Which in ear headphones

[Oso Polar]

Podcast clarity being relatively poor via speakers versus headphones indicates some hearing loss in frequencies relevant to speech.

Of course not. Speakers can have (much) bigger distortion (and probably do), room introduces reflections, background noises etc.

 

[Soandso]

Of course not. Speakers can have (much) bigger distortion (and probably do), room introduces reflections, background noises etc.

Podcasts are spoken and not music. For many years I have had difficulty distinguishing some of what dialogue was being said when watching movies - even calmly watching television programs under 9 feet away in a closed room at night with the volume turned up.

There are certain vocal sounds in English involving different sound frequencies.
Eventually a professional audiogram determined I had patterns of hearing "loss" of decible levels in certain frequencies in different ears. When wearing headphones while watching television the sound transducers right next to my ears helps distinguish greater actor spoken word clarity.

With hearing loss there are not only decible sound pressure level losses occurring but also changes for the worse with specific SNR ratios (to varying not uniform, nor linear degrees) in each of the different frequencies affected. So changes in "background noise" involvement can actually be a consequence of hearing loss. I believe the O.P. described spoken word podcast limitations very similar to what I encounter with broadcast speech.

Edit (had to walk the dog): probably the O.P. hears English vowels well (250 to 2,000 Hz), and also mostly hears well the English "voiced" consonants (250 to 4,000 Hz) which require vocal cord vibration (ex: b, d, etc.). But there are "unvoiced" English consonants in the 2,000 to 8,000 Hz frequencies which are vulnerable with common hearing loss.

The most identifiable to we laymen of the English unvoiced consonants are p, k, f, s, and t. But "t" is a bit of irregular in that the sound "th" is unvoiced (vocal cords don't vibrate to produce it) in words like "thin"; yet to produce words like "they" the vocal cords must vibrate (voicing the consonant).

English is quite full of t sounds and s sounds, even in combination, so the O.P. can attempt to determine whether any words with those are sometimes difficult to understand spoken in a podcast. If so then that is an indication of some potential hearing loss. The simpler unvoiced consonants of p, k, and f are somewhat "explosive" sounds, carry readily, thus even if O.P. hears them well that doesn't rule out some hearing loss.

 

[Soandso]

There are certain vocal sounds in English involving different sound frequencies ...probably the O.P. hears English vowels well (250 to 2,000 Hz), and also mostly hears well the English "voiced" consonants (250 to 4,000 Hz) which require vocal cord vibration (ex: b, d, etc.). But there are "unvoiced" English consonants in the 2,000 to 8,000 Hz frequencies ... the most identifiable to we laymen of the English unvoiced consonants are p, k, f, s, and t.

Below is a thorough audiology chart of the technically identified English consonants' frequencies which goes well beyond my prior simplified allusions. Our layman minds can see here the easy to understand "/s/" consonant is in the 5,000 to 6,000 Hz range. Podcast English speech contains a flow of the listed consonant frequencies.

[As an example: my hearing loss in the 5,000 to 6,000 Hz frequencies ranges in one ear from -4.4 dB going down to -11 decibels loss; while the other ear hearing loss is worse, going down from -10.5 dB at 5,000 Hz down to -18.2 decibles loss at 6,000 Hz. In effect, if I were to lay on my side listening to a podcast or TV over a speaker(s) then how well I relatively distinguished some of the words should vary on which ear was up or down facing. Note: a professional audiology test only includes 500 to 10,000 Hz.]

 

[Misguided]

Sennheiser HD600 have a neutral sound signature according to the headphone database Crinacle has compiled. You could look for a neutral tuned IEM using his IEM rankings, I've found his judgement to be pretty good. The Sennheiser IEMs look ok but there are better, cheaper ones IMO.

https://crinacle.com/rankings/iems/

 

[Leif]

Podcast clarity being relatively poor via speakers versus headphones indicates some hearing loss in frequencies relevant to speech.

Lying on the side for me pushes the small IEM body uncomfortably into the ear canal.

