 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Acoustics / December 2005ToneTester: an open-source ear testing application
I've written a Mac OS X application called ToneTester which tests the pitch offset between ears. I'm publishing it as open-source software, and thought that the denizens of this group might find it interesting. You can find the application at <http://www.suitable.com/tools/tonetester.html>. Complaints, suggestions, and feature requests are all welcome. I'd especially love to hear opinions on its technical merits (does it truly test what it says? is it easy to use? are the results clear?) Thanks, Dan  SignatureDaniel Griscom Suitable Systems griscom@suitable.com 1 Centre Street www.suitable.com Wakefield, MA 01880 (781) 665-0053 Daniel Griscom <griscom@suitable.com> wrote in news:griscom- 60D4A7.10444206122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com: > I've written a Mac OS X application called ToneTester which tests the > pitch offset between ears. I'm publishing it as open-source software, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks, > Dan Everyone who doesn't own a Mac running OS X application should immediately run out and purchase one so that they can evaluate this relevant and critically-important piece of software. On 7-12-05 3:32, in article hRrlf.112656$tM5.49756@fe05.news.easynews.com, [cut] > Everyone who doesn't own a Mac running OS X application should immediately > run out and purchase one so that they can evaluate this relevant and > critically-important piece of software. Accidentally I own one and with some level of curiosity I've launched that program in the morning. And since then I'm sure that - thanks God! - my ears has not been damaged in any way. And that's a good news to me regarding hard work conditions from time to time (overdosed SPL called Audio Engineering) :-) Tadeusz Krzemiński > Daniel Griscom <griscom@suitable.com> wrote in news:griscom- > 60D4A7.10444206122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > run out and purchase one so that they can evaluate this relevant and > critically-important piece of software. Agreed! (Although Mac-Apple does wonders, it does not do everything that we need for our professions.) Might you issue a windows (or DOS) version for the rest of us? Sincerely, Angelo Cmapanella. In article <pGClf.240074$zb5.171573@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > Agreed! > (Although Mac-Apple does wonders, it does not do everything that we need > for our professions.) Hey now, speak for yourself! ;) Obviously if you run off-the-shelf computer models like TNM, EASE or SoundPLAN, than you need a Windows PC - well, I suppose you could run them under Virtual PC (I've run TNM on VPC) but that just makes already slow programs even *slower* :(. > Might you issue a windows (or DOS) version for the rest of us? I can't speak for the author of course, but if he wrote it in Cocoa, a Win/DOS version isn't going to happen. I did take a screen shot so the 'Mac-less' can see what's happening: <http://www.cross-spectrum.com/downloads/tonetester.jpg> (200k, 1040x768 pixels, jpg) The program plays a tone that switches between the left and right output. The top slider (obviously) controls the output volume, the 2nd slider controls the frequency of the tone, the 3rd slider controls the frequency difference between the right and left output, and the bottom slider controls the rate at which the left/right outputs switch. Herb On 7-12-05 18:32, in article usenet3-19A4D6.12322507122005@news.giganews.com, "Herb Singleton" <usenet3@cross-spectrum.com> wrote: [cut] > Obviously if you run off-the-shelf computer models like TNM, EASE or > SoundPLAN, than you need a Windows PC - well, I suppose you could run > them under Virtual PC (I've run TNM on VPC) but that just makes already > slow programs even *slower* :(. IMHO it wouldn't be wise to make such a complex computing using any virtual environment. Maybe we'll find more convenient solution under x86 OS X which is expected next year :-) Tadeusz Krzeminski > Obviously if you run off-the-shelf computer models like TNM, EASE or > SoundPLAN, than you need a Windows PC Now you understand what said.. I do a lot of similar things. I am not a musician. My first encounter with apple a LONG time ago was that there was no software available for it to do what I wanted to do. So I went to DOS where the applications I needed were written, and then I found a lot of freeware as well that did more things I needed. > - well, I suppose you could run > them under Virtual PC (I've run TNM on VPC) but that just makes already > slow programs even *slower* :(. I have not felt the need for apple and mac, especially with the engineering software availablity limitations. It seems to me that the mac enthusiasts all fit into the narrow range of mac software. > I can't speak for the author of course, but if he wrote it in Cocoa, a > Win/DOS version isn't going to happen. I did take a screen shot so the > 'Mac-less' can see what's happening: > > <http://www.cross-spectrum.com/downloads/tonetester.jpg> (200k, 1040x768 > pixels, jpg) OK. Is see a very elegant synthesis of a number of graphics; nice to the eye. > The program plays a tone that switches between the left and right > output. The top slider (obviously) controls the output volume, the 2nd > slider controls the frequency of the tone, the 3rd slider controls the > frequency difference between the right and left output, and the bottom > slider controls the rate at which the left/right outputs switch. It would be nice to play with. Regarding the low frequency end; there are relatvely few hearing problems below about 500 Hz. Most everyone, old and young, has good hearing there and below that is not damaged by noise or presbycusis. Hence the minor emphasis there below there. Angelo Campanella > Daniel Griscom <griscom@suitable.com> wrote in news:griscom- > 60D4A7.10444206122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > run out and purchase one so that they can evaluate this relevant and > critically-important piece of software. Well, if you really think so, go ahead and do so. Personally, I think that some people prefer Windows, and some the Mac, and there's no reason to force everyone to use the same thing. Nor do I join in on the flame wars on comp.sys.mac.advocacy or comp.os.mswindows.advocacy; religious mud-fests get dull really fast. If you're asking why the application is Mac-only, it's because I personally prefer Macs, I work on a Mac, I wrote it for a friend who uses Macs, and I used it as a learning project about OS X programming. Given all that, writing a Windows-only application