[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just want to mention that, placing an foreign objects (IEM, earplug, hearing aid) in the ear canal for an extended period of time can induce temporary tinnitus on some people too.

Yes that's what I first suspected.

When I play my viola without any hearing protection, the sound is blasted into my ears. With 30 seconds of this exposure, I hear a distinct mid-range tinnitus that is very subtle when ignored, very present when I take notice of it. It goes away within 5 minutes. This is the similar tinnitus I experience when I try IEMs, but only for around 30 seconds. This is also the same tinnitus that I hear when I have one ear plugged with an IEM and the other bare, with a terrible rush of unpitched tinnitus pressing only against my naked ear. I have intentionally ignored elaborating on this, because I believed it was irrelevant.

The tinnitus that I experience after 2 hour music exposure with my IEMs, are more high pitched, and lasts throughout the day. This is the similar tinnitus I experience after carnivals, classical concerts, etc, and more descriptive of noise-induced tinnitus that I read about.

Maybe I should try this without any music playing, leaving my IEM in for prolonged periods.

@ Febs: I'm aware of such IEM benefits such as the one described in the article. My precedent is a quite listening environment with no background noise, I should have made that more clear.

 

[Aaron5604]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif The tinnitus that I experience after 2 hour music exposure with my IEMs, are more high pitched, and lasts throughout the day. This is the similar tinnitus I experience after carnivals, classical concerts, etc, and more descriptive of noise-induced tinnitus that I read about. Maybe I should try this without any music playing, leaving my IEM in for prolonged periods.

Have you actually measured the sound coming from your IEM's? I'm always afraid to allow people to control the volume of anything I am listening too because the volume levels seems to always surpass what's considered safe. Especially if there's a lot of bass output.

I only ask, because what you're describing sounds like a classic symptom of excessive volume control.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron5604 /img/forum/go_quote.gif At least 15 min. in between every hour of music, regardless to how loud? That's really over kill IMO....

It is just a recommendation, you can adjust the time based on your preference of course.

The reason I recommend 15 minutes isn't just based on the sole reason of giving your ear some rest from the hour long music that you are listening to. All IEM, regardless of universal or custom, require a fully sealed ear canal to work at its best. However, fully sealed canal means moisture will be trapped inside and essentially create an idea environment for bacteria - this is why you ear will produce more wax when you use IEM. Also, even custom mold will put pressure to the ear canal wall and outer ear, and it takes time for the muscle and flesh to relax. Under those reason, I think 15 minutes is perfectly acceptable, unless you are using IEM as earplug to isolate yourself from excessive noise. YMMV.

 

[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron5604 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Have you actually measured the sound coming from your IEM's? I'm always afraid to allow people to control the volume of anything I am listening too because the volume levels seems to always surpass what's considered safe. Especially if there's a lot of bass output. I only ask, because what you're describing sounds like a classic symptom of excessive volume control.

If you would read the entire topic including my several other posts, I don't think you will be even asking that question. `

 

[Aaron5604]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is just a recommendation, you can adjust the time based on your preference of course. The reason I recommend 15 minutes isn't just based on the sole reason of giving your ear some rest from the hour long music that you are listening to. All IEM, regardless of universal or custom, require a fully sealed ear canal to work at its best. However, fully sealed canal means moisture will be trapped inside and essentially create an idea environment for bacteria - this is why you ear will produce more wax when you use IEM. Also, even custom mold will put pressure to the ear canal wall and outer ear, and it takes time for the muscle and flesh to relax. Under those reason, I think 15 minutes is perfectly acceptable, unless you are using IEM as earplug to isolate yourself from excessive noise. YMMV.

Oh, skin and wax build up? That, enough could very well accumulate - making a sort of wall, creating 'ringing' that appears to be similar to Tinnitus? If that's what you were initially referring too, of course. Certainly nothing that's permenant or dangerous to your long term hearing though.

The duration of listening I think applies, regardless to how loud music is played, sure. But, if you're listening to music that's ALWAYS lower than decibel levels in public, the degree of temp. hearing loss (through muscle fatigue) will always be much less.

As you said earlier...

