[3X0]

If the title is true then I'd be screwed.

I've kept my dB levels through IEMs checked as of late. Sadly, I can't say the same about my cans.

 

[DSlayerZX]

i seriously don't think that iem will impair your hearing as long you have a good hearing habit.
Not too long, not too loud is basically the rule to keep good hearing.

yeah, I am surprise by how many people believe that by simply using an iem, you are damaging your hearing

 

[hempcamp]

Funny... we have all these experts on Head-fi... do we have any resident audiologists?

I think more than 1 hour with IEMs would be no different than 1 hour standing on a city street waiting for the bus! Remember, with a well-sealed IEM you should be listening to your music at *lower* than normal levels because ambient noise is blocked out. If you are blasting it with IEMs then yes, you probably will do damage at an hour or more per day continuously for many days.

--Chris

 

[mdarnton]

It's an interesting question. I once read that IEMs were harmful because they trapped moisture in your ears, which caused your eardrum to swell and become loose, and who knows what harm that did in the long run. Then I recalled that my father has worn a hearing aid since about 1950, every day, all day, with a much tighter fitting than my IEMs. Does that mean that wearing a hearing aid is harmful to your ears?

I think they're covering their butts.

 

[D1g1talV3n0m]

I think it is a blanket statement to cover their butts. It's so they don't have something happen like the lady that burned herself with a cup of McDonald's coffee.

Here is the most recent list I could find for you guys. Google is your friend haha.

http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/hearingloss.cfm

 

[Zodduska]

Quote:

Originally Posted by D1g1talV3n0m /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it is a blanket statement to cover their butts. It's so they don't have something happen like the lady that burned herself with a cup of McDonald's coffee. Here is the most recent list I could find for you guys. Google is your friend haha. http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/hearingloss.cfm

Honestly im not sure how accurate these guidelines are, they seem very conservative. I used to be a major bass head and was exposed to my car audio 2x15" subs in a civic hatchback that tested 148.5db at 45hz at the windshield with competition testing gear, many combined hours of this. My left ear is slightly worse than my right (from being closer to the closed window where more compression occurred) but by standard testing my hearing is still above average. (in both volume and frequency testing, hearing up to 17k out of crappy desktop pc speakers at 27)

maybe different frequency are more damaging than others?

 

[threepointone]

145.8db?? holy cow, all I can tell you is something is totally out of whack with that measurement. I suspect the SPL going to your ears was considerably less that what was measured at the windshield.

quick reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level
that's almost as loud as a jet engine, and louder than a rifle being fired at 1m CONTINUOUSLY. and the threshold of pain is 130dB! At these levels, it sounds more like guaranteed deafness to me, let alone hearing loss.


Usually, the hearing guidelines for 90dB max come from OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration, US gov't organization). I'm sure there's other variations, but this is probably the safest guideline to follow:
http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noi...ards_more.html

at 90dB SPL continuous, it's 8 hours max per day. 92dB, 6 hours; 95dB, 4 hours, etc. . .

 

[electro house]

Also, it may be when it comes to long term db levels, all dbs are not created equal.

For example, scientifically speaking, I might be able to see how 100db (pick a number) coming into your ears from ear canals over time might have a different effect than 100db coming from a speaker system, even if its in a car, etc.

Something to do with 1 of these 2 experiments, your eardrums have more airspace, etc., to deal with, and borrowing from material fatigue experiments, etc --> long story short is I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out that 100db x 1000 hours from IEMS is more damaging to hearing or ears than 100db x 1000 hours from speaker system.

I'm not sayin the above is true. But I will say this, as a gut feeling: if I had to choose between being exposed 1 hour to 140db via IEMS vs. 1 hour 140db via speakers, I'd choose the speakers...just seems to make sense that the speaker experiment *might* be less damaging --

the human body might be naturally more resilient to loud db's coming from far away, vs the more unnatural piped in dbs coming from iems.

I suppose counterargument is the above is irrelevant - whats important is the db level when it hits your eardrum...

 

[MASTERTECH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by D1g1talV3n0m /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it is a blanket statement to cover their butts. It's so they don't have something happen like the lady that burned herself with a cup of McDonald's coffee. Here is the most recent list I could find for you guys. Google is your friend haha. http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/hearingloss.cfm

x2

 

[Zodduska]

Quote:

Originally Posted by threepointone /img/forum/go_quote.gif 145.8db?? holy cow, all I can tell you is something is totally out of whack with that measurement. I suspect the SPL going to your ears was considerably less that what was measured at the windshield. quick reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level that's almost as loud as a jet engine, and louder than a rifle being fired at 1m CONTINUOUSLY. and the threshold of pain is 130dB! At these levels, it sounds more like guaranteed deafness to me, let alone hearing loss. Usually, the hearing guidelines for 90dB max come from OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration, US gov't organization). I'm sure there's other variations, but this is probably the safest guideline to follow: http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noi...ards_more.html at 90dB SPL continuous, it's 8 hours max per day. 92dB, 6 hours; 95dB, 4 hours, etc. . .

lol, yes it was a good measurement. It was measured at a competition for this kind of thing, but I didnt compete at the time. my other system hit 141db a year later at another "soundoff" and took first place in the lowest power class.

you are right that it is higher at the windshield than where the head is positioned normally, but moving my head to where the mic would be placed didnt seem much different to me.

I think the record for car audio bass is around 180db
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pn...606468,00.html


I dont mean to imply that it is safe to listen at these levels, or even ones slightly higher than what is recommended for long term exposure. Its just the chart stating that anything over 115db for 30 seconds and hearing loss, I guess its just the way I interpret as that would mean quickly progressing to very poor hearing.. which for me was not the case, especially when you consider db volume is exponential in measure. 140+ is very far away from 115

 

[Claus-DK]

I have read somewhere that 150db means instant and the rest of your life deaf, and 200db you are dead...

 

[mrdeadfolx]

If this is true I'm in deep ****

 

[stereophile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claus-DK /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have read somewhere that 150db means instant and the rest of your life deaf, and 200db you are dead...

That would explain some of the Zombie-like characters in this place.

 

[werdwerdus]

bass frequency is far less damaging than midrange/treble at the same SPL.

 

[edstrelow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by werdwerdus /img/forum/go_quote.gif bass frequency is far less damaging than midrange/treble at the same SPL.

Do you have a source for that claim?

Sounds like wishful thinking for the bass-addicted.