The audiologist, the ears, the brain and audio

[gvalent]

Last week I took my father to see an audiologist. Quite interesting on how the experience related to audio.

Over the last several years I’ve noticed that my father’s hearing had been deteriorating and that recently it was getting much worse and I knew it was beginning to bother him.
After much prodding he finally agreed to have his hearing checked, out and a visit to an audiologist was arranged.

I went with him to get a full understanding of what was going on, hoping that it was something simple like earwax.
The audiologist had very high-tech setup and my dad was given a series of tests. The conclusion was that he has in fact lost a large portion of his hearing, but that he would good candidate for a hearing aid. This was not what my father wanted to hear.

The audiologist asked my father if he wanted to be set up to hear what the hearing aid would sound like. Before my dad could answer I said blurted out, “yes”.

After about 10 minutes of set up, adjusting a hearing aid to his prescription the audiologist inserted the devises into my dad’s ears.

I’m really excited about this and couldn’t wait to see what my father would say about his newfound hearing ability.

Then, just before he activating the inserted hearing aids to begin working, the audiologist told my dad that the new sound he would be hearing will probably not sound good to him. That he would be able to “hear” better but that the sound will be perceived as grating and harsh and could even cause some discomfort.

The audiologist went on to explain that his brain is used to what he has been hearing and it would take about two weeks of usage before his brain was able to adjust to the new sound that the hearing aids would give him.

The hearing aids were activated and I immediately started asking my father questions like “how does it sound?” “how to like it?”. He looked at me and said, “I don’t like the sound of your voice”, along with other negative comments.

This got me thinking about how this relates to audio issues such as break-in for speaker, electronics and cables, preferences and dislikes in auditioning audio equipment.

I certainly have had instances where my listening conclusions could well have been made based on what I’m used to.

 

[guest102]

If you hear something differently often enough it does become the new norm. That happened with speakers and headphones when I took the equalizer out of my system. The mind recoils and rebels for a bit, but it does eventually adapt.

 

[Arkay]

This is absolutely true. We adapt to what we hear most often (within reasonable limits), and some changes that ultimately would be more satisfying, may not be in the short run. It applies to audio gear preferences, just as it does to hearing aids.

This is a part of the reason (but only part) why some people prefer single-driver/coaxial full-range speakers, some prefer horn-centered systems, and some prefer line arrays. It's also partly why some people prefer "East coast" sound and others prefer "West coast" sound, and others prefer vintage Infinities. It's partly why some people prefer SET systems with efficient speakers, and others prefer low-impedance drivers with high-current amplifiers, and partly why some prefer solid state and others, tubes.

The key in all this, though, is that the audiologist could measure your dad's hearing, and adjust the aid to enable him to hear MORE frequencies more accurately/evenly, by objective measurement. Whether things sounded better or not, subjectively, he was objectively hearing "better" sound.

I won't get into how this relates to some of the audio choices I mentioned above; that would mean donning more than just a flame-proof suit! But it does suggest that perhaps some of us are ultimately limiting our ULTIMATE (potential) listening pleasure, by continuing to prefer systems that sound good to us because of what we are used to hearing, rather than what might be best-sounding, if we gave ourselves a chance to fully adjust.

That said, what matters most is our enjoyment of our systems, and since we can adjust to a range of options, and enjoy any of them, does it really matter if our choices are not "ultimately optimal"? The aim is the enjoyment, not some "objective" pursuit of perfection. There will always be some degree of trade-offs and limitations in systems, anyway.

 

[theophile]

This is absolutely true. We adapt to what we hear most often (within reasonable limits), and some changes that ultimately would be more satisfying, may not be in the short run. It applies to audio gear preferences, just as it does to hearing aids.

This is a part of the reason (but only part) why some people prefer single-driver/coaxial full-range speakers, some prefer horn-centered systems, and some prefer line arrays. It's also partly why some people prefer "East coast" sound and others prefer "West coast" sound, and others prefer vintage Infinities. It's partly why some people prefer SET systems with efficient speakers, and others prefer low-impedance drivers with high-current amplifiers, and partly why some prefer solid state and others, tubes.

The key in all this, though, is that the audiologist could measure your dad's hearing, and adjust the aid to enable him to hear MORE frequencies more accurately/evenly, by objective measurement. Whether things sounded better or not, subjectively, he was objectively hearing "better" sound.

I won't get into how this relates to some of the audio choices I mentioned above; that would mean donning more than just a flame-proof suit! But it does suggest that perhaps some of us are ultimately limiting our ULTIMATE (potential) listening pleasure, by continuing to prefer systems that sound good to us because of what we are used to hearing, rather than what might be best-sounding, if we gave ourselves a chance to fully adjust.

That said, what matters most is our enjoyment of our systems, and since we can adjust to a range of options, and enjoy any of them, does it really matter if our choices are not "ultimately optimal"? The aim is the enjoyment, not some "objective" pursuit of perfection. There will always be some degree of trade-offs and limitations in systems, anyway.

I agree, however I would qualify my agreement on the ground that despite our many similarities, people remain individuals. There would be many, perhaps the greatest majority who would fit the template that you have proposed. There would also on the other hand be individuals who are predisposed to allowing each situation to have its own 'voice'. Especially in this pursuit of audio, because they wish to give each differing situation a chance to present 'its own case' so to speak. The analogy would be going into a debate with an open mind. Prepared to give each debater a hearing with the intent to weigh-up one's conclusion as a consequence of and in response to the arguments presented. As opposed to attending a debate with a fixed and inflexible predetermined dogmatic mindset knowing full well that despite the strength of any argument put forward, one would not waver from one's prior stance under any circumstances.

I feel certain that there exist even in the milieu of audio appreciation, individuals who enjoy the thrill of discovery sufficiently that they will attend a demonstration with an open mind. Prepared to give any item a hearing. Prepared to allow their preconceptions to be swept away should the situation present that.

Not all minds are made up at all times. Even if the world is chock full of those minds which are convinced that their conclusions about anything are sound before they have heard a single argument raised.