The Red Army Choir Ruined My Earphones

Discussion in 'Pro Audio' started by msadkins04, Jul 21, 2006.

  1. msadkins04

    msadkins04 Guest

    Well, not per se. As the Americans say, "here is the deal": I had
    never tried using Internet audio before. A caprice led me to attempt
    this, for the first time, in sampling the Red Army Choir. After
    searching Google, I clicked on a likely provider of online audio, and
    when the link connected, the video/audio of the Red Army Choir singing
    the Soviet National Anthem started *immediately* and automatically. I
    had no chance to adjust the volume level before starting play, and
    indeed, there was no volume control built into the player software of
    the site. (I was later able to determine that there is a master volume
    control, in the form of a completely unidentified slideable strip, in
    the lower right corner of the Firefox browser, outside the site content
    entirely.) I estimate that the volume was on the order of 150
    decibels. (And no, this is NOT what I deserve for listening to the
    Red Army Choir.) I was using a pair of earphones made for Walkman-type
    use in the audio-out jack of the computer -- some Philips
    "surround-sound" earphones (a description which exists largely as
    advertising hyperbole), and I ripped out the plug from the jack very
    quickly.

    The problem is an apparent change in the audio quality of the
    earphones, as used once again with the Walkman unit I had been
    habitually using them with. I cannot say that there is any unambiguous
    distortion in particular frequencies or in the audio as a whole, though
    it seems to me that some frequencies (horns show this particularly) are
    slightly scratchy. The quality of the audio seems, however, somehow
    noticeably poorer. The balance of frequencies has changed, for the
    worse. And these earphones, which had previously done a good job
    filtering out background noise (e.g., traffic) seem much less good at
    this now, even with the same music.

    I am hoping that this is ear-damage (!) -- TEMPORARY ear-damage ONLY,
    of course -- rather than damage to the earphones. I am not sure what
    technical explanation, other than a rather vague "speaker blow-out" --
    could be responsible for this, unless it is that one of the speakers
    was damaged more in these frequencies than the other (though I would
    expect the audio in question to have been mono, though perhaps not).

    Mark Adkins
     
    msadkins04, Jul 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. msadkins04

    David Grant Guest

    Money can buy you new earphones, but not new ears. Why you would hope for
    temporary ear damage (which I imagine would have some smaller scale
    permanent effects) escapes me.

    Dave
     
    David Grant, Jul 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I suspect a troll.
    If I had done something so silly, seems unlikely
    that I would document it on Usenet.
     
    Richard Crowley, Jul 21, 2006
    #3
  4. msadkins04

    Bob Quintal Guest

    150 dBa results in instantaneous destruction of the eardrums.
    No soundcard can supply the signal required to generate that level.
     
    Bob Quintal, Jul 21, 2006
    #4
  5. msadkins04

    Bob Quintal Guest

    Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Besides, have
    you ever stood 100 ft away from a Jet at takeoff???. Even w2ith
    hearing protection it's painful.

    http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/audio/dBexamp.html

    In addition, are you too illiterate to read or too dense to
    understand "No soundcard can supply the signal required to
    generate that level."
     
    Bob Quintal, Jul 22, 2006
    #5
  6. msadkins04

    msadkins04 Guest

    It does not. 150 decibels is the loudness of a jet engine at 100 ft.,
    according to a Wikipedia article.
     
    msadkins04, Jul 22, 2006
    #6
  7. msadkins04

    msadkins04 Guest

    I would imagine that it needn't have permanent effects. Since I
    prefer my imagination to your (strictly putative) imagination, I can
    ignore you, and the other nincompoop pseudo-sentients, in this
    important matter.

    Evidently, putting the word "only" in all capital letters was
    insufficiently obvious, even to you, to convey meaning. I would
    imagine that you are a contrarian moron, and that quite a lot escapes
    you, especially hot air of a malodorous variety.
     
    msadkins04, Jul 22, 2006
    #7
  8. msadkins04

    msadkins04 Guest

    I suspect a troll. Only a pseudo-sentient nincompoop would ignore the
    question, fail to provide any insight, and blame the innocent victim of
    poorly designed, defective software, all in one offensive post -- then
    fail to note that in doing so he is in fact documenting his own
    silliness on Usenet, contrary to his premise.
     
    msadkins04, Jul 22, 2006
    #8
  9. msadkins04

    msadkins04 Guest

    The same article cites the sound level of an M1 Garand rifle fired at 1
    meter (3.3 feet) as 168 decibels. This rifle was used in combat and
    fired repeatedly by soldiers without ear-plugs, without destroying the
    eardrums (instantaneously or otherwise). If the article is erroneous
    (I note a good deal of conflicting information in various Internet
    sources on decibel levels) then I am free to revise my (quite offhand)
    estimate. It's all figmenty anyway, and all you can do is cite other
    pseudo-sentient liars in an attempt to corroborate what is
    intrinsically baseless "information" anyway.
     
    msadkins04, Jul 22, 2006
    #9
  10. On 22 Jul 2006 11:01:31 -0700, ""

    <snipped for sanity>

    So, do we have a new name in the Chevdo pantheon?
    Long, hot summer,

    Chris Hornbeck
    "I will save this post as a file, much in the way that I save the FAQ for
    reposting, so that next time a sad loser like you laughably claims I'm the one
    with too much free time on my hands for trolling and flamewarring, when in fact
    its the DOZENS of sad losers that make up the cronymob who post to this group
    all day long every day, I will only have to paste this response rather than
    wasting any more of my far-more-valuable-time-than-yours repeating it."
     
    Chris Hornbeck, Jul 23, 2006
    #10
  11. msadkins04

    msadkins04 Guest

    I don't believe everything I read at Wikipedia. Or here. I merely
    provided a counter-reference. The article, however, did not say "a jet
    engine at takeoff", but merely a jet engine. I have not stood 100
    feet away from a commercial jet at takeoff. Neither have you. But I
    have sat considerably *less than* 100 feet away from one, albeit in a
    sound-dampened (by no means soundproofed) passenger cabin. I have also
    been exposed to the sound levels of idling jet engines at considerably
    less than 100 feet, while boarding. The ground crews nearby wore
    ear-protection, but then, their exposure is regular and long-term.
    No, I have no difficulty in parsing and interpreting that sentence.
    But, considering the fact that you are a chronic and compulsive liar,
    and considering the fact that the form of mechanical causality you
    advance has no genuine application in this pseudo-reality, I see no
    reason why I should accept your claim at face value. Nor would it
    matter were it true, since, as previously noted, the decibel level I
    suggested was merely a casual estimate indicating the fact that the
    volume level of the music was extremely, painfully loud even with the
    briefest exposure -- probably the loudest sound I have ever heard, and
    I have fired SKS rifles repeatedly, without sound protection,
    untroubled by their sound.

    Mark Adkins
     
    msadkins04, Aug 8, 2006
    #11
  12. msadkins04

    Bob Quintal Guest

    Wrong, bubba. And lots of people have air force records that say
    the same thing.

    But I have sat considerably
    And nowhere near takeoff power levels.
    I'm gonna sulk because some idiot calls me a liar?....

    and considering the fact that the form of
    I would suggest you take your casual estimate to
    rec.audio.opinion because it doesn't belong in rec.audio.pro,
    but I have a better suggestion:

    Insert the barrel of a SKS in your mouth and pull the trigger.
    You'll be doing the world a favor.
    Plonk.
     
    Bob Quintal, Aug 8, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.