Most Useful Diagram of Hearing Loss

[pozz]

If you have two and half hours to kill, I recommend this talk. There are a few speakers, and each of them focus on different areas of listening. General theme is headphone listening, but the talks range across a few topics.

Main thing I liked is the set of diagrams below. Clearest demonstration I've seen of age-related or noise-induced hearing loss.

Here are normal equal loudness curves for free field listening:

Here's a simulated 50dB hearing loss audiogram:

And here are the resulting equal loudness contours:

So hearing loss is not fixable by EQ. Don't pick, or suggest to others, speakers or headphones with boosts as a way of compensating for loss. Strange how often you see that piece of (wrong) advice.

Edit: The equal loudness contours for people with hearing loss show compression. You are still capable of perceiving different loudness levels, and the range of very quiet to very loud exists for you—it's just mapped across a reduced physical SPL range.

 

[GXAlan]

So hearing loss is not fixable by EQ. Don't pick, or suggest to others, speakers or headphones with boosts as a way of compensating for loss. Strange how often you see that piece of (wrong) advice.

Hearing loss is not fixable with EQ, but EQ can help with hearing loss.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.6206&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Amplification rationale for hearing aids based on characteristics of the Japanese language - PubMed

It was shown that for hearing-aid amplification for Japanese, adjustments based on LTASS differences for Western European Languages could be made. This preserved speech intelligibility at the same level as the original amplification rationale, suggesting that there was no need to consider...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[pozz]

Hearing loss is not fixable with EQ, but EQ can help with hearing loss.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.6206&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Amplification rationale for hearing aids based on characteristics of the Japanese language - PubMed

It was shown that for hearing-aid amplification for Japanese, adjustments based on LTASS differences for Western European Languages could be made. This preserved speech intelligibility at the same level as the original amplification rationale, suggesting that there was no need to consider...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This is not the same thing as parametric EQ or a boosted/shelf frequency range in headphones/speakers. Look at the block diagram of their process:

 

[GXAlan]

This is not the same thing as parametric EQ or a boosted/shelf frequency range in headphones/speakers. Look at the block diagram of their process:
View attachment 154916

Shrug. Today’s hearing aids have parametric EQ that accounts for signal input level so a different EQ is applied if something is 50 dB or 90 dB, add dynamic range compressor processing, frequency shifting, dynamic gain. and noise reduction processing and all sorts of other benefits.

Papers on speech intelligibility are the most rigorous but how about this:

Music, Sound Quality, and Hearing Aids: An Interview with Brian Moore and Richard Einhorn

Dr Beck asks Dr Moore about his work, “Effects of Sound Induced Hearing Loss and Hearing Aids on the Perception of Music,” and Einhorn why electronic sound reproduction should be as flat as possible.

www.hearingreview.com

“Amplification at frequencies where the level is lowest and/or the hearing loss is greatest may be required to restore a natural sound quality.“
- Brian Moore, PhD (Emeritus Professor of Auditory Perception at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. He has written or edited 17 books and over 590 scientific papers and book chapters and also serves as an associate editor of the journal Hearing Research).

“So, given truly accurate audio equipment, I believe compensatory equalization (EQ) and compression should be added, but as little as possible.13 It seems to me likely that most music lovers with hearing loss could—if given a simple app-based user interface—adjust the frequency balance themselves for enjoyable music listening.14”

Richard Einhorn

Richard Einhorn - Biography - IMDb

Richard Einhorn. Soundtrack: K-19: The Widowmaker. Modern-day classical music composer Richard Einhorn was born in 1952. In 1975 Einhorn graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia University, where he studied composition and electronic music with Jack Beeson, Vladimir...

m.imdb.com

Who himself has hearing impairment.

——
The history of hearing aids has been EQ. All of the research is focused on the human voice and the second link in my first reply, I showed indicates that there is variability in languages on how best to adjust the EQ. That there is a subjective impression of more natural performance when the EQ is tuned to a specific language.

Here’s an third, older paper from 1993 with older techniques.

https://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/93/30/1/pdf/sammeth.pdf

1) Test your hearing.
2) Measure your speakers and EQ it to flat or Harman curve.
3) Then, based upon areas that you have some weakness in hearing, find your favorite song from your youth and compare the results before and after EQ.