According to what I have read, headphones give greater clarity, in large part due to the absence of room reflections. I listen to French podcasts, a language in which I am not at native level. It’s actually lower and mid frequencies that are the problem with French, as they are quite nasal. Bright headphones improve my comprehension.

I found some Apple earphones for my iPhone, they okay sound, but they broke the first day of use when I pulled on the cable. No sign of damage, but no sound. So I think I will go with Sennheiser IE 200, they have a neutral signature which is what I want, and not too expensive in case they break. I have always had very good experiences with Sennheiser, they design the frames well.

 

[ntara luk]

well maybe dunu titan s,would be better if you can find local store with demo units

 

[Soandso]

It’s actually lower and mid frequencies that are the problem with French, as they are quite nasal. Bright headphones improve my comprehension.

Let's take a detailed look at French nasal vowels [these occur in a same syllable where the vowel is followed by either an "n" or "m"; when the soft palate drops letting vowel air go into and out the nasal structure]. I'm unsure what you mean by "bright" (as frequency strata or volume or something else) as regards it's relevance to these vowels.

The following graphs show the French non-nasal and nasal vowel formants. The formant "F0" is the fundamental acoustic resonance and are not here specially labelled, formant "Fr 1" starts under the line where appears annotated and is a widening of the frequency's bandwidth, and formant "Fr 2" starts under the libe where it appears annotated and is the last overtone of that vowel's vocal tract pitch resonance .

These graphs will cover the non-nasal and nasal vowels of "/a/", "/e/", "/o/", and the dual sound vowel "/oe/". The data is specific for what I consider representative of a podcast speaker's voice register (not excited dialogue) which is to say all data is for D4 (akin to "Re" of our common "Do-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-Do" scale). D4's fundamental begins just under 300 Hz and that's around where these chart's formant "F0" start.

Note: in all comparisons the vowel chart on the left shown is of the non-nasal vowel and then on the right you will see the same vowel that is nasal. When comparatively among the non-nasal and same nasal vowel the colors are brighter that indicates frequencies with relatively greater power output. The bottom scale is in increments of seconds and the total time graphed is 2 seconds.

Here's "/a/" and nasal "/a/" [sorry graphs are odd sizes]:

Comment : the non-nasal "/a/" has relatively more power around 300 Hz,
while the nasal "/a/" has relatively more power as the overtones rise. The cycling ups and downs of vocal vibrato over 2 seconds is essentially the same for both non-nasal and nasal "/a/".

Here's "/e/" and nasal "/e/":

Comment: Although the non-nasal "/e/" frequency waves are generally brighter (more powerful) than the nasal "/e/" there are fewer of those brighter/powerful waves compared to the nasal "/e/" overtones in the Fr1 and Fr2 frequencies.

Here's "/o/"and nasal "/o/":

Comment: around 2,000 Hz the non-nasal Fr2 overtones have less resonances than the similar nasal overtones until non-nasal Fr2 overtones return around 2,300 Hz and around 2,500 Hz the nasal overtones are less than the non-nasal.
Between 350 and 500 Hz there is less vocal tract vibrato of the non-nasal compared to the nasal.

Lastly here's "/oe/" and nasal "/oe/":

Comment: the resonances are slightly affected in some of the fr1 frequencies which exhibit more power (as where seen brighter).

 

[Oso Polar]

So changes in "background noise" involvement can actually be a consequence of hearing loss.

Well, difficulties distinguishing dialogues may be caused by hearing loss but for sure they in no way point to it, especially in case of foreign language speech, as OP mentioned. I'm fluent in two foreign languages and I'm pretty sure my hearing is not improving with age - while the ability to comprehend speech in these languages certainly does. While learning foreign languages with time it becomes more and more easier to distinguish what was said under increasingly more difficult conditions. In my experience most complex scenario is actually music - I mean "deciphering" song lyrics. I guess it is similar to what Amir mentioned many times about specific compression artifacts of mp3 - at first you need to listen really carefully, with very detailed headphones etc. - but once you really learn how these artifacts sound you'll be able to recognize them much more easier, which can be a kind of a curse.

