Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
I sent the folowing to the editors of STEREOPHILE- and received no reply.
Via Email: STletters@entusiastnetwork.com
March 10, 2017
For the sake of honesty, transparency and credibility, I propose that your reviewers post results of their hearing tests- standard as well as extended high-frequency audiometry.
Your magazine publishes evaluations of audio equipment by your reviewers, and I think it would be only fair to readers- who might be spending large sums for equipment based in part on reviews they read in Stereophile- if those readers knew something about the hearing acuity of those reviewers.
If you decide to avoid providing this information, I'd like to know why.
As many have said already, it's not how much a reviewer can hear, it's more about how they hear things relative to other things.
For example, a professional wine sommelier can describe the characters of many different wines because he has spent countless hours reading about and tasting different wines. I may have a much more sensitive palate than any random wine expert, but there is no way I will be able to recognize a California wine vs a French wine. Yet the guy with the educated palate, even though it may not be as sensitive as mine, can. My sensitive palate does not make me more qualified to recommend wine than the sommalier with 20 years of wine tasting and research under his belt.
A 60 year old turntable reviewer may not have the hearing of a teenager, but he's heard thousands of different turntables and thousands of different cartridges over the years. He can instantly (we hope) hear wow and flutter. He can, even if his hearing is limited by age, hear what performs better. He also knows what is better built. He knows if the price is inflated. He evaluates the customer service. His experience in the end, allows him to recommend equipment that will give his readers the best value for money (again, we hope).
It's not just about hearing, although that's a lot of it, it's also about being able to weigh all the other factors that go into audio or any other kind of equipment and putting that all together into an informative and entertaining package.
describe what they are experiencing/hearing.
Reviewers hear a lot of equipment, so have experience we can't duplicate.
Anyway, it's a way to find out something about what's out there.
Up to you at that point.
What gets me is that so many of them use rooms without any treatment. Room acoustics play a huge role on how something sounds. Variations of 20db or more is typical. Imagine a child with an equalizer and that's what a room's frequency response will be with most any speaker. This is from first hand experience as well as seeing posts where someone had posted their room response.
That said it's my guess that many of their reviews can be biased because of circumstances. What I mean is that speaker A may have just have unpleasant peaks or dips in Joe's room but in Sally's room the peaks and dips will be in different places which will affect their opinion of a speaker. I respect their opinions but not nearly so much as I did before I learned more about room acoustics.
Room treatments minimize this problem to a substantial degree. To me room treatments should be in every single professional critics listening room so that all speakers get a fair shake. Audiograms could be important also but being that we all have our own opinions I think it's a moot point.
But it would give some people another reason for criticizing a review they don't like for other reasons.
preferably from a teacher strict and strong with the succinctness factor.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Since many of us here on the Asylum recommend components maybe we should publish our hearing tests. IQ might also be helpful
Ahendler wrote :
Since many of us here on the Asylum recommend components maybe we should publish our hearing tests. IQ might also be helpful
IQ is revealed implicitly in the quality of writing/thinking of the poster.
It was a joke
These have just as much impact on audio reviews as the reviewer's hearing IMHO.
Faultless hearing does not guarantee good tastes
I'm deaf in one ear due to a medical condition but I can still hear differences in amps as example, which is more than the "all amps sound the same crowd" can muster.
"I'm deaf in one ear due to a medical condition"
You might be able to fix/improve that, given modern medical miracles. Check in with a good otologist.
Oh, and... The Harman/Kardon and Sony integrated amps of yester-year (1980) sounded vastly different (edit: from each other). I bought the H/K 505.
I believe both audio critics AND audiophile consumers should get their hearing tested. The consumer could then compare their hearing acuity with that of critics. Thus, reviews by critics with hearing most closely matching that of a particular consumer would likely be more relevant than those reviews by critics with hearing capabilities that diverged from the consumer. Net result would be improved correlation betw reviews and consumer experience. We would refer to this enlightened state of affairs as "Critic Reviews Authenticated Permanently" or "CRAP".
But you could do this just by listening to a bunch of gear and then ranking said gear. Then look for reviewers who like the same stuff.
It was a joke! However, I AM a firm believer in in the concept of "Know thy reviewer". The problem with this re high performance audio is that I also believe too many reviews are ah---"influenced" by the presence of "industry accommodation" pricing many reviewers receive. Makes relative value judgements more difficult. Really a subject for a different thread...if it even warrants further discussion at all.