 

[pozz]

Shrug. Today’s hearing aids have parametric EQ that accounts for signal input level so a different EQ is applied if something is 50 dB or 90 dB, add dynamic range compressor processing, frequency shifting, dynamic gain. and noise reduction processing and all sorts of other benefits.

Papers on speech intelligibility are the most rigorous but how about this:

Music, Sound Quality, and Hearing Aids: An Interview with Brian Moore and Richard Einhorn

Dr Beck asks Dr Moore about his work, “Effects of Sound Induced Hearing Loss and Hearing Aids on the Perception of Music,” and Einhorn why electronic sound reproduction should be as flat as possible.

www.hearingreview.com

“Amplification at frequencies where the level is lowest and/or the hearing loss is greatest may be required to restore a natural sound quality.“
- Brian Moore, PhD (Emeritus Professor of Auditory Perception at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. He has written or edited 17 books and over 590 scientific papers and book chapters and also serves as an associate editor of the journal Hearing Research).

“So, given truly accurate audio equipment, I believe compensatory equalization (EQ) and compression should be added, but as little as possible.13 It seems to me likely that most music lovers with hearing loss could—if given a simple app-based user interface—adjust the frequency balance themselves for enjoyable music listening.14”

Richard Einhorn

Richard Einhorn - Biography - IMDb

Richard Einhorn. Soundtrack: K-19: The Widowmaker. Modern-day classical music composer Richard Einhorn was born in 1952. In 1975 Einhorn graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia University, where he studied composition and electronic music with Jack Beeson, Vladimir...

m.imdb.com

Who himself has hearing impairment.

——
The history of hearing aids has been EQ. All of the research is focused on the human voice and the second link in my first reply, I showed indicates that there is variability in languages on how best to adjust the EQ. That there is a subjective impression of more natural performance when the EQ is tuned to a specific language.

Here’s an third, older paper from 1993 with older techniques.

https://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/93/30/1/pdf/sammeth.pdf

1) Test your hearing.
2) Measure your speakers and EQ it to flat or Harman curve.
3) Then, based upon areas that you have some weakness in hearing, find your favorite song from your youth and compare the results before and after EQ.

If you listened to the talk, at the timestamp, you'd have all that information you just posted.

The message is simple: you can't use rely on straightforward parametric boosts, either through equalization or by buying gear with a certain frequency response. You need level and frequency dependent gains and compression to compensate for hearing loss. Only new hearing aids, personalized to you, are capable of this stuff. The reason is that boost is only needed at low SPLs due to lost sensitivity. Material played at regular levels or played loudly will sound ok, other than the low level detail being muffled.

The story doesn't end there. Depending on how bad the hearing loss, other things will start to go as well, like frequency and timing discrimination, which affects everything, like the ability to catch fine detail in music, understand speech, and hear sounds in background noise. These issues are beyond what hearing aids can help, and way beyond PEQ.

A lot of work is done right now based on machine learning and potentially offloading processing to a cellphone, for example, for more complex adjustments.

 

[GXAlan]

I guess we are just not communicating well. We both agree on the details and the whole of topic, but we disagree on the “take home point.”

Your take home point
“So hearing loss is not fixable by EQ. Don't pick, or suggest to others, speakers or headphones with boosts as a way of compensating for loss. Strange how often you see that piece of (wrong) advice.”

My take home point written in the same syntax.
“Parametric EQ alone won’t fix all of the problems of hearing loss. Changing speakers or headphones with boosts will only partially compensate for the loss.”

I think some, such as myself, interpret your comments as suggesting that if you don’t have the full set of tools needed to adapt to hearing loss, it’s worthless to use the one limited tool that is readily available and anyone suggesting that you use that tool is giving you wrong advice.

 

[pozz]

I guess we are just not communicating well. We both agree on the details and the whole of topic, but we disagree on the “take home point.”

Your take home point
“So hearing loss is not fixable by EQ. Don't pick, or suggest to others, speakers or headphones with boosts as a way of compensating for loss. Strange how often you see that piece of (wrong) advice.”

My take home point written in the same syntax.
“Parametric EQ alone won’t fix all of the problems of hearing loss. Changing speakers or headphones with boosts will only partially compensate for the loss.”

I think some, such as myself, interpret your comments as suggesting that if you don’t have the full set of tools needed to adapt to hearing loss, it’s worthless to use the one limited tool that is readily available and anyone suggesting that you use that tool is giving you wrong advice.