 

[Leif]

Well, difficulties distinguishing dialogues may be caused by hearing loss but for sure they in no way point to it, especially in case of foreign language speech, as OP mentioned. I'm fluent in two foreign languages and I'm pretty sure my hearing is not improving with age - while the ability to comprehend speech in these languages certainly does. While learning foreign languages with time it becomes more and more easier to distinguish what was said under increasingly more difficult conditions. In my experience most complex scenario is actually music - I mean "deciphering" song lyrics. I guess it is similar to what Amir mentioned many times about specific compression artifacts of mp3 - at first you need to listen really carefully, with very detailed headphones etc. - but once you really learn how these artifacts sound you'll be able to recognize them much more easier, which can be a kind of a curse.

Exactly. My ability to understand French is improving rapidly, and I can now understand speech podcasts quite well using my good speakers, but for critical listening headphones are still better. The other person ignores the importance of room effects.

 

[Soandso]

I'd like to address "room reflections" which it seems the O.P. thinks may be diminishing comprehension of French nasal vowels. As for "room effects" if this means "room modes" bear in mind standing waves (modalities) in rooms are mostly under 300Hz.

For this I'll reference above comment #27's color coded graphs and next here roughly extrapolate the time duration of those nasal vowels' reflections. I am using this next data set (shown below) wherein the listening position [colored green in original diagram below and labelled microphone] is 3 meters distant from the speaker [colored red in original diagram below].

The data is generated in a spherical room and thus calculates 4 (4T) reflections in "ms" (milli-seconds). It is obviously not the exact proportions of the room O.P. uses, but let's consider it illustrative of reflection durations unless anyone can provide specific contradictory data points to extrapolate from.

I can not state how many milli-seconds a French nasal vowel is pronounced in any podcast the O.P. listens to. For orientation I will mention we old U.S. Americans say/phrase the English word "one mississippi" to count off 1 second. And so I propose one can pronounce 5 vowels in syllables in 1 second of time. I suggest this means we can generalize that voicing 1 vowel lasts 1/5 of 1 second, or the equivalent of 200ms [1,000 ms = 1 second].

I will now post my relevant approximate ("~") extrapolations taken from the data chart below. Remember this is for being meters away from the sound source and each spoken vowel in it's syllable lasts ~ 200 ms.

French nasal vowel "/a/" formant F0 is around 300 Hz giving reflections of ~14 ms, and format fR1 around 800 Hz giving reflections of ~5 ms, while formant fR2 around 1,200 Hz giving reflections of ~4ms.

French nasal vowel "/e/" formant F0 around 300 Hz has reflections ~14ms, fR1 around 700 Hz has reflections ~6 ms, and fR2 around 2,000 Hz has reflections ~3 ms.

French nasal vowel "/o/" formant F0 around 300 Hz has reflections ~14ms, fR1 around 525 Hz has reflections around 8 ms, and fR2 around 950 Hz has reflections of ~4.5 ms.

French nasal vowel "/oe/" formant F0 around 300 Hz has reflections ~14ms, fR1 around 600 Hz has reflections around 8ms, and fR2 around 1,800 Hz has reflections of ~2ms.

Comment: the longest lasting nasal vowel reflection is ~14 ms. and if the voiced vowel syllable lasts 200ms then that reflection itself only last 7% (0.07) as long as a nasal vowel syllable each of the 4 times (4T) the reflection formant F0 bounces of a surface (spherical). And for that same voiced nasal vowel syllable the formant fR1 and fR2 reflection times are all under 10 ms each time they bounce off a surface (spherical). Furthermore there is less power in the fR1 and fR2 frequencies than the F0, and presumably with each successive reflection the formants are losing power. Based on data extrapolations of nasal vowel room reflections it seems those are not what is critically confounding perception of Podcast French nasal vowel syllables.