...as a reviewer you can get industry accommodation pricing on ANY and EVERY piece of audio equipment you want, whether you review it or not.
A rave review doesn't change the price.
So how does that affect the reviewer's judgement?
...If a reviewer raves over a $10K list something-or-other so much that he "purchased the review sample" (for $6K) was the rave over a $10K something or a $5-6K something? Would the review have been so ravey if the reviewer would have to pay the higher list or "street" price? Are reviewers above all this? Or should review consumers account for industry accommodation pricing and adjust value expectations accordingly?
Just an opinion but I believe the high performance audio review industry has lost a lot of credibility in recent years due in part to loss of transparent price vs performance evaluations. Reminds me of the US health care biz...so maybe it's endemic in the current culture and we just accept it.
Steve I can't speak for other reviewers but I can tell you it has cost me more to be a reviewer than I have gotten out of being a reviewer.
But let's take a $10k speaker - the reviewer may get it for around $6k but the first point is no one pays list - if you are an established customer of a dealer and you have a good relationship with a dealer chances are you are able to get most $10k speakers for between $8k-$9k. You will be getting 10-20% off and several dealers have offered me that before I was a reviewer. So the reviewer is getting 20% off what a "good customer" is getting.
BUT the customer is getting a brand new product. The review is buying a "used" product since once the reviewer opens the box and starts playing it it is no longer a new item and can't be sold as a new item.
Second hand items are typically down 40% of retail list - so chances are if you go out and look at second hand $10k list speakers you will pay $6k which is what a reviewer pays. I have directly experienced this where the manufacturer dealer has offered me an item that I can buy for the same or less on the second hand market.
I am a reviewer in Hong Kong and the one thing you may like about it is that there is no reviewer rate - you have to buy the review sample up front. So when I say in my review with the Line Magnetic 219IA, 215CD player and 502CA DAC that I bought the item - I paid the retail price for those items! I also paid full retail price for the KEF LS-50, and I paid what the dealer asked for my Audio Note speakers. Clearly I am not doing this right eh? :)
I'd say the bigger issue is that some reviewers can become a-holes to certain companies if they don't get a big enough discount. They will say to manufacturer ABC "manufacturer XYZ gave me 70% off why do you only give 40%?" and then they will jump ship - start reviewing XYZ and then continuously make snide remarks and broadsides against ABC because ABC didn't play ball and give in to the "demand/bribe".
But you are correct to doubt for "some" reviewers in the sense that they may be choosing stuff because of a "deal" - everyone is looking for a deal. I see so many audiophiles on forums say "should I buy this - I can get a deal on it" or "such and such is 60% so I bought it" to which I always think - if all this stuff is marked down so heavily then it NEVER sold at the original asking price. Something isn't GOOD because it is 70% off. All indications in fact are likely the Opposite.
I never see 50% off sales from Shindo, Audio Note, and other top makers. The reason Speaker X is selling for 70% off at Music Direct is because no one F-ing wanted the piece of crap at 100%. And they can't get rid of the garbage fast enough. But hey "it's a deal".
As my dad always said - " Many people know the price of everything and the value of nothing." They can't get past the sticker price. It doesn't matter if it sounds good - the price is better. I'd rather pay $3,000 for an amp and get something that truly satisfies me than some other amp sells for $6000 but that I can get for $2500. Ooh what a bargain - until you listen and realize that no the $3000 amp that never ever goes on sale and has sold for 25 years and prices rise not fall might actually have something going for it. While that $6000 amp has been filled with a lot of review hot air and in 5 years probably won't be on the market and in the used shop will fetch $1200.
What I would do if I were paying attention to reviews is a three pronged approach
1) read the reviews of reviewers who hear things like you do.
[I am a SET HE guy so I don't read reviews of reviewers who buy high negative feedback Class A/B amplifiers or speakers of the slim line design of several woofers in a tall box with a metal tweeter on top. To me virtually all of these designs are utterly vapid to downright appalling. IMO these reviewers don't know what quality sound is. It doesn't matter if I am right or they are right - it's that they're not right for me.
2)Consensus over time - does the specific product get very good reviews across many magazines and over a long period of time? If the product gets raves from say 8 magazines over and over for 20 years - then gee it just may be a really good product. An example would be Magnepan. I don't care for them but I don't deny them their due. The bottom line is they are definitely worth your time to try. (But see number 1 and number one doesn't love them then chances are you may not love them either).
