Abstract - Marcus Web viewBach_ Lute Suite, BWV 996 - 1. Praludium.aif. Bach. John Williams. 2. ... However in the testing results the most commonly used by the subjects word was ‘clarity’

Hearing aids and music: experimental tests for better algorithm selection and design

A Monash University Arts and Engineering Cross Disciplinary 2016 Seeding Project

Marcus Wigan, Sir Zelman Cowen School of Music, Monash University Peter Blamey, Justin Zakis Blamey and Saunders Hearing

Chief InvestigatorsProfessor John Griffiths Sir Zelman Cowen School of Music, Monash UniversityProfessor Jeffery Rosenfeld Medical Engineering Institute Monash University

Hearing Aids and Music: are there differing requirements by type of music?

Abstract

While there is increasingly wide acceptance that music listeners using hearing

aids need far more attention that they have been getting in the past, the field is

still very thinly populated, and some basic questions have not yet been

addressed. This project addresses one of them. There is no suggestion that it

does any more, but is designed to provide a foundation for a more substantial

study, which will encompass live, recorded, heavily processed and unprocessed

music, and delivery compression addition such as MP3, FLAC etc at different

resolutions and determine the levels of interaction with algorithms within (or

externally handled and communicating with) hearing aids and delineate what

can be done at the algorithmic, audiological and personal adjustment domains to

improve personal satisfaction with music of various kinds listened to in these

different modes.

It has established that hearing aid users can make consistent and clear-cut

preference decisions on different algorithmic treatments in hearing aids, and do

indeed make substantially different judgments for different kinds of music. It is

clear that the reference patterns differ substantially between people, and linking

their audiology and tastes is now required. The strategies for enhancing their

enjoyment of music may require different hearing aid adjustment strategies and

algorithms. Live music variations now to be addressed, as all the present

feasibility study was restricted to recorded music.

This study has identified a wide range of areas where follow up work would be

very desirable, undoubtedly best done in close cooperation with both the

relevant industry and the audiology profession as well as the subjects to ensure

direct transfer of the results both to product innovation and to operational

clinical practice and in aged care. This area as a whole has proved to be

substantially under researched and not well understood.

i


Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................................ i

Contents.............................................................................................................................................. ii

Figures............................................................................................................................................... iii

Tables.................................................................................................................................................. iv

Acronym Index................................................................................................................................ vi

1. The Genesis of this Project.......................................................................................................1

2. Previous work on hearing aids and music.........................................................................2

3. Design Factors Drawing from previous work...................................................................7

4. Testing Procedure Skirmish.................................................................................................14

5. Characteristics of the final set of 30s music samples used.........................................16

5. Subject Recruitment and Coverage....................................................................................17

6. Discussion of the Survey results..........................................................................................19

7. Discussion of the comment fields.......................................................................................25

8. Test Administration.................................................................................................................26

9. Data Extraction..........................................................................................................................28

10. Results of the listening trials............................................................................................. 29

11. Analysis and Discussion of the Results...........................................................................31

12. Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 37

13. Data and Analyses outside the study scope..................................................................39

14. What next?................................................................................................................................ 39

15. Data Bank from this study.................................................................................................. 41

16. Recommendations.................................................................................................................41

17. Acknowledgements............................................................................................................... 42

18. References................................................................................................................................ 43

Appendix 1: Spectral analysis of potential 60s music selections.................................44

Appendix 2: Hearing Aids and Music Running Sheet........................................................49

Appendix 3: Survey Results: Musical experiences of people using Hearing Aids.. .50

Appendix 4: Significance tests on relevant survey factors.............................................77

Appendix 5. Normalised Preference Data Tables..............................................................81

ii


Figures

Fig. 1. Estimated number of people with hearing loss in 2005 by age and gender................2Fig. 3. Spectral analysis and testing against hearing aid setting variations............................16Fig. 3. Age distribution of survey responders (n=65)......................................................................19Fig. 4. Length of time since starting to use hearing aids (n=63)..................................................20Fig. 5. Overall how important to you is listening to music? (n=63)...........................................20Fig. 6. And how important is the quality of the sound? (n=63)....................................................21Fig. 7. What kinds of recorded music do you listen to regularly? Please select the one most important to you (n=62)...................................................................................................................22Fig. 8. Do you attend live music events? If so which kinds? (n=53)...........................................24Fig. 9. Adjusting hearing aids for music (n=43)..................................................................................24Fig. 10. Audiology testing room where the test were carried out...............................................27Fig. 10. Frequency of descriptors as the dominant reason for A/B choices...........................31Fig. 11. Choice variations by music genre: Cycle 1: Directional and Strength.......................32Fig. 12. Choice variations by music genre: Cycle 2: Directional and Strength.......................33Fig. 13. Signed choice summations by music genre: Cycles 1, 2..................................................34Fig. 14. Unsigned (| |) choice summations by music genre: Cycles 1, 2....................................34Fig. 15. Variations in Cycle 1 music samples where decision was made.................................35Fig. 16. Variations in Cycle 2 music samples where decision was made.................................35Fig. A1. Track 01 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................44Fig. A2. Track 02 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................45Fig. A4. Track 04 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................45Fig. A5. Track 05 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................45Fig. A6. Track 06 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................45Fig. A7. Track 07 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................46Fig. A8. Track 08 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................46Fig. A9. Track 09 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................46Fig. A10. Track 10 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................46Fig. A11. Track 11 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................46Fig. A12. Track 12 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................47Fig. A13. Track 13 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................47Fig. A14. Track 14 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................47Fig. A15. Track 15 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................47Fig. A16. Track 16 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................47

iii


Fig. A17. Track 17 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................48Fig. A18. Track 18 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................48Fig. A19. Track 19 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................48Fig. A20. Track 20 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength.................................................................................................................................................................48Fig. A3-1. Do you agree to take part in this survey? If not, thank you for having a look at this project, but do not continue................................................................................................................50Fig. A3-2. What is your age?.........................................................................................................................51Fig. A3-3. What is your gender?.................................................................................................................51Fig. A3-4. Have you had any musical training?...................................................................................52Fig. A3-5. Are you a sound engineer of any kind?.............................................................................55Fig. A3-6. How long have you been using hearing aids?..................................................................55Fig. A3-7. Overall how important to you is listening to music?...................................................58Fig. A3-8. How important is the quality of the sound when you do?.........................................59Fig. A3-9. What kinds of recorded music do you listen to regularly? Please select the one most important to you...................................................................................................................................61Fig. A3-10. Do you attend live music events? If so which kinds?...............................................62Fig. A3-11. Adjusting hearing aids for music........................................................................................68Table. A4-1. Highly Significantly Linked: Value of Music and the quality of the Sound....77Table. A4-2. No significant difference: the value of music and the kind of music................78Table. A4-3. No significant difference: Value of Music and the kind of live venues attended................................................................................................................................................................78Table. A4-4. No significant difference: quality of sound and adjusting hearing aids for music......................................................................................................................................................................78Table A4-5. No significant difference: the quality of musical sound and the kinds of music......................................................................................................................................................................79Table A4-6. No significant difference: age of person and how long they had had hearing aids..........................................................................................................................................................................79Table. A4-7. No significant difference: rated importance of music and prior musical training..................................................................................................................................................................80

Tables

Table. 1. Pras et. al. reported choices of music samples (Pras et al., 2009)...............................5Table. 2. Population of 44khz uncompressed samples drawn upon.........................................10Table. 3. Exploratory segments of different types with key relevant features.....................11Table. 4. Prediction of distortion based on informal listening with MATLAB models of

ENR and ISS (and expert judgment for FBC based on past experience)......................12Table. 5. Final selection made from the 20 sixty-second music samples................................13Table. 6. Results of the skirmish tests on trial subject Marcus Wigan......................................14Table. 8. The Importance of music to the respondents and the importance of its sound

quality are very tightly linked (Chi Square 121.83/16df: p=0.00)................................21Table. 7. Importance of the quality of the sound for different types of music.......................23Table. 8. Hearing Aid Setting Combinations used for the A, B comparisons..........................28Table. 9. Words used to describe subject preferences between samples................................30Table. A4-1. Highly Significantly Linked: Value of Music and the quality of the Sound....76Table. A4-2. No significant difference: the value of music and the kind of music................77Table. A4-3. No significant difference: Value of Music and the kind of live venues

attended...................................................................................................................................................77

iv


Table. A4-4. No significant difference: quality of sound and adjusting hearing aids for music......................................................................................................................................................... 77

Table A4-5. No significant difference: the quality of musical sound and the kinds of music......................................................................................................................................................... 78

Table A4-6. No significant difference: age of person and how long they had had hearing aids............................................................................................................................................................. 78

Table. A4-7. No significant difference: rated importance of music and prior musical training.....................................................................................................................................................79

Table. A5-1. Normalised Signed preferences for all comparisons in both Cycles................80Table. A5-2. Normalised strength of preferences irrespective of their direction A<>B7.81Table. A5-3. Directed preference strengths above a substantial threshold (> 0.25)..........82Table. A5-4. Unsigned preference strengths above a substantial threshold (> 0.25)........83Table. A5-5. Indicates any preferences (>0.0) on the unity scale...............................................84Table. A5-6. Indicates preferences only if their strength exceeds 10% of the unity scale

......................................................................................................................................................................85Table. A5-7. Shows only strong clear preferences exceeding 25% of the unity scale........86

v


Acronym Index

ACO - Australian Chamber Orchestra

ADM - Adaptive Directional Microphone

ADRO™ - Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization1

BSH - Blamey and Saunders Hearing (aids)

CI - Cochlear Implant

CL - Compression Limiting

COTA – Council of the Ageing

DSP - Digital Signal Processing

ENR - Environmental Noise Reduction

EV - Everyday Program Settings2

FBC - Feedback

FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Compression Codec3

ISS - Impulsive Sound Suppression

MCE - Multi-Channel Expansion4

MOL - Maximum Output Level5

MP3 - A popular and widely used lossy compression algorithm

NFC - Non-Linear Frequency Compression

RMS - Root Mean Square

WNR - Wind Noise Suppression

WRDC - Wide Range Dynamic Compression

1 ™Wolfson Dynamic Hearing2 Uses the settings on the B&S Audiology record as the subjects usual settings3 A Compression algorithm that is lossless4 Used to reduce internal microphone and electric circuit noise in the hearing aid5 Applied independently to each of the 64 frequency channels in the hearing aid

vi


1. The Genesis of this Project

“Although music is an important sound for hearing aid users, little research has

investigated how well hearing aids handle music, and even less has investigated

how hearing aids should handle music”(Zakis, 2016).

“Music amplified through hearing aids has some interesting characteristics but high fidelity is not typically one of them.” (Chasin, 2013)

“Frustration at not being able to hear music with a CI. Mozart sounded like ‘pots and pans falling down the stairs” (Schubert, 2014)

“A hearing aid optimally set for music can be optimally set for speech, even though the converse is not necessarily true” (Chasin and Russo, 2004)

“He used to love classical music. [1] Cried at all the operas, cried at the violin concertos, etcetera. And now, I don’t play music at home because he’ll cry anyway now because it’s so sad he can’t hear it anymore, and .......-well, he’s quite an older man-but for younger people particularly, if they can get some enjoyment through having the music tuned to their CI (Schubert, Marozeau, Stevens, & Innes-Brown, 2014)

These emotions apply both to those who have their hearing assisted either by

Cochlear Implants (CI), or by hearing aids.

In a recent study of Australian over 60 years of age6:

“Music provides people with ways of understanding and developing their self-

identity; connecting with others; maintaining well-being; and experiencing and

expressing spirituality. The results show how music contributes to positive

ageing by providing ways for people to maintain positive self-esteem, feel

competent, independent, and avoid feelings of isolation or loneliness”

(Minichiello & Hays, 2005).

The 2016 Monash Arts-Engineering Seeding program provided the opportunity

to establish whether or not there were differences between the hearing/aid

interactions – and thus design requirements - that would have to be addressed to

give enhanced musical experiences to those with hearing aids. This research

question addresses a gap in the available research, and the work reported is to

determine if there are grounds for a major piece of work in this area.

Music plays a major role in many people’s lives, especially when they become

6 This did not address the issue of the importance of the quality of the sound involved. This was therefore addressed in the present work by an online survey

1


older, but how many people are potentially affected? A study of the economic

impact of hearing loss identified the age distribution - and the rapidly rising scale

of hearing loss over the next two decades see the key points and graph that

follow (Access Economics, 2006).

Fig. 1. Estimated number of people with hearing loss in 2005 by age and gender

1 in 6 people already (2005) have hearing loss – and 70% of over 70s

By 2050 hearing loss will affect 1 in 4

The rising scale of this impact has been known since 2005

Music has become endemic and a key part of our lives – and matters even more

to the elderly. Hearing Aids have generally been developed and tuned to speech

and not to music - which has very different characteristics

2. Previous work on hearing aids and music

A prime resources used to craft these tests are (Higgins, Searchfield, & Coad,

2012) who used the same family of ADRO hearing aids that we are using and

compared them to a different strategy of signal processing, wide range dynamic

range compression (WDRC).

2


These differences (between DSP types) were assessed using 40s clips of classical

(Beethoven’s 5th Symphony Track 1), Jazz (Count Basie’s ‘One O’clock Jump’) and

Rock music (Eric Clapton’s ‘She’s Waiting’).

There were significant differences between the DSPs for all three types of music;

the smallest differences were for the classical music sample. In each case the

ADRO DSP was judged the best, although the grounds for this were explained by

the subjects in terms of ADRO yielding a brightness of sound and clarity of music.

