Audio Engineering Society

Convention Paper 10083

Presented at the 145th Convention

2018 October 17–20, New York, NY, USA

This   Convention   paper   was   selected   based   on   a   submitted   abstract   and   750-­‐word   precis   that   have   been   peer   reviewed   by   at  
least   two   qualified   anonymous   reviewers.   The   complete   manuscript   was   not   peer   reviewed.   This   convention   paper   has   been  
reproduced  from  the  author's  advance  manuscript  without  editing,  corrections,  or  consideration  by  the  Review  Board.  The  AES  
takes  no  responsibility  for  the  contents.  This  paper  is  available  in  the  AES  E-­‐Library,  http://www.aes.org/e-­‐lib.  All  rights  reserved.  
Reproduction   of   this   paper,   or   any   portion   thereof,   is   not   permitted   without   direct   permission   from   the   Journal   of   the   Audio  
Engineering  Society.  

Risk of Sound-Induced Hearing Disorders for Audio Post

Production Engineers: A Preliminary Study
Laura M. Sinnott1 and Barbara Weinstein1
1
City University of New York Graduate Center, New York, NY  

Correspondence should be addressed to Author (laurasinnott@gmail.com)  

ABSTRACT
In this preliminary study, sound dosimetry measurements were conducted at film studios to assess whether audio
post-production engineers are at risk for sound-induced hearing loss. Additionally, we measured 23 engineers’
hearing thresholds and assessed their self-perception of hearing disorders via a new questionnaire. Our results show
that most participants had at least one audiometric notch, which is an early indicator of noise-induced hearing loss,
and most reported experiencing hearing disorders such as tinnitus. Dosimetry suggested that sound levels pose a low
risk of permanent hearing loss according to NIOSH criteria, but these criteria are not protective for disorders such as
tinnitus, cochlear synaptopathy or even early threshold shifts. We recommend routine hearing evaluations and the
use of hearing protection to maintain healthy hearing.
talking amongst each other, members of this
1. Introduction Musicians and audio engineers rely population report disorders such as tinnitus and
heavily on their hearing abilities in order to perform auditory processing difficulties such as difficulty
their job activities. Numerous musician-focused understanding speech in loud environments; they are
studies have assessed the risk of hearing disorders concerned about their hearing.
due to excessive sound exposure [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
[7] [8]. A few studies have assessed risk for studio The purpose of this preliminary research is trifold.
and live music engineers [9] [10] [11]. However, no First, to measure hearing thresholds and determine
studies have investigated whether film and television the audiometric characteristics of APPEs. Second, to
audio post production engineers (APPEs) have the design and assess the reliability of a questionnaire for
same risk. Theatrical film soundtracks presented in sound professionals that measures self-perception of
movie theaters can exceed recommended daily noise hearing disorders and determine whether correlations
doses [12] [13] and film sound engineers work long between audiometric status and questionnaire scores
hours and weeks on these soundtracks. They then exist. Third, conduct sound dosimetry measurements
expose themselves to additional noise while during re-recording mix sessions to assess whether
commuting, dining out, playing music and engaging this population is at risk for permanent hearing loss
in other recreational activities. Additionally, while due to the level and duration of sound exposure.

