On 3 Aug, 19:22, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:17:04 +0100, Spamlet wrote:
Actually the kids are way ahead of us and have been using the high
frequencies on their mobile ring tones for some time. If you want to
know how old you are, this site seems disappointingly accurate. *Try it:

http://www.freemosquitoringtone.org/

That's quite nifty... I can sort-of hear the 15.8KHz one (I can hear the
sound, but it's just not as clear as the slower ones), but not the
16.7KHz one - which is slightly better than my age group (assuming the
site's accurate).

My hearing's somewhat shot though (too many rock concerts and pub gigs in
my youth, too many engines and angle grinders as I've got older :-) so
it's nice to know that I can at least still hear the expected frequencies
(what I do find extremely difficult are things such as hearing someone
talking when there's a lot of background noise)

cheers

Jules

Some of the frequencies quoted are wrong, the sounds seem to be 10 kHz
less than they should be. Also, your computer's sound system might be
less sensitive at higher frequencies.

I can hear the '18.8 kHz' sound via the tichy speakers in my flat
monitor, and I'm 40.

In message
,
alexander.keys1 writes
On 3 Aug, 19:22, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:17:04 +0100, Spamlet wrote:
Actually the kids are way ahead of us and have been using the high
frequencies on their mobile ring tones for some time. If you want to
know how old you are, this site seems disappointingly accurate. *Try it:

http://www.freemosquitoringtone.org/

That's quite nifty... I can sort-of hear the 15.8KHz one (I can hear the
sound, but it's just not as clear as the slower ones), but not the
16.7KHz one - which is slightly better than my age group (assuming the
site's accurate).

My hearing's somewhat shot though (too many rock concerts and pub gigs in
my youth, too many engines and angle grinders as I've got older :-) so
it's nice to know that I can at least still hear the expected frequencies
(what I do find extremely difficult are things such as hearing someone
talking when there's a lot of background noise)

cheers

Jules

Some of the frequencies quoted are wrong, the sounds seem to be 10 kHz
less than they should be. Also, your computer's sound system might be
less sensitive at higher frequencies.

I can hear the '18.8 kHz' sound via the tichy speakers in my flat
monitor, and I'm 40.


I can hear them all

I'm 92 you know ...


--
geoff

In article , geoff
scribeth thus
In message
,
alexander.keys1 writes
On 3 Aug, 19:22, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:17:04 +0100, Spamlet wrote:
Actually the kids are way ahead of us and have been using the high
frequencies on their mobile ring tones for some time. If you want to
know how old you are, this site seems disappointingly accurate. *Try it:

http://www.freemosquitoringtone.org/

That's quite nifty... I can sort-of hear the 15.8KHz one (I can hear the
sound, but it's just not as clear as the slower ones), but not the
16.7KHz one - which is slightly better than my age group (assuming the
site's accurate).

My hearing's somewhat shot though (too many rock concerts and pub gigs in
my youth, too many engines and angle grinders as I've got older :-) so
it's nice to know that I can at least still hear the expected frequencies



(what I do find extremely difficult are things such as hearing someone
talking when there's a lot of background noise)


Thats a symptom of some hearing loss. Try this test on the RNID website.
A sequence of numbers are read out and you enter them on your keyboard.

If your rather good at this they increase the noise along with the
numbers thus making it more difficult.

Have a go...

Might have to copy and paste..


http://www.rnid.org.uk/howwehelp/hea...e_hearing_chec
k/?from=/hearing-check-home-right-bott-panel/


In a hospital hearing test It might come as a surprise for some to find
that they can be 30 odd dB or more even, down from 400 Hz to around 8
kHz and then might worry about their amp being within a .1 of a dB from
DC to Daylight;!...

--
Tony Sayer

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message
,
alexander.keys1 writes
On 3 Aug, 19:22, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:17:04 +0100, Spamlet wrote:
Actually the kids are way ahead of us and have been using the high
frequencies on their mobile ring tones for some time. If you want to
know how old you are, this site seems disappointingly accurate. Try
it:

http://www.freemosquitoringtone.org/

That's quite nifty... I can sort-of hear the 15.8KHz one (I can hear the
sound, but it's just not as clear as the slower ones), but not the
16.7KHz one - which is slightly better than my age group (assuming the
site's accurate).