The technical view was that the number of channels (32 for ADRO, 4 fast+15

slow)) and the linear v compression processing were probably the foundation of

these differences between the DSP types.

The apparently straightforward issue of amplification is another area of concern

for music. This is because the compression strategies are relevant to hearing

performance and the dynamic range of music exceeds that of speech

substantially. The ‘crest factor’ - the difference in dB between the instantaneous

peak of a signal and its RMS value (Chasin, 2012) characterizes the ability of

hearing aids to handle the range of sound levels. These are sometimes

constrained, and hearing aid design strategies include reducing the levels

presented to the hearing aid internal amplifiers to keep the dynamic range

within the bounds usually used to cater for speech. Recent aids have extended

the normal 96dba to 115dba to address this7. Some of these effects have had

initial examination in conjunction with music genres (Kronen, 2014), the issue of

primary interest in the current project.

Strikingly almost all the work done to date of hearing aids and music has been in

very recent research theses, ranging from minor honors submissions to full

Doctorate level (Bradford, 2014; Croghan, 2013; Johnston, 2009; Kronen, 2014).

The current exploratory project is very much in line with these clear indications

of a fresh interest in the subject.

Data on the perceived quality of hearing aids in assisting the music listening

7 Oticon Australia: 2016 personal communication

3


experience indicates that recent aids are improving in this regard, but that their

value when listening to live music is not as effective as when listening to

recorded music (Madsen & Moore, 2014). They reported that

“The survey also identified problems such as distortion, acoustic feedback, insufficient or excessive gain, unbalanced frequency response, and reduced tone quality. The results indicate that the enjoyment of listening to music with hearing aids could be improved by an increase of the input and output dynamic range, extension of the low-frequency response, and improvement of feedback cancellation and automatic gain control systems”(Madsen & Moore, 2014)

Crogan (Croghan, 2013) focused on the interaction of compression algorithms on

the reported music listening experience. The music industry often uses

compression limiting (CL), while the strategy often used in hearing aids is Wide

Range Dynamic Compression (WRDC). Crogan found that when CL was used on

samples of classical and samples of rock music that normal hearing listeners

preferred medium levels of CL in the source music, but when loudness levels

were normalized, heavier compression (which was analytically shown to

degrade reproduction fidelity) was discriminated against.

The current project is concerned with those with hearing loss, and Crogan’s

second experiment (Croghan, 2013) showed that:

“CL+WDRC using hearing-aid simulations and listeners with hearing loss. Acoustically, WDRC diminished amplitude contrasts and upset spectral balance, particularly for conditions with more channels (18 vs. 3) and a faster release time (50-msec vs. 1000-msec). Perceptually, linear processing and slow WDRC were equally preferred over fast WDRC for classical music. For rock music, linear processing was preferred to both slow and fast WDRC. The main effect of channels was not significant for classical music, but for rock, 3-channel processing was preferred. CL degraded music quality for classical but not for rock. For classical music, listeners with broader estimated auditory filters preferred 3 channels and linear processing, while listeners with narrower filters preferred 18 channels and slow WDRC. For rock music, the degree of preference for linear processing was greater for listeners with a larger dynamic range” (Croghan, 2013)

A stronger assertion is given by Crogan et al in other work (Crogan, Arehart, &

Kates, 2012), where the ‘louder is better’ perception in some parts of the music

industry was shown to be unfounded in the cases that were examined.

Audio engineers have examined how data compression affected music

4


perception, showing that higher bit rate coding levels (i.e. MP3 up to 192 kb/s) v

CDs) were generally preferred by listeners, and that this showed differences in

preference levels for different music genres, ‘genre’ here referred to electronic v

acoustic recordings. This is a central issue for the present work on hearing aid

users, and while not the focus of the trails here are strongly indicative.

There was an effect arising from differences in expertise (and experiences) of the

listeners- and sound engineers (Pras, Zimmerman, Levitin, & Gustavino, 2009).

This also indicates that musical and professional sound engineering experience

backgrounds are both likely to be significant factors in the enjoyment of

recorded music.

Musical genre Name of the piece (tune) Composer Performers

(band/orchestra)

Pop Irish Green Bart Moore Slings & Arrows

Metal rock Killing in The Name

Rage Against the Machine

Rage Against the Machine

Contemporary Diffraction Yoshihisa Taïra Quatuor Ixtla

Orchestra Symphonie #5 Gustav Mahler Vienna Philharmonic directed by Pierre Boulez

Opera Lascia ch'io pianga

George F. Handel

Anechoic recording by Angelo Farina, downloaded from www.angelofarina.it

Table. 1. Pras et. al. reported choices of music samples (Pras et al., 2009)

It is striking how many variants of ‘pop’ music are used in these and other music

explorations, and how few classical music variants, voice, solo instrument, early

music, organ, chamber, symphonic etc.

5


Crogan’s most recent work (Croghan, Arehart, & Kates, 2014) explored WRDC

characteristics and their interactions with CL. The parameters for WRDC may be

set well for speech, but are rarely altered in hearing aids from music- or specific

types of music- this is an issue of special import in the present project to

determine. WDRC may be fast reacting to loudness changes, or slow.

There have been a few initiatives starting to address the need to have a

specifically music setting in hearing aids as a setting additional to open air,

restaurant, crowds etc. (Gruhlke, 2016). While significant improvements were

reported as a result of different settings and adaptive processes, no examination

of the needs for different types of music were undertaken

"Even with this newly validated prescription for music listening, preferences remain highly subjective and may be affected by the patient’s preferred music genre"(Gruhlke, 2016).

Legarth et al (Legarth, Zacharov, Latzel, & Kuhnel, 2014) compared a number of

manufacturers ‘music’ settings for six different hearing aids, with an emphasis on

dual compression (slow and fast acting dynamic compression, equalization

variations against an ideal profile. Although they report using three music

samples (one each from jazz, pop and classical) no details are given of the

characteristics of these samples, leaving the results open to questioning

dependent on such variables as distortion, preprocessing compression

algorithms introduced in the recording production stage etc. The results showed

that the different aids all embodied different strategies, which were compared to

an ‘ideal’ profile (as exemplified by the Phonak Venture program in this

instance).

Legarth et. al. did not report any findings on the differing requirements of

different genres of music: the objective of the present project.

Uys et. al. (Uys, Potta, VanDijk, & Vink, 2013) reported that for their purposive

sample of (n-40, ages 18-64 (mean 57.7 years, with 40% having received musical

training from 1-20 years). The objective was to determine the effects of Non-

6


Linear Frequency Compression (NFC) on the detection and quality of timbre and

melody in music samples by this sample of musically literate subjects, and, while

the results were variable NFC did indeed improve the performance of the

subjects. Once again, the basic question as to whether or not differences in set

up, algorithms etc. are required for different genres of music was not addressed.

While there is increasingly wide acceptance that music listeners using hearing

aids need far more attention that they have been getting in the past, the field is

still very thinly populated, and some basic questions have not yet been

addressed. This project addresses one of them. There is no suggestion that it

does any more, but is designed to provide a foundation for a more substantial

study.

Such a study would inter alia encompass live, recorded, heavily processed and

unprocessed music, and delivery compression addition such as MP3, FLAC etc at

different resolutions and determine the levels of interaction with algorithms

within (or externally handled and communicating with) hearing aids and

delineate what can be done at the algorithmic, audiological and personal

adjustment domains to improve personal satisfaction with music of various

kinds listened to in these different modes.

3. Design Factors Drawing from previous work

The sound sample durations used in various trials have been from 20s to 60s, the

20s periods were not felt to be adequate to characterize the music type for the

present work, so 60-second samples were initially preferred. Paired

comparisons of samples might work better with 20-second intervals, but this

might well not offer sufficient adaptation time period spans for the hearing aid

algorithms, so a skirmish test was required.

A wide range of original CDs owned by Marcus Wigan were taken to Monash and

a single track from each tracks selected by Wigan and Grayson to provide a wide

range of music, one track from each of the CDs.

7


An initial exploration and discussion at Monash examined both the prior set and

a further set of tracks where very extensive compression and manipulation had

been applied, as it had been hypothesized that this would interact most strongly

with the various algorithms and setting in hearing aids.

The candidate tracks listed in Table 3 are held in MP3 format. mP3 is a lossy

compression algorithm of itself, and in addition to the diversity of types of music,

this additional factor (not part of this initial project) of exploring the effects of

MP3 compression, led to a selection from Table 2.

It is clear that the various compression methods in wide practical use must form

part of any follow up large-scale project. This would require exploration of the

initial digitizing strategies and frequencies used, but these questions are outside

the research question of the present small exploratory project.

The 60-second samples provided by Monash to Blamey and Saunders were then

processed for spectral characteristics by Justin Zakis. The full set is in Appendix

1.

8


Reference CD Title Publisher and Reference Piece Composer Performer

1Bach The Four Lute Suites Remastered CBS CB 801

Bach_ Lute Suite, BWV 996 - 1. Praludium.aif Bach John Williams

2 Intimate Vihuela Naxos Cr2201 405 Fantasia Sobre Un Pleni De Contrapunto John Griffiths

3

Canyon Triology Native American Flute: NB Roland SDE 3000 Digital Delay Unit was used to simulate the ambience of canyons and valleys Canyon CR 610 Dawn's Mirage_ Song For The Morning Star Velderrabano Carlos Nakai

4Joan Armatrading Back to the Night A and M Records D 19199 No Love For Free Joan Armatrading

5 The Mask and the Mirror Warner 4509952962 The Mystic's Dream Loreena McKennit

6 Fiona Burnett- 3 Voices New RHET NEW3105.2 3 Voices David Jones Fiona Burnett

7 Enya Watermark WEA 246006-2 Orinoco Flow Enya Enya

8 Diva Sings the Divine Lotus Foot Music LFP 108-2 Sim Shalom Kim Cunio Heather Lee

9 Nigel Kennedys Greatest Hits EMI 7243 5 57330 2 3 Trad_Harty_ Danny Boy Nigel Kennedy

10ABBA Gold Greatest Hits-Digitally Remastered Polydor 517 275 - 2 Dancing Queen ABBA

1118th Century Virtuoso String Music ABC Classics 432 530-2 Symphony for Strings_ I Allegro di molto Bach

Tasmania Symphony Chamber Players

12 Samuel Barber Masterworks Portrait MPK46727Barber_ Andromache's Farewell Songs, Op. 39.2 Samuel Barber Martina Arroyo

9


13The Rolling Stones Singles Collection The London years LONDON 820 905-2 Ruby Tuesday The Rolling Stones

14The Rolling Stones Singles Collection The London years LONDON 820 905-2 Jumping' Jack Flash The Rolling Stones

15A Selection from the Notebook for Anna Magdalena Deutsche Harmonia Mundi GD77150 Bach_ Minuet In G Minor, BWV Anh 115 Bach Gustav Leonhardt

16 Enya Watermark WEA 246006-2 Watermark Enya Enya

17Joan Armatrading Back to the Night A and M Records D 19199 Back To The Night Joan Armatrading

18Aretha Franklin The Queen of Soul Atlantic 8122796069 Respect Otis Redding Aretha Franklin

19 Ladies of the Canyon Reprise 6376-2 Big Yellow Taxi Joni Mitchell Joni Mitchell

20 Kind of Blue Columbia/Legacy 487496 2 Miles Davis - Freddie Freeloader (60s) Miles Davis Miles Davis

Table. 2. Population of 44khz uncompressed samples drawn upon

10


Hearing Aid mp3 Consideration List 2016

SKRILLEX - BangarangA very rich and loud modern electronic production. The fullest out of all the tracks, this is a very ‘stereo’ production, with the bass synth and many of the percussive elements spread across the stereo field. The loudest track in this list by far, as well as filling almost every frequency possible!!!

DJ Snake, Lil Jon - Turn Down for WhatA bass heavy minimal modern production. Could be good for checking low frequencies from 80Hz to 40Hz

DIRTY LOOPS - Hit MeA modern synthesiser jazz-fusion production. The stabs in the opening section are accented with the drums and bass.

The Temperance Movement - White Bear A modern rock production with some loud accents featuring drum, guitar and bass. The verses are quieter and feature some nice pianos and slide guitars with large reverbs.

Red Sun Rising - EmotionlessA modern rock production with a good variation of moods. The guitar tones are rich and loud. Overall possibly a little louder and ‘hifi’ than the Temperance Movement track.

BJ the Chicago Kid - Turnin Me UpA modern soul production in the style of Marvin Gaye. The lower frequencies are filled out with a Roland 808 kick drum, providing the sub frequency movement.

Jerry Douglas - The Big ShuffleAn acoustic trio of double bass, guitar and slide lap guitar.

James Taylor - October RoadA mostly acoustic production with a very flat frequency response across the spectrum. Some tasteful stereo placement, (guitars and backing vocals) and some beautifully recorded acoustic guitars.

Table. 3. Exploratory segments of different types with key relevant features

Predictions of distortion were based on informal listening with Justin Zakis’

proprietary MATLAB models of ENR and ISS (and informed guesses for FBC

based on his extensive past experience) yielded the following expectations for

the selected sound samples.

11


Track Number ENR effect ISS effect FBC effect (judgment)

01 Slight02 Slight03 Slight May be noticeable04 Slight/Moderate Slight blips05 Slight06 Slight May be noticeable07 Moderate Slight blips08 Slight09 Slight10 Moderate Strong compress11 Slight/moderate12 Moderate13 Moderate Slight blips14 Moderate Strong compress15 Slight16 Slight17 Slight18 Slight Strong compress19 Slight Strong loudness

variations20 Slight/Moderate Moderate blips May be noticeable Table. 4. Prediction of distortion based on informal listening with MATLAB models of ENR and ISS (and expert judgment for FBC based on past experience)

The criteria for subject assessment are Distortion and Clarity (as defined by the

subjects themselves). These analyses and the initial review by a person with

normal hearing of the characteristics likely to interact with the major algorithms

in the hearing aids are summarised in Table 4.

