hearing tests - where and how?

Hi Kal - so apparently the research I read about back then has been called into question in the last twenty years at some point? If so, this is honestly the first I have ever heard of it - as I said, I remember it being discussed in multiple studies not as a theory, but as scientifically proven fact. Perhaps they were indeed based on the same original research, but I don't remember it that way. Certainly there are many people in the audio/music industry that believe it. I would be interested in hearing how this was disproven then, if it has been? Or was the research merely deemed unreliable by someone, which is what you seem to be implying, and if so why, if this is easily put in layman's terms? I am certainly no scientist, but the idea does seem to make sense, even if it hasn't actually been proven reliably. Please feel free to send me an email through the audiogon system if that's easier.

I have tested the hearing of thousands of people and many of them will respond to a tone physically via things like head movement, eye movement and/or a puzzled look on their face exactly when the tone occurs yet won't raise their hand to conform they consciously hear it. At a subconscious level (it certainly seems)they are hearing it but they cannot consciously react and confirm it. This condition I describe above where you see a physical reaction but the person being tested does not respond by raising their hand always occurs within 5 or 10db of their actual conscious threshold where they do raise their hand.

ET

8K is adequate believe it or not. I tested people for five years. 16K is only one octave up. Getting equipment to properly measure higher would be really tough. If you have an HF problem 2,3,4,6 and 8K will show it as will word testing that emphasize consonants that require good HF hearing like words with s,th,ch and so on. I also prefer in the ear tips over over the ear headphones for accuracy and relief from ambient room noise for the most accurate results.

ET

Electroid,

I think I agree with Shadorne, who said this:

"Up to 12K is important. Higher than that is not really that relevant to music."

I had an audiogram a few years back and asked them to measure out to 12 kHz, which was as high as they could go, and one "step" above the 8 kHz where they usually stop. I had a slight rolloff.

The reason I think I agree with Shadorne (other than the fact that he seems really smart and proficient based on his posts to other threads and his own virtual system thread) is because I've heard those tones higher than 12 kHz with my "AUDIO-CD Hearing Test" CD, and they're REEEEEALLY high. Not pleasant to the ear, and would seem to be about on the same frequency as tape hiss, or maybe even higher.

So anyway, why not test out to 12 kHz for "us" audiophiles?

I agree that higher would be better. My point was that there are few people that are flat at 8K that don't have roll off at both 12 and 16K say but not enouh to deteriorate their HF hearing. As we loose hearing our brains compensate which is why people often aren't aware of a mild to medium hearing loss that happens over say a ten or more year peiod. Also it would be a lot more costly to both pay for and maintain calibration on equipment that measures higher.

I use my signal generator and can still hear 16K. You're right it can be painful and be careful a steady HF sinewave can damge the tweeter and your hearing.

ET