Cupping hands over ears to improve speech clarity?

[Salmon Egg]

I may be having hearing problems. However, I have noticed several
effects that make me think that hearing loss is not the obvious problem.

1. When I hear good announcers on radio, I seldom have problems
understanding the speech.

2. People calling in by telephone to the station are usually the ones
who are difficult to understand.

3. My computer television audio can be difficult to understand. Cupping
hands about my ears or deforming my external ears often improve
intelligibility.

4. It is not a matter of merely getting increased volume. Increasing
speaker volume does not improve intelligibility.

5. It appears that there is some kind of an equalizing effect from
cupping.

6. Placing hands or fingers in other places can also affect
intelligibility.

7. Public address systems often seem counterproductive when speech
intelligibility is the problem.

What is known about such effects? How important is multipath?

Bill

[Ethan Winer]

1. Good, your hearing is probably fine.

2. There are several factors that reduce intelligibility of phone
calls on the radio. Besides the obvious limited bandwidth (especially
loss of highs) and high distortion, many callers use cell phones which
use lossy compression at low bit-rates.

3, 5, 6. Cupping your hands adds a midrange peak, so if the peak
frequency is in the "clarity" range it can help intelligibility. It
would help if you clarify "computer television audio," though I assume
that means you watch TV streaming on a computer through small lo-fi
speakers?

4. Right, more volume is not the issue though it can sometimes help.

7. It depends on where you're listening. In a large classroom or
auditorium having too much reverb, the reverb itself is what loses
clarity because the echoes compete with and drown out the direct
sound. This is in addition to poor frequency response and high
distortion that sometimes also exists.

Post by Salmon Egg
How important is multipath?

As in acoustic room reflections? Same as 7 above.

--Ethan

[Salmon Egg]

In article

Post by Ethan Winer
1. Good, your hearing is probably fine.
2. There are several factors that reduce intelligibility of phone
calls on the radio. Besides the obvious limited bandwidth (especially
loss of highs) and high distortion, many callers use cell phones which
use lossy compression at low bit-rates.
3, 5, 6. Cupping your hands adds a midrange peak, so if the peak
frequency is in the "clarity" range it can help intelligibility. It
would help if you clarify "computer television audio," though I assume
that means you watch TV streaming on a computer through small lo-fi
speakers?
4. Right, more volume is not the issue though it can sometimes help.
7. It depends on where you're listening. In a large classroom or
auditorium having too much reverb, the reverb itself is what loses
clarity because the echoes compete with and drown out the direct
sound. This is in addition to poor frequency response and high
distortion that sometimes also exists.

Post by Salmon Egg
How important is multipath?

As in acoustic room reflections? Same as 7 above.
--Ethan

2. In the old days, telephones almost universally used carbon button
microphones of the kind designed by Bell Labs. In spite of, or because
of, limited bandwidth SPEECH intelligibility from these microphones
could not be beat.

3. I should have been more explicit. I watch almost all of my broadcast
TV using an Elgato hybrid digital receiver interfacing my Mac through a
USB port. Streaming video, video and audio quality seems to vary all
over the map. I think the cupping can affect directivity and thereby
multipath effects.

7. While I think we are right on this subject. What causes doubt in my
mind is that there usually are younger people pressent who seem to
comprehend the speech with little difficulty.

Although I have complained about multipath, I think there are situations
where multipath can help. Again, going back to the old days of monaural
sound, I noticed that having two speakers providing sound from the same
electrical source gave better music sound quality than having only one
speaker. I attribute that to room resonances. It was not unusual to have
drops of from 1 to as much as 1.5 bels in response at a point to
different frequencies. Two speakers at separate locations would excite
different spectral responses of the room modes making it unlikely to get
big dropouts at any one frequency.

Bill

[Ethan Winer]

carbon button microphones ... or because of, limited bandwidth
SPEECH intelligibility from these microphones could not be beat.

Yes, frequency response can be tailored for clarity. The tiny (and
tinny) loudspeaker in my Motorola cell phone is amazingly clear for
voices.

Although I have complained about multipath, I think there are situations
where multipath can help.

Yes, but the reason clarity improves is not due to multiple arrival
times per se. Rather, it's the resulting comb filtering. If the peaks
and nulls happen to align at favorable frequencies, the altered
response can improve clarity.

--Ethan

[David Combs]

Post by Ethan Winer

carbon button microphones ... or because of, limited bandwidth
SPEECH intelligibility from these microphones could not be beat.

Yes, frequency response can be tailored for clarity. The tiny (and
tinny) loudspeaker in my Motorola cell phone is amazingly clear for
voices.

Although I have complained about multipath, I think there are situations
where multipath can help.

Yes, but the reason clarity improves is not due to multiple arrival
times per se. Rather, it's the resulting comb filtering. If the peaks
and nulls happen to align at favorable frequencies, the altered
response can improve clarity.
--Ethan

Please elaborate a bit on the comb filtering and resulting *possible*
clarity (or possible LOSS of it).