After a detailed discussion of the appropriate selections to make for user

listening trials, bearing in mind the objective was to determine differences

between responses (ie decisions) made by the users to different types of music, a

hybrid trial sample sequence was worked out on the basis of the need to vary

hearing aid settings/algorithms and the likely reactions of the algorithms to the

different sample, as judged by the end users. This required careful consideration

of the various hearing aid facilities and the choice of those factors that would not

be varied.

12


The point made on the limited coverage of different types of made on Table 1 (on

Pras and Zimmerman’s selections) was addressed directly, as classical music,

solo instruments, symphonic selections are included, albeit in a tiny range of five

pieces it can only be a small contribution.

The selected strategy chosen to maintain the interest of subjects and to limit the

overall session time required, was to compare a base setting with an alternating

sequence with a setting with all major algorithms turned off , and then to

compare two different combinations of operating algorithms requiring a further

sequence runs of the same set of music samples.

For each music sample played, first the "all features on" and then the "all features

off" settings will was compared. The original intent was, depending on which is

reported to be better, a feature suspected to be the cause of any reported

distortion or loss of clarity would be turned off or on respectively and the sample

played again. This was likely to slow down the trials and a skirmish was

necessary to test all aspects of the procedure before choosing this variable

setting strategy for the second run through of comparison tests.

All of the music samples were played free field in a booth in East Melbourne

through two speakers. The WNR, MCE, and ADM hearing aid settings were kept

on for all setting combinations.

Music Key feature(s)

3: Dawns Mirage-Song for the Morning Star MOL, FBC

12: Barber Andromache's Farewell Songs Op 39.2 ENR

15: Bach Minuet in G Minor BWV 115

19: Big Yellow Taxi ISS

20: Miles Davis

Table. 5. Final selection made from the 20 sixty-second music samples

Subsequent to each subject completing a test session, the Observer (Marcus

Wigan) would then take them for refreshments and a discussion of the issues

13


raised by the tests, answer any questions, and secure any other observations that

the subjects might like to add.

4. Testing Procedure Skirmish

Once the processes and music samples were set up, a skirmish of the test

procedure was done using Marcus Wigan as the subject, and Peter Blamey as the

test operator. The base line settings of the hearing aids he was using were reset

to the most recent audiology results, obtained at the Melbourne Audiology Clinic,

and including a careful tuning of a pair of advanced Siemens hearing aids to add

perspective to the process, which otherwise was restricted to tests using to

Blamey and Saunders Aids (BSH). The calibration of the Siemens aids included

surround testing and exploited the ability of the aids to communicate with each

other.

3 (EV) A |…………………..……|………………………….…| B (off)

mrw> interval too long needs shorter sample, and possibly a repeat of A

12 (EV) A |....................................|......X ……….…………….|B (off)

15 (off) A |…………….…………..|………………..…..…X….| B (EV)

mrw> whistle at A start/confused on A

13 (off) A |…..X ………………… |……………………...…….| B (EV)

mrw> volume? Ringing? High2 notes off | still ringing

20 (EV) A |………X……………… |…………………………….| B (off)

mrw> some notes odd | sounds better

Table. 6. Results of the skirmish tests on trial subject Marcus Wigan

A loan pair of Siemens aids was worn for a week to get immediate experience of

the potential differences, and formed part of three way comparisons (nothing,

Blamey and Saunders, and Siemens) during a performance of the Australian

Chamber Orchestra (ACO). This was most useful, and highlighted the very

different methods of adapting aid settings to the personal references of the users

14


and such small (but valuable) points as the balances between the ears with non-

communicating aids. The ACO performance allowed a check on the three

different strategies for handling the interactions with live music.

The skirmish was carried out using the protocol in Appendix 1, with no subject

or observer knowledge of the settings being used for each trial. A set of Blamey

and Saunders 64 SIE+ Hearing Aids were used, set up to implement each of the

settings to be tested against a base level of the recently measured audiology. This

was the same protocol for the study subjects.

X marked the point at which the subject recorded the strength of the subject’s

preference between the pair of samples. Although several of these results

(treated as binary choices) followed the expected patterns, 60s was clearly too

long for each sample. It was noted that articulating what the basis for the A<>B

preference was made the decision easier and more incisive. This was added to

the administration protocol. Simply choosing between A and B was not very

effective, as the degree of confidence in the decision was clearly necessary.

The experimental procedures were then reassessed on the basis of the

experience gained. The most significant change required was to reduce the

samples from 60s to 30s, as aural memory constraints made it much harder to

judge the comparisons when using the 60s samples. After the trial skirmish, 30s

extracts of the more problematic segments were made to provide the subset of

these widely variable samples were standardized for use in the subject tests.

15


5. Characteristics of the final set of 30s music samples used

Track 03: Dawns Mirage-Song for the Morning Star

Track 12: Andromache's Farewell Songs Op 39.2

Track 15: Minuet in G Minor BWV 115

Track 19: Big Yellow Taxi Big Yellow Taxi

Track 20: Miles Davis

Track 03 Blue = original: LHS: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction RHS: = ISS at max strength

16


Fig. 3. Spectral analysis and testing against hearing aid setting variationsThe 30-s music recordings were processed in the MATLAB software package to

simulate the effects of hearing aid processing.

First, the recordings were converted from stereo (44.1-kHz sampling rate) to

mono (16-kHz sampling rate). This simulated the effect of a hearing aid sampling

a single microphone input. The down sampled input stimuli were then processed

with a model of the Environmental Noise Reduction (ENR) algorithm used in

BSH hearing aids. A very aggressive setting was used (9 dB of noise reduction at

any noise level). The output stimuli were saved in WAV files with the text “ENR”

in the files names. The input (blue) and output (red) stimulus waveforms were

also plotted and saved in TIFF files with “ENR” in the file names.

The down sampled input stimuli were also separately processed with a model of

the Impulsive Sound Suppression (ISS) algorithm used in BSH hearing aids. A

very aggressive setting was used (suppress transients above the average peak

sound level no matter what the average peak sound level). The output stimuli

were saved in WAV files with the text “ISS” in the files names. The input (blue)

and output (red) stimulus waveforms were also plotted and saved in TIFF files

with “ISS” in the file names. The results for the selected samples are shown in

Fig. 3.

5. Subject Recruitment and Coverage

As this small project was specifically to determine what differences were

required of hearing aids to best address different types of music in the view of

listeners, one variable that could be controlled is the choice of the hearing aid.

The most recent Blamey and Saunders ADRO-based over the ear SIE64+ aids

were chosen and collaboration with the company set up.

The subject recruitment process was to use the email list of Blamey and

Saunders hearing aid users to send a formal Monash invitation.

17


As it was important to have some background information on those responding

to this invitation, and option to participate was included in the wider survey of

the musical experiences of hearing aid users run using Qualtrics survey software

directly from Monash at

https://monash.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eONhmmjJHnBSLUF

This survey included an option for Blamey and Saunders hearing aid users to

volunteer as subjects, and by completing the survey to provide the necessary

background data at the time of volunteering. Full informed consent was provided

by a detailed explanation of the project as the opening page of the survey.

The survey also provided an opportunity, by making it more widely known and

available, for hearing aid users generally to make their views and experiences

known. Few such wide ranging responses were expected to be able to respond

this survey, as formal approvals by bodies such as COTA require long lead times,

and in all probability few or no responses would be received before the

preliminary analysis had been completed This proved to be the case. However,

engagement with COTA was an important aspect of the development towards a

later Linkage proposal were the results of the present work justify this outreach,

and the experience with it will be very useful for the major study that is

proposed to build on the experience and findings of the present small project.

It is significant to note that the importance of music to Seniors, and the

prevalence of hearing aid users in this age group, were not sufficiently well

known factors to secure either endorsement or cooperation from either National

Seniors Australia8 or COTA9 (The Council on the Ageing) until after the

recruitment survey stage had been completed, when COTA’s National Research

Committee indicated approval. However, this opens the way to COTA inclusion in

any follow up work. At the time of writing (April 2017) no formal response had

yet been received from National Seniors.

In any subsequent work in this area, formal presentations will clearly be

required to inform these extremely large bodies with a major fraction of their

8 www.nationalseniors.com.au9 www.cota.org.au/

18

https://monash.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eONhmmjJHnBSLUF


membership in the hearing aid age groups of the issues involved and the

potential value to their membership. The lead times in procedures from both of

these leading bodies for securing either endorsement or cooperation are

currently very long, and planning would need to be done very far in advance.

6. Discussion of the Survey results

As the sample frame was initially simply the Blamey and Saunders client email

list, supplemented by a few responses from Western Australia and possibly from

COTA members at the last stages, it would not be possible to describe these

results as any more than indicative, although they can certainly be interpreted as

representative of those Blamey and Saunders clients who had sufficient interest

to respond.

The full results as at January 5th 2017 are provided as Appendix 3. The survey is

still (as at April 2017) online as a broader and larger response set would be

valuable for planning any follow-up project. A selected number of the diagrams

are given here to highlight key aspects of the findings.

Fig. 3. Age distribution of survey responders (n=65)

19


Fig 3 shows that the 70-80 age group was the most strongly represented and that

60+ covered virtually all the respondents, This age group is expected to at least

double in size by 2040.

Fig. 4. Length of time since starting to use hearing aids (n=63)

Fig. 4 shows that 77% of the respondents had been using hearing aids for more

than a year, and so were reasonably comfortable with using them, and were

likely to be making informed choices as to how to use them (if at all) in different

musical situations. The key questions were summarized in Figs 5 and 6. How

important is music to the respondents? Two thirds said that it was Very or

Extremely important (in accord with the introductory comments in this report)

(Fig.5).

Fig. 5. Overall how important to you is listening to music? (n=63)

20


How important is the quality of that music when it reaches their ears? 81% said

that is was very or extremely important (Fig 6).

These results suggest that the question of improving the experience of listening

to music is certainly important to the respondents. This was not an expected

finding at the outset, as different kinds of music have widely differing production

standards and styles, but discussion with the subjects after testing made it very

clear that music not only mattered, but quality of the sound was demanded for

all types of music.

Fig. 6. And how important is the quality of the sound? (n=63)

Overall how important to you is listening to music?Importance of the Music Sound Quality

Extremely important

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important

Not at all important

TotalExtremely important 21 5 1 0 0 27Very important 0 16 6 2 0 24Moderately important 0 1 7 3 0 11Slightly important 0 0 0 0 0 0Not at all important 0 0 0 0 1 1Total 21 22 14 5 1 63

Table. 8. The Importance of music to the respondents and the importance of its sound quality are very tightly linked (Chi Square 121.83/16df: p=0.00)

21


Fig. 7. What kinds of recorded music do you listen to regularly? Please select the one most important to you (n=62)

Fig 7 shows that although Classical Music is the most reported genre, Easy

Listening is the next most important - where the quality might not otherwise

have been expected to be critical.

However closer analysis of the relationships (Table 9) shows that there are

indeed significant differences between the two categories.

T-tests between Easy Listening and Classical Music (P=0.01) (and also Easy

Listening and Opera (p=0.02)) are significant, although the numbers in the

latter test is based on very small numbers.

22


How important is the quality of the sound?What kinds of recorded music do you listen to regularly? Please select the one most important to you

Extremely important

Very important

Moderately important

Slightly important


TotalEasy Listening 1 6 3 0 0 10Folk Music 2 1 2 0 0 5Pop Music 1 2 0 0 0 3Rock Music 2 1 0 0 0 3Electronic Music 0 0 0 0 0 0Classical Music 10 6 5 0 0 21Vocal Performances 2 5 0 0 0 7Early Music 2 0 0 0 0 2Solo instruments (guitar, violin etc.) 1 1 1 0 0 3Symphonies 2 1 0 0 0 3Jazz 1 0 0 0 0 1Opera 2 1 0 0 0 3Total 26 24 11 0 0 61

Table. 7. Importance of the quality of the sound for different types of music

As in the actual laboratory tests, where “preferences” were specifically defined in

the terms used by the listeners, and were not defined in advance by the study,

the term “quality” in the survey was not probed further. However in the testing

results the most commonly used by the subjects word was ‘clarity’.

While the numbers are small, two sided t-tests suggested significant differences

between Extremely and Moderately Important (p=0.03); Easy Listening and

Early Music (p=0.00) Classical and Early Music (p=p-0.00) and Vocal

Performance and Early Music (p=0.01).

The present study is constrained to controlled conditions in a specific location

using recorded music, so the environments in which survey respondents listened

to live music (Fig. 8) was a useful indicator of where follow up work on live

music might be needed.

23


Fig. 8. Do you attend live music events? If so which kinds? (n=53)

Blamey and Saunders hearing aids come with a BlueTooth programmer that

permits a substantial amount of self-tuning and adjustment (but not necessarily

the settings turned on and off in the present study: not all settings are accessible

to the user via the BSH IHearYou App).

Fig. 9. Adjusting hearing aids for music (n=43)

A surprising number of respondents had either tried (successfully or otherwise)

or had an audiologist assist them to adjust their hearing aids for a music setting.