1
 
Sinnott and Weinstein
2. Definitions Noise induced hearing loss (NIHL)
refers to permanent threshold shifts (PTS), or
decrease in sensitivity to soft sounds, that occur with
cumulative exposure to high intensity, noise-like
sound for long durations [14]. Music induced hearing
loss (MIHL) refers to similar consequences of loud
and long sound exposure on hearing sensitivity but
with music being the offending sound [15]. The
terms music induced hearing disorders (MIHD) [16],
or sound induced hearing disorders (SIHD) [17]
reflect the bigger picture of the consequences of loud
and long, non-noise-like sound exposure. MIHDs
include elevated hearing thresholds but also tinnitus
(perceived ringing or noises in the ears without a
sound source), hyperacusis (extreme sensitivity to
high intensity sound), diplacusis (abnormal pitch
perception) and distortions of sound. An audiometric
notch describes a hearing threshold pattern where 3-6
kHz worsens before adjacent frequencies. These
frequencies are typically affected first with
cumulative loud and loud sound exposure and are
attributed to noise exposure [18] when other
conditions or medical history are absent.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) have developed damage-
risk criteria to assess risk for NIHL [19] [20]. These
criteria are based on level and duration of sound
exposure and measured in dBA. This study uses
NIOSH because it is more protective, using an 85
dBA criterion level (the level where 8 hours of
exposure equals a 100% noise dose) and 3 dB
exchange rate (safe listening time decreases by half
with each 3 dB increase in sound level). Leq is the
sound level averaged over a specific period of time,
commonly used in sound dosimetry.
3. Hearing Questionnaire for Sound
Professionals: Motivation
It is well known that the “gold standard” audiological
test, pure tone thresholds, does not correlate well
with measures of self-perceived hearing difficulties
[21] [22]. Clinicians and researchers have made calls
to action to create questionnaires that assess musical
needs for individuals with hearing loss [23] [24]
because nothing exists that measures these
individuals’ self-perceived effects of hearing loss or
disorders on sound perception. Thus, the
Questionnaire for Sound Professionals (QUSP) was
developed.
4. Literature
Audio Engineers and Noise Dose. Bulla and Hall [9]
authored the lone audio engineer study investigating
145th AES Convention, October 17-20, 2018, New York, NY, USA
Risk of Hearing Disorders for Audio-Post Engineers
sound exposure levels of 7 Nashville music studio
audio engineers. The authors concluded that levels
were both safe and dangerous depending on the
participant, however with long term exposure their
hearing is likely to suffer some kind of damage.
Järvinen et al. [11] showed that sound exposures for
some live broadcast sound engineers posed threats for
permanent hearing loss.
Rock Musicians and Hearing Status. Stormer et al.
[25] found that 20% of Norwegian rock musicians
reported permanent tinnitus compared to 0% of
controls. 38% of these musicians displayed hearing
loss compared to 2.5% of controls. Luders et al. [3]
surveyed 100 full and part time college musicians
and found that 72% experience tinnitus of some form.
Samelli et al. [7] compared found that rock musicians
had significantly worse hearing thresholds at 2 and 3
kHz and 12.5 - 18 kHz and smaller transient evoked
otoacoustic emissions amplitudes compared to
controls. Otoacoustic emission (OAE) tests are
objective measurements that may suggest inner ear
outer hair cell loss before the conventional
audiogram.
Classical Musicians, Hearing Status and Noise
Dosimetry. Royster et al. [6] obtained 68 dosimeter
readings on 44 Chicago Symphony Orchestra
musicians for two different rehearsal repertoires.
They also measured 59 musician’s hearing thresholds
and compared them to data from the International
Standards Organization (ISO) 7029, a screened
population with non-hazardous occupations. Leq
ranged from 79 - 99 dBA with an 8-hour daily Leq of
85.5 dBA. 52% showed notched thresholds at 3 - 6
kHz consistent with NIHL. They concluded that the
most susceptible musicians experiencing higher
sound levels would incur 28 dB of PTS at 3-4 kHz
after 30 years of playing, and the average musician
would incur about 18 dB (according to ISO 1999
standards).
A study of three German orchestras support the
prevalence of PTS in the musicians that exceed age-
matched controls [1] however a study on a Swedish
orchestra resulted in the opposite; any hearing loss
found could not be explained by music exposure [2].
Additional studies on orchestras support the
prevalence of potentially dangerous sound exposure
levels [8] according to NIOSH criteria. O’Brien et al.
[4] found that 52% of classical musicians practicing
on their own exceed recommended daily noise
exposure (NIOSH), and specific instrumentalists such
as violinists showed statistically significant inter-
2
Sinnott and Weinstein
aural differences in exposure levels between ears (left
ear with higher intensities than right for violinists).
Studies also suggest that band instructors and music
students have the highest risk for PTS due to sound
exposure [27] and have the highest prevalence of
NIHL [5].
Though most of these types of studies conclude that
some musicians are at risk for NIHL, Gez Saperstein
[28] points out in her systematic review of
occupational MIHL that most studies are limited in
their design, and longitudinal studies do not exist, so
it is difficult to truly know whether music exposure
causes hearing loss.
5. Methodology
Participants. Participants were recruited through
word of mouth and professional associations by the
principle investigator. No formal sampling procedure
was used, and participation was completely
voluntary. This study was approved by the CUNY
Graduate Center Institutional Review Board and all
participants signed an informed consent form.
Data Collection/Locations. Data were collected at
audio post-production facilities in New York City
and Chicago, IL as well as the CUNY Graduate
Center Hearing Clinic. Audiometry was conducted
in sound-treated audio studios designed for film
sound mixing or in a sound-treated room at the
CUNY Clinic that met ANSI S3.1-1999 standards for
Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels.
Dosimetry was conducted in 3 different Dolby-
certified re-recording mix stages in New York City.
QUSP Development. Initial development was based
on the popular Hearing Handicap Inventory for the
Elderly (HHIE) [29]. An extensive article on SIHD
by Moore [17] was consulted. Moore concisely
discussed consequences of specific auditory problems
from loss of frequency selectivity to recruitment on
music perception and a series of questions were
composed assessing impairment. Next, informal
interviews with a handful of NYC-based musicians,
composers and audio engineers were conducted to
develop questions that identified activity limitations
and participant restrictions. As shown by the HHIE,
emotional impacts of hearing impairment have higher
inter-subject variability and lower correlations with
pure tone averages compared to situational impacts,
and so questions assessing emotional impact were
composed. Goals for the QUSP included:
● Identify problems: impairments, activity
limitations and participant restrictions.
  and from work as well as activities after work to
145th AES Convention, October 17-20, 2018, New York, NY, USA
Risk of Hearing Disorders for Audio-Post Engineers
● Measure direct effects of hearing loss and/or
hearing disorders (e.g. tinnitus) on music and
audio engineering activities.
● Facilitate shared decision making between
audiologist and patient, and prioritize
problems.
Participants answer “yes,” “sometimes,” or “no.” A
three-point scale was chosen for scoring with “yes” =
4, “sometimes” = 2 and “no” = 0. Maximum total
score is 56, a higher score indicating a more severe
self-perceived impairment.
Etymotic ER200DW8 Dosimeter. While not a Class 2
or 1 device, the settings of this low-cost dosimeter
are consistent with ANSI S1.25–1991 (R2002) and
NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard [30].
Additionally, results from a peer-reviewed study by
Cook-Cunningham [31] positively assessed the
accuracy and reliability of this device. The
ER200DW8 records the following:
● Real-time and final noise dosage (in %) with
respect to NIOSH criteria and exchange rate.
● Real-time Leq in dBA, sampled every 220 ms
then averaged over a 3.75-minute period.
Specifications were set to:
● Criterion level: 85 dBA
● Exchange rate: 3 dB
● Frequency weighting: A weighted
● Response: slow
● Unable to measure peak SPL
6. Procedures
Participants completed a brief, interview-style, case
history including years worked, specific engineer
type, musician/non-musician and instrument played,
history of loud sound exposure, hearing protection
use and presence of tinnitus as defined by a constant
ringing, hissing, buzzing in one or both ears. The
investigator then administered the QUSP face-face.