You could have spelled out your position initially. It's irritating that you didn't take the time to listen to the talk and immediately searched for contrary citations.

My main reason for posting is to present what audiograms show and how hearing loss affects loudness perception. I assumed that the advice I gave at the end would be interpreted in that light.

“Parametric EQ alone won’t fix all of the problems of hearing loss. Changing speakers or headphones with boosts will only partially compensate for the loss.”

Let's examine that.

Compensation for hearing loss, partial or otherwise, by changing speakers or headphones is contrary to research. The Harman papers show that older listeners do not have separate preferences apart from liking a room curve or headphone target with somewhat less bass. Why, if hearing loss is typically in the high frequencies? Why are bright speakers or headphones with HF boosted not preferred by that demographic?

The background here is that the ear is tuned by frequency, and with hearing loss the tuning broadens and becomes less precise:

If the bass tilt or shelf is too high, with broader tuning you get masking of the midrange and less intelligibility. EQ can kind of adjust for that, but it's not happening in the range where hearing is lost.

So no, don't try to invert your audiogram. One of the ASR members tried measuring his hearing loss by playing tones in his living room and recorded the results for a PEQ filter. He didn't compensate for level and blew a tweeter in one of his speakers.

Whatever approach you end up taking the research should be kept in mind.

 

[MRC01]

... The equal loudness contours for people with hearing loss show compression. You are still capable of perceiving different loudness levels, and the range of very quiet to very loud exists for you—it's just mapped across a reduced physical SPL range.

Ah, that may explain why old folks holler "Turn that $h!t down!" when young folks are blasting their music.

Personally, I never tolerated loud sounds very well even when young. Now in my 50s, I tolerate loud sounds even less. My personal notion of "blasting the music" is quieter than it used to be.

 

[MRC01]

... Compensation for hearing loss, partial or otherwise, by changing speakers or headphones is contrary to research. The Harman papers show that older listeners do not have separate preferences apart from liking a room curve or headphone target with somewhat less bass. ...

If our goal is for the audio system to sound as close as possible to an actual live musical event, we should never correct for hearing loss. This general rule would apply to almost all "normal" cases of natural age related hearing loss. The exception would be unusual cases of hearing loss, each of which is unique.

 

[pozz]

If our goal is for the audio system to sound as close as possible to an actual live musical event, we should never correct for hearing loss. This general rule would apply to almost all "normal" cases of natural age related hearing loss. The exception would be unusual cases of hearing loss, each of which is unique.

I don't completely follow your line of reasoning. Current devices aim to both enhance hearing and compensate for damage. There's no downside as long as it's done well. Though within limits since processing power is limited.

 

[MRC01]

My reasoning is for people for whom age related hearing loss is normal and mild. Their brain/perception has adapted to their hearing loss and they don't notice it. Despite losing the top 1/2 to 1 octave, there's not much energy up there, they can still hear speech and music just fine. Because they don't correct for it in every day life, they shouldn't correct for it in their audio system else it will no longer sound like live music.

Correcting makes more sense for those who have more severe hearing loss.

 

[pozz]

My reasoning is for people for whom age related hearing loss is normal and mild. Their brain/perception has adapted to their hearing loss and they don't notice it. Despite losing the top 1/2 to 1 octave, there's not much energy up there, they can still hear speech and music just fine. Because they don't correct for it in every day life, they shouldn't correct for it in their audio system else it will no longer sound like live music.

Correcting makes more sense for those who have more severe hearing loss.

Agreed. I think as long as high resolution measurements of personal hearing are as inaccessible as they are now, doing nothing until you experience discomfort is probably wise. (I tried getting a local university to do mine; they turned me down because they only use their chamber and gear for academic or commercial work.)

 

[ns156]

Given your (very strong) opinions on this, what do you think of this recent paper, then?

https://www.aes.org/journal/online/jaes.cfm?file=JAES_V71_10/JAES_V71_10_PG707.pdf&elibID=22242

Boosting the EQ above 10KHz quite significantly to deal with age-related hearing loss has pretty significant changes in preference scores for all ages of adults. Now, I agree buying crappily tuned speakers or headphones isn't the way. Getting them flat and EQing from there I see no issues with.

 

[MRC01]

If that paper is correct, then it seems like many people old enough to have natural age related hearing loss prefer their audio system to sound like their memory of what live music sounded like when they were young, instead of what live music actually sounds like now.