Few appear to have found this successful. However it must be noted that a large

fraction of Blamey and Saunders aids are sold to people far away, and they often

set up the speech settings using the audiology that they have to hand, or

experiment to secure the results that they want. The possible ambiguity of the

question reduces the value of these results, but they are indicative of the

24


potential to get users to readjust their aids themselves if better advice, or

technology, can be created.

The entries made into the open text comment fields provided for several survey

questions provide a rich source of insights on the interactions and experiences of

hearing aid users with music of various kinds. It must be noted that the hearing

loss profiles of the respondents - and indeed of the test subjects - vary widely.

It is therefore not surprising that the preference patterns that the subjects report

differ substantially. Key questions include:

- Can the test subjects discriminate between the different treatments of the

test pieces of music?

- Are they different for the two very different Cycles (sets of settings) used? At

either an aggregate or an individual level?

The different pieces of music are to show up any variations in preference

decisions and to answer these two questions. There are many others that

integrating the survey data with the test results will help with, but these are not

within the defined scope of the present small study.

7. Discussion of the comment fields

The common factors in the text fields are a mix of rejection of the aids for music

and efforts to try to make them workable, using a variety of strategies. While

there are some comparative comments made about various brands, there is

insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions on that score

However the broad agreement on the importance of music to people using aids,

and the emphasis on quality, irrespective of age, venue, or music taste. Suggests

that if aids could be set up to be more helpful there would be a significant

number of people positively affected,

25


A substantial amount of information is available in the comment fields, which are

therefore reproduced in full as Appendix 3. The detailed analysis of these results,

and in conjunction with the Test results, are not within the scope of the current

small scale pilot work, but will need to be carried out at a later stage to guide any

major project that might be proposed.

Two desirable questions that were excluded from the testing protocol were

• Do you like this piece of music?

and

Are you familiar with this piece of music?

The relevance of the first is clear: we do not know if disliking a piece of music

would make one more tolerant of distortions or other infelicities in its delivery

through hearing aids.

The second is of great but separate interest: it is clear that once one is familiar

with a piece of music and enjoys it, a remarkably limited reproduction can create

the familiar memory as one is prompted by the rhythm even with massive

background noise.

Recent successful work on music and playlists on iPads for Alzheimer’s

sufferers10 shows that such factors simply cannot be ignored in any large-scale

study of music listening with hearing assistance.

8. Test Administration

As a direct result of the survey recruitment process almost all of the survey

respondents were already using Blamey and Saunders Aids, but any follow on

work would need to draw from a wider population of current hearing aid users.

129 respondents had accessed the Survey by 5/1/17, and 41 qualified

10 https://musicandmemory.org/ and for example Gerdner, L.A., & Schoenfelder, D.P. (2010). Evidence-based guideline. Individualized music for elders with dementia. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 36(6), 7-15. doi: 10.3928/00989134-20100504-01

26

https://musicandmemory.org/


volunteering candidates offered contact details and volunteered for this study.

The target was 20 subjects, with 10 A<>B tests per subject plus a single

familiarization trial. This was, when adjusted to 30-second samples, easily

managed in a one-hour appointment, including the fitting of the remote

controlled Blamey and Saunders SIE64+ aids used as the control for this project.

As the subjects selected were drawn from Blamey and Saunders clients, their

audiology and settings held by Blamey and Saunders. Consequently the

programming to match each subject’s ordinary settings in their own hearing aids

used for the project tests could be done for the 64SIE+ Aids in advance. Time was

allowed to select and adjust ear mold settings, and the appropriate lengths of

microphone loops. A BlueTooth remote programmer was attached to the two

aids.

Fig. 10. Audiology testing room where the test were carried out

The experimental layout was in a 3m x 3m testing room with acoustic deadening

curtains and door treatments, used for clinical hearing tests by the Blamey and

27


Saunders company audiologists. Two Genelec active speakers at calibrated

positions ether side of the room facing each other placed half way along the

room were used to deliver the music. The subject sat at the center of the rear of

the room, with the observer adjacent. The test administrator sat on the opposite

side of the room, and communicated with the hearing aids via BlueTooth, and

altered the hearing aid settings via Bluetooth between each trial.

Code Cycle 1 Cycle 1Cycle 2 (Prog3)

Cycle2 (Prog4)

Every Day EV EVOff Off Off

Environmental Noise Reduction ENR Off On (High)Feedback Control FBC On Off

Impulsive Sound Suppression ISS Off On (High)

Table. 8. Hearing Aid Setting Combinations used for the A, B comparisons

The settings and sequences used were managed by the tester, and not disclosed

to the Observer so that no involuntary cues could be given to the subject. They

were recorded on a copy of the Running Sheet (Appendix 1) and collated and

data entry done afterwards by the Observer. The subjects were taken for light

refreshments at an adjacent café, and insights into their experiences and hopes

with hearing aids and music were explored.

The comment fields added significant value to the test responses, and give real

insights into how music and hearing aid issues are viewed by the target

populations, some of which were followed up in these discussions.

9. Data Extraction

The length of the scale was measured, and the distance of the X marks made by

the subject were taken from the “A” side measured using a precision steel ruler.

These measures were then corrected to the central point on the scale, leading to

negative value on the A preference side, and positive for X markings on the B-

side of the scale.

28


The first Cycle of tests presented choices between EV (The every day settings

used by the subjects) v Off (where “Off’ meant that FBC, ENR, ISS were all

switched off in the hearing aid)

The Tester’s running sheet was then used to correct the reference base to the

‘Off” side for Cycle 1 of the tests, and Program 4 for Cycle 2 of the tests.

The resulting values were then normalized to unity and expressed as %.

The key single word or concept written in by the subjects as the major factor in

their expressed preference was also collected (worda such as Clarity, Feedback

etc.).

10. Results of the listening trials

As the project was to determine what user preferences were between different

genres of music and styles of hearing aid settings, the basis on which conscious

user choices were made was a primary data acquisition requirement.

This was secured by asking for “a couple of words on the factors that the users

considered when making their choice between the A and B versions”. This

appeared to assist users when making their rating decisions as well as capturing

the factors that were top of mind as they did so. The words recorded were coded

into four factors, as listed in Table 9.

The % frequencies of the use of each term are listed as the bottom row. Given

that Hearing Aids are specifically designed to deliver Clear speech, the use of

Clarity as the primary descriptor (39%) was not surprising. The well-reported

experiences of volume and feedback issues in live performances were largely

eliminated in this closed room trial with recorded music, although a significant

number of responses (22%) still chose the Volume/Distortion/Feedback issues

that can arise in live music venues when efforts were made by the users to adjust

29


their hearing aids to capture the full dynamic range of live music. This issue will

need close attention in a study with larger scope, including a variety of live

performance, especially as the volume levels were standardized in the tests. Only

one subject requested a reduction in the standard volume setting.

Clarity Tone Volume Distortion FeedbackClarityMidrange Alive BassVolumeClearer Balance LoudnessCrisper Bass LouderSharper Dull

FlatHarshMellowMidRangeMonoRangeResonanceScratchyShrillSmootherTreble

39% 22% 13% 7% 2%

Table. 9. Words used to describe subject preferences between samples

The results of the choices made by the subjects led to some cases where they

decided that they could not make a choice: 11/100 for the first cycle, and 11/90

for the second Cycle. In a larger study this and other information would be linked

to the audiology of each subject, but as the objective in this feasibility study was

restricted to the capacity and variation in choices made between different types

of music with different hearing aid settings, this is not covered at this stage. It

may be possible to relink the survey and test results at some later point, and

agreement was secured to do this if required.

30


Clarity Tone Volume Distortion Feedback0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Fig. 10. Frequency of descriptors as the dominant reason for A/B choices.

11. Analysis and Discussion of the Results

The results show that subjects are able to make clear distinctions between quite

subtle variations in hearing aid algorithms and settings. These preferences were

very different for each music sample, and varied substantially between the

different subjects. The critical research factor was: could the subjects distinguish

between the different settings used and did their preference patterns differed

between different genres of music? The results show that this is indeed the case.

The basis for the choices made were clarified by the comments made on the basis

of the preference choice at each pair of samples. Not all comparisons attracted

such a comment, and indeed in some cases no preference was the decision that

they made: i.e. the X was placed midway between the two alternatives A and B.

The dominant words used were Clarity and Tonal quality: a two tailed Chi-

square test showed that there was no significant difference between the two test

Cycles 1, 2 in the use of these descriptors, suggesting that the same decision

criteria were being applied to the two different kinds of aid setting comparisons.

31


It is important to note that the levels of hearing loss and the characteristics of

this hearing loss were held out of these comparisons and analyses. Any further

can now take full advantage of this information and the integration of the online

survey data with the test data, now that permission has been secured from the

subjects to do this.

The reference results from each subject and music sample and Cycle are collated

as Table A5-1 in Appendix 5 with their direction retained. This allows a swift

assessment of the differences between subjects and their responses to the

different samples including the direction of their preferences.

3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c1

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Average Directional Choice

Fig. 11. Choice variations by music genre: Cycle 1: Directional and Strength

Table A5-2 is simply the preference strength irrespective of its direction A<>B,

and so is a measure of the basic strength of the decision making in each case.

32


It is clear that there are substantial differences in the choice patterns between

each sample of music, and between each Cycle of hearing aid setting

comparisons.

3c2 12c2 15c2 19c2 20c2

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Average Directional Choice

Average NON-Directional Choice

Fig. 12. Choice variations by music genre: Cycle 2: Directional and Strength

Tables A5-3 prunes the choices made to those that exceed 0.25 aggregated over

all subjects for each music sample, A5-4 when |0.25| is used, i.e. the direction of

the choice is ignored. By removing all but the most confident choices made (>|

0.25|) the distinctions between hearing aid settings and different pieces of music

are clearer. Figures 12-14 include the strengths of the expressed preferences,

summed with and without the signed directions.

33


3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c1

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Cycle 1

Cycle 2

Fig. 13. Signed choice summations by music genre: Cycles 1, 2

3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c10.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Cycle 1

Cycle 2

Fig. 14. Unsigned (| |) choice summations by music genre: Cycles 1, 2

While this demonstrates that there are distinct differences between

the choices made for each cycle (aka hearing aid setting comparison

set) and each piece of music. This was the project objective.

34


3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c140%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Any choice made? Choices > 0.10

Choices > 0.25

Fig. 15. Variations in Cycle 1 music samples where decision was made

3c2 12c2 15c2 19c2 20c240%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Any choice made? Choices > 0.10Choices > 0.25

Fig. 16. Variations in Cycle 2 music samples where decision was made

35


Table A5-5 is the next stage, where 1 is used if any non-zero preference strength

was recorded, and 0 if no choice at all was made. For Cycle 1 this was 85-90% of

all comparisons, and 89-94% of Cycle 2 – however small the preference

expressed in either direction might be.

As the question is essentially about choices rather than the degrees of preference

– which clearly could and should be refined using the audiology of the subjects in

subsequent work – the results can be examined on the basic of the presence or

absence of a choice being made. Once again 0.1 and 0.25 thresholds were also

examined to be sure that a choice made could be taken as unequivocal.

Table A5-6 records a 1 only if the preference strength exceeds 0.1. For Cycle 1 it

is the case for 65-75% of the test comparisons made in Cycle 1, and 67-89% in

Cycle 2.

Table A5-7 records 1 only when preference strength exceeds 0.25: a clear strong

choice. This still yielded 50-60% of comparisons were made at this degree of

confidence for Cycle 1 and 44-78% for Cycle 2.

Figures 15, 16 summarise the patterns of definite choices made at each level of

preference recorded, for both Cycles 1,2 and all of the music samples.

Both the size of the expressed preferences and the frequencies of clear decisions

reaffirm that the music preferences for different hearing aid settings differ for

the different genres of music tested.

.

36


12. Conclusions

The Research Question was: Do we need to have different hearing aid settings for

different types of music?

This Question did not require the determination of the settings required for any

specific type of music. Or that the overall averaged results indicate that one type

of setting was better than another.

It was broken down into the following questions:

1) Could the subjects discriminate between different types of music at the using

the same settings? YES

2) Were there differences between the choices made between different aid

settings? YES And for each type of music? YES

3) A subsidiary question was: how consistent was the Choice Factor cited by

each subject for the two very different trials (i.e. Cycles 1,2) VARIED BY

MUSIC GENRE

4) Were there differences between the choices made by individuals for

different settings? (Addressed by comparing Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 results for

individuals, and further explored with overall averages) YES

These finding support the hypothesis that different hearing aid

settings/algorithms are required for the subjects tested for different types of

music.

Many of the subjects had difficulties in making the comparison decisions, and so

it is recommended that the threshold edited results be taken as the most reliable

indication of the outcomes of this work. The subjects made clear preference

decisions, but different subjects made different decisions. Therefore, there was

no consensus that algorithms that distort music should be turned off. The

reasons for this could be further investigated, and may involve factors such as

37


stimulus presentation level, hearing aid fitting, hearing loss, preferred listening

levels, and/or musical taste. Fittings that are more tailored to the dynamics of

music and individual listening preferences may reduce the preference for noise

reduction and feedback management algorithms that can reduce the level of

music.

38


13. Data and Analyses outside the study scope

Each subject was asked if they would agree to have the survey responses

matched to their test sheets. This could perhaps have been within the scope of

the consent form and the volunteering of contact details and agreement to

volunteer for the study on the first page of the Survey, but this is not

straightforward as anonymity was safeguarded and the matching consequently

time consuming. Agreement was secured, and the questions that can

subsequently be addressed by this expanded dataset include links to musical

taste and places of consumption, gender and age effects, comments on music and

success or otherwise with aids and music etc.

