I probably wouldn't tune them to piano harmonics. I would try to adjust the response of the hearing aids to you're subjective preference, which is ultimately my point. Using your musical history as a guide instead of ignoring would give me a better idea where to start not necessarily where we would finish. What the ultimate fitting would be after a year would still be to your subjective preference regardless of whether you played harp or tuba or nothing at all.
>From: susan allen <susie@SHOKO.CALARTS.EDU>
>Reply-To: susan allen <susie@SHOKO.CALARTS.EDU>
>To: AUDITORY@LISTS.MCGILL.CA
>Subject: Inexpensive hearing aids
>Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:50:03 -0800
>
>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!
>>