My hearing's somewhat shot though (too many rock concerts and pub gigs
in
my youth, too many engines and angle grinders as I've got older :-) so
it's nice to know that I can at least still hear the expected
frequencies
(what I do find extremely difficult are things such as hearing someone
talking when there's a lot of background noise)

cheers

Jules

Some of the frequencies quoted are wrong, the sounds seem to be 10 kHz
less than they should be. Also, your computer's sound system might be
less sensitive at higher frequencies.

I can hear the '18.8 kHz' sound via the tichy speakers in my flat
monitor, and I'm 40.


I can hear them all

I'm 92 you know ...


Are you still using the ear-trumpet I sent you for your
birthday?

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:38:09 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
(what I do find extremely difficult are things such as hearing someone
talking when there's a lot of background noise)

Thats a symptom of some hearing loss. Try this test on the RNID website.
A sequence of numbers are read out and you enter them on your keyboard.

Interesting! That claimed my hearing was within normal range, which
anyone who knows me well would tell you is ******** ;-)

I found myself automatically making educated guesses at some of the
numbers, though (similar to the way it's possible to read very blurry
letters by shape clues I suppose) and maybe I wasn't supposed to be doing
that - I don't think the test really said.

I suppose the background noise doesn't really change for that test,
either - it's just hiss, and maybe that doesn't cause as much problem for
me as some things (e.g. put me in a room with background conversations
going on, or a radio playing in a car, and I have problems making out
what someone's saying right next to me unless they talk quite loudly).

cheers

Jules

In message , Iain Churches
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message
,
alexander.keys1 writes
On 3 Aug, 19:22, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:17:04 +0100, Spamlet wrote:
Actually the kids are way ahead of us and have been using the high
frequencies on their mobile ring tones for some time. If you want to
know how old you are, this site seems disappointingly accurate. Try
it:

http://www.freemosquitoringtone.org/

That's quite nifty... I can sort-of hear the 15.8KHz one (I can hear the
sound, but it's just not as clear as the slower ones), but not the
16.7KHz one - which is slightly better than my age group (assuming the
site's accurate).

My hearing's somewhat shot though (too many rock concerts and pub gigs
in
my youth, too many engines and angle grinders as I've got older :-) so
it's nice to know that I can at least still hear the expected
frequencies
(what I do find extremely difficult are things such as hearing someone
talking when there's a lot of background noise)

cheers

Jules

Some of the frequencies quoted are wrong, the sounds seem to be 10 kHz
less than they should be. Also, your computer's sound system might be
less sensitive at higher frequencies.

I can hear the '18.8 kHz' sound via the tichy speakers in my flat
monitor, and I'm 40.


I can hear them all

I'm 92 you know ...


Are you still using the ear-trumpet I sent you for your
birthday?


My constant companion in the bathchair


--
geoff

Huge said...

That's deeply impressive. Not.

Thats just good old slrn breaking links.
Get Pan and get with it.

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

Huge said...

I regard changing newsreaders (and text editors) with the same joy as
abdominal surgery.

I know what you mean, I used Forte Agent for donkeys and after 5 years
using Gravity I think I'm on top of it. When I was playing with Ubuntu
I tried slrn and Pan and favoured Pan more, just more comfortable with
the interface.


--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:23:20 +0100, UnsteadyKen wrote:
That's deeply impressive. Not.

Thats just good old slrn breaking links. Get Pan and get with it.

Hmm, FWIW my copy of Pan (the newer release) still mishandled the URL and
I had to remove a couple of stray characters before it'd work.

Here as a tinyurl if it's useful to anyone:

http://tinyurl.com/2dkts68

cheers

Jules

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:23:20 +0100, UnsteadyKen wrote:
That's deeply impressive. Not.

Thats just good old slrn breaking links. Get Pan and get with it.

Hmm, FWIW my copy of Pan (the newer release) still mishandled the URL and
I had to remove a couple of stray characters before it'd work.

Here as a tinyurl if it's useful to anyone:

http://tinyurl.com/2dkts68

Don't waste your time, huge's machine doesn't work not the web site.
Its probably malicious but could be incompetence.