14. What next?

The more that the small project was discussed, the more gaps appeared in the

overall area of interactions between hearing aid design and implementation and

musical experiences of hearing aid users.

It is evident that live music requires a separate investigation. Not only are the

environments very different to those in which recorded music is listened to, but

there is no control possible over the environment in which the experience tales

place, other than via hearing aid settings.

An equally important point is that modern music is recorded with the active

involvement and subsequent acoustic and digital processing to a level where

recording engineers are effectively performers themselves.

The mixing processes are not the issue, but the near-universal use of

compression and other digital processing is. In the current exploratory work

only the North American Flute (Sample 3) was explicitly modified by the creators

of the CD (a 300ms delay introduced to secure an artificial echo from the

supposed canyons in which it was being played).

39


4. t was clear from the study that further research is needed to determine

appropriate processing for music. Previous research has overwhelmingly been

directed towards processing to improve speech understanding in noise, and such

processing can result in the distortion of music. Very little research has been

published on appropriate amplification, feedback reduction, and noise reduction

settings for music. Future research could be directed towards understanding

how to optimally fit hearing aids for music.

Further into the future, although a small amount of work has been done on the

very different type of hearing support provided by Cochlear Implants (Innes-

Brown, Au, Stevens, Schubert, & Marozeau, 2012) to live concert music, but the

rapid development of more advanced hearing aids with greater processing

power, communication capacities and better power handing capacity, to allow

that new capacity to be practical, are moving on apace. The work undertaken

here gives a practical start to framing the best ways to explore a much wider

range of hearing aids and develop advice on design approaches that enhance

user musical experiences for all, and in a wider range of circumstances.

At a detailed technical level, even lower power Bluetooth than BT4 would allow

direct communications within motorcycle helmets, where music is already often

played, adapted to the conditions in these difficult environments. To go further

reversing the function of the aids to cancel noise rather than reproduce it needs

to be actively considered, as helmet noise is a significant contributor to hearing

loss, and thus also has a substantial potential.

There are also those who might assert that being able to cancel out (unwanted)

music in such a manner would also be an asset!

This work has identified a wide range of areas where follow up work would

clearly be desirable, practical, and useful. It would undoubtedly best be done in

close cooperation with both relevant industry and the audiology professionals to

ensure direct transfer of the results both to product innovation and to

operational clinical practice and to aged care. This area as a whole has proved to

40


be severely under researched and still poorly understood. Further work is

needed to address the mix of issues in hearing aid design, and to determine the

audiologist and user response capacities required.

15. Data Bank from this study

• The full set of Consent forms, data collection from (Observer, Tester and

subject) are held in a folder and in a set of scanned semi-searchable Pdf files

• All extracted data and manipulations are held in a large Excel spreadsheet

• A full Qualtrics file export is held in SPSS format, and also, securely, in a csv

format containing contact details. The extracts in this Report exclude all

personal details and are anonymous as specified in the Ethics Approval

• The Qualtrics survey holding the data has been left online for future use and

updating, but can only be accessed by the first author if Monash access is

arranged after the date of project completion (31-3-17).

16. Recommendations

A number of proposals have been noted throughout this report, as issues have

been encountered or identified, and specific suggestions are added here.

1. The project as established that discrimination is possible, and that the

results of better music experiences matter to the subjects. Only recorded

music has been used, and the characteristics of live music are different.

Further work is needed to address live music.

2. An original proposal was to use live performances in the Monash School

of Music auditorium and record the performances so that both live

assessment and the differential responses to heavily processed versions

of the recorded performances could be measured and analysed.

41


3. It is clear that an analytic process should be developed to simulate

hearing aids and various algorithms would be invaluable both for

experimental work and to educate both audiologist and others interacting

with those who have hearing loss to appreciate their experiences. This

would allow a wide range of different manufacturers’ hearing aids to be

included using this outcome in a set of headphones.

4. The cross disciplinary characteristics of this research area would benefit

from DSP and transfer function skills, and preliminary interest in

participation has already been expressed by the Department Head of

Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Melbourne. The

experience of the Cochlear Implant team at the Bionic Ear should also be

included.

5. The audiology industry also needs to be engaged as communicating how

best to support music listening in hearing aid use is an important

practical component in securing the best community impact. Prof Alicia

Greasley at Leeds University UK has a major project that complements the

proposals here, and should be consulted, preferably visited, to enhance

any future proposal and be invited to join in any Linkage proposal.

6. The active engagement of an Australian manufacturing industry even at

the pilot stage confirms that a Linkage proposal should be developed with

a wider range of organisations. A planning group should be formed.

17. Acknowledgements

The support of the Monash Arts-Engineering Seeding fund is gratefully

acknowledged. The technical support of Ben Grayson of the Sir Zelman School of

Music was greatly appreciated, and would be an essential component in any

subsequent work.

42


The extensive, informed and highly engaged cooperation of the principal and

staff of Blamey and Saunders Hearing have made essential and highly valued

practical and theoretical contributions well beyond the provision of testing

facilities, and are deservedly cited as joint authors of the present project report.

The oversight by the Chief Investigators (Professors John Griffiths, School of

Music, and Jeffery Rosenfeld AO, Director of the Institute of Medical Engineering)

has been appreciated.

18. References

Access Economics. (2006). Listen Hear! The economic impact and cost of hearing loss in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.audiology.asn.au/public/1/files/Publications/ListenHearFinal.pdf

Bradford, K. (2014). The effect of hearing aid program on the perceived sound quality of music. (Doctor of Audiology), Louisiana Tech University.

Chasin, M. (2012). Music and Hearing Aids—An Introduction. Trends in Amplification, 16(3), 136-139.

Crogan, N. B. H., Arehart, K. H., & Kates, J. M. (2012). Quality and loudness judgments for music subjected to compression limiting. J. Acoustical Society of America, 132(2), 1177-1188.

Croghan, N. B. H. (2013). Perceived Quality of Recorded Music Processed through Compression Hearing Aids. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Colorado, Boulder CO.

Croghan, N. B. H., Arehart, K. H., & Kates, J. M. (2014). Music Preferences With Hearing Aids: Effects of Signal Properties, Compression Settings, and Listener Characteristics. Ear and Hearing, 35(5), 15.

Gruhlke, A. (2016). The Music Memory:Q & A with Alyson Gruhlke. Higgins, P., Searchfield, G., & Coad, G. (2012). A Comparison Between the First-Fit

Settings of Two Multichannel Digital Signal-Processing Strategies: Music Quality Ratings and Speech-in-Noise Scores. American Journal of Audiology, 21(June), 13-21.

Innes-Brown, H, Au, A., Stevens, C., Schubert, E., & Marozeau, J. (2012). New music for the Bionic Ear: An assessment of the enjoyment of six new works composed for cochlear implant recipients. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC) 8th Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM).

Johnston, K. N. (2009). Music perception of hearing-impaired listerns: effects of hearing aid settings and personality fcactors. (Degree of Doctor of Philosophy), University of Florida.

43

https://www.audiology.asn.au/public/1/files/Publications/ListenHearFinal.pdf

https://www.audiology.asn.au/public/1/files/Publications/ListenHearFinal.pdf


Kronen, C. (2014). User-Adjusted Settngs for Music Listening with a Simulated Hearing Aid App: Effects of Dynamic Range Compression, Data-rate and Genre. (Undergraduate Honours Undergraduate Honours), University of Colorado, Boulder CO. (747)

Legarth, S. V., Zacharov, N., Latzel, M., & Kuhnel, V. (2014). Hearing Aids and Music. Audiology on Line, 8.

Madsen, S. M. K., & Moore, B. C. J. (2014). Music and Hearing Aids. Trends in Hearing(Dec-Jan), 29.

Minichiello, V., & Hays, T. (2005). The Meaning of Music in the Lives of Older People: A Qualitative Study. Psychology of Music, 33(4), 437-451.

Pras, A., Zimmerman, R., Levitin, D., & Gustavino, C. (2009). Subjective evaluation of mp3 compression for different musical genres. Paper presented at the Audio Engineering Society 127th Convention October 9-12, New York.

Schubert, E., Marozeau, J., Stevens, C. J., & Innes-Brown, H. (2014). ‘Like Pots and Pans Falling Down the Stairs’. Experience of Music Composed for Listeners with Cochlear Implants in a Live Concert Setting. Journal of New Music Research, 43(2). doi:10.1080/09298215.2014.910235

Uys, M., Potta, L., VanDijk, C., & Vink, B. (2013). The Influence of Non-Linear Frequency Compression on the Perception of Timbre and Melody by Adults with a Moderate to Severe Hearing Loss. Commun Disord Deaf Stud Hearing Aids, 1(2), 6.

Zakis, J. A. (2016). Music Perception and Hearing Aids. In G. R. Popelka, B. C. J. Moore, R. R. Fay, & A. N. Popper (Eds.), Hearing Aids: Springer Handbook of Auditory Research 56 (pp. 290): Springer.

Appendix 1: Spectral analysis of potential 60s music selections

The 60-second samples provided by Monash to Blamey and Saunders were

processed for spectral characteristics to explore how hearing aid settings might

interact with them by Justin Zakis. These are shown (Blue processed, Red basic)

Fig. A1. Track 01 Blue = original. A: Red = ENR set to 9 dB noise reduction B: ISS at max strength

44







45







46







47






48


Appendix 2: Hearing Aids and Music Running Sheet

Subject Number (from volunteer list)___________________ Date of trials_______________

A pair of B&S 64+ hearing aids with fresh over/in ear microphones is provided. The hearing aids are connected to the controlling computer via a BlueTooth box on your lap. You will be seated between two speakers in a quiet room and be asked to choose between two slightly different versions of the same piece of music. There is an observer and you can ask questions at any time.

First we will do one example pair so that you can get familiar with how the experiment will work

1. Played through before testing 2. Test run A 3. Test Run B 4. Place Your preference on the scaleSample 20 A |_________________|________________| B

Sample Number in Order

Experimental Session One

Please place an X to show the direction and strength of your choicebetween A and B. E.G. An X close to A means that you strongly prefer A. Placing the X at the middle (|) means you have no preference between the two music samples.

What determined your choice? Distortion? Clarity? Something else?

3 A |_________________|________________| BNotes on A & B

12 A |_________________|________________| BNotes on A & B

15 A |_________________|________________| BNotes on A & B

19 A |_________________|________________| BNotes on A & B

20 A |_________________|________________| BNotes on A & B

You will then be asked to repeat these tests with slightly different settings

Sample Number in Order

Experimental Session Two

Please place an X to show the direction and strength of your choicebetween A and B. E.G. An X close to A means that you strongly prefer A. Placing the X at the middle (|) means you have no preference between the two music samples.

What determined your choice? Distortion? Clarity? Something else?

3 A |_________________|________________| BNotes on A & B

12 A |_________________|________________| BNotes on A & B

15 A |_________________|________________| BNotes on A & B

19 A |_________________|________________| BNotes on A & B

20 A |_________________|________________| BNotes on A & B

After the tests we will take you for coffee/tea and discuss any aspect of the project that you wish

49


Appendix 3: Survey Results: Musical experiences of people using Hearing Aids

71 completed survey response sets from 129 initial accesses to this survey, 110 agreed to do the survey

# Answer % Count

1 Yes 94.83% 110

2 No 5.17% 6

Total 100% 116Fig. A3-1. Do you agree to take part in this survey? If not, thank you for having a look at this project, but do not continue

50


# Answer % Count

1 Under 30 0.00% 0

2 30-40 0.00% 0

3 40-50 1.54% 1

4 50-60 7.69% 5

5 60-70 32.31% 21

6 70-80 49.23% 32

7 Over 80 9.23% 6

8 I prefer not to say 0.00% 0

Total 100% 65

Fig. A3-2. What is your age?

# Answer % Count

1 Male 70.31% 45

2 Female 29.69% 19

3 I prefer not to say 0.00% 0

Total 100% 64

Fig. A3-3. What is your gender?

51


# Answer % Count

1 As a child 72.73% 32

2 As an adult 18.18% 8

3 At a professional level or as a professional musician 9.09% 4

Total 100% 44Fig. A3-4. Have you had any musical training?

Text A3-1: Have you had major noise exposures in the past?

Have you had major noise exposure in the past? Please comment here

Some very loud concerts (as a customer).

Air Force flight line

Some years of constant, but not particularly high-level noise, and as a clarinet player in orchestral music and as a saxophone player in big bands, in both instances the brass section is directly behind. My left ear was affected by barotrauma while free diving.

Significant exposure to racecar engine noise and machinery.

Yes Heavy Paper making newsprint

No

No more than one is unfortunately always exposed to in society: compulsory piped music; also transient ambient loud noise.

No

A little

Exposure to heavy industrial machinery noises.

Attended many classical music concerts over the years, many of which featured loud music, but loudness was mostly transients rather than sustained as in rock concerts. Also listened to classical music at quite loud levels through high-end audio systems and headphones.

52


Noise power stations and gunfire in army reserves and rifle club all before earmuffs were used

No

Do rock concerts apply to this question?

At a particular rock concert where I was seated in front of speakers and noticed ringing for many days later

Nothing out of the ordinary

Paper making industry

Yes tuning car radios 17 - 20yo. 105mm Artillery Guns 21-23yo. Tinnitus at 37yo.

Firing a rifle in my late teens

Rifle fire. Construction

Less than 5 rock concerts, fewer than 6 instances of shooting shotguns. Member of a marching band for 4 years.

Mostly power tools but some industrial

Power tools, past dance music venues + separate unprotected 303cal. Rifle fire.

In 20's exposed to industrial noise as a foreman in a cable manufacturing plant.