3)Factoring in number 1 and 2 - you could also find out some tertiary factors such as the typical buyer of the product and perhaps if you know a dealer who is actually trustworthy you can find out the history of trade ins. Ie if you look at the raved about EFG speakers that win a bunch of editor's choice awards or product of the years - how many of them get traded in after three months and for what?
4) A blind test might not be a bad idea either. If the product that your number 1 reviewer bought AND where number 2 has been satisfied AND meets number 3 - AND also wins the blind level matched sessions you have a lot of very good indications that the product is really good. My latest speakers that I bought meet numbers 1,2,3 and 4. And most importantly meet my litmus test when listening for myself.
Interesting perspective on the situation.
An idealistic approach on this would be the Consumers Reports/Comsumers Union model: anonymously purchase samples from real dealers and go from there. CU isn't perfect esp considering their tendency for covert political agendas but they get closer to the ideal. I also realize high performance audio reviewing won't be going this way and may actually be heading the other way (pay-to-play) as web based zines replace print.
...reviews audio equipment, too. Do you find their audio reviews useful?
The audio review magazines are entertainment for a hobby and are struggling to stay in business with the aging population.
...sometimes CR has been useful in the past but they really don't do HiPo audio...at least the last time I looked. And yeah, the remaining print mags (and ezines) are entertaining reads more than anything else these days, at least for me. As such, there are better ways to be entertained so on the cusp of letting my two subs expire.
Agree and i have similar rules . :)
1. I will only look at reviews with objective bench data , well unless you're concerned about packaging, delivery process and customer service , so i wont read a subjective only review without objective measurements, rare exception being Mikey Fremer , i usually get a good laugh and feel for where he is going.
2. No pictures or very little are the worst i do avoid subjective webzines and mags reviews without good pictures , a lot of good pictures would give one a reason to actually take a look just to see the great pictures.
3. I tend to stay away from wide baffle, lossy sounding speakers , so reviews on them means nothing to me really , much worse without measurements ..
4. This objective/subjective process is nothing new or unusual , its the same succesful process regardless of review , take Playboy for eg. They get it , Great pictures , subjective review on personality, education, desires , blah , blah and last but not least , Objective measurements to impress those so inclined...
Your method is perfectly valid - whatever gets you enjoying the music is the main thing. My 4 points are as I say, suggestions.
I continue to listen to speakers and amps that don't fit my general preferences. I am currently evaluating/reviewing some items that don't fit my usual preferences in design and they are hugely impressive and hugely affordable. So affordable that they probably won't get taken seriously enough which is a shame.
...I can tell you from experience that reviewers don't think about accommodation pricing when they are reviewing a piece of equipment.
Any comparisons should be/and are done based on list price.
If a reviewer decides to buy a $10k component at $6k why would he compare it to anything but other $10k components he could get for $6k?
It seems like the only people obsessing over this are the ones who don't get accommodation prices.
And there is nothing else even remotely like healthcare pricing and value.
The usual accommodation is 40% of the list price. So if the speaker is 10k the reviewer will pay $6k. But this is true of all $10k speakers so the reviewer is STILL going to choose his favorite one.
Now some maker may give a reviewer a free one. Not much you can do there. But I doubt that is standard practice. Long term loan is a free one. If the loan is 6 months and they take it back that is different than 5 year loan until the new one comes out. Ask TAS about how long their loans are for.
Well it is a two way street - I have been offered free equipment and turned it down because the price was too high.
I don't want to have to put something in my equipment list or stand by unless I actually stand by it.
I am not going to buy something only because I could get a discount on the item. 4everyoung below indicated that VPI didn't want to give out more "free" turntables. Which suggests that a lot of reviewers got free ones.
And it probably worked given how big VPI is in the field - some manufacturers view giving stuff away as a cost of marketing. In Hong Kong they view it as a bribe.
If the thing is being offered for free - it probably isn't worth having.
Accommodation pricing is a courtesy offered to the entire industry, not just reviewers. For example, an employee of a hifi store may qualify or a tech at a stereo repair shop. It's still up to the manufacturer and they set the price. And they can and do say no.
