4 ms·

I'm curious whether you would agree with me that the article is muddled when, for instance, it includes this portion: ------- A hearing researcher at House Ea

I'm curious whether you would agree with me that the article is muddled when, for instance, it includes this portion: ------- A hearing researcher at House Ear Institute is concerned that the loudness of new albums could possibly harm listeners' hearing, particularly that of children.[48] The Journal of General Internal Medicine has published a paper suggesting increasing loudness may be a risk factor in hearing loss.[50][51] ------- I assume that a "psychoacoustic effect" would not harm anyone's hearing, whereas volume - i.e. the measure of energy ouput - would, right? (And I know that agreeing with this statement doesn't invalidate your main point, I'm simply curious whether you agree with me that a reduction in dynamic range doesn't seem likely to harm anyone's hearing.) In terms of your main point, I'm not sure I agree, but I really only have my own experience to draw upon, and am quite willing to concede the point. But to me, music with less dynamic range doesn't sound "louder", it sounds "more even", or something along those lines. One of the things my wife does that drives me nuts when watching movies is she acts like a human compressor: she keeps the remote in her hand and turns down loud parts and turns up quiet parts. If I put the volume at a level that is appropriate, where quiet dialogue is audible but the loud parts (e.g. a car chase) are loud (as the filmmaker intended!) she will exclaim, "it's too loud!" I offer this single anecdote as evidence that perhaps music with greater dynamic range can actually be perceived as louder, depending on the circumstances?

avianlyric 5y ago
> I assume that a "psychoacoustic effect" would not harm anyone's hearing, whereas volume - i.e. the measure of energy ouput - would, right? Not quite true. It’s a psychoacoustic effect because it’s something that can’t be observed outside of someone’s conscience, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a mechanical component to the effect. Most importantly, the effect almost certainly has a substantial mechanical component that’s determined by how effectively your hearing system can couple sounds from your outer-ear into your inner-ear. Like all mechanical systems it’s transfer function is non-linear, it’s much better at coupling some frequencies that other frequencies. If the compression done to the music is pushing the sound to in a frequency band that’s more strongly coupled, then energy output from the speaker might be the same, but the amount that ends up in your inner ear will increase, bringing with it higher chances of permanent damage.

avianlyric 5y ago

> I assume that a "psychoacoustic effect" would not harm anyone's hearing, whereas volume - i.e. the measure of energy ouput - would, right? Not quite true. It’s a psychoacoustic effect because it’s something that can’t be observed outside of someone’s conscience, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a mechanical component to the effect. Most importantly, the effect almost certainly has a substantial mechanical component that’s determined by how effectively your hearing system can couple sounds from your outer-ear into your inner-ear. Like all mechanical systems it’s transfer function is non-linear, it’s much better at coupling some frequencies that other frequencies. If the compression done to the music is pushing the sound to in a frequency band that’s more strongly coupled, then energy output from the speaker might be the same, but the amount that ends up in your inner ear will increase, bringing with it higher chances of permanent damage.