Military training

No

Tractors, chain saws, working in loud bands

No - I am moderately in the lows to severely in the highs hard of hearing from birth (users syndrome type 2).

No

No

Machinery

In early adolescence I had an obsessive hobby of devising and detonating at close range explosive mixtures, basically potassium chlorate and sulphur; often by hammering the mixture on concrete.

No

Yes Newsprint Paper making industry

No

Construction noise

No

Active in motor racing as competitor.

Standing alongside an electric saw- as a kid, waiting in a disco for my teenage children

Most likely

53


Minimal exposure to power tool noise

Listening to loud live music

Sitting in the row in front of trumpets

Metal workshop and civil construction

Apparently as my hearing loss is similar to an industrial deafness profile

Yes working in heavy engineering

No exposure, no musical training

Diesel engines, rock concerts etc.

Loud Tractor noise as a child. Jet aircraft noise during RAAF Service. Sirens and firearms during 41 yrs. Police Service

Not that I am aware of.

Yes Industrial Noise. Worked in Milk Industry all my life so exposed to excessive loud sounds

Gunfire

No

# Answer % Count

1 I enjoy working with music and recording 6.67% 4

2 I have training in this area 1.67% 1

3 I do professional work in sound recording or processing 0.00% 0

4 Not Applicable to me 91.67% 55

Total 100% 60

Fig. A3-5. Are you a sound engineer of any kind?

54


# Answer % Count

1 Less than 1 year 12.70% 8

2 1-5 years 39.68% 25

3 Over 5 years 47.62% 30

Total 100% 63

Fig. A3-6. How long have you been using hearing aids?

Text A3-2: When do you tend to use your Hearing Aids? Examples might include: all the time; at restaurants; in meetings; watching TV; at concerts etc. Please comment on what kinds of situations where you personally find them useful and those where you do not

When do you tend to use them? Examples might include: all the time; at rest...

Nearly all the time.

Groups while flying as a pilot

All the time. Without them I would be lost. Recorded music can be ok or awful, depending on a lot of variables, but the upshot is that I am not listening to very much now because it can be so off-putting. I have just sat through Wagner’s Ring in Melbourne where a good deal of it was good or ok, but so much was distorted, which makes for an experience ranging from exhilaration to despair. TV is also pretty hopeless, so I tend to only watch news, where the presenters are good, or sport where the commentary is usually superfluous.

When I go to visit people and need to understand what's going on.

TV & sport & family

ALL THE TIME. Useful on one to one conversation, most other times not good

All the time, when I remember. TV sound is of a low quality at source; therefore amplifying it via hearing aids is of limited value. Hearing conversation in noisy backgrounds is better but still less than optimal. Hearing aids on the "music" setting help me to hear my own part when I am playing in

55


orchestra (where I play violin), but probably over-increase the background sound of the rest of the orchestra. My hearing aids are helpful in small group conversations in a quiet setting where there is no background music, but background music is a barrier to clear hearing of speech, whether in real life situations or on TV or films. The problem there is partly that one requires to hear speech with greater clarity and at higher volume than is needed for apprehension of music, and while any music interferes with speech perception, music is always set, relatively, far too loud.

Most of the time

Restaurants, at church, watching TV

All the time. I do not use them when higher frequencies are experienced.

My current hearing aids have been useful for speech, although far from perfect. For music, they are completely useless as currently set up. I do not find my hearing aids useful for watching TV, and use wireless headphones instead (which are very successful). Hearing speech in noisy environments is problematic for my hearing aids, but still better than not using them. For listening to music in the car, best option is no hearing aids with sound system volume turned up loud enough. Music played through a high-end sound system is awful with hearing aids, but very good with the very high quality headphones I use. Live music in concert halls is no good with hearing aids, so I no longer go to concerts.

Meetings and social events but cannot use them often as swimming fishing etc.

All the time

When out in public and driving but not at home

All the time except at concerts. I try to reduce the noise from concerts (rock) and sometimes even wear earplugs.Very useful around conversation but hopeless when practicing /playing harmonica/recorder-I actually need to take them off when practicing

In noisy groups or crowds

All the time: 3 days experience with aid

All the time, except sleep, shower, swim or danger of very strong wind

Most of my waking hours except when outside

All the time. Better than nothing but not yet satisfactory solution.

Definitely need them for all social occasions. Turn them off for some friends who have loud voices. Need to turn one aid off when listening to music due to feedback. Difficult to watch TV on a plane due to feedback neighbors can hear.

All waking time

All the time; why not?

All the time

All the time

56


All the time

Useful at meetings but not in noisy areas

All the time

All the time - essential for me.

All the time. Not useful for telephone not so good for TV watching with loud background music

All the time. Restaurants. TV, but still need to read the subtitles. Cinema

In crowds

Most useful for clarity of hearing speech in intimate settings. Little use for conversation in a restaurant. Helpful, now in a music-program for some live-concerts. Excellent for hearing high quality classical recordings in a very small studio recently built for me.Most of the time, including whilst driving but not as a passenger. Essential at meeting or watching TV, I still have problems with music.

Almost All the time

All the time. Less beneficial in noisy environments

Most places, they do help but not as much as I think they could

Restaurants, theatres, concerts

Whenever in company with more than two others, always in cinema, restaurant etc.

All the time

At all times

In meetings, watching TV etc.

I wear my hearing aids all the time

All the time except for in church, at concerts and on the train

All the time

Most times

All the time....

Occasionally as the hearing aids will not stay in my small ears

Never with music

When awake

All the time

Meetings, restaurants

All day when I need to hear people and live concerts. Use headphones or ear buds for TV and recorded music.

All the time

57


Most days with guests, in meetings, TV, not always useful in concerts

Shopping centers, in the car, listening to music, TV, not in windy conditions

Useful on face-to-face conversations. Music and speech from TV inclined to be muffled

Meetings, movies, concerts

Meetings and Restaurants

All the time

All the time

# Answer % Count

1 Extremely important 33.33% 21

2 Very important 34.92% 22

3 Moderately important 22.22% 14

4 Slightly important 7.94% 5

5 Not at all important 1.59% 1

Total 100% 63Fig. A3-7. Overall how important to you is listening to music?

58


# Answer % Count

1 Extremely important 42.86% 27

2 Very important 38.10% 24

3 Moderately important 17.46% 11

4 Slightly important 0.00% 0

5 Not at all important 1.59% 1

Total 100% 63Fig. A3-8. How important is the quality of the sound when you do?

59


# Answer % Count

1 Easy Listening 17.74% 11

2 Folk Music 8.06% 5

3 Pop Music 4.84% 3

4 Rock Music 4.84% 3

5 Electronic Music 0.00% 0

6 Classical Music 33.87% 21

7 Vocal Performances 11.29% 7

8 Early Music 3.23% 2

9 Solo instruments (guitar, violin etc.) 4.84% 3

10 Symphonies 4.84% 3

11 Jazz 1.61% 1

12 Opera 4.84% 3

Total 100% 62

60


Fig. A3-9. What kinds of recorded music do you listen to regularly? Please select the one most important to you

Text A3-3: If you have other preferences please note them here

If you have other preferences please note them here

I also listen to rock, classical and opera.

Baroque

Opera, Classical music, Jazz

Also Early music Solo piano Vocal performances

Rock and roll, Christian music

1.Classical 2.Solo instruments 3.Symphonies 4. Jazz 5. Easy listening

How can I rank the above? It will only accept one selection. My preferred music is large-scale orchestral (sometimes with chorus). Also like folk music, and classical piano. The latter is very difficult, and the worst sounding of all when using hearing aids.

System did not allow genre choices or their ranking -guitar noted

Program did not allow me to rank according to preference

Jazz

Unable to rank above questions. Festivals, concerts, folk, vocal and instrumental.

Above do not seem to be able to be ranked

I couldn't determine how to rank the options above

Piano music

Solo piano, folk music

Cant see any way to rank items above, though I have strong preferences. Questionnaire design error?

Easy listening to classical previous question didn't allow ranking

Unable to rank the above

I like many different types of music, but the above question did not let me show this.

Rarely listen to music, find the 'noise' an irritant.

Jazz, Vocal, Solo Instruments, Symphonies

Music that I sing and play myself

I also listen to rock music and dance music

Piano music

Solo guitar, some jazz

61


Also rock music, but can't select more than one - also for question below

Not possible to rank above

All variety of music

Military Marches

Groups and solo artists from the 60's, 70's, 80's

Country and western

# Answer % Count

1 Pub venues 3.77% 2

2 Concert halls 67.92% 36

3 Major events 3.77% 2

4 Festivals 7.55% 4

5 Other 16.98% 9

Total 100% 53

Fig. A3-10. Do you attend live music events? If so which kinds?

Text A3-4: Do you use your hearing aids when listening to live music? Please comment

Do you use your hearing aids when listening to live music? Please comment

Usually. Some rock concerts are so loud that there is no point in using hearing aids. They are totally overwhelmed.

Yes

Yes, although I have been to rock venues where I turned them off.

62


Not usually.

Yes, but what should be a beautiful sound just becomes noise. Without hearing aids in place, the volume is reduced but recognition of what I know I should be hearing is impossible. Perhaps the main reason is that I am 91 Yrs Old!

Not always

Yes

Not as yet as I listen to the m

Yes for clarity

No. Live music sounds absolutely dreadful through my hearing aids.

Do not listen except on cruises

Yes

Yes - but unable to discern all instruments/vocalization/harmonies etc. so go less and less

No - I try to reduce the noise levels at concerts

Yes -but find the normal setting is most beneficial -I just don’t see how sound loop setting is helpful

Sometimes "noisy "music egg jazz can be too loud

Looking forward to doing this

Yes always

Yes

Yes

Yes. As noted above I need to constantly adjust or turn off one aid due to feedback squeaks.

Yes

Yes - at recital center

Yes but usually decrease volume

Yes

Yes

Sometimes. When I attempt to play piano I do not use the aids

Yes

Yes - all the time.

Yes on the music programmed

Yes

Yes

Yes

63


I no longer miss whole sections and frequently can't recognize melodies

Yes

No

Never listen

Yes, but sometimes there's distortion

Yes

Yes

The full sound range is limited

No I have hypercusis and loud sounds aggravate this and are painful to listen to

Always

Yes

Always

Sometimes

No. The sound is junk

Yes

I find my aids are not god enough. If I go to live and recorded performances I suspect my brain is filling in the bits I miss

Not usually - volume is usually quite high

Yes, set to Music program

Yes

Sometimes, the sound is not always better

Yes when available

Yes

Yes

No,

Yes

Text A3-5 : Is there any specific type of Live music that you would like to hear better with your hearing aids?

Is there any specific type of Live music that you would like to hear better...

I play in a community orchestra and in a bush band. Folk music and orchestra music are the most important to me.

Baroque

64


Opera

MSO

Chamber music

Myself playing my violin against the background in orchestra

We love music and 70s 80s live at pubs, concerts, festivals

? Don't understand!

??

???

They increase amplitude significantly and restore mid and upper frequencies

???

To increase treble

Music setting improves sound

N/A

Including for playing fiddle in my baroque chamber group

Do not attend many but use hearing aids when I do

Question? My hearing deficit is not huge, so the clarity is not improved with aids.

????

Not brilliant but better than not using them

I have real problems going to plays and sometimes choral concerts

?

Club venues rather than concert halls

Find they tend to give artificial sound

Text A3-6: When listening to music with your hearing aids, do you adjust them or have special settings? Or simply take them out? This may differ for different situations.

When listening to music with your hearing aids, do you adjust them or have...

My hearing aids have a "music" setting. I have not really noticed that it makes much difference. I don't use them if I am using headphones.

Fixed settings

I have done all of this. Previous aids have had music settings that were unsatisfactory, some usable. My current HAs have a usable music setting but I have to adjust l-r balance at times, volume or sometimes use one of the other settings depending on the situation.

65


Never adjust to suit except for the volume if required.

I try adjusting and use any special settings, variation in volume occurs but clarity does not improveWhen playing myself I use the music setting. When I remember I also do so when listening. However, I am not so deaf that I feel I need amplification per se. As I suffer from recruitment, often the problem is the opposite i.e. I want music to be softer at its loud extremes.

Pretty new at this so don’t really know yet

Take them out

I have special setting for music, which I hardly used. I removed aids when I put on headphones because of feedback and for bud phones nuisance experience.When listening to music in the car I take out the hearing aids and turn up the volume. I no longer listen to live music, because I can't hear it adequately un-aided, and with hearing aids it sound dreadful. My main music listening is done using high quality CD player, headphone amplifier and very high quality headphones.

As they echo at certain frequencies this annoys me so I often remove them

I don't adjust them but use the hearing aids to listen to the music

Do not readjust (too fiddly) and sometimes remove them

No change to settings. If I use ear buds then I remove hearing aid

While practicing -I take them off but listening is quite ok

Adjust

No adjustment. Leave it in

No change

No adjustment on current aides

Adjust due to feedback in one ear.

No changes

No adjustment

Depends on location. In car take them out and turn up volume because of noise. Home use with headphones

If too load I take them out

I leave them in and, where possible, use Telecoil

I leave them in

Ni. I have my aids set to the music program all the time, which I have modified myself through the computer so the frequency range is even wider.

I adjust the setting to music

At concert, music setting improves quality, but I don't always bother to change setting

66


Take them out

I use a defined music program

Softer or louder depending on the type of music and the venue

Depending on environment will vary settings

Run the music through the sound gate

Take them out

Generally just take them out, as adjustment generally ineffective.

