 hz could do something bad. Do you need some high tech solution to prevent iems with huge volume at 10hz? Maybe? I kind of doubt it, but I won't write it off.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479462
Post #131 of 336

BiggerHead

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
204
Reaction score
20
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Posts
204
Likes
20
And I'd still like to see the papers that are not conference proceedings. I can't see why this work would only be published in conference proceedings.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479502
Post #132 of 336
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
13,315
Reaction score
24,259
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Posts
13,315
Likes
24,259
And I'd still like to see the papers that are not conference proceedings. I can't see why this work would only be published in conference proceedings.

Jeepers - you asked for papers and because they were published for a conference they aren't good enough? Would anything be good enough for you? The Acoustic Society obviously thought they were good enough. The guys at Stanford thought the science sound enough to help model it. The NSF thought it was good enough to fund further research.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479539
Post #133 of 336

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
4,058
Reaction score
2,090
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,058
Likes
2,090
  In other words... the iem can maybe more efficiently transfer pressure to the ear drums at low frequency than some other speaker.  That pressure is called VOLUME.
 
No it's not, it's called pressure, sound pressure.
 
  Volume is what is damaging to your ears. Go check OSHA's standards in the workplace and see if sound decibels matter.
 
Decibels measure sound pressure, NOT volume! OSHA uses a dB weighted scale, the "A" weighting, which is ironically the weighting LEAST suited to measuring volume (loudness)! Loudness is measured, somewhat inaccurately, using the LKFS or LUFS scale.
 
I'm not arguing for or against ADEL, I'm arguing that loudness and sound pressure are two different things, not the same thing! This is hardly new science, it's been known since the 1930s. Sound does not have to be uncomfortably loud to be damaging!
 
G
 
post-12479582
Post #134 of 336

ken6217

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
782
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Posts
1,838
Likes
782
   
No it's not, it's called pressure, sound pressure.
 
 
Decibels measure sound pressure, NOT volume! OSHA uses a dB weighted scale, the "A" weighting, which is ironically the weighting LEAST suited to measuring volume (loudness)! Loudness is measured, somewhat inaccurately, using the LKFS or LUFS scale.
 
I'm not arguing for or against ADEL, I'm arguing that loudness and sound pressure are two different things, not the same thing! This is hardly new science, it's been known since the 1930s. Sound does not have to be uncomfortably loud to be damaging!
 
G

It still comes down to volume. Call it sound pressure or whatever you like.
 
When you calibrate a home theater with a SPL meter to make the level of each speaker 75 decibels, you are doing this so that you hear the same volume from all 6 speakers from your seating position. So yes you are using sound pressure, but it is the volume of that in which you are hearing.
 
There is no need to make this complicated.
 
     Share This Post       
post-12479668
Post #135 of 336

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
4,058
Reaction score
2,090
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,058
Likes
2,090
  It still comes down to volume. Call it sound pressure or whatever you like.
 
It doesn't come down to volume, it comes down to sound pressure level. If we're going to calling two different things the same thing, it doesn't matter what you call it, why not horse power?
 
  When you calibrate a home theater with a SPL meter to make the level of each speaker 75 decibels, you are doing this so that you hear the same volume from all 6 speakers from your seating position. So yes you are using sound pressure, but it is the volume of that in which you are hearing.
 
Output a 90Hz signal to say your left speaker, adjusting the volume until your SPL meter says 75dB. Now, without adjusting the volume, output say a 3kHz signal instead of the 90Hz signal. They both sound the same volume right?
 
G
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top