IEMs bad for your ears?
Mar 14, 2009 at 4:55 PM Post #32 of 49
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ihatepopupads /img/forum/go_quote.gif
They're bad for your wallet.


lol, agreed ...

IMHO they're no worse than listening to speakers, if you listen at acceptable levels, you shouldn't have any problems.
 
Mar 14, 2009 at 5:04 PM Post #33 of 49
MalOs,

I've read debates about the proximity of a sound source to your ear not/being a factor. Most tend to agree with you that the extra proximity for IEMs in negligible. However, I don't really see how that makes sense. If you're standing 10 feet away from a guy that shoots a gun vs. 2 feet away, your ears can definitely tell the difference.

Sorry for getting technical here, but I'm assuming the proximity to a sound source vs. the impact it has on the ear would be an almost inverse log relationship. That is, if the sound source is super close to your ear drum, a movement of 1/8th of an inch will cause a higher difference in decibels vs. if it were far away and the sound source moved 1/8th of an inch.

When I'm listening to my PX100, simply pressing them against my ears with my hands causes a significant increase in volume versus a speaker across the room that's moved 2 feet closer to me.
 
Mar 14, 2009 at 5:13 PM Post #34 of 49
Quote:

Originally Posted by MegatronRx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
MalOs,

I've read debates about the proximity of a sound source to your ear not/being a factor. Most tend to agree with you that the extra proximity for IEMs in negligible. However, I don't really see how that makes sense. If you're standing 10 feet away from a guy that shoots a gun vs. 2 feet away, your ears can definitely tell the difference.

Sorry for getting technical here, but I'm assuming the proximity to a sound source vs. the impact it has on the ear would be an almost inverse log relationship. That is, if the sound source is super close to your ear drum, a movement of 1/8th of an inch will cause a higher difference in decibels vs. if it were far away and the sound source moved 1/8th of an inch.

When I'm listening to my PX100, simply pressing them against my ears with my hands causes a significant increase in volume versus a speaker across the room that's moved 2 feet closer to me.



While IEMs are closer, they also encourage quieter listening. Since there is a significant increase in volume when the PX100 are closer to you, then wouldn't you turn down the volume?
 
Mar 14, 2009 at 5:21 PM Post #35 of 49
check out webmd
Earwax-Topic Overview

compacted earwax has nothing to do with ur IEM
the only contribution ur IEMs has on impacted earwax is when u insert it when u haven't cleaned ur ears out in the shower.

but never ever clean ur ears to the point where it starts to itch.
smily_headphones1.gif
which can happen with ear swabs.
u'll itch like u had herpes in ur ear. so don't start over doing the swabs because of what i'm telling u.

be gently, u only have 1 pair of ears
smily_headphones1.gif


ur health (including ur ears) depends on diet and hygiene the rest is genetics.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Mar 14, 2009 at 5:29 PM Post #36 of 49
IEM drivers whether it be Dynamic or B/A move in Micro mm's You get the same movement of air in relationship to the distance regardless. Otherwise, the volumes would be different. In the EM spectrum The intensity of the wavelength is inversley proportional to the sqaure of the distance. It would be different the audible wavelength range but you get the idea
 
Mar 14, 2009 at 5:34 PM Post #37 of 49
Quote:

Originally Posted by Calexico /img/forum/go_quote.gif
While IEMs are closer, they also encourage quieter listening. Since there is a significant increase in volume when the PX100 are closer to you, then wouldn't you turn down the volume?


So ultimately the question is yes I am turning down the volume on my IEMs because they are blocking out the sound but is this being negated by the fact that I'm bringing a set of phones even closer to my eardrum?

I'm hoping someone will give me some proof that despite the closer proximity, the isolation and hence lower volume make a much safer listening experience than a set of cans resting on your ears.

My previous posts would suggest I am anti-IEM but that is not the case. I want to be proven wrong because I love the sound IEMs produce and the isolation they have but I'm very scared of permanent hearing loss. Also, I exercise and eat very well and based on my genetic background will probably live to a ripe old age. Losing my hearing even as a senior would really suck.
 
Mar 14, 2009 at 5:45 PM Post #38 of 49
I would think that the impact of an IEM at .5 inches from your eardrum creating 50dB of sound would be the same as a set of room speakers from 10 ' away at 50dB. Your ears are being "Hit" with 50dB. Do your ears care if the 50dB's is coming from .5" or 10" ?
Probably not.
 