I mean, if NIOSH states that every 3 dB's the time doubles that we're to be considered safe past 85 @ 8, I assume that works backwards as well. So, I guess (in theory) at 76dB's, we're good for 64 hrs. of non-stop exposure to sound. Whether that's 100% accurate or not, seems clear that music played in the mid 70's or so is at least good for an entire 24 hr. session of music. That, permenant hearing loss is completely out of the question so long as we're to stay within those mathematical guidelines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you would read the entire topic including my several other posts, I don't think you will be even asking that question. `

Sorry, I've only skimmed through this thread ever so briefly. Grab a sound meter (as posted) and just press the IEM up against the mic for a +-3 dB reading.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron5604 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, skin and wax build up? That, enough could very well accumulate - making a sort of wall, creating 'ringing' that appears to be similar to Tinnitus? If that's what you were initially referring too, of course. Certainly nothing that's permenant or dangerous to your long term hearing though.

Excessive earwax production can lead to ear canal blockage (if the wax is harden and deep enough to damage your ear drum, it could very well cause infection, which can cause permanent hearing loss). Also, ear canal irritation can cause temporary tinnitus and pain. What I have suggested is merely a precaution that might help you in keeping a good ear hygiene, it is up to you to decide whether such precaution is worth your time or not.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron5604 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The duration of listening I think applies, regardless to how loud music is played, sure. But, if you're listening to music that's ALWAYS lower than decibel levels in public, the degree of temp. hearing loss (through muscle fatigue) will always be much less.

Sure, but you miss the point of the OP's question.

If you are the OP who is planning to use IEM for a continuous 10hrs daily, can you be sure that the the outside noise will always be louder than your music? Unless you are working (very) long hours in a place which requite hearing protection, I doubt that you will alway be in high dB environment. The fact is, most of us don't expose continuously to a fixed dB for a long period of time. Even if you live in a busy city doesn't mean your bathroom will have the same dB as the street - our ears get natural break all the time when we going from places to places, but not when you listen to your headphone or IEM, as the 2 sec gap b/w music is simply too short.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron5604 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As you said earlier... I mean, if NIOSH states that every 3 dB's the time doubles that we're to be considered safe past 85 @ 8, I assume that works backwards as well. So, I guess (in theory) at 76dB's, we're good for 64 hrs. of non-stop exposure to sound. Whether that's 100% accurate or not, seems clear that music played in the mid 70's or so is at least good for an entire 24 hr. session of music. That, permenant hearing loss is completely out of the question so long as we're to stay within those mathematical guidelines.

In theory, may be. Don't forget that neither NIOSH or OSHA is designed specific toward music listener. These standard are mostly for worker, who works 8 hour daily for 5 days a week (which is why most of these studies usually assume a maximum exposure time of 40hrs). For music listener that often get way over those limits, who know?

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif i don't understand what i said wrong to make you belittle me. but oh well, i only take serious belittlement from people who can acutally tell me that my claims are useless if they themselves bring something useful to the table. what scientific thing have you brought to the table? you just said exactly the opposite of what i said. nothing scientific at all. if you want to defend iems to your death, then do so but you are as stupid as me if not more as you are just gnawing away at wood. eff off

With all due respect, shigzeo, you have repeatedly made statements regarding this subject that are sheer nonsense. You ignore the posts of those who are indisputably more knowledgeable in this area than you, and then you continue to make statements that highlight clearly your own lack of understanding.

For example, if you think that El Duderino has brought "nothing scientific at all" to the table, you need to go back and re-read his post post number 20 of this thread, in particular his points 2 and 3.

Note that El Duderino is an otolaryngologist--an ear, nose and throat doctor--so he is uniquely qualified to answer questions in this area. If you don't understand the point he is trying to make, or if you want additional information regarding the "countless studies" he refers to, then why not ask him further questions rather than telling him to "ef off"? Perhaps that way you would actually learn something about the subject.

 

[shigzeo]

sorry febs, i don't see how her being an audiologist has anything to do with what she typed. she gave examples like, 'countless' on this forum and studies, but provided no basis for this study.

in such a case, it is just hearsay as much as anything. if she were professional about it, why would she not speak professionally rather than laughing at me? or calling me buddy and saying my doctor (not my doctor) was no good? why too do i expect to have to take her word for it over the word of doctors who are respected outside of this website. she pissed on the doctor that i mentioned. so what does it matter that i piss on her statements? so the fact that the doctor i mentioned is also of the same profession. it makes both your support of dunny and her unique view of correction as moot as anything here.

i stand by my view that nothing she said was scientific.

