Re: Inexpensive hearing aids - Consideration of Piano harmonics (Barbara Reynolds )


Subject: Re: Inexpensive hearing aids - Consideration of Piano harmonics
From:    Barbara Reynolds  <br_auditory(at)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date:    Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:06:30 -0600

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE> <P>I don't have the equipment to be that exact.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; </P> <P>I've noticed that some people are spend too much time on the specifics rather than the general priniciple.&nbsp; 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.</P> <P>Please don't get hung up on the specifics, see the point for what it was.<BR><BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV>&gt;From: g_brennantg(at)TITAN.SFASU.EDU <DIV></DIV>&gt;To: Barbara Reynolds &lt;br_auditory(at)HOTMAIL.COM&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt;CC: AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA <DIV></DIV>&gt;Subject: Re: Inexpensive hearing aids - Consideration of Piano harmonics <DIV></DIV>&gt;Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:39:09 -0600 (CST) <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt;Barb, I'm inpressed if you have instrumentation to fit to exact tones such as <DIV></DIV>&gt;"2048" which is, by the way, a C of 512 which is not a temered C so would <DIV></DIV>&gt;usually be inappropriate to fit as a tempered C is at 523.25.&nbsp;&nbsp;Interestingly, <DIV></DIV>&gt;this makes your C at 2048 come out at 2093 which is only three cycles less than <DIV></DIV>&gt;being out by the same amount your 2048 would be from the 2000 of the audiometer. <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt;As an aside, if we multiply the A which is the more commonly used not for <DIV></DIV>&gt;tempering scales, that has your A at 1600.&nbsp;&nbsp;In Europe rather than using 440 <DIV></DIV>&gt;currently many people now use 442 which brings the 1600 to 1608.&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course, all <DIV></DIV>&gt;of this becomes of questionable value either in a porrly tempered scale, with a <DIV></DIV>&gt;piano either flat or sharp in pitch (this applies to other instruments as well) <DIV></DIV>&gt;or with instruments which are not tempered or which are not equal temered. <DIV></DIV>&gt;Since the band spreads on audiometers are standardized to neural response etc. <DIV></DIV>&gt;al be it sometimes after the fact, I am still left with the question of how much <DIV></DIV>&gt;good this actually does for a client.&nbsp;&nbsp;I also wonder about these single cycle <DIV></DIV>&gt;frequency adjustments to aids. <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt;Thanks. <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt;Tom <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt;Tom Brennan&nbsp;&nbsp;KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP, R/D - AU <DIV></DIV>&gt;web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV>&gt; <DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2743??PS=">Get tax tips, tools and access to IRS forms – all in one place at MSN Money!</a> </html>


This message came from the mail archive
http://www.auditory.org/postings/2004/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University