Mar 14, 2009 at 6:33 PM Post #39 of 49
Quote:

Originally Posted by MegatronRx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
A foreign object in your ear will cause wax to build up. It's an innate immune defense. Wax is used primarily to create an unideal environment for bacteria and viruses to grow. Depending on the type of person you are, you may react with more than the average person in terms of wax production. I have friends that never use IEMs but still get impacted wax. Whereas some IEM users never get impacted wax.

Audiologists and ENTs sell custom molds because they make money off of them. Putting something in your ear is unnatural and should only be recommended for people who have hearing disorders or other ear complications. IMHO, if you don't have any of those aforementioned problems there is no medical reason to place a foreign object up your ear.



I don't wanna start off my first post on these forums on the wrong foot, but what you have said is not exactly correct.

Let me first say that I did a search on PubMed and Google Scholar, and there doesn't seem to be anyone that has directly studied the issue of IEM use or foreign object placement and earwax production so there's no way to explicitly make a claim one way or the other. However, we can make some pretty reasonable conclusions based on other studies of ear wax production.

1) Your argument that putting an IEM in your ear constitutes a foreign object that triggers the innate immune system that then triggers an increased production of ear wax is flawed in 2 ways. First, an object in your ear is not recognized by your innate immune system as a foreign object. In order for your immune system (innate or adaptive) to recognize an object as foreign, that object must first penetrate the skin barrier before receptors on immune cells can bind to it and trigger an immune response. In the case of the ear, that would mean that the IEM would have to somehow scratch and damage the keratinized stratified squamous epithelium that lines the ear (you would basically have to have a break in the skin that lines the ear). While I am sure that this has happened to someone while using IEMs, this would be an exception rather than the rule. Second, even if hypothetically the IEM was somehow recognized by the innate immune system as foreign, there is no evidence that I have seen that shows that the immune system would increase the production of ear wax (see more on this under point 2).

2) OK, without getting into too much unnecessary detail, I am gonna try to explain the factors that control the amount of earwax production. Ear wax is produced by glands that are imbedded in the skin lining the outer ear that are called sebaceous gland. Most of the control on these glands is hormonal. Androgens (testosterone, DHT, etc.), thyroid hormones, insulin and the pituitary itself have been shown to promote sebaceous gland activity, while estrogens inhibit it. There's some debate about what exactly progestins do, but that's not important. The important point is that your earwax production is MOSTLY controlled by your hormones which are affected by a bazillion things including genes, stress, exhaustion, nutritional status, health, etc. etc. which explains why some people produce more earwax than others.

Now to the important part as far as IEM use is concerned. In addition to hormonal control of sebaceous gland activity, there are also "non-endocrine" factors, most important of which for our discussion is temperature. It has been shown that sebum (in this case earwax) excretion rate increases about 10% per 1º C increase (1, 2). So, if we assume that the temperature inside the outer ear canal increases when you use IEMs (pretty reasonable) then there's probably an increase in earwax secretion due to this temperature effect. How much exactly the temperature increases is up to anybody's guess at this point, because I am fairly certain no one has studied that.

So, what the hell does all this gibberish mean for IEM users?!? It means that you should keep using your IEMs as much as you please and you will be just fine. If your ears get clogged with earwax, chances are that they were gonna get clogged anyways because of your hormones and had very little if anything to do with how much you used your IEMs. And for those that do get clogged ears, no worries, because it is about as benign as medical conditions go (although it can be a big pain in the ass).

1) BURTON, J. L. The physical properties of sebum in acne vulgaris. Clin. Sci. Lond., 39: 757, 1970.

2) CUNLIFFE, W. J., J. L. BURTON, AND S. SHUSTER. The effect of local temperature variations on sebum excretion rate. Br. J. Dermatol. 83: 650-654,197O.



Quote:

Originally Posted by MegatronRx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
So ultimately the question is yes I am turning down the volume on my IEMs because they are blocking out the sound but is this being negated by the fact that I'm bringing a set of phones even closer to my eardrum?

I'm hoping someone will give me some proof that despite the closer proximity, the isolation and hence lower volume make a much safer listening experience than a set of cans resting on your ears.

My previous posts would suggest I am anti-IEM but that is not the case. I want to be proven wrong because I love the sound IEMs produce and the isolation they have but I'm very scared of permanent hearing loss. Also, I exercise and eat very well and based on my genetic background will probably live to a ripe old age. Losing my hearing even as a senior would really suck.



Well, I can't exactly give you a proof with references because all my physics textbooks are at my parents' house and finding the primary sources would be a pain in the ass, BUT I can come close.