it makes no sense. i read her statements and that is why i commented as i did. there are no scientifc facts (indisputable - but all i see are point 1. point 2. point 3.)coming from those statements at all. just conjecture the same as maybe what i am saying. if it were to mean anything, she would have to support her statements. i would still be a little miffed that she was such a jerk in her presentation but at least i could see it as anything else other than internet banter on a bloody chat club.

no links to proof, no quoting of anything. why would i trust a doctor that proves nothing at all? and belittles someone who would do better to have just received correction rather than derision?

i think that after re-reading the eff off attitude of this wonderful doctor too that my spout of eff-off is something i can stand by and not feel bad about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Duderino /img/forum/go_quote.gif I laughed loudly after reading this. Consistent nonsense that goes against every piece of peer-reviewed science looking at hearing loss. "With IEMS, you barely have any sensation of the sound other than volume, so it is probable that we listen to much higher volumes than we think". Uhhh, no, your perception of the volume is exactly that...perception of volume...you don't require additional senses to delineate how "loud" your music is. Decibels are decibels, whether its coming from 100 feet away or 2 centimeters away. Your comment on hearing aids alone makes it perfectly clear that you understand little to nothing about how hearing aids work, let alone the in ear canal types. I have no issue discussing hearing loss if it is backed up by some sort of evidence rather than just hearsay. As far as the doctor who mentioned that "even screens on ipod buds helped with hearing loss"...my advice buddy, is to find a new doctor.

 

[Cool_Torpedo]

Shigzeo, I'm an ENT specialist too and I back up every single statement El Duderino made in his post, as I said in my reply, which you probably didn't read.
What causes hearing damage is SPL, and the time you are exposed to it. It doesn't matter how close or far is the source. Denying this is as stupid as saying that looking into the sun isn't harmful because the sun is millions of miles away and the light takes more than 15 minutes to travel from it to us.

The only potential danger of using IEMs is the mechanical irritation the buds can cause on the ear canal's skin, where the wax producing cells are, which may produce and increased rate of wax production. This, added to the fact that you're pushing wax and dirt from the outside to the inner part of the canal, could cause infections and the growth of big wax stoppers.

Regarding hearing damage and tinnitus, both are closely related, but you can suffer tinnitus without hearing loss, and also being deaf and not having tinnitus at all. Many things can produce tinnitus, some mechanical, some toxic, some inside your own body like blood pressure or muscular tension. Some of these may cause hearing loss or not.

Of course you're entitled to have an opinion, but it's just that, an opinion not based at all in scientific evidence, nor even in physiological knowledge. Now I know your reply, but I'm not going to post here extracts from my textbooks, nor pasting internet links to scientific articles, this silly discussion doesn't deserve that much of my time.

Rgrds

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif in such a case, it is just hearsay as much as anything. if she were professional about it, why would she not just professional language? why too do i expect to have to take her word for it over the word of doctors who are respected outside of this website.

You don't have to take his or her word for it. But you could follow-up in an intelligent manner and ask for support rather than saying "eff off."

Your reasoning on this subject has a fundamental flaw that you seem unwilling to try to better understand. Let's look at the statement of yours that quoted previously:

Quote:

that and, iems are proabably by way of having no filter air for instance, louder even at the same volume at the same sentivitity at the same impedence than buds or phones ever could be.

You talk about IEMs being "louder at the same volume." To say something has a certain "volume" is a way of saying that it has a certain sound pressure level. Sound pressure levels are typically measured in decibels SPL, or dB SPL. If an IEM has a volume of 85 dB SPL at your eardrum, and a full-size headphone has a volume of 85 dB SPL at your eardrum, then they are the same volume and present exactly the same sound pressure to your ear. As Cool_Torpedo noted in the post immediately above mine, it doesn't matter what the source is or how far away it is. What matters is the intensity of the sound that is being presented to your ear (and, for the purposes of the risk of noise-induced hearing loss, the amount of time of exposure). To say that one sound is louder than the same sound at the same volume from a different source is simply impossible as a matter of definition. As I mentioned above, to argue otherwise is the equivalent of arguing that a pound of bricks is heavier than a pound of feathers.

Now, perhaps what you are arguing is that the IEM is perceived to be louder when played back at the same volume as the full-size headphone. That may well be true, but even if it is true, there are two points that you fail to understand. First, it is not the perceived volume that causes hearing damage. It is the actual volume (i.e., sound pressure level) presented to the ear. Second, if it is true that IEMs are perceived to be louder at the same SPL as full-sized headphones, that actually supports the argument that IEMs are less likely, not more likely, to cause hearing damage, because it means that the listener is likely to listen to IEMs at a lower actual volume with IEMs in order to reach the same perceived volume as with full-sized cans.