Citation: the data source shown below "Reflection overlap with the direct signal" is from linkwitzlabs dot com>Ping-tests>room-reflections

 

[Leif]

Let's take a detailed look at French nasal vowels [these occur in a same syllable where the vowel is followed by either an "n" or "m"; when the soft palate drops letting vowel air go into and out the nasal structure]. I'm unsure what you mean by "bright" (as frequency strata or volume or something else) as regards it's relevance to these vowels.

The following graphs show the French non-nasal and nasal vowel formants. The formant "F0" is the fundamental acoustic resonance and are not here specially labelled, formant "Fr 1" starts under the line where appears annotated and is a widening of the frequency's bandwidth, and formant "Fr 2" starts under the libe where it appears annotated and is the last overtone of that vowel's vocal tract pitch resonance .

These graphs will cover the non-nasal and nasal vowels of "/a/", "/e/", "/o/", and the dual sound vowel "/oe/". The data is specific for what I consider representative of a podcast speaker's voice register (not excited dialogue) which is to say all data is for D4 (akin to "Re" of our common "Do-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-Do" scale). D4's fundamental begins just under 300 Hz and that's around where these chart's formant "F0" start.

Note: in all comparisons the vowel chart on the left shown is of the non-nasal vowel and then on the right you will see the same vowel that is nasal. When comparatively among the non-nasal and same nasal vowel the colors are brighter that indicates frequencies with relatively greater power output. The bottom scale is in increments of seconds and the total time graphed is 2 seconds.

Here's "/a/" and nasal "/a/" [sorry graphs are odd sizes]:

View attachment 295491View attachment 295492
Comment : the non-nasal "/a/" has relatively more power around 300 Hz,
while the nasal "/a/" has relatively more power as the overtones rise. The cycling ups and downs of vocal vibrato over 2 seconds is essentially the same for both non-nasal and nasal "/a/".

Here's "/e/" and nasal "/e/":

View attachment 295497View attachment 295498
Comment: Although the non-nasal "/e/" frequency waves are generally brighter (more powerful) than the nasal "/e/" there are fewer of those brighter/powerful waves compared to the nasal "/e/" overtones in the Fr1 and Fr2 frequencies.

Here's "/o/"and nasal "/o/":

View attachment 295506View attachment 295507
Comment: around 2,000 Hz the non-nasal Fr2 overtones have less resonances than the similar nasal overtones until non-nasal Fr2 overtones return around 2,300 Hz and around 2,500 Hz the nasal overtones are less than the non-nasal.
Between 350 and 500 Hz there is less vocal tract vibrato of the non-nasal compared to the nasal.

Lastly here's "/oe/" and nasal "/oe/":

View attachment 295511View attachment 295512
Comment: the resonances are slightly affected in some of the fr1 frequencies which exhibit more power (as where seen brighter).

You continue to ignore the importance of the room which is significant. And you ignore the fact that headphones are better for picking up details.

I did an online hearing test, using my good headphone, and I have no loss at any frequency relative to other frequencies, though there may or may not be an overall loss in sensitivity.

 

[Soandso]

You continue to ignore the importance of the room which is significant. And you ignore the fact that headphones are better for picking up details.

I did an online hearing test, using my good headphone, and I have no loss at any frequency relative to other frequencies, though there may or may not be an overall loss in sensitivity.

You may place as much "importance" wherever you think appropriate. It was you who brought up French nasal vowel perception and I have specifically responded to that in some detail. I have not expressed dissent that headphones are excellent for focused listening and described how I regularly use them comfortably when lying down. At this point let me wish you continued satisfaction.

About an online hearing test: I have no specific experience with any of those. The professional audiology test I underwent was quite detailed and there is no way I could replicate the in ear steps on myself with headphones (maybe somewhat with my etymotic ER2SE).

If you really "have no loss at any frequency relative to other frequencies" that is great. There are claims that adult hearing loss usually starts to occur anywhere from the 30s to 50s age (usually higher frequencies), and according to one children's hospital by age 12 years old 20% of children have some hearing loss. [And of course there is what is called "hidden" hearing loss where a professional audiogram which only goes up to 10,000 Hz can be normal yet there is high frequency hearing loss.] Anyway, this is enough posts by me!