would have been slightly absurd. I'd like to learn Windows programming, or at least one of the cross-platform development toolkits (e.g. wxWidgets) but it's not going to happen in the near future. Reasonable? Dan SignatureDaniel T. Griscom Work: (781) 665-0053 Suitable Systems Fax: (781) 665-7106 152 Cochrane Street griscom@suitable.com Melrose, MA 02176-1433 http://www.suitable.com/ > You can find the application at > <http://www.suitable.com/tools/tonetester.html>. > Complaints, suggestions, and feature requests are all welcome. I'd > especially love to hear opinions on its technical merits (does it truly > test what it says? is it easy to use? are the results clear?) Hi Dan, I'm not an audiologist, but I played with the program, and it appear to work as advertised. I have a pitch offset in my ears (the result of Meniere's disease in my left ear) and it's interesting to be able to quantify the difference between the ears. In my case, the pitch difference seems to be much worse in the lower frequencies than the higher frequencies, which is pretty much what I expected. To answer the last 2 questions, it seems easy enough to use, and I think I understand what it's telling me. I'd like to see the low frequency range extended below 110Hz since I know I have some low-frequency hearing loss, but I don't think most people care about that range when looking for hearing loss. Herb -- Herb Singleton usenet3@cross-spectrum.com Cross-Spectrum Labs: Sound & Vibration Consulting http://www.cross-spectrum.com > To answer the last 2 questions, it seems easy enough to use, and I think > I understand what it's telling me. I'd like to see the low frequency > range extended below 110Hz since I know I have some low-frequency > hearing loss, but I don't think most people care about that range when > looking for hearing loss. They most certainly do, this because it is at least indicative of eustachian tube problems, and possibly also of other "mechanical" issues. > Herb Kind regards Peter Larsen Signature******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* > They most certainly do, this because it is at least indicative of > eustachian tube problems, and possibly also of other "mechanical" > issues. That's good to know - all of my hearing exams never tested anything below 250 Hz. Unless this is a difference between European & American medicine? Herb > > They most certainly do, this because it is at least indicative of > > eustachian tube problems, and possibly also of other "mechanical" > > issues. > That's good to know - all of my hearing exams never tested anything > below 250 Hz. Unless this is a difference between European & American > medicine? Or from ENT to ENT, I can not remember whether the deep range was measured with my latest audiogram, but it was measured by default in 1978, I recall this with certainty because I had a 10 dB reduction in LF sensitivity then and was given the advice to occasionally gently blow air up the eustachian tube to keep it working. > Herb Kind regards Peter Larsen Signature******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* > Or from ENT to ENT, I can not remember whether the deep range was > measured with my latest audiogram, but it was measured by default in > 1978, I recall this with certainty because I had a 10 dB reduction in LF > sensitivity then and was given the advice to occasionally gently blow > air up the eustachian tube to keep it working. Hmm ... If the eustachian tube is blocked, you would normally develop a low pressure in the middle ear and develop a kind of conductive hearing loss. As far as I remember, it would be pretty flat over the frequencies, but the best indication would be a tympanogram. What is normally wrong when the hearing threshold at 125 Hz is shifting, is bad fit of the headphone used for the audiometry. The bad fit will short the low frequencies, so that the actual sound pressure at the ear drum get lower than the reading of the audiometer. best regards Peter > > Or from ENT to ENT, I can not remember whether the deep range was > > measured with my latest audiogram, but it was measured by default in > > 1978, I recall this with certainty because I had a 10 dB reduction in LF > > sensitivity then and was given the advice to occasionally gently blow > > air up the eustachian tube to keep it working. > Hmm ... If the eustachian tube is blocked, you would normally develop a > low pressure in the middle ear and develop a kind of conductive hearing > loss. As far as I remember, it would be pretty flat over the > frequencies, but the best indication would be a tympanogram. > What is normally wrong when the hearing threshold at 125 Hz is shifting, > is bad fit of the headphone used for the audiometry. The bad fit will > short the low frequencies, so that the actual sound pressure at the ear > drum get lower than the reading of the audiometer. This was in 1978, so my recollection may be slightly flawed, what I think I remember is that the sensitivity lowermost on the graph was 10 dB reduced and that it was the sub 100 Hz region and the advice based on that. I did in fact try to locate that audiogram in 1993, but the clinic no longer existed, and back then patients didn't get entrusted with too many data about themselves, as long as the whitecoats know, then it is good enough. > Peter Kind regards Peter Larsen Signature******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* > To answer the last 2 questions, it seems easy enough to use, and I think > I understand what it's telling me. I'd like to see the low frequency > range extended below 110Hz since I know I have some low-frequency > hearing loss, but I don't think most people care about that range when > looking for hearing loss. Frankly, my 110Hz lower limit was chosen because that's too low to hear in my PowerBook speakers. No, not the most rigorous reason. How about extending down to 55Hz? Far enough? (Is anyone asking to extend above 7040Hz?) Dan SignatureDaniel T. Griscom Work: (781) 665-0053 Suitable Systems Fax: (781) 665-7106 152 Cochrane Street griscom@suitable.com Melrose, MA 02176-1433 http://www.suitable.com/ > How about extending down to 55Hz? Far enough? What are the valid reasons against extending to 20? > (Is anyone asking to extend above 7040Hz?) With a caution message and separate enabling, but not by default. From a musical point of view the piano range comes to mind as relevant, I plain do not know what the known psychoacoustics suggest, but there is this general principle that you have to look for something to find it. > Dan Kind regards Peter Larsen Signature******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.