I note too that in two separate threads, I have now provided a link to a study that directly supports the hypothesis that listeners tend to use a lower actual volume with IEMs than with other earphones. You haven't responded to that study in any meaningful way. Did you read it? A single study is not conclusive, and if there is evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it. Your argument that it the opposite is "probably" true, however, is supported by no evidence whatsoever and a manifestly flawed understanding of how noise-induced hearing loss occurs.

 

[Aaron5604]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you are the OP who is planning to use IEM for a continuous 10hrs daily, can you be sure that the the outside noise will always be louder than your music?

Unless you work in an office, a library, at home, or somewhere very similar... I think so. Otherwise, your mean avg. of hearing will very likely always be greater w/out.

As for NIOSHA and OSHA guidelines...

They base all their statistics using an A-Weight scale of measurement. That's just basically our (we humans) most sensative range of hearing. So, if you're to take their study word for word and try to apply it to music, then yes, It will be off, I agree. However, all you have to do, is switch over to C for a more accurate chart. Or, use them both simultaneously in conjuction to get a more rounded idea. Basically, use C to measure the highs and lows, A to measure everything in between, and be sure to never surpass an 85 @ 8 or 76 @ 64 hrs. (continous) for either. So, if I am listening to music at 67 using C, 57 - A (mean) I'm well under everyone else w/out, since general public areas stay consistent within the mid 70's, or higher. Also, I particularly never have to worry about those crying babies 2 ft. from me, random car alarms, excessively loud engines, HW noise, etc. that may actually do damage, or at least certainly feel uncomfortable temorarly. So, are we splittin' hairs here? Probably... But, the point is, I don't see how there's any reason to believe that extended listening w/out any breaks will ever do damage. Especially, if you're at least some what aware of your own personal hygene through daily IEM use.

I'm not really disagreeing w/ anything you're saying, just discussing for the sake of the conversation

 

[ken5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Significantly, the listening levels were measured "in the subjects’ ear canal using a thin tube attached to a microphone, which fed the information out of the booth to a computer for recording."

Interesting thought came from reading the above. Do you think the IEM's are louder in an ear than it would be in an artifical canal with a mic built in? Personally I don't think so. BUT.... the IEM certainly sound louder with a proper seal. So... I wonder if part of the loudness has to do with the seal doing something that makes the ear drum move more with lower volume? IF this is the case I bet that this too can damage hearing.

Just a thought.

 

[El Duderino]

Hi Shigzeo,

My apologies if you felt belittled but I was simply pointing out the misinformation in your posts. It is very true that you, of course, do not have to believe a word that I am saying.

You wanted some scientific rebuffs to your statements. Below is an abstract taken from PubMed--an online database of peer-reviewed medical literature that those of us who prefer scientific evidence rather than anecdotal nonsense often use as a resource. I read the full article using institutional access but cannot post it here due to copyright issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif with loud concerts you are at massive risk, but at least there is air inbetween your ears and the sound. also, your body responds to the sound and you feel it. with iems, you barely have any sensation of the sound other than volume, so it is probable that we listen to much higher volumes than we think.

Nevertheless, the abstract, I believe, sufficiently proves, using scientific methodology, that your above quoted comment about "air" between the listener and the music source and the resulting ability to "feel" sound (suppressing a grin here) somehow translates to lower listening volumes than with an IEM.

Please read at your convenience. I have made a few comments afterwards to try and help make it more understandable if necessary.

"Preferred and minimum acceptable listening levels for musicians while using floor and in-ear monitors.Federman J, Ricketts T.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Medical Center East, South Tower, 1215-21st Avenue South, Room 8310, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.

PURPOSE: This study examined the impact that changing on-stage music and crowd noise levels during musical performance had on preferred listening levels (PLLs) and minimum acceptable listening levels (MALLs) across both floor and in-ear monitors. METHOD: Participants for this study were 23- to 48-year-old musicians, with and without hearing loss, who had 10 years of musical training or comparable professional experience. For this study, PLLs and MALLs were established for the musician's own voice, whereas the levels of other onstage musical signals were systematically varied. PLLs for in-ear monitors were found at significantly lower levels than for floor monitors (approximately 0.6 dB). RESULTS: PLLs for in-ear monitors were found at significantly lower levels than for floor monitors (approximately 0.6 dB). However, despite large spectral differences, PLLs across the 2 monitor types were small enough that the same recommended exposure time would be advocated based on National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and Occupational Safety and Health Administration recommendations. MALL data also indicated significantly lower levels (approximately 6.0 dB) when musicians were using in-ear monitors in comparison to floor monitors. CONCLUSION: The much larger difference suggests that musicians' risk of noise exposure may be reduced by the use of in-ear monitors. However, given the similar PLL results and known monitor output levels, proper counseling would likely be required before this potential advantage would be realized."