For anyone interested here are published data graphs for the average ranges of hearing loss frequencies of 411 studied men and women at different ages. As per (2019) "The auditory brain and age-related hearing impairment".

Quote:

 

[Leif]

You may place as much "importance" wherever you think appropriate. It was you who brought up French nasal vowel perception and I have specifically responded to that in some detail. I have not expressed dissent that headphones are excellent for focused listening and described how I regularly use them comfortably when lying down. At this point let me wish you continued satisfaction.

About an online hearing test: I have no specific experience with any of those. The professional audiology test I underwent was quite detailed and there is no way I could replicate the in ear steps on myself with headphones (maybe somewhat with my etymotic ER2SE).

If you really "have no loss at any frequency relative to other frequencies" that is great. There are claims that adult hearing loss usually starts to occur anywhere from the 30s to 50s age (usually higher frequencies), and according to one children's hospital by age 12 years old 20% of children have some hearing loss. [And of course there is what is called "hidden" hearing loss where a professional audiogram which only goes up to 10,000 Hz can be normal yet there is high frequency hearing loss.] Anyway, this is enough posts by me!

For anyone interested here are published data graphs for the average ranges of hearing loss frequencies of 411 studied men and women at different ages. As per (2019) "The auditory brain and age-related hearing impairment".

Quote:
View attachment 295559

You are the perfect example of an online expert, who posts huge amounts to beat the ‘opponant’ into submission. It just isn’t worth engaging with you, and your literalism. Does anyone have the time or inclination to read those long posts?

Perhaps you might want to think why, if someone for example had no hearing between 2kHz and 4kHz, would the nature of the sound source make a difference, assuming as you suggest no difference between speakers and headphones.

 

[Soandso]

@Leif
Post #25 (Weds,) you state "Bright headphones improve my concentration." Well, "bright" on ASR seems usually to refer to higher frequencies. [I did ask your definition of "bright".]

Post #31 (Weds.) you assert "using ... good headphones ... I have no loss at any frequencies...."

Since headphones with "bright" high frequency bump(s) help you pick out spoken details that indicates you've the classic manifestation of some reduced high frequency hearing.

If you online tested hearing using "good" headphones without a "flat" frequency response chances are those "good" headphones deployed had some high frequency bump(s)

Then those frequency bump(s)would be compensating for any ear's reduced high frequency hearing.

Well if you actually tested your hearing with flat frequency response headphones that would rule out any confounding of results.

Furthermore recent Post #33 states you tested hearing between 2,000 and 4.000 Hz and it was fine. Well that is good for vowels and yet earliest signs of hearing loss is usually with consonants with higher frequencies.

I hope this assists your dispassionate consideration of the utility of any analytic logic derived from the "literalism" of presented data.

At this time I do not recall propounding the contention there's "no difference between speakers and headphones" (your assertion post #33). I think that when there is hearing loss headphone listening provides benefits over room speakers.

Whether your last post #33's intention was to be personally rude it does seem to read as such.

 

[Leif]

@Leif
Post #25 (Weds,) you state "Bright headphones improve my concentration." Well, "bright" on ASR seems usually to refer to higher frequencies. [I did ask your definition of "bright".]

Post #31 (Weds.) you assert "using ... good headphones ... I have no loss at any frequencies...."

Since headphones with "bright" high frequency bump(s) help you pick out spoken details that indicates you've the classic manifestation of some reduced high frequency hearing.

If you online tested hearing using "good" headphones without a "flat" frequency response chances are those "good" headphones deployed had some high frequency bump(s)

Then those frequency bump(s)would be compensating for any ear's reduced high frequency hearing.

Well if you actually tested your hearing with flat frequency response headphones that would rule out any confounding of results.

Furthermore recent Post #33 states you tested hearing between 2,000 and 4.000 Hz and it was fine. Well that is good for vowels and yet earliest signs of hearing loss is usually with consonants with higher frequencies.

