Slashdot Mirror
Earbud Headphones May Cause Hearing Loss
benr writes "According to an AP report, the earbud headphones that are so popular for ipods and other portable devices may lead to hearing loss. From the article: "The big culprits aren't the devices themselves, but the tiny 'ear bud' style headphones that the music players use. 'Unfortunately, the earbuds are even more likely to cause hearing loss than the muff-type earphones that were used on Walkman and portable CD players'""
I had some old earbud headphones in which the left earbud was dead, and didn't have the time/money to buy new ones. I used them for months with my CD Player, and when I finally did get new headphones, I found my right-ear isn't as good as it use to be. I got new ones about 2 months ago, but my ear still isn't at "peak efficiency". Won't make that mistake twice.
google.slashdot
The big culprits aren't the devices themselves, but the tiny 'ear bud' style headphones that the music players use.
Is it the design of the headphones, or the design of the headphones combined with people listening to their music at higher levels than usual?
" In a study published last year in the journal Ear and Hearing, researchers at Harvard Medical School looked at a variety of headphones and found that, on average, the smaller they were, the higher their output levels at any given volume-control setting. And other studies have shown that because the tiny phones inserted into the ears are not as efficient at blocking outside sounds as the cushioned headsets, users tend to crank up the volume to compensate."
So the problem isn't a technological one, but a psychological one. I'm guessing the in-ear phones like the ones made by Etymotic wouldn't be subject to this phenomenon.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I've got a pair of Shure e2c in-ear-canal phones and they are wonderful at blocking out external noise. Subsequently, I rarely go above 25% on my jukebox now, compared to an average 75% with the crappy bud-style phones. I'm sure the more efficient drivers have something to do with that as well, though.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
The report's claims must be using incredibly cheap phones. Any decent pair of canalphones (see: Shure, Etymotic, Ultimate Ears) will isolate much better than any other pair of headphones out there, allowing the use of lower volumes and an overall reduction of hearing damage/loss. Even the lousy iPod headphones provide better isolation than most cheap headphones in their pricerange nowadays. Will they isolate as well as a Sennheiser HD-280 or a pair of canalphones? No. But they hardly isolate "much worse" than other phones.
How can the Associated Press and its editors find a new news story out of something that has been publicized since the 1940s?
m
To what extent and in what form should the news media re-teach readers basic life lessons (eat a balanced diet, exercise, drink in moderation, don't listen to loud music, etc.)?
How should the press segregate news so that the average reader does not get lowest common denomiator news (e.g., things aimed at those that don't know better or are 5 years old or younger)?
Begin Quote from: "The History of Audiology" http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/aud_history.ht
The History of Audiology
The profession of audiology had its origins in the 1920s when audiometers were first designed for measuring hearing. Interest in this profession surged in the 1940s when soldiers returned from World War II with noise induced hearing loss due to near-by gunfire or to prolonged and unprotected exposure to machinery noise. Others had psychogenic (non-organic) hearing loss as a result of severe emotional and mental stress. The Veterans Administration took a lead role in providing hearing testing and rehabilitation through hearing aids, auditory training, and speechreading (lipreading) programs.
Since the 1940s and 1950s, the study of hearing, hearing loss, and audiologic rehabilitation has escalated and expanded. New tests of hearing have been developed including evaluations of functions of the outer ear, middle ear, cochlea, acoustic nerve, and related brain areas. Techniques using physiologic measurements that were in the research stages 20-30 years ago are now routine.
Modern technology and computerization have dramatically influenced hearing aids. Hearing aids have changed from "boxes" in shirt pockets and "cords" to the ear to highly sophisticated "completely-in-the-ear canal" aids. Virtually any kind of hearing loss can be improved by a hearing aid. Cochlear implants are increasingly common and successful. Through cochlear implantation, a destroyed or damaged cochlea can be by-passed and the acoustic nerve can be stimulated directly.
Today, audiologists and the practice of audiology have widespread visibility. Audiology has a presence in public schools, health care centers, private practices, nursing homes, community agencies, the military, hospitals. colleges and universities, hearing aid dispensing centers, hearing and speech centers. They test hearing and listening ability; they fit hearing aids and assistive listening devices; they provide training and rehabilitation programs for individuals with hearing and listening disorders; they participate on health care and educational teams tp plan and provide the most appropriate services.
a) It's called compression. It doesn't clip peaks in the signal; it reduces dynamic range.
b) It's used in radio, highly produced music (like most pop music), and anything even remotely related to advertising, to allow a sound to carry more energy within a constrained peak amplitude range.
c) It's used in mass market movies, especially action movies, to provide more impact. Dramatic movies, serious movies, and indie stuff tend not to use it since it doesn't suit their needs - just like music, where classical, jazz, and most independent artists use compression as a tool for good, not evil (compression isn't inherently bad... if the producer knows how to use it.)
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
We need to be more careful when using audio devices, no matter what they are. A guy down the hall in my dorm turns his music up so loud, I can't even think, unless I close my door. He'll be deaf some day. I myself have a hearing impairment (from hereditary conditions), and I'm doing my best to avoid further damage. A good strategy that my audiologist recommended is to turn the device on at the lowest volume, and while it's playing, slowly turn it up until you can just understand it and stop there. Turning it up any further than that is pointless, and if you get used to higher volumes, and continue to turn it up more, you risk damage to your ears through long-term exposure. This is subjective to everyone, but a good rule is "if you can feel it in your chest, it might be too loud". Using the sound check feature on iTunes and iPod lets you set it and leave it, since it will be at a consistent level from then on. Earbuds are dangerous, because it's direct, unfiltered sound straight into the canal.... But those iPod earbuds aren't all that great anyway, so it's a good thing to replace them.
