EQ to help your hearing loss

  • This video showed up as recommended in youtube for me


    I was immediately interested in figuring out how they did this and does it work? So in about 10 minutes I created my own version of what I thought could be similar. The results are pretty amazing actually!
    What you will need to do this is an EQ match program and a test tone generator, or get free sine samples online.



    1. Create tracks like the picture below. Each track has the sine frequency labeled on the name of the track with -20db


    [Blocked Image: https://snag.gy/DdhE1g.jpg]


    2. Run all the frequencies for the Left at the same time and make sure you are not clipping. Then on your interface lower the headphone volume until you can barely hear it.
    3. Next on the main track for Left insert your EQ match program. I am using Ozone 7
    4. With all the frequencies running click on Target Audio in Ozone (your program might have a different name,) Capture that. See pic below
    [Blocked Image: https://snag.gy/JoZVpw.jpg]


    5.Mute all tracks except the main track with ozone and 12.5kHz track.
    6. Adjust the gain in the tone generator program or the track itself if you are using a wave file to barely hear the tone.
    7. Mute 12.5 and enable track 8kHz. Repeat step 6 for the rest of the tones one by one.
    8. Enable all tone tracks for Left and open Ozone in the main Left channel. Capture this as the Reference Audio.
    9. Click Matching and set Smoothing to 50% and Amount to 100%
    10. Start at #2 and repeast all steps for the right side.


    My results


    Left ear
    [Blocked Image: https://snag.gy/SCOwAP.jpg]


    Right ear
    [Blocked Image: https://snag.gy/ScVY1s.jpg]


    Now use those master tracks for left and right. Put your other tracks inside those to hear the difference.
    For the test I have an IR running on the master to make my HD600 have a flat response. IR was created from the Sonarworks plugin


    Who knows if I am even close to what they are doing or if this improves anything?! But for me it sounds pretty damn awesome! If you already have an EQ Match program give it a shot.

  • I worked on this more this morning and further refined my technique. When adjusting the headphone volume find the loudest frequencies and lower the volume so you can barely hear them. That way you are not lowering that volume when you reach that particular frequency. Another thing is the smoothing I changed to 71% which felt just right. Honestly music has never sounded so good to my ears. I did not realize how damaged my hearing was until I A/B with this method.


    Maybe I will do a normal crappy mix like I always do and then with the EQ match on, remix it. Should be interesting to see if this has improved my hearing for mixing. At least with headphones, I have yet to test this with actual speakers.


    The BLUE that is higher than the Yellow is hearing loss


    Left ear
    [Blocked Image: https://snag.gy/UpKLyf.jpg]


    Right ear
    [Blocked Image: https://snag.gy/p5BJan.jpg]

  • This is all very good thinking @schreckmusic, which got me thinking about this quite a bit.


    The only problem (or 'flaw' if you will) with this design is that the relative calibration of the frequency bands and your own sensitivity to them (either hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity i.e. hearing loss in a specific frequency band) will work quite alright, but the absolute calibration is missing.
    With absolute calibration I mean to exactly determine how loud your loudspeaker, in this case headphones, really are.
    And as we all know there are a lot of variables, headphone impedance the most important one of them.
    It could absolutely work if we could do a proper SPL measurement of the headphones beforehand and then go from there.


    If there's no absolute calibration you will apply your corrective EQ curve and it will be correct in how it looks like on the x-axis, but it may be far off on the y-axis.
    Am I making sense to you? ;)

  • @Ingolf I did use an IR I created from the Sonarworks plugin that is supposed to give a flat response. This is running the entire time on the master. Granted these headphones are several years old and the Sonarworks did measure a HD600. They just did not measure mine. So I am sure it's not perfect.


    But it's a fun experiment that actually does help my hearing. Now the test is to see if my mix will improve or I'll still suck? :S

  • @Ingolf I did use an IR I created from the Sonarworks plugin that is supposed to give a flat response. This is running the entire time on the master. Granted these headphones are several years old and the Sonarworks did measure a HD600. They just did not measure mine. So I am sure it's not perfect.