What you hear is influenced by two things: the frequency of the sound wave and the amplitude of the the sound wave. The frequency controls the pitch, while the amplitude controls the loudness that you perceive. As sound travels through air the magnitude of the amplitude decreases because energy is lost while moving the air molecules back and forth to create the sound wave. This makes sense, because as you said, it's a hell of a lot more pleasant to be farther away from a firing gun than right next to it. So, according to this reasoning it makes sense that the closer you are to the source the worse off you are. However, you fail to take into account the initial amplitude (loudness) of the sound source. IEMs have a very low initial amplitude, because they are very close to the tympanic membrane. Regular speakers have a much higher amplitude because they are placed farther away from the ears. Using abstract numbers, let's just say that you need a sound wave amplitude of 5 to perceive an enjoyable volume level. Your IEMs are gonna have an initial sound wave amplitude of 25 that's gonna deteriorate to 5 by the time the sound wave reaches your tympanic membrane, while a regular speaker cabinet will have an initial sound wave amplitude of 2500 that will also deteriorate to 5 by the time it reaches your ear because the sound has to travel a lot farther.
Basically, what this means is that loud is loud and soft is soft regardless of whether you use an IEM or a speaker. I hope that's enough of a proof for you.

SO, on that note, happy IEM listening
atsmile.gif
, and hopefully I'll stop lurking and start participating a little more in these forum discussions.
 
Mar 14, 2009 at 6:38 PM Post #40 of 49
Quote:

Originally Posted by MegatronRx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
So ultimately the question is yes I am turning down the volume on my IEMs because they are blocking out the sound but is this being negated by the fact that I'm bringing a set of phones even closer to my eardrum?

I'm hoping someone will give me some proof that despite the closer proximity, the isolation and hence lower volume make a much safer listening experience than a set of cans resting on your ears.

My previous posts would suggest I am anti-IEM but that is not the case. I want to be proven wrong because I love the sound IEMs produce and the isolation they have but I'm very scared of permanent hearing loss. Also, I exercise and eat very well and based on my genetic background will probably live to a ripe old age. Losing my hearing even as a senior would really suck.



Well if you consider listening to regular cans as dangerous, listening to IEMs is probably dangerous for you as well.
 
Mar 15, 2009 at 1:32 AM Post #42 of 49
Though i am not usually a fan of long posts i think what you wrote was very informative markotb and as i am studying that area of physics presently it made a lot of sense lol
 
Mar 15, 2009 at 1:57 AM Post #43 of 49
Quote:

Originally Posted by MegatronRx /img/forum/go_quote.gif
MalOs,

I've read debates about the proximity of a sound source to your ear not/being a factor. Most tend to agree with you that the extra proximity for IEMs in negligible. However, I don't really see how that makes sense. If you're standing 10 feet away from a guy that shoots a gun vs. 2 feet away, your ears can definitely tell the difference.

Sorry for getting technical here, but I'm assuming the proximity to a sound source vs. the impact it has on the ear would be an almost inverse log relationship. That is, if the sound source is super close to your ear drum, a movement of 1/8th of an inch will cause a higher difference in decibels vs. if it were far away and the sound source moved 1/8th of an inch.

When I'm listening to my PX100, simply pressing them against my ears with my hands causes a significant increase in volume versus a speaker across the room that's moved 2 feet closer to me.



The only thing that could damage your ears more would be an increase in the amplitude of the wave hitting your eardrum. So if IEMs are worse for your ears that must mean the wave from them has a greater amplitude when it hits your eardrum. If this were the case you would definitely hear this. IEMs would always sound louder than speakers or full-sized headphones. This is not the case so IEMs are not any worse than speakers or full-sized headphones. Basically what markotb said.
 
Mar 15, 2009 at 3:34 AM Post #44 of 49
some people are just more prone to get impacted ear wax. it's your biology. not a big deal. get some ear drops :-D it'll feel funny

p.s. anything louder than the sound of rush hour traffic will blow ur ears out....slowly :
 
Mar 15, 2009 at 3:35 AM Post #45 of 49
markotb

Thanks for your post. It was very informative. If anything your first post started off on the right foot.

In terms of increased ear wax production, you are correct that hormonal changes are responsible for increases and decreases in ear wax production, however, inflammation and changes in the bacterial flora are know to cause changes in ear wax production. An IEM which sits outside the body contains bacteria that is not present in the ear canal. Pushing this bacteria in your ear can alter this flora if it persists for a long enough period.

I haven't practiced for a while but I recall a few patients who developed otitis externa (outer ear infection) as a result of using ear-plugs. Also, if you read any med textbook(not everything is discussed on PubMed) on otitis externa, insertion of objects into the ear such as earplugs has been known to cause infection and lead to increase in wax production.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top