So, here we have musicians using floor monitors which I hope satisfies your requirement for separation between listener and source by "air" vs. musicians in the same environment using IEMs rather than floor monitors. The preferred listening level and minimum acceptable listening levels were assessed in each group.

In a nutshell, musicians "turned the volume down" on IEMs relative to floor monitors by about 0.6 dB. Now this reduction in preferred listening level is not enough to change the recommended noise exposure time in IEMs vs. floor monitors due to the, admittedly, small reduction.

However, what is telling, and what people on this forum have been getting at is that safe IEM listening habits dictate using the minimum volume that is acceptable. You will see from the results that when using this parameter, musicians used significantly lower (by 6.0 dB!) listening levels when utilizing IEMs vs. floor monitors. This pretty much suggests that despite not being able to "feel" the sound (your words, not mine) with IEMs, listening levels are lower than in a situation where you are separated from the source by "air" (again, your words) and can presumably "feel" the sound.

Coupled with Febs informational link indicating that users of the ER6i IEM consistently listened at lower volumes, I feel your persisting argument that somehow the nature of an IEM makes us listen to it at higher volumes is moot.

I could, potentially, go all day with this and provide you with article after article dissecting each of your points but I think I may go see some otology patients instead. And, by the way, there is a significant difference between an otolaryngologist and our esteemed colleagues in audiology. Please take this post as informative and not hostile as it is not intended to be at all.

Regards,

El Duderino

 

[Aaron5604]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken5 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting thought came from reading the above. Do you think the IEM's are louder in an ear than it would be in an artifical canal with a mic built in? Personally I don't think so. BUT.... the IEM certainly sound louder with a proper seal. So... I wonder if part of the loudness has to do with the seal doing something that makes the ear drum move more with lower volume? IF this is the case I bet that this too can damage hearing. Just a thought.

IEM's are louder just because you're able to channel more frequencies directly to the ear drum while simultaneously blocking out more ambient back ground. This in turn saves the ear, allowing for extended use (if used correctly) by being more efficient with the initial amount of volume to start.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron5604 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unless you work in an office, a library, at home, or somewhere very similar... I think so. Otherwise, your mean avg. of hearing will very likely always be greater w/out. .... I'm not really disagreeing w/ anything you're saying, just discussing for the sake of the conversation

I think that is the point I am trying to make.

Most IEM users these days don't really expose to that much noise in an environment which IEM was intended to be used in the beginning (live music and stage monitoring). A great deal of people do use IEM at home, library and at work, mainly not to bother other people while still be able to enjoy good music. In places like that, IEM, instead of being used to block out noise, are being used to block in noise. The thing that scare me most is, because IEM is such an effective tool on blocking out noise and helping to keep the volume down, people tend to believe that you can listen to music as long as you can without any nasty side effect - I personal tend to disagree with that. An article published last year pointed out that, WHO's study indicates that human who expose to long term low noise environment (as low as 55dB) are more likely to develop serious illness and even die (read this). It is better to be careful than sorry.
Quote:

Originally Posted by El Duderino /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Shigzeo, You wanted some scientific rebuffs to your statements. Below is an abstract taken from PubMed--an online database of peer-reviewed medical literature that those of us who prefer scientific evidence rather than anecdotal nonsense often use as a resource. I read the full article using institutional access but cannot post it here due to copyright issues. ...

I was reading the same thing last night on PubMed.

This article points out something very fundamental among today IEM users - most who use IEM do not follow the minimum volume rule. Instead, they believe IEM are great at blocking out noise thus they must be 'naturally' listening to music at a more 'reasonable' volume. The fact that the Preferred Listening Level (PLL) of IEM is so close to that of stage monitor is worrying. People spend money to block out the noise ends up choosing to listening to their music out loud, and believe that is 'okay'.

I think this is the same point I was tying to make at my post #55
"Alway on lowest possible volume, not highest bearable volume"