    But it's a fun experiment that actually does help my hearing. Now the test is to see if my mix will improve or I'll still suck? :S

    I got you. Sonarworks is awesome and I use it myself not only with headphones but also calibrated my speakers for my room.
    However, what I was meaning to say about an absolute calibration regarding the SPL and thus how many dB of correction of EQ should be applied is a different matter.

  • Did you buy their microphone for testing or use a different one? How is the program with monitors? Has it helped your mixing?

    Yes, I bought the bundle with the calibration mic.
    I can say I'm much more confident with my mixes now, especially when applying EQ, because through the calibration I discovered my room has some weird nodes in the 100-125 Hz area where my mixes used to stack up around this frequency and tended to sound muddy very easily.
    >> much better now.

  • My 1st redo with using the EQ match for hearing loss experiment.


    I mixed this before without using the EQ correction. Granted its quad tracked guitars and 2 different profiles. The new recording is only 1 L and 1 R and the same profile used for both.
    OLD


    NEW with using the EQ match and HD600 IR for flat response




    Any better or worse?

    • I agree with Ingolf about the y-axis amplitude being potentially way off. I imagine the system makes an estimate at how much correction to provide based on the way the user responds to test signals. I wonder if the system were to run through the process a second or even third time (much like the refining process during profiling) if this could go a long way toward identifying user sensitivity and headphone or speaker input. If the system applied the predicted corrections to the test tones and then the user did the test again, the system should be able to determine how much additional correction would be required.
  • one more thing, my dad is in his mid-seventies and his hearing is really poor. He has digital hearing aids (technology has really advanced in the last decade). They use the same type of approach, the audiologist custom programs the hearing aid to boost the frequencies that the user needs help with. Mush like a visual prescription, the resulting hearing aid is uniquely tuned for the user. My dad's left & right ears are very different from each other, so they obviously calibrate each hearing aid individually.


    He always jokes to the audiologist that he is going to bring a recording of my mom speaking, so that those frequencies can be zeroed out.


    This sure sounds like a useful gadget - well done to the inventors.


    paul

    • I agree with Ingolf about the y-axis amplitude being potentially way off. I imagine the system makes an estimate at how much correction to provide based on the way the user responds to test signals. I wonder if the system were to run through the process a second or even third time (much like the refining process during profiling) if this could go a long way toward identifying user sensitivity and headphone or speaker input. If the system applied the predicted corrections to the test tones and then the user did the test again, the system should be able to determine how much additional correction would be required.

    This is way over my head but I am sure you guys are correct. If you have any ideas or suggestions I am all for trying them out.

    • I wonder if the system were to run through the process a second or even third time (much like the refining process during profiling) if this could go a long way toward identifying user sensitivity and headphone or speaker input. If the system applied the predicted corrections to the test tones and then the user did the test again, the system should be able to determine how much additional correction would be required.

    Actually I could take the EQ match and start a new instance of Ozone underneath it. Do it all over again with the EQ match on above the new one. This would be refining of sorts right?

  • Interesting thread.!
    For me the visite to an ear-doktor was the right solution. The test was free and tooks 10 minutes. ;)
    I use now hearing aids some hour the day so my brain do not forget the lost frequences.
    I use it also to tweak a profile or the overall sound of the band as I do not expect that our audience has the same loss.



    For playing it's not so important for me as my losses are not so dramatic. Just as it happen often in my age.

  • It got me thinking how we have had success with getting rid of tinnitus and even Meniere’s disease with using pine bark extract and ginger tea, in fact they have done clinical trials with this. The ability to hear has a lot to do with the inner ear circulation (which is why one bark extract works on those conditions). Blood circulation supports bodily functions and supplies organs and body parts with essential nutrients they need to function properly. Blah, thats a really good angle on this too too Ant Nice job man.



    And Harry does not get old age he becomes vintage :D


    Ash

    Have a beer and don't sneer. -CJ. Two non powered Kempers -Two mission stereo FRFR Cabs - Ditto X4 -TC electronic Mimiq.