cleeds,
Obviously. That's inherent in a hearing test.
What point do you think you are actually making, that undermines anything I wrote?
If you take numerous hearing tests, and you reliably identify the presence of tones 16K and below, whereas above that your attempts routinely amount to random chance....do you think it's rational to claim to the audiologist: "I know I can detect tones above 16K and you can't tell me what I don't hear!"
??
And do you not think that after many years of science studying human hearing, comprising audiology tests of various sorts on a massive array of human beings, that it is not reasonable to set the *approximate* limits of human hearing in the upper range at 20kHz (with some exceptions)?And therefore that demarcations such as "ultrasound" end up being useful?
There are always caveats. Most claims are provisional. Nothing is easy.There are many things we don't know. And on and on.
The thing is, folks like yourself seem to keep thinking you are taking a pin to the balloon with comments like the one you've just made, but insofar as you are making any accurate statement, it's already incorporated as a caveat into what I've been arguing. So they are just red herrings.
(btw, yes I've had numerous hearing tests, and have been fitted for "musicians earplugs" for many years. FWIW, my last test was several years ago and the audiologist said, with some astonishment in her voice, that she would have guessed she was looking at results for someone 15 years younger in terms of hearing. A result, I presume, of my having been in to hearing protection for a long time).
Yes, I have had a hearing test. Have you? The tests I’ve been part of don’t tell me what I hear at all. Rather, I have to tell the audiologist what I hear. Without that feedback, the audiologist knows exactly nothing about what I hear.
Obviously. That's inherent in a hearing test.
What point do you think you are actually making, that undermines anything I wrote?
If you take numerous hearing tests, and you reliably identify the presence of tones 16K and below, whereas above that your attempts routinely amount to random chance....do you think it's rational to claim to the audiologist: "I know I can detect tones above 16K and you can't tell me what I don't hear!"
??
And do you not think that after many years of science studying human hearing, comprising audiology tests of various sorts on a massive array of human beings, that it is not reasonable to set the *approximate* limits of human hearing in the upper range at 20kHz (with some exceptions)?And therefore that demarcations such as "ultrasound" end up being useful?
There are always caveats. Most claims are provisional. Nothing is easy.There are many things we don't know. And on and on.
The thing is, folks like yourself seem to keep thinking you are taking a pin to the balloon with comments like the one you've just made, but insofar as you are making any accurate statement, it's already incorporated as a caveat into what I've been arguing. So they are just red herrings.
(btw, yes I've had numerous hearing tests, and have been fitted for "musicians earplugs" for many years. FWIW, my last test was several years ago and the audiologist said, with some astonishment in her voice, that she would have guessed she was looking at results for someone 15 years younger in terms of hearing. A result, I presume, of my having been in to hearing protection for a long time).