[Chuwy]

Logic seems to dictate that the distance from the sound source to your eardrums has no effect on the amount of hearing loss you will or will not suffer. It does, however, seem to indicate that the amount of hearing loss you suffer directly corresponds to the volume of the sound that reaches your eardrums.

This would mean that because of their isolation properties, IEMs are the safest bet for your ears.

However there seems to be quite a large amount of people who think that distance does play a huge role. As indicated here:

Ouch: JVC HP-FXC50 Headphones First to Put the Speaker Driver Inside Your Ear

To use the FXC50s as an example, are these the safest earphones you can buy (assuming you get great isolation from these), or the most dangerous?

This problem has been bugging me for quite a while,

Chuwy

 

[ClieOS]

The problem with many people is they believe the sound wave of 90dB (SPL) from 10mm away has more energy than from 10m away. If there was more energy in the sound wave that reach your eardrum, should it be louder? Unfortunately, most of the world outside of head-fi is still in the dark age in regard of the health issue associated with IEM usage. That is, they don't want to know how (or why) to properly use their gear. When you try to talk some sense into them, many will just choose to burn you on a stick instead.

As history has told us time and time again, pseudoscience is much more damaging than real witchcraft.

 

[Mr_Junesequa]

Think of a blank wall. near the wall there is one man with a bucket of paint. He throws it on the wall and gets a lot of coverage on the wall from a small amount of paint as he is standing close by. Now imagine 4 other men standing 10 or so staps back.. these 5 or 6 other men who are standing far away throwing paint in unicine get about the same coverage on the wall as one man standing close.

Iems can be as bad as a jet engine at half volume.

I think what you might be on about is that two sound sources at moderate volumes in a room can be just as fatigueing as one source art full ball...so the good think about iem's is that at full ball they isolate almost everything else?

i may need some help on this i only vaguely remember what the audiologist told me

 

[dr13zehn]

In simple words, IEMs are very safe if used correctly.
Due to the isolation you can listen to them at a much lower volume than other types of headphones and the perceived loudness is still quite high. As it was mentioned before by ClieOS, it makes no difference how close or far the source of the soundwave is from your eardrum, all that matters is how high the volume is.
Since IEMs can be listened to at much lower volumes than other options, they are safer... Again, if used correctly!

 

[M-A-Z]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr13zehn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Since IEMs can be listened to at much lower volumes than other options, they are safer... Again, if used correctly!

I don't quite get your point. How can earphones be used incorrectly? Different volumes fall under normal, designatad use. Apart from that, the volume considered necessary depends on the ambient noises (crowdy underground station or quiet park) and the degree of isolation the device provides.

 

[dr13zehn]

What I mean by that is if they are inserted correctly and a good seal is achieved. If the seal is bad, outside noise will be more prominent, sound quality is reduced, people will turn the volume up louder to compensate and with that rendering the IEMs' safety benefits virtually ineffective.

 

[M-A-Z]

Well, the point is that people wouldn't know that the seal is bad, they would think this was the designated degree of isolation, and even if they were aware of it, would they throw the earphones away and buy new ones? Rather not.

 

[Flammadeao]

What would be a good way for people to check for a proper seal? If they do get a good seal, then where to go from there? How do they know what level to stay below?

As far as damages go... If I remember correctly there is/ was way to decrease the max output of an ipod in order to limit it. If there were a way to find out the exact threshold at which damages begin to occur you could set the ipod to go no higher than X volume. That right there would eliminate accidental damage.

 

[Chuwy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Junesequa /img/forum/go_quote.gif Think of a blank wall. near the wall there is one man with a bucket of paint. He throws it on the wall and gets a lot of coverage on the wall from a small amount of paint as he is standing close by. Now imagine 4 other men standing 10 or so staps back.. these 5 or 6 other men who are standing far away throwing paint in unicine get about the same coverage on the wall as one man standing close. Iems can be as bad as a jet engine at half volume. I think what you might be on about is that two sound sources at moderate volumes in a room can be just as fatigueing as one source art full ball...so the good think about iem's is that at full ball they isolate almost everything else? i may need some help on this i only vaguely remember what the audiologist told me

sorry mate, it must be an err on my part, but i have no idea what you just said. 0.0


speaking of incomphrehension,
johnnyabnormal @ gizmodo says:

It depends on how closed the system is. Even lower perceived volume can damage your tympanic membrane if there isn't enough air exchange, especially for those with a poorly functioning Eustachian tube. The type of hearing loss you are describing is past the tympanic membrane involving damage to cilia, resulting in synaptic misfire.

and

there are completely sealed ear buds on the market that go against common sense considering the physiology of how a healthy ear functions. I wouldn't call it "static" pressure either, since SPL operates in a dynamic fashion. There definitely is a tendency to compensate for short term neurological adaptations, headphones or not. In the case of EQ, evidence is unusually boosted frequencies above 1k.

If you can't tell (i certainly can't), this guy is of the "DISTANCE" matters camp. Now, is there any sliver of rationality or truth to what this guy is preaching?

Chuwy

 

[Stuee]

This is an intriguing thread and I'm looking forward to everybody's input, but if you'll allow a newbie to comment...

For me, this can be answered with common sense. I'm a professional drummer and bass player, and at 36 years old I've done a lot of amplified gigs since turning professional 15 or so years ago, in all sizes of venue from pubs to stadiums (literally).
I'm a bit old fashioned and like to hear music and sound through the air as nature intended; it just works better for me that way. Unfortunately this means that on a stage filled with drums, guitar amps, and very large amps/speakers amplifying those things further, the traditional way to be able to hear myself sing and play is to add to the volume by having at least two hefty monitors (usually a 15" driver plus a horn in each) powered by similarly hefty amps, aimed at my ears. This helps me to pick out what I need to hear from the cacophony.
On a large stage, the monitor amps alone can amount to many kilowatts!