I often wear old ones, or take them out

I don’t adjust them

Try to use standard settings

Adjust hearing aids to get greater clarity

At home when I am singing or playing an instrument I do not take them out. There is a special setting for music on my hearing aid but I am not confidant using it. I do not wear my hearing aids when listening to music at church or concerts because of hypercussis

I do not make any adjustments

Adjust settings

I have special settings which I usually revert to at a live concert but listen to digital music most of the time on everyday setting

I can't adjust them so I se them on the normal setting at home

Take them out

I do not adjust them

No I leave them in

For recorded music, I have a different setting than for speech

See above

Special setting

Take them out

Swap to music setting

Have Telecoil in current aides but haven’t tried them, as yet, tickets to shows too expensive to waste.

Leave them in without adjustment

Take them out

Adjust to music setting

67


# Answer %Coun

t

1 Have you ever adjusted them yourself?53.49

%23

2Have you asked your audiologist to set them up for your

kind of music?27.91

%12

3 Have these settings made a positive difference?18.60

%8

Total 100% 43Fig. A3-11. Adjusting hearing aids for music

Text A3-7: What hearing aids are you currently using? (Brand and Type): Comments welcomed

What hearing aids are you currently using? (Brand and Type): Comments welcome...

Blamey and Saunders SIE-32

Siemens intuis

Blamey Saunders IE64. I am struggling to get them right but the last desperate attempt before I went to the Ring achieved a significant improvement. Still problems though.

1 off, small 32-bit version supplied by Blamey Saunders about 4 years ago.

Blamey & Saunders

BS SIE-64

Blamey Saunders SIE 64

Blamey & Saunders

Blamey & Saunders SIE312

Where am I supposed to answer the above questions? The only option appears to be a selection of one of them...no place for a yes or no answer to the last question. The so-called 'music ‘setting on my hearing aids turned out to be

68


worse than the normal setting. I use Blamey and Saunders devices, which are infinitely better than previous ones.

Blamey & Saunders SEI64

BTE-64 Blamey & Saunders

Previous questions do not allow for a response; currently using Blamey Saunders SIE-64

Blamey Saunders - LOF

Blamey & Saunders SIE64

Blamey/Saunders- I hear you

New Blamey Sunders

Blamey & Saunders Sie-64

Blamey Saunders over ear

B&S AIE-64.

Mid range Blamey and Saunders

Blamey Saunders SIE-64

SIE-64

SIL64

Resound - with white noise masking


Blamey & Saunders

B S SIE-64

Blamey and Saunders over the ear 32 channel X2

SEi64

Starkey muse 12400

Siemens Over Ear

Blamey Saunders current cheaper model

Blamey & Saunders

I hear you

Bernafon JU9 NR

Blamey Saunders

Blamey & Saunders SIE 64

Blamey and Saunders

Blamey and Saunders SIE 32 and 64

69


Blamey & Saunders

Oticon-Dynamo


Blamey and Saunders

Blamey Saunders

SIE -64

SIE64

B&S 64

Phonak and Blamey & Saunders. I am not sure about the models

Blamey and Saunders SIE-64

Widex Dream Fusion 440

Blamey and Saunders SIE 64

Blamey Saunders 64

S1e64

Blamey & Saunders

Phonak MicroSavia Art

Blamey Saunders

Text A3-8: Have you used other types or brands in the past? Were they any better or worse for music? Please commentHave you used other types or brands in the past? Were they any better or worse?

No.

No other aids

Last year I tried Siemens BX7. Very good with voice but distortion and noise artifacts with music. I am not entirely convinced they could not have been adjusted but the audiologist gave up after 2-3 months, tried BX3s, same result, ended up with the Siemens base model, which at least was serviceable.

This is the only unit I've used.

No

ORTICON,(2010/12) PHONAK (2013/!6)

No

No

First time were

No

70


I have used top of the line 'Savia' hearing aids, which cost a small fortune and were completely useless to me for any purpose.

Siemens but no better

Oticon - they weren't as good as what I use now

Yes - cannot recall type or brand

No

No only used the hearing aid I purchased

No

No experience

No.

Yes Sonic Ion 200. Similar

Yes. Better. Less feedback. More expensive.

No others used

No previous

Similar issues

Yes, Resound better

No

Previous aids were weaker

No

I have used Oticons, Siemens and government brands - they were all terrible for music - focused on speech only.

Sei34 these were not quite as good

Widex, about the same for music as Starkey

No

YES. WORSE

No

Have not noted any that were especially good

Bernadine suprima 3

No

No other experience.

Oticon, Phonak

No

Oticon gave up!

71


Phonex

No

Other brands were failures for me.

No

Dynamic Hearing Aid -- but can't remember the model. It was the same given my level of hearing loss at the time but as my hearing has gone down hill. They would not be able to give the level of hearing that I need know for music

No

Yes. Phonak are worse

Bernafon, similar

I cannot make my mind up about which set is better. I would say the Phonak

N/a

Starkey - terrible, full stop

Yes

Beniton -no better

Tried dearer brands but Blamey Saunders were superior

Have used other brands, no noticeable difference

No

No

No

Text A3-8: Are there any special features that you have found useful for at least one of your music listening experiences? If so what are they?

Are there any special features that you have found useful for at least one...

Wind noise setting in outdoor venues.

Rooms with soft textures

No

Volume control.

No

Better clarity in hearing individual parts when using the music setting.

Nil

No features on my current hearing aids have helped, but I remain unconvinced that audiologists generally don't have enough understanding of music to know how to optimize the devices. I have the impression that they only know how to set hearing aids up for optimal speech volume and clarity.

72


Cant control the ringing at certain sounds

No

No

Yes I can create an individual setting where I can cut out high frequency noise -however I have created the new setting but haven’t done the exercise to reduce the high frequency yet!!

Adjustment facility

No

Personal software management

No

Slight improvement with music profile set in aid

No

Leave aids in when wearing headphones

The main one is being to self adjust the hearing aids - turning off noise cancellation was essential.

U use the music program for music and watching TV

Not noticed any

No

Clarity of ff around my 4k trough

Being able to turn the sound up and down

Alteration of volume & suppressing of background noise

Setting as close to linear as possible

No

Trying to adjust them myself

Good middle/high response at cost of feedback

No special features

No

No

None

Graphic equalizer

My problem are more to do with word recognition

No

Toggle between Master (speech) and Music programs

No

73


No

Just hearing music is just wonderful

None

No

No

No

Text A3-9: Please add any comments that you might have about listening to music using hearing aids, as you may well have observations that we might otherwise miss.

Music has regained a lot (but not all) of its sparkle since I started using hearing aids.

As above

It seems to me that the same distortions that affect music also affect speech clarity. The more noise and feedback management, auto volume etc. cause their own problems with distortion and noise artifacts. It is very difficult to get audiologists to understand what I am hearing. The more harmonically complex music is the more distortion - too much information? Generally brass and woodwind can blow the house down and still sound good, strings (especially violins, which have lots of harmonics) can sound good in complex solos or simple clean lines as an ensemble, but can turn to hash as complexity is added. Opera singers are much the same, can sound ok sotto voce but when their voice starts to color up with the harmonics that add that color, then noise is the result.I notice that when playing piano, with or without hearing aids some of the notes sound out of tune.

Sounds tinny

Enjoyment to Clarity & Sharpness. Dislike very loud musical noises.

The whole issue of music and hearing aids is a huge frustration to me. I have the sense that it should be possible for them to be set up to deliver good musical sound, but that there is insufficient interest in the subject amongst audiologists, and a corresponding lack of understanding of musical qualities such as timbre, frequency, dynamic range, harmonics etc. Why is it, I ask myself, that a $20 pair of Apple ear buds can deliver reasonable musical sound, but a $4000 pair of hearing aids can't? It makes no sense to me, and I firmly believe it's because the industry is not interested enough in the subject.I do not use aids at home when listening to recorded music and where possible use headphones

Great for listening but difficult while playing a musical instrument

No other comment

Not available to attend at Melbourne

74


Having mine in makes a big difference

My current aids have no provision for a music mode but I am assured they switch automatically. I prefer a manual mode switch.Have used noise reducing/sound headphones + hearing aids at home for other's comfort. Still have feedback, not necessarily improved enjoyment. Using tablets and watching videos is also a concern for hearing aid users.

Often music sounds 'tinny' but depends what/where listening

Retired electrical engineer, enjoy listening to music and am familiar with concepts of recording and frequency control; just have not bothered to explore program options on my aids.

Have high frequency hearing loss so all aids sound sharp and harsh with music

I get interference at certain frequencies

I find the use of Telecoil less than satisfactory

Because my hearing loss includes treble and bass the sound is improved by leaving aids inI found it best to use the music program so that all noise cancellation and other artificial tweaks are eliminated. Then use self adjust to increase the frequency range especially at the highs as much as possible. This really makes music, especially piano and singing much better. As a side effect it also means that my own singing and music playing is much better as I can keep track of note intervals much easier - before it was hard to do this.The music program makes the aids more susceptible to squeaks which can be embarrassingI miss not being able to listen to music in bed at night, as I don't wear hearing aids in bed

Clearer sounds

Spatial clarification of textures, mainly in my mini-studio

Listening to accents on TV can be confronting still and I wish I could afford B&S's new productAm not intensely interested in music. Biggest issue is identifying words when there is singing

They seem to hit the ceiling to easily

I strongly suspect I am amusiac.

I have wished I had not worn them to a musical show- egg, Matilda. Also not recognized a familiar piece of classical orchestral musicMy main experience is as a choral singer. I find the?? note in my hearing aids particularly difficult to cope with.Feedback is a major issue, I find it difficult to maintain a reasonable seal to the canalThe acoustics of the auditorium or theatre need to be freed of sibilance and conducive to clarity.It would be good if the hearing aids would stay in my ears but my ear canals are too small and it has been very disappointing. I'm afraid they will fall out and I will lose them and they cost about $3,000. Very disappointing. My jaws

75


push them out when I eat and talk after a few minutes

I accept what I hear in music and lack technical appreciation

As I mentioned before if I am listening either to alive performance, CD/ record or iPod I suspect I am missing some of the sound but suspect, where I am familiar with the music, my brain adds in the missing bitsGenerally for music I tend to rely on sound from the front, not from the rear, so directionality of the hearing aid setting can be importantMy nerve deafness is -70dB and psychosomatic in that it deteriorates through the day, as I get tired.

I find it difficult to enjoy at times

The experience varies according to the venue I can listen to music at home without aids

Using stereo headphones and my Aids, I get a reasonable result.

Very occasionally aid may screech

Without music mode can often get distortion

76


Appendix 4: Significance tests on relevant survey factors *Note: The Chi-Square approximation may be inaccurate –where the expected frequency less than 5

Overall how important to you is listening to music?

Extremely important

Very importan

tModerately important

Slightly important


Total

How important is the quality of the sound when you

do?

Extremely important 21 5 1 0 0 27

Very important 0 16 6 2 0 24

Moderately important 0 1 7 3 0 11

Slightly important 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not at all important 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total 21 22 14 5 1 63

Overall how important to you is listening to

music?

How important is the quality of the sound when you do?

Chi Square 121.83*

Degrees of Freedom 16

p-value 0.00

Table. A4-1. Highly Significantly Linked: Value of Music and the quality of the Sound


Extremely

important

Very importan

t

Moderately

important

Slightly importan

t

Not at all importan

tTotal

What kinds of recorded music do you listen to

regularly? Please select the one

most important to you

Easy Listening 0 5 3 2 0 10

Folk Music 1 1 1 2 0 5

Pop Music 1 1 1 0 0 3

Rock Music 1 2 0 0 0 3

Electronic Music 0 0 0 0 0 0

Classical Music 9 7 5 0 0 21

Vocal Performances 2 3 1 1 0 7

Early Music 1 1 0 0 0 2

Solo instruments (guitar, violin etc.)

1 0 2 0 0 3

Symphonies 1 1 1 0 0 3

Jazz 1 0 0 0 0 1

77



Extremely

important

Very importan

t

Moderately

important

Slightly importan

t

Not at all importan

tTotal

Opera 2 1 0 0 0 3

Total 20 22 14 5 0 61


What kinds of recorded music do you listen to regularly? Please

select the one most important to you

Chi Square 26.90*


p-value 0.98

Table. A4-2. No significant difference: the value of music and the kind of music


Extremely important

Very importan


Slightly important


Total

Do you attend live music

events? If so which kinds?

Pub venues 1 1 0 0 0 2

Concert halls 11 15 9 1 0 36

Major events 1 1 0 0 0 2

Festivals 2 2 0 0 0 4

Other 3 2 3 1 0 9

Total 18 21 12 2 0 53


Do you attend live music events? If so which kinds?

Chi Square 5.71*


p-value 0.99

Table. A4-3. No significant difference: Value of Music and the kind of live venues attended


Extremely important

Very importan


Slightly importan

tNot at all important

Total

Adjusting hearing aids for music

Have you ever adjusted them yourself?

11 8 3 0 1 23

Have you asked your audiologist to set them up for your kind of music?

7 4 1 0 0 12

78



Extremely important

Very importan


Slightly importan

tNot at all important

Total

Have these settings made a positive difference?

4 2 2 0 0 8

Total 22 14 6 0 1 43

How important is the quality of the sound when

you do?