I hope this assists your dispassionate consideration of the utility of any analytic logic derived from the "literalism" of presented data.

At this time I do not recall propounding the contention there's "no difference between speakers and headphones" (your assertion post #33). I think that when there is hearing loss headphone listening provides benefits over room speakers.

Whether your last post #33's intention was to be personally rude it does seem to read as such.

Given that you claim to have diagnosed hearing loss in a stranger who you have never met:

1) What are your qualifications in audiology?

2) What are your experience and qualifications in second language acquisition?

"Furthermore recent Post #33 states you tested hearing between 2,000 and 4.000 Hz and it was fine." I made no such statement.

"Since headphones with "bright" high frequency bump(s) help you pick out spoken details that indicates you've the classic manifestation of some reduced high frequency hearing." That was taken out of context, as it was a response to your assertion of high frequency hearing loss. I also said earlier that neutral headphones improve my comprehension.

"If you online tested hearing using "good" headphones without a "flat" frequency response chances are those "good" headphones deployed had some high frequency bump(s)" I said in my original post that I used Sennheiser HD600 headphones. It is easy to find frequency response curves that show that they are extremely neutral headphones.

"Well if you actually tested your hearing with flat frequency response headphones that would rule out any confounding of results." I suggest you read posts before replying to them.

I have Kef LS50 Meta speakers, and Sennheiser HD600 headphones, both of which are known to be neutral.

"I hope this assists your dispassionate consideration of the utility of any analytic logic derived from the "literalism" of presented data." Do you normally write in such a florid and pompous manner?

I would like to know your professional qualifications since you present yourself as an expert.

 

[Soandso]

Gven that you claim to have diagnosed hearing loss in a stranger who you have never met:

1) What are your qualifications in audiology?

2) What are your experience and qualifications in second language acquisition?

"Furthermore recent Post #33 states you tested hearing between 2,000 and 4.000 Hz and it was fine." I made no such statement.

"Since headphones with "bright" high frequency bump(s) help you pick out spoken details that indicates you've the classic manifestation of some reduced high frequency hearing." That was taken out of context, as it was a response to your assertion of high frequency hearing loss. I said earlier that neutral headphones improve my concentration.

"If you online tested hearing using "good" headphones without a "flat" frequency response chances are those "good" headphones deployed had some high frequency bump(s)" I said in my original post that I ised Sennheiser HD600 headphones. It is easy to find frequency response curves that show that they are extremely neutral headphones.

"Well if you actually tested your hearing with flat frequency response headphones that would rule out any confounding of results." I suggest you read posts before replying to them.

I have Kef LS50 Meta speakers, and Sennheiser HD600 headphones, both of which are known to be neutral.

"I hope this assists your dispassionate consideration of the utility of any analytic logic derived from the "literalism" of presented data." Do you normally write in such a florid and pompous manner?

I would like to know your professional qualifications since you present yourself as an expert.

Let's see -

Re your "1)":
Due to hearing issues I underwent a professional audiology exam, discussed it's technical implications with my medical ENT doctor and read related technical scientific publications. My comments on this post included personal experience, some data I considered illustrative, indications about certain particulars commonly described as having scientific basis and appended a journal's relevant chart.
COMMENT: My posts(s) that you present symptoms of hearing loss was/is not a personal attack on you personally.

Re your "2)":
American English is my native language. I speak, read, write and have served translating Spanish as a second language. It has been many years since I have spoken or read French, which I never wrote. I know enough Arabic cursing to get into a fight about.
COMMENT: My post(s) are long because I assume ASR forum readers are not all native English speakers and want to make it easy to follow what exactly is being referred to. My elaboration about French nasal vowels was in the interest of presenting ASR readers a scientific framework in case the subject was obtuse to some.

Re your 3rd paragraph:
Yes, you are correct and I am wrong because assumed you were talking about yourself in the third person as "someone".
COMMENT: Since within your "someone" sentence you posed a question about 2-4kHz hearing I did answer the relevance of that correctly.

