[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Inexpensive hearing aids



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 all in one place at
>>MSN
>>  Money!
>>


FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!