Remember the saying "don't put anything smaller than your elbow in your ear"? The reason for that is to not damage the eardrum with a q-tip or pen etc. The ears clean themselves when not obstructed, however the regular use of earbuds compacts the wax in your ears against the eardrum and will eventually cause eardrum scrathes or tears as the wax becomes drier and more dense. Then you compound the problem with regular use of earbuds. The purpose of ear wax is to protect the ears, but it must constantly be brushed out naturally by the tiny hairs in your ear and new soft wax will be formed to replace the old. Putting a couple drops of baby oil in each ear each day will at least keep the wax soft enough to maybe give the ears a chance to clean themselves when you finally take the buds out.
Amen to that. I'm from the Ted Nugent generation, and after many LOUD rock concerts (Thanks Hawkwind, for that Sonic Attack that really was), and two solid years of Joy Division and Big Black and other punk and new wave cranked in a factory environment during the infancy of the Walkman era, my ears ring constantly, and I DO have permanent hearing loss.
The ringing is so loud that I can't hear quiet sounds and certain frequencies. It can be extremely annoying too, just ask William Shatner.
Some of the jokes about this are pretty funny, but take a moment and take this stuff seriously, there is no cure for permanent hearing loss or tinnitus, and there may not be in your lifetime. Use high volume in moderation, wear ear plugs to concerts, and always use hearing protection around potentially damaging high volume noises in industry and sport.
You should know that's pretty much a worthless test. That's going to work for shit with consumer audio gear. It is way too far off a flat frequency response to be useful. That's made worse if it's done with speakers, where teh room will interfere.
If I were to do a test like that with my rather nice high-end consumer/low-end pro gear, I would conclude that my hearing was rather above the norm in the 1-2khz range, dipped around 100Hz, but went back up at 60Hz. If I were to repeat that with my rear speakers, Id' get different results.
However the real answer is, of course, my speakers are not flat and my room acoustics suck. The 1-2khz rise is mostly a property of the speakers, but is also partly room based, the 100Hz dip is almost entirely room based, and doesn't happen in other locations in the room. Indeed in a few locations the bass is almost crushing.
In case you are wondering, no I'm not basing this off my ears, I'm basing it off my calibration microphone.
Consumer gear is made to sound good, not be flat. Even exceedingly high end headphones don't have a flat response, it doesn't sound good. Using it to test hearing is rather worthless.
If you are squeamish you may not want to read this. I am now substantially deaf in my left ear (20% hearing over a much-reduced frequency range), owing to a perforated eardrum, which occurred in the course of an agressive fungal infection in the outer ear canal. I suspect that infection was brought on or at least encouraged by the habit of wearing foam-covered earbuds for extended periods, including at night when asleep in bed. All of which was surely foolish, but who would have thought it could result in deafness?
When using earphones, the bacteria population in your ears increases about a thousand times, so better not use them all the time!
I am an audiologist.
This is a completely inaccurate and fully misleading "test"
1) It is very dependent on your setup.
2) Equivalent Loudness is not an accurate measure of hearing ability for too many reasons to name here. Suffice it to say that "thresholds" are how we audiologists measure it.
3) THE "DIAGNOSES" ARE WRONG. Completely. None of them are remotely correct. High-frequency hearing loss almost never indicates a wax buildup or middle ear dysfunction. Mid-frequency (2-5kHz) loss is NOT middle ear dysfunction. Low-frequency (250-500) loss does not indicate noise-induced hearing loss. THEY ARE ALL WRONG, DISREGARD THEM COMPLETELY. Diagnoses can only be given by an audiologist or an ENT physician. And not one of these are anywhere near correct.
4) Hearing loss above 10kHz is natural and doesn't mean anything. Further, persons with normal hearing need a much higher output level at 15kHz than at 500Hz to even detect sound.
The best way to test your hearing? Visit an audiologist. They can help you.
If you want a MUCH more accurate hearing screening, you can visit Freehearingtest.com. It's a screening... not very accurate, but much more so than this. And easy to do as well.
I suggest visiting wikipedia to learn more about hearing loss. Also, the American Academy of Audiology.
The Noisy Ape.
Interesting stuff!
I used an ASR-33 teletype terminal for 5+ years. Doing that has stuffed my hearing. Now, 30+ years later, I have horrible squealing tinnitus. Please youngsters, take care of your hearing. Once you damage the micro-hairs in your cochlea you have damaged them and your hearing for ever. End of sentence. Period. They will not heal. Listen to the programs while you still can.
One of mine was colicky -- went on crying jags five hours long.
A hint: foam earplugs. You can still hear 'em, but they takes the nerve jangling edge off so you can operate like a human being.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Thank you for some reasoned clarity in this discussion. Other recent medical research cites that it is the prolonged exposure to sound is just as damaging (if not more so) than periodic exposure to high-decible sounds.
In short, continuous exposure to music from headphones, earbuds, or any other source prevents the cilia (tiny hair cells that vibrate from sound waves) from resting. Without that chance to rest (vibrate less), they eventually become damaged and cannot transfer sounds as well. I've had a 50Db loss in one ear for almost 20 years (not related to headphones or concerts). One of my sons is almost totally deaf in one ear. Unfortunately, most people don't think about their hearing until it is too late.
HERE IS THE ONE PIECE OF ADVICE I HOPE ALL OF YOU WILL CONSIDER:
Just take those earphones off periodically and rest your ears, just as you should get up and walk away from your computer screen to rest your eyes.
The future holds the promise that technology may eventually allow full bionic ear replacements, but what will you miss while you are waiting?
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...