Re your 4th paragraph:
Having again re-read your post about "bright" headphones I see it is in a full sentence at the end of 3 others. I did ask you what you meant by "bright" and do not find any specific explanation by you, which led me to later comment upon assuming you stood by that declaration.

Re your 5th and 6th paragraphs:
[5th] When you spoke of your online hearing test you alluded to "good" headphones without mentioning if their frequency response was flat.
[6th] I commented precisely because I did read that specific hearing test post and pointed out the need to distinguish the implications if the 'good" headphones used were "bright" (or flat).
COMMENT: Your last sentence of paragraph 6 is haughty.

Re your 7th paragraph:
Good.

Re your 8th paragraph:
I try to develop a concept, explain it's significance, offer supporting data and make that data interpretable to others who may not have familiarity with the way that data is shown. My writing style and/or vocabulary may not appeal to everyone but is executed in the interest of thoroughness.
COMMENT: The "S" in ASR stands for science and I strive to keep my comments relevant to scientific matters I find interesting. I see no related comment of mine which personally demeaned you. Again your last sentence reflects poorly on you.

Re your 9th (last) paragraph:
You are patently wrong in that I did not "present myself as an expert". What I did was "present" published scientific data while developing several concepts at length.
COMMENT: You seem to have foregone demonstrating where I was wrong on the science. To me it seems you have taken personal offense when none was dealt to you and hence confused the function of the ASR forum, which wants members interested in fun.
P.S. I am retired.

 

[Leif]

Let's see -

Re your "1)":
Due to hearing issues I underwent a professional audiology exam, discussed it's technical implications with my medical ENT doctor and read related technical scientific publications. My comments on this post included personal experience, some data I considered illustrative, indications about certain particulars commonly described as having scientific basis and appended a journal's relevant chart.
COMMENT: My posts(s) that you present symptoms of hearing loss was/is not a personal attack on you personally.

Re your "2)":
American English is my native language. I speak, read, write and have served translating Spanish as a second language. It has been many years since I have spoken or read French, which I never wrote. I know enough Arabic cursing to get into a fight about.
COMMENT: My post(s) are long because I assume ASR forum readers are not all native English speakers and want to make it easy to follow what exactly is being referred to. My elaboration about French nasal vowels was in the interest of presenting ASR readers a scientific framework in case the subject was obtuse to some.

Re your 3rd paragraph:
Yes, you are correct and I am wrong because assumed you were talking about yourself in the third person as "someone".
COMMENT: Since within your "someone" sentence you posed a question about 2-4kHz hearing I did answer the relevance of that correctly.

Re your 4th paragraph:
Having again re-read your post about "bright" headphones I see it is in a full sentence at the end of 3 others. I did ask you what you meant by "bright" and do not find any specific explanation by you, which led me to later comment upon assuming you stood by that declaration.

Re your 5th and 6th paragraphs:
[5th] When you spoke of your online hearing test you alluded to "good" headphones without mentioning if their frequency response was flat.
[6th] I commented precisely because I did read that specific hearing test post and pointed out the need to distinguish the implications if the 'good" headphones used were "bright" (or flat).
COMMENT: Your last sentence of paragraph 6 is haughty.

Re your 7th paragraph:
Good.

Re your 8th paragraph:
I try to develop a concept, explain it's significance, offer supporting data and make that data interpretable to others who may not have familiarity with the way that data is shown. My writing style and/or vocabulary may not appeal to everyone but is executed in the interest of thoroughness.
COMMENT: The "S" in ASR stands for science and I strive to keep my comments relevant to scientific matters I find interesting. I see no related comment of mine which personally demeaned you. Again your last sentence reflects poorly on you.

Re your 9th (last) paragraph:
You are patently wrong in that I did not "present myself as an expert". What I did was "present" published scientific data while developing several concepts at length.
COMMENT: You seem to have foregone demonstrating where I was wrong on the science. To me it seems you have taken personal offense when none was dealt to you and hence confused the function of the ASR forum, which wants members interested in fun.
P.S. I am retired.

So we have now established that you have zero formal qualifications in audiology.