And compared to other kinds of (non-comb) filtering?

Since (if true that can decrease quality) that comb
filtering can improve or (equally?)
*decrease* quality for hearing, doesn't on the surface seem
to make for a reasonable *strategy*?

Thanks!

Confused. (David)

[Ethan Winer]

Post by David Combs
Please elaborate a bit on the comb filtering and resulting *possible*
clarity (or possible LOSS of it).

Comb filtering is a series of peaks and deep nulls:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_spaces.htm

The sound is similar to a phaser effects box. If some of the nulls
happen to occur at "mud" frequencies for voice, such as 200 or 300 Hz,
the result can be more clarity.

--Ethan

[Szczepan Bialek]

Post by Salmon Egg
I may be having hearing problems. However, I have noticed several
effects that make me think that hearing loss is not the obvious problem.
1. When I hear good announcers on radio, I seldom have problems
understanding the speech.
2. People calling in by telephone to the station are usually the ones
who are difficult to understand.
3. My computer television audio can be difficult to understand. Cupping
hands about my ears or deforming my external ears often improve
intelligibility.

"Excessive cerumen may impede the passage of sound in the ear canal, causing
conductive hearing loss. It is also estimated to be the cause of 60-80% of
hearing aid faults.[18] Movement of the jaw helps the ears' natural cleaning
process."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earwax

Post by Salmon Egg
4. It is not a matter of merely getting increased volume. Increasing
speaker volume does not improve intelligibility.
5. It appears that there is some kind of an equalizing effect from
cupping.
6. Placing hands or fingers in other places can also affect
intelligibility.
7. Public address systems often seem counterproductive when speech
intelligibility is the problem.
What is known about such effects? How important is multipath?

Remember: "In 2008 new guidelines were issued by the American Academy of
Otolaryngology discouraging earwax removal unless excess earwax is causing
health problems."
But the jaw movements are recomended.
S*

[amdx]

Post by Salmon Egg
I may be having hearing problems. However, I have noticed several
effects that make me think that hearing loss is not the obvious problem.
1. When I hear good announcers on radio, I seldom have problems
understanding the speech.
2. People calling in by telephone to the station are usually the ones
who are difficult to understand.
3. My computer television audio can be difficult to understand. Cupping
hands about my ears or deforming my external ears often improve
intelligibility.
4. It is not a matter of merely getting increased volume. Increasing
speaker volume does not improve intelligibility.
5. It appears that there is some kind of an equalizing effect from
cupping.
6. Placing hands or fingers in other places can also affect
intelligibility.
7. Public address systems often seem counterproductive when speech
intelligibility is the problem.
What is known about such effects? How important is multipath?
Bill

I'm at the same place you are, intelligibility, especially if there is
other noise.
I can understand my wife but I constantly question my 16yr old son about
what he said.
With my wife I probably have more context in the conversation so maybe
easier to understand
but with my son never sure what he is about to say.
I'm finding getting older is not all positive.


On the plus side,
George Burns said, If you live to be one hundred, you've got it made.
Very few people die past that age.
MikeK :-)

[David Combs]

Post by amdx

Post by Salmon Egg
I may be having hearing problems. However, I have noticed several
effects that make me think that hearing loss is not the obvious problem.
1. When I hear good announcers on radio, I seldom have problems
understanding the speech.
2. People calling in by telephone to the station are usually the ones
who are difficult to understand.
3. My computer television audio can be difficult to understand. Cupping
hands about my ears or deforming my external ears often improve
intelligibility.
4. It is not a matter of merely getting increased volume. Increasing
speaker volume does not improve intelligibility.
5. It appears that there is some kind of an equalizing effect from
cupping.
6. Placing hands or fingers in other places can also affect
intelligibility.
7. Public address systems often seem counterproductive when speech
intelligibility is the problem.
What is known about such effects? How important is multipath?
Bill

I'm at the same place you are, intelligibility, especially if there is
other noise.
I can understand my wife but I constantly question my 16yr old son about
what he said.
With my wife I probably have more context in the conversation so maybe
easier to understand
but with my son never sure what he is about to say.
I'm finding getting older is not all positive.
On the plus side,
George Burns said, If you live to be one hundred, you've got it made.
Very few people die past that age.
MikeK :-)

RE: clarity of speech:

I guess we can't forget the audio-processing that happens way
farther on, in the brain itself.

Some people understand speech I cannot understand at all.

(Well, British accent vs American accent -- which is easier
to comprehend (for a given person) is surely in the brain,
with little to do with the ear itself.)

And some people are quicker to grasp a visual scene, to eliminate
unlikely matches.


About cupping the ears, I sure do it! Helps me.

Also, one BIG difficulty (for me) is when people
"slur" their speech and leave off the sibilants,
eg the hisses, especially at the ends of words.

Slur, and all you hear is vowells. Sure makes it
difficult to distinguish one word from another.


David