Audio Research refused to sell me a preamp I was interned in buying. They didn't really have a reason. I have never reviewed or owned any ARC products. Maybe because I was writing for TAS at the time and there was some kind of issue with them that I was unaware of?
And VPI said no because they said they couldn't afford to give away any more free turntables to reviewers. I wanted to buy a turntable not get one free. But I'd love to know who did get all the free VPI turntables. Stand up and be counted.
Both of these instances happened a long time ago so things may have changed now. I never called either back again. The point here being that accommodation pricing is not a guarantee, at least not in my experience. I did purchase a few review samples such as my Coincident speakers and Atma-Sphere preamp and am still happy with both after at least a decade of use.
Please forgive any typos. I haven't had my morning coffee yet.
...such that you couldn't walk into a dealer and purchase whatever it is you wanted OR is it that they wouldn't provide you with factory direct, industry accommodation pricing? Can't see how a dealer could refuse to sell you something unless you really pissed them off in some manner. Not clear from what you wrote.
She wrote: "I wanted to buy a turntable not get one free."
If you don't become the ocean, you'll be seasick everyday ...
- Leonard Cohen
...was the two companies refused to sell equipment to her at industry accommodation pricing.
"Audio Research refused to sell me a preamp I was interned in buying. They didn't really have a reason. I have never reviewed or owned any ARC products. Maybe because I was writing for TAS at the time and there was some kind of issue with them that I was unaware of?
And VPI said no because they said they couldn't afford to give away any more free turntables to reviewers. I wanted to buy a turntable not get one free. But I'd love to know who did get all the free VPI turntables. Stand up and be counted."
In neither paragraph did she state that she was seeking accommodation pricing. Accommodation pricing might have been implied but not clearly...to me at least.
I mention accommodation pricing in both.
Have a great day1
...had you stated instead:
"Audio Research refused to sell me at at accomodation pricing a preamp I was interned in buying. They didn't really have a reason. I have never reviewed or owned any ARC products. Maybe because I was writing for TAS at the time and there was some kind of issue with them that I was unaware of?" etc.
there would be no doubt what was going on.
I guess I'm grammar and style dense.
Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning? lol
I'd love to stay and chat but I'm having a rummage sale in the rain today and need to bring all my old gear back inside.
Have a nice day.
I am older than most.
Yet, when I sit with younger people, including audiophiles - who certainly have far better hearing from a measurement standpoint - I will consistently point out things in the sound that they simply missed.
Do I hear as well as these folks do? From an audiologist's standpoint, definitely not.
Yet this phenomenon occurs as much today as in the past.
So I do not worry about reviewer's technical measurements. If they have great measured hearing but cannot hear differences in components or set-up, what good is that?
The real question about measurable age-related hearing loss and good audio work is this: how is it that many of the great engineers are still going great work well into the 60's and beyond?
Steve Addabbo is 66, Bob Ludwig is 72, Bob Power 65, Steve Berkowitz 58, Tony Visconti is 73, Jon Gordon is 60-something, Rupert Neve is 80... so many more.
I've assisted for some of these guys, and they can instantly recognize tiny little nits in a mix faster than almost all young engineers, including the long overdue growing ranks of female engineers. There is clearly a disconnect between the ability to recognize hearing test sine waves and the ability to hear deep into a mix, including the very low-level high-frequency harmonics that are so important.
If you made a recording that needed mastering, would you not use Bob Ludwig because of his age? Tracking and mixing is very nit-picky; mastering is hyper-nit-picky. It's all about the low-level tiny stuff. If age-related hearing loss barred an experienced engineer from mastering, Ludwig would have been out of the business ages ago. If Rupert couldn't hear how his gear handles that stuff, he would have had to retire *decades* ago.
In a related vein, orchestra conductors often do their best work well into their 80's. They also have to be able to hear the tiny stuff, and they do. If you doubt it, sit in on a rehearsal; it can be a real eye-opener.
My own guess is that our brains both compensate for physical hearing changes, and continue to learn from every performance or recording they pay attention to. I'd love to see someone research this.
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
Good points. Although, some maybe a little off-target. I had the opportunity to listen to Bub Ludwig a couple years ago at AES in L.A. He opened my ears to a certain type of lossy compression distortion which most of us wouldn't notice except in the extreme. Well, he played the "extreme" sample, and then subsequently less and less compression (data, not level), and even at very low levels of compression, it was still audible. This is a classic case of learning to hear something, and then being able to hear it even when you hadn't before, because now you know what to listen for! Bob and I chatted briefly later, and he is a very nice guy.