The term bright, along with warm, is the most basic term used to describe the quality of sound from a hifi system. I am surprised you did not know the meaning, and this makes it clear that you have very little knowledge of hifi systems e.g. loudspeakers.

We also know that you have zero knowledge of my listening room, and hence zero knowledge of the acoustics. In my case, and this is typical, the acoustics have a significant impact on the sound quality. For example the acoustics change in the evening when I pull the curtains. The most obvious impact of the room is in the lower mid and bass frequencies, where reflections create a slight loss in definition. I can partly mitigate the effects by using my hands to screen out reflections from the wall behind me. Some people go to great lengths to treat their rooms so as to create optimum acoustics. This is, in my opinion, the main reason why headphones give in many respects improved acoustics. There is a price to pay, for example the reduction in imaging.

As my French comprehension has improved, I find myself able to listen to native podcasts on loudspeakers, but headphones still offer a slight improvement, and of course the convenience of using them in bed as clearly stated in the original post.

You flood this thread in an obsessive manner with huge amounts of irrelevant information. You remind me of a small dog that has grabbed hold of a piece of clothing, and will not release its grip no matter how hard the owner tries. I really have no interest in reading your answer to war and peace. You clearly do regard yourself as an expert audiologist, despite no qualifications, as you feel confident enough to diagnose me with hearing loss.

 

[Leif]

There are more affordable models in the Sennheiser IE range. I own a pair of IE300, but I see positive reports on their entry model IE200, too.

Thank you to everyone who suggested earphones to consider. Yesterday I ordered a Sennheiser IE 200, they arrived today and they will do the job nicely. The sound quality is good, not as good as my HD600, but that’s no surprise. I considered the IE 600, but I was worried I would break them and they are expensive.

I did consider Apple Airpods as someone suggested, and they do measure very well, but the rechargeable battery wears out over a few years depending on usage, plus they are not cheap.

 

[Soandso]

So we have now established that you have zero formal qualifications in audiology.

The term bright, along with warm, is the most basic term used to describe the quality of sound from a hifi system. I am surprised you did not know the meaning, and this makes it clear that you have very little knowledge of hifi systems e.g. loudspeakers.

We also know that you have zero knowledge of my listening room, and hence zero knowledge of the acoustics. In my case, and this is typical, the acoustics have a significant impact on the sound quality. For example the acoustics change in the evening when I pull the curtains. The most obvious impact of the room is in the lower mid and bass frequencies, where reflections create a slight loss in definition. I can partly mitigate the effects by using my hands to screen out reflections from the wall behind me. Some people go to great lengths to treat their rooms so as to create optimum acoustics. This is, in my opinion, the main reason why headphones give in many respects improved acoustics. There is a price to pay, for example the reduction in imaging.

As my French comprehension has improved, I find myself able to listen to native podcasts on loudspeakers, but headphones still offer a slight improvement, and of course the convenience of using them in bed as clearly stated in the original post.

You flood this thread in an obsessive manner with huge amounts of irrelevant information. You remind me of a small dog that has grabbed hold of a piece of clothing, and will not release its grip no matter how hard the owner tries. I really have no interest in reading your answer to war and peace. You clearly do regard yourself as an expert audiologist, despite no qualifications, as you feel confident enough to diagnose me with hearing loss.

Civil discourse is something that is a measure of personal character. Inappropriate decorum is not informative, but antagonistic.

I am on a tablet so referencing this thread for responding to your latest diatribe precisely with both our written quotes context at the stage respectively written is more than it's worth. If, as you contend, nothing I presented has relevance for you that is no reason to be bilious.

 

[Leif]

Civil discourse is something that is a measure of personal character. Inappropriate decorum is not informative, but antagonistic.

I am on a tablet so referencing this thread for responding to your latest diatribe precisely with both our written quotes context at the stage respectively written is more than it's worth. If, as you contend, nothing I presented has relevance for you that is no reason to be bilious.

Your manner is obnoxious. I have no interest in your long and obsessive lectures. I was asking for recommendations for in ear headphones.