Clearly, although very exciting, this is suicide for a musician; but that's the way it's been done since Bob Pridden had the idea of turning some PA speakers round on the stage so Roger Daltry could hear himself sing back at the end of the 60's.

It stands to reason that a well fitting set of good quality, isolating IEMs can shut out a lot of the stupidly loud drums, guitar amps and PA speakers (and audience in some cases!), and just pipe into my ears exactly what I need to hear, and at a much lower, more controlled volume level. They can also help with weird acoustics which vary wildly from venue to venue, and reduce sound check times. On a digital monitor desk, my mix can be recalled from the last gig and tweaked, rather than starting all over again.

Now that's gotta be preferable to the old method, right?
Well, my problem is that I really don't enjoy playing with in-ears at all. To me it's like wearing a condom - it may protect me from possible harm, but it's nowhere near as much fun!

 

[nickdawg]

I remember this topic being kicked around before. Unless ipods/mp3 players start using a dB scale to measure volume output, there will still be a risk for hearing damage. Even with a good seal and good isolation there's no real exact way to know when you get to 80 or 90 dB.

 

[Stuee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuwy /img/forum/go_quote.gif sorry mate, it must be an err on my part, but i have no idea what you just said. 0.0

Hear hear!

 

[dr13zehn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M-A-Z /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, the point is that people wouldn't know that the seal is bad, they would think this was the designated degree of isolation, and even if they were aware of it, would they throw the earphones away and buy new ones? Rather not.

While a good point, I fail to see what that has to do with this particular thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuwy /img/forum/go_quote.gif sorry mate, it must be an err on my part, but i have no idea what you just said. 0.0 speaking of incomphrehension, johnnyabnormal @ gizmodo says: It depends on how closed the system is. Even lower perceived volume can damage your tympanic membrane if there isn't enough air exchange, especially for those with a poorly functioning Eustachian tube. The type of hearing loss you are describing is past the tympanic membrane involving damage to cilia, resulting in synaptic misfire. and there are completely sealed ear buds on the market that go against common sense considering the physiology of how a healthy ear functions. I wouldn't call it "static" pressure either, since SPL operates in a dynamic fashion. There definitely is a tendency to compensate for short term neurological adaptations, headphones or not. In the case of EQ, evidence is unusually boosted frequencies above 1k. If you can't tell (i certainly can't), this guy is of the "DISTANCE" matters camp. Now, is there any sliver of rationality or truth to what this guy is preaching? Chuwy

If you listen to everyone that tells you stuff like that, you shouldn't use any sort of head/earphone, lol. Listening to anything at a higher than "normal" speaking volume can potentially damage you hearing over time.
Will you stop listening to your headphones though? Probably not, so I wouldn't put too much weight on articles like that.

The best advice I have to give is this. Be smart. No matter what you are listening to or if you're using headphones or speakers. Don't turn it up louder than you have to and if you have a slight ringing in your ear or feel any pressure or discomfort, you might want to turn it down a bit next time.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Junesequa /img/forum/go_quote.gif Think of a blank wall. near the wall there is one man with a bucket of paint. He throws it on the wall and gets a lot of coverage on the wall from a small amount of paint as he is standing close by. Now imagine 4 other men standing 10 or so staps back.. these 5 or 6 other men who are standing far away throwing paint in unicine get about the same coverage on the wall as one man standing close.

You miss the point. What we are talking about is, if there is a fixed mark of paint on the wall (a fixed level of dB(SPL)), does painting the mark from 1 foot away vs. 10 feet make any difference to the wall (eardrum)? Obviously we will still have the same mark (same energy) on that wall.

The wall (eardrum) doesn't care where you are when you are painting (source distance), because it doesn't affect the end result of how big the mark will be (same energy transfer).

The real question is, if the same energy is received by the same eardrum, will the distance of the source energy matters? Obvious, the answer is No. That is the Newton's law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M-A-Z /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't quite get your point. How can earphones be used incorrectly? Different volumes fall under normal, designatad use.

When people ignore the warning on their IEM's box and manual that tell them about how excessive volume and prolonged exposure can damage hearing, they are using their headphone the wrong way. Unfortunately, too many people these days don't care to read warning label or manual.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Flammadeao /img/forum/go_quote.gif What would be a good way for people to check for a proper seal? If they do get a good seal, then where to go from there? How do they know what level to stay below?

First, choose to use the eartips that you feel most comfortable with, without being too loose or tight. Than play some music on you normal volume, if the bass is lacking on one side, it indicates the seal is not complete.

For any type of headphone usage: Please use the minimum volume you need, not the maximum volume you can bear! Remember,the correct question to ask is "how low can I go?", not "is it low enough?" or "is it the highest safe level?"
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuwy /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you can't tell (i certainly can't), this guy is of the "DISTANCE" matters camp. Now, is there any sliver of rationality or truth to what this guy is preaching?

First, people 'with a poorly functioning Eustachian tube' shouldn't use an headphone at all. They should visit doctor.

Second, almost all properly designed IEM on the market these days have tuned freq. resp. to allow the listener to perceive a fuller, more live like sound.
Quote:

Originally Posted by nickdawg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I remember this topic being kicked around before. Unless ipods/mp3 players start using a dB scale to measure volume output, there will still be a risk for hearing damage. Even with a good seal and good isolation there's no real exact way to know when you get to 80 or 90 dB.

This one? http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f103/h...d-iems-325497/

Again, I think it is important to repeat:
For any type of headphone usage: Please use the minimum volume you need, not the maximum volume you can bear!

 

[ljcii]

Goodness. Great insights and some difficult to understand things here!!!