Our good friend John Curl recently turned 70-"something" ;). Yet, he's quite capable of hearing small differences between an SACD and LP album of the same recording.
This brings me to a very important point: It's not the ability to hear high frequencies which is most important, but rather our ability to hear and understand differences in tonality and definition. Here, when I say "definition", I mean the difference between "pop" and "paaaap". Most musical instruments don't produce much energy above about 10-12 KHz. Even when they do, we're talking about a very small amount of 2 or 3 more harmonics. People who know about musical instrument harmonics know this.
To your point about mastering...
Mastering has more to do with making every track have the same overall level and the same "sound" than hyper-nit-picking over details.
Gotta go. More later.
FR is one aspect - and yes a younger person may be put off by a treble issue he can hear that a 60 year old reviewer can't. Experience doesn't make up for a lot of this and I'll give you (yes an Audio Note SET example).
I was an audiophile from about 14 and went to shops weekly to hear everything there was in the greater Vancouver area (which basically covered every major hi-fi brand). I heard Audio Note and SET and it blew everything prior away. Then 10 year later lo and behold so so so many veteran reviewers 20 years older than me and been reviewing for decades who have WAY WAY more experience also bought in - so with total inexperience in comparison to some of these reviewers with 4 decades of products came to the same conclusion I can too after 4 (FOUR) minutes of listening to it versus the leading B&W speaker of the time.
Don't buy into this experience nonsense. There is no audio reviewer degree or rigorous testing. It is not a requirement that you have an engineering degree to drive your car - you in fact very well may be a vastly better DRIVER than the engineer who can tell you about every aspect of the vehicle and that is true with audio - the requirement is this - you listen - how does the listening make you feel?
You don't need some self proclaimed expert telling you what to like. You find reviewers who share your opinion and your likes and then when they say check out brand X because hey it's really good and is a bargain - that's the thing to go listen to because you know the ears giving the advice.
And regardless everyone hears stuff virtually the same which is why everyone on the board will be able to recognize Sade from Madonna and with more experience when they off pitch and then instruments and so on. There was a distortion test on the net people were do to determine how low in level you could detect distortion which is fine enough. I did quite well but no one bothered to ask if the distortion was bothersome. It really wasn't even at levels it was more easy to detect. So there is a "does it matter" element to such thing.
Use the musicians as you analogy - two people can listen to Tupac at the same volume in the same room - one will hate it the other will love it. The hearing of it is the same but the music just doesn't appeal to one's sensibilities based on that person's entire upbringing.
And that's the same with stereos - speaker have certain general attributes and detriments based on their design and your ear gravitates to certain things. I gravitate to tone, weight, cohesion, body, and midrange and dynamics (midi, Micro, macro) over a speaker that is weak in all of these things but has flatter frequency response.
> I sent the folowing to the editors of STEREOPHILE- and received no reply.
The STletters address is an alias for a folder in my inbox.
> Via Email: STletters@entusiastnetwork.com
I didn't receive your email because there is a typo in the address you
> For the sake of honesty, transparency and credibility, I propose that your
> reviewers post results of their hearing tests- standard as well as extended
> high-frequency audiometry.
This issue has been raised before. Both Kal Rubinson and I have published
our hearing ability - see, for example, fig.5 at the link below - but to
the best of my knowledge, no other reviewers for any other magazines have
> > I sent the folowing to the editors of STEREOPHILE- and received no reply.
> > Via Email: STletters@entusiastnetwork.com
> I didn't receive your email because there is a typo in the address you
> used (above).
This issue was important enough to the poster for him to comment on the
Asylum, yet he hasn't bothered to respond. Sign of a troll, I guess :-)
JA, I don't know why you even respond to this BS. You are a better man than I. All of us are losing our hearing, I have lost a lot. But I would trust a half-deaf Fremer over someone less qualified with perfect hearing.
As I slowly slip into the dark cesspool of audiophalia neurosis. . . .
My speaker building site
> JA, I don't know why you even respond to this BS.
As the original poster is/was a Stereophile reader, in some small way he
pays my salary. I try always to respond in such situations. I am just
puzzled why, after I explained that the reason I didn't respond to his
complaint was he got my email address wrong, he didn't acknowledge that
Don't sweat it. Lots of us don't get around to following up until days later. Heck, I still owe ...