Adjusting hearing aids for music

Chi Square 2.20*


p-value 0.97

Table. A4-4. No significant difference: quality of sound and adjusting hearing aids for music


Extremely

important

Very importan

t

Moderately

important

Slightly importan

t

Not at all importan

tTotal

What kinds of recorded music do you listen to

regularly? Please select the one

most important to you

Easy Listening 1 6 3 0 0 10

Folk Music 2 1 2 0 0 5

Pop Music 1 2 0 0 0 3

Rock Music 2 1 0 0 0 3

Electronic Music 0 0 0 0 0 0

Classical Music 10 6 5 0 0 21

Vocal Performances 2 5 0 0 0 7

Early Music 2 0 0 0 0 2

Solo instruments (guitar, violin etc.)

1 1 1 0 0 3

Symphonies 2 1 0 0 0 3

Jazz 1 0 0 0 0 1

Opera 2 1 0 0 0 3

Total 26 24 11 0 0 61

How important is the quality of the sound when

you do?

What kinds of recorded music do you listen to regularly? Please

select the one most important to you

Chi Square 19.36*


p-value 1.00

79


Table A4-5. No significant difference: the quality of musical sound and the kinds of music

What is your age group?

Under 30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

Over 80

I prefer not to say

Total

How long have you been using hearing

aids?

less than 1 year 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 8

1-5 years 0 0 1 1 9 13 1 0 25

Over 5 years 0 0 0 2 9 15 4 0 30

Total 0 0 1 4 21 31 6 0 63

What is your age group?

How long have you been using hearing aids?

Chi Square 4.01*


p-value 1.00

Table A4-6. No significant difference: age of person and how long they had had hearing aids

Have you had any musical training?

As a child

As an adult

At a professional level or as a professional musician

Total


Extremely important 13 1 3 17

Very important 13 3 1 17

Moderately important 6 2 0 8

Slightly important 0 1 0 1

Not at all important 0 0 0 0

Total 32 7 4 43

Have you had any musical training?


Chi Square 8.92*


p-value 0.35

Table. A4-7. No significant difference: rated importance of music and prior musical training

80


Appendix 5. Normalised Preference Data Tables

First data collation: This is for Directed Strength of preference+ towards A from the middle and - Towards B: Ie scale of preference strengths for Off/Prog 3

3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c1 Subject 3c2 12c2 15c2 19c2 20c20.03 0.33 -0.57 0.55 -0.47 10.68 0.02 -0.73 0.02 0.73 20.78 -0.02 -0.02 -0.57 -0.85 3 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.85 0.17-0.67 -0.74 0.76 0.91 -0.26 4 -0.81 0.74 -0.81 0.8 -0.07-0.02 -0.3 -0.81 0 0 5 -0.89 -0.78 -0.67 0.83 0.81

-0.17 -0.48 0 0 -0.39 6 0.39 0.02 -0.48 0 0

0.74 -0.76 0 -0.74 0.5 7 0.04 -0.3 0.15 -0.48 0.260.69 0 0.19 0.52 -0.13 8 0.37 -0.04 0 -0.37 0.040.37 0.2 0.54 0.44 -0.48 9 -0.69 -0.61 0.33 -0.48 0.410.43 -0.85 0.26 -0.8 0.48 10 0.76 -0.3 0.78 -0.83 0.7

0 -0.11 -0.17 -0.11 0 11 -0.17 0.17 -0.61 0 00.26 -0.35 -0.37 -0.63 -0.43 12 -0.24 -0.33 0.19 -0.57 -0.26-0.69 -0.94 -0.87 0.65 0.44 13 0.2 -0.72 -0.65 -0.11 0.59-0.81 0.84 -0.65 0.87 0.07 14 -0.89 -0.57 0.41 -0.87 0.65-0.19 0 -0.54 0.22 -0.11 15 -0.15 -0.22 -0.33 0.3 0.04

0 -0.3 0.17 0.3 -0.15 16 -0.19 0.41 -0.04 0.61 -0.28-0.17 0.02 0.2 0 0.2 17 -0.07 -0.04 -0.37 -0.48 0.09-0.85 0 0.74 -0.46 0.56 18 0 0 -0.8 0.39 -0.48-0.11 -0.15 0.04 -0.28 0 19 -0.15 -0.19 0.15 -0.06 0.240.00 -0.15 0.61 0.15 0.31 20 0.00 -0.41 0.26 -0.33 0.110.30 -3.74 -1.22 1.04 0.02 -1.68 -2.34 -1.68 -0.80 3.022% -19% -6% 5% 0% -9% -13% -9% -4% 17%

Code: [Music Sample] Cycle [of Test Set (1 or 2)] Referred to the indifferent point in the Centre of the Scale, For Cycle 1 Direction – is towards EV Setting and + is towards Off settingFor Cycle 2 Direction – is towards + is towards

Table. A5-1. Normalised Signed preferences for all comparisons in both Cycles

81


Second data collation is for Strength of preference From middle of scale(ie indifferent to direction of the choice).

Modulus of preference scores in First Collation

3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c1 Subject 3c2 12c2 15c2 19c2 20c20.03 0.33 0.57 0.55 0.47 10.68 0.02 0.73 0.02 0.73 20.78 0.02 0.02 0.57 0.85 3 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.85 0.170.67 0.74 0.76 0.91 0.26 4 0.81 0.74 0.81 0.8 0.070.02 0.3 0.81 0 0 5 0.89 0.78 0.67 0.83 0.810.17 0.48 0 0 0.39 6 0.39 0.02 0.48 0 00.74 0.76 0 0.74 0.5 7 0.04 0.3 0.15 0.48 0.260.69 0 0.19 0.52 0.13 8 0.37 0.04 0 0.37 0.040.37 0.2 0.54 0.44 0.48 9 0.69 0.61 0.33 0.48 0.410.43 0.85 0.26 0.8 0.48 10 0.76 0.3 0.78 0.83 0.7

0 0.11 0.17 0.11 0 11 0.17 0.17 0.61 0 00.26 0.35 0.37 0.63 0.43 12 0.24 0.33 0.19 0.57 0.260.69 0.94 0.87 0.65 0.44 13 0.2 0.72 0.65 0.11 0.590.81 0.84 0.65 0.87 0.07 14 0.89 0.57 0.41 0.87 0.650.19 0 0.54 0.22 0.11 15 0.15 0.22 0.33 0.3 0.04

0 0.3 0.17 0.3 0.15 16 0.19 0.41 0.04 0.61 0.280.17 0.02 0.2 0 0.2 17 0.07 0.04 0.37 0.48 0.090.85 0 0.74 0.46 0.56 18 0 0 0.8 0.39 0.480.11 0.15 0.04 0.28 0 19 0.15 0.19 0.15 0.06 0.24

0 0.15 0.61 0.15 0.31 20 0.00 0.41 0.26 0.33 0.117.66 6.56 8.24 8.22 6.56 6.82 6.68 7.84 8.36 5.2043% 36% 46% 46% 36% 38% 37% 44% 46% 29%

Table. A5-2. Normalised strength of preferences irrespective of their direction A<>B7

82


Third data collation is for Strength of preference [All choices >|0.25|]]+ Towards A from the middle and - Towards B: Ie scale of preference strengths for Off/Prog 3

3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c1 Subject 3c2 12c2 15c2 19c2 20c20 0.33 0 0.55 -0.47 1

0.68 0 -0.73 0 0.73 20.78 0 0 -0.57 0 3 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.85 0

-0.67 -0.74 0.76 0.91 -0.26 4 -0.81 0.74 -0.81 0.8 00 -0.3 -0.81 0 0 5 -0.89 -0.78 -0.67 0.83 0.81

0 -0.48 0 0 -0.39 6 0.39 0 -0.48 0 0

0.74 -0.76 0 -0.74 0.5 7 0 -0.3 0 -0.48 0.260.69 0 0 0.52 0 8 0.37 0 0 -0.37 00.37 0 0.54 0.44 -0.48 9 -0.69 -0.61 0.33 -0.48 0.410.43 -0.85 0.26 -0.8 0.48 10 0.76 -0.3 0.78 -0.83 0.7

0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 -0.61 0 00.26 -0.35 -0.37 -0.63 -0.43 12 0 -0.33 0 -0.57 -0.26

-0.69 -0.94 -0.87 0.65 0.44 13 0 -0.72 -0.65 0 0.59-0.81 0.84 -0.65 0.87 0 14 -0.89 -0.57 0.41 -0.87 0.65

0 0 -0.54 0 0 15 0 0 -0.33 0.3 00 -0.3 0 0.3 0 16 -0.19 0.41 0 0.61 -0.280 0 0 0 0.2 17 0 0 -0.37 -0.48 0

-0.85 0 0.74 -0.46 0.56 18 0 0 -0.8 0.39 -0.480 0 0 -0.28 0 19 0 0 0 -0.06 0.240 0 0.61 0.00 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.93 -3.55 -1.06 0.76 0.88 -1.14 -1.63 -2.39 -0.36 2.645% -18% -5% 4% 4% -6% -9% -13% -2% 15%

Prefers OFF

Prefers EV

Prefers EV

Prefers OFF

Prefers EV

Prefers 4to3

Prefers 4to3

Prefers 3to4

No Preference

Prefers 3to4

Table. A5-3. Directed preference strengths above a substantial threshold (> 0.25)

83


Fourth data collation is for Strength of preference [all choices >|.25|]From middle ofscale (ie indifferent to direction of the choice). Ie Modulus of preference scores in First

3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c1 Subject 3c2 12c2 15c2 19c2 20c20 0.33 0.57 0.55 0.47 1

0.68 0 0.73 0 0.73 20.78 0 0 0.57 0.85 3 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.85 00.67 0.74 0.76 0.91 0.26 4 0.81 0.74 0.81 0.8 0

0 0.3 0.81 0 0 5 0.89 0.78 0.67 0.83 0.810 0.48 0 0 0.39 6 0.39 0 0.48 0 0

0.74 0.76 0 0.74 0.5 7 0 0.3 0 0.48 0.260.69 0 0 0.52 0 8 0.37 0 0 0.37 00.37 0 0.54 0.44 0.48 9 0.69 0.61 0.33 0.48 0.410.43 0.85 0.26 0.8 0.48 10 0.76 0.3 0.78 0.83 0.7

0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0.61 0 00.26 0.35 0.37 0.63 0.43 12 0 0.33 0 0.57 0.260.69 0.94 0.87 0.65 0.44 13 0 0.72 0.65 0 0.590.81 0.84 0.65 0.87 0 14 0.89 0.57 0.41 0.87 0.65

0 0 0.54 0 0 15 0 0 0.33 0.3 00 0.3 0 0.3 0 16 0 0.41 0 0.61 0.280 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0.37 0.48 0

0.85 0 0.74 0.46 0.56 18 0 0 0.8 0.39 0.480 0 0 0.28 0 19 0 0 0 0 00 0 0.05 0 0.31 20 0 0.41 0.26 0.33 0

6.97 5.89 6.89 7.72 5.90 5.61 6.00 7.31 8.19 4.4435% 29% 34% 39% 30% 31% 33% 41% 46% 25%

Table. A5-4. Unsigned preference strengths above a substantial threshold (> 0.25)

84


Fifth data collation is for ability to choose ie > 0 in Second table as first cut

3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c1 Subject 3c2 12c2 15c2 19c2 20c21 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 0 0 5 1 1 1 1 11 1 0 0 1 6 1 1 1 0 01 1 0 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 11 0 1 1 1 8 1 1 0 1 11 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 0 11 1 1 1 0 01 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 11 0 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 0 1 17 1 1 1 1 11 0 1 1 1 18 0 0 1 1 11 1 1 1 0 19 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 20 0 1 1 1 1

17 17 18 17 17 16 17 17 16 1685% 85% 90% 85% 85% 89% 94% 94% 89% 89%

Table. A5-5. Indicates any preferences (>0.0) on the unity scale

85


Sixth data collation is for ability to choose ie > 0.1 as second cut wherea distinct preference was made

3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c1 Subject 3c2 12c2 15c20 1 1 1 1 11 0 1 0 1 21 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 10 1 1 0 0 5 1 1 11 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 11 1 0 1 1 7 0 1 11 0 1 1 1 8 1 0 01 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 10 1 1 1 0 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 11 1 1 1 0 14 1 1 11 0 1 1 1 15 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 01 0 1 0 1 17 0 0 11 0 1 1 1 18 0 0 11 1 0 1 0 19 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 20 0 1 1

15 13 15 15 15 14 14 16

75% 65% 75% 75% 75% 78% 78% 89%

Table. A5-6. Indicates preferences only if their strength exceeds 10% of the unity scale

86


Seventh data collation is for ability to choose ie > 0.25 a third cut as a very clear preference

3c1 12c1 15c1 19c1 20c1 Subject 3c2 12c2 15c2 19c2 20c20 1 1 1 1 11 0 1 0 1 21 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 01 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 00 1 1 0 0 5 1 1 1 1 10 1 0 0 1 6 1 0 1 0 01 1 0 1 1 7 0 1 0 1 11 0 0 1 0 8 1 0 0 1 01 0 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 10 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 01 1 1 1 1 12 0 1 0 1 11 1 1 1 1 13 0 1 1 0 11 1 1 1 0 14 1 1 1 1 10 0 1 0 0 15 0 0 1 1 00 1 0 1 0 16 0 1 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 1 01 0 1 1 1 18 0 0 1 1 10 0 0 1 0 19 0 0 0 0 00 0 1 0 1 20 0 1 1 1 0

11 10 12 13 12 8 11 13 14 955% 50% 60% 65% 60% 44% 61% 72% 78% 50%

Table. A5-7. Shows only strong clear preferences exceeding 25% of the unity scale

87

Documents

Abstract - Marcus Web viewBach_ Lute Suite, BWV 996 - 1. Praludium.aif. Bach. John Williams. 2. ... However in the testing results the most commonly used by the subjects word was ‘clarity’