[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Inexpensive hearing aids
Yes, you might do better with a lute, classical guitar, or something else which
used gut strings. Then again, we're now crossing from the issue of instrument
scaling production of harmonics to harmonics produced by string types. Even for
pianos along an electronic piano or acoustic piani with pickup would produce an
entirely different set of harmonic structures. Thanks for pointing this out.
Tom
Tom Brennan KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP, R/D - AU
web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, susan allen wrote:
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:50:03 -0800
> From: susan allen <susie@SHOKO.CALARTS.EDU>
> To: AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
> Subject: Inexpensive hearing aids
>
> As a professional harpist, I would be very confused if my hearing aid
> was tuned to piano harmonics.
> Susan Allen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I see your point but it does clinically concern me to "not be hung up on the
> specifics" when dealing with clients as we're dealing with specific problems.
> I've seen you state a lot of opinions and you are obviously working
> for the good
> of your clients. Others on the list have asked you for specific data and you
> have yet to provide that and now when I have asked you specifically about what
> you have stated on the list using specific numbers to justify what you do you
> say the specifics do not matter. Certainly when we treat clients there is a
> clinical apsect to things just as there is a scientific aspect. When I tune a
> piano for someine who is an advanced musician I may not tune a purely equally
> tempered scale because of what they prefer or the instruments they will play or
> the music they use. However, when I do deviate from the accepted
> norm I always
> have a reason for doing so and can demonstrate that reason to any other
> professional who asks. That duplication of knowledge is the reason I have
> questioned you and attempted to learn something of your methods only
> to have you
> tell me that I should not deal in specifics. I apologize if you have been
> offended by my questions but I thought they were quite basic rather than
> specific.
>
> Tom
>
>
> Tom Brennan KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP, R/D - AU
> web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, Barbara Reynolds wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:06:30 -0600
> > From: Barbara Reynolds <br_auditory@hotmail.com>
> > To: g_brennantg@TITAN.SFASU.EDU, AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
> > Subject: Re: Inexpensive hearing aids - Consideration of Piano harmonics
> >
> >
> > I don't have the equipment to be that exact. I fit on a general
> > principle that keeps in mind that I am working with a musician with an
> > expanded representation for sound that is different than non-musician's.
> > They may not like the sound of an aid precisely because I haven't matched
> > a certain band of frequencies as well as I could if I tried to shift the
> > response of the aid off the more traditional "pure tone"
> > recommendations. Pure tones don't occur in nature, so why should we be
> > married to the idea that people hear the best when we match the
> > prescription formulas or the audiogram to a psychological, subjective
> > system.
> >
> > I've noticed that some people are spend too much time on the specifics
> > rather than the general priniciple. I'm not concerned with exact
> > measurements, but I am concern with the difference in programming that
> > may be necessary because of vastly different auditory systems based on
> > environmental or genetic influences.
> >
> > Please don't get hung up on the specifics, see the point for what it was.
> >
> > >From: g_brennantg@TITAN.SFASU.EDU
> > >To: Barbara Reynolds <br_auditory@HOTMAIL.COM>
> > >CC: AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
> > >Subject: Re: Inexpensive hearing aids - Consideration of Piano harmonics
> > >Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:39:09 -0600 (CST)
> > >
> > >Barb, I'm inpressed if you have instrumentation to fit to exact tones
> > such as
> > >"2048" which is, by the way, a C of 512 which is not a temered C so
> > would
> > >usually be inappropriate to fit as a tempered C is at
> > 523.25. Interestingly,
> > >this makes your C at 2048 come out at 2093 which is only three cycles
> > less than
> > >being out by the same amount your 2048 would be from the 2000 of the
> > audiometer.
> > >
> > >As an aside, if we multiply the A which is the more commonly used not
> > for
> > >tempering scales, that has your A at 1600. In Europe rather than using
> > 440
> > >currently many people now use 442 which brings the 1600 to 1608. Of
> > course, all
> > >of this becomes of questionable value either in a porrly tempered scale,
> > with a
> > >piano either flat or sharp in pitch (this applies to other instruments
> > as well)
> > >or with instruments which are not tempered or which are not equal
> > temered.
> > >Since the band spreads on audiometers are standardized to neural
> > response etc.
> > >al be it sometimes after the fact, I am still left with the question of
> > how much
> > >good this actually does for a client. I also wonder about these single
> > cycle
> > >frequency adjustments to aids.
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >
> > >Tom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Tom Brennan KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP, R/D - AU
> > >web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >________________________________________________________________________________
> > Get tax tips, tools and access to IRS forms ñ all in one place at MSN
> > Money!
> >
>