On the other hand, he might actually be a troll.
MLB umpires are required to have 20-20 vision (corrected or uncorrected)
But with the logic I'm reading in these comments, an umpire blind in one eye would be perfectly fine for officiating a ball game....
Perhaps all the reasonable folks have abandoned this forum... the trolls have chased them away.
No, what people are telling you is that there is a difference between "hearing" and "listening".
It's like the difference between "reading" and "comprehending".
...you will see this subject has been raised and shot down numerous times before.
Critical listening is about training to see, if you will, the various trees in the forest.
Not just your ability to see the top of the forest.
Whatever hearing acuity curve you have is identical for listening to live music and for listening to recorded music at home.
"Whatever hearing acuity curve you have is identical for listening to live music and for listening to recorded music at home."
That's about the silliest rationalization I've ever stumbled upon. How can a critic (or any other listener) meaningfully compare the performance of amplifier 'X' to amplifier 'Z', if they can't adequately hear the full frequency range output of the 2 amps, as is heard by a normal, healthy human ear?
With lenses, what's the bottom line that you can read on a standard eye chart. Inadequate performance and one's driver's licence is suspended (for your own safety as well as those with who you share the road). Ditto one's audio critic license.
Since loss of high frequencies with age (presbycusis) is normal, how old is a normal healthy human reader?
And while we are at it, spectral sensitivity is only one of several hearing attributes.
...the biggest change in hearing acuity is the loss of high frequencies as we age.
As JA has pointed out, he refrains from discussing the very high frequencies.
How much musical information occurs above 12kHz or even 10kHz? As you can see from the chart, probably 90% of the music is in the midrange (between 100Hz and 8kHz).
Regardless of extended HF hearing above the most important aspect of audio reviewing is the reviewer's critical listening skills.
Even with 20/20 vision, many can't see the forest for the trees.
Strange chart , no midbass ! Midrange at 240 hz ! Subbass at @60 hz ....
Uhhh Huh ...
Nice chart. Attribution?
Momentarily disregarding charts and statistics, I know from experience how the value of the resistor for the Tympani IV-A tweeter has changed over the last 25 years (in the same listening room/position). To derive *any* pleasure at all in listening to my 'test' standard CDs, I have NO resistor in place. ~30 years ago I started out by using Magnepan's supplied 2.5 ohm resistor. If I used that resistor today, my listening pleasure would be zilch. (Needless to add, I don't merely listen for the higher frequencies as heard by my dog.)
> > .you will see this subject has been raised and shot down numerous times before.
Critical listening is about training to see, if you will, the various trees in the forest.
Not just your ability to see the top of the forest.
Whatever hearing acuity curve you have is identical for listening to live music and for listening to recorded music at home. < <
So, a reviewer who can't hear much above 10,000 Hz is perfectly qualified to make sage pronouncements about the top octave performance of a given speaker / amplifier / DAC /phono setup?
THat's not rational.
... what difference does THAT make to you?
'Course that's way better than I can do at 87, but then I couldn't care less what a reviewer's hearing is, since the midrange is pretty much all that matters, as you'll find out when you mature :-)
Most, if not all, reviewers I respect can hear anything I need to hear. Training does the rest.
... in the Boxster.
I did find it. Thanks for caring.
I'd love to watch any 87 year old climb into and out of a Boxster, never mind driving it.
Sounds kinda boring to me
Haven't had a car since I moved to NYC in '71, but love the looks of that Porsche model. Presume the driving feel of it is great. Hope I'm as young at heart as you are if I make it to 87!
After you get tested. Then we can match you up with the right reviewer!
Joe Stone Deaf? or Mr. Can Hear a Mosquito Two Blocks Away? or Sir Please Repeat That Cuz my Tinnitus is Screaming Louder Than You?
OK, so why does my hearing matter? Are people buying expensive audio gear based on my reviews?
But, anyway, since you seem to think this is important- here are the results of my most recent (November 2016) extended frequency audiogram plotted on a graph of average pure-tone audiograms in men (top) and women (bottom) grouped by their age in decades (the parameter is age group in years). SO NOW, POST YOURS!!!!
The average population data is from Department of Auditory Neuroscience http://www.iem.cas.cz/en/research/departments/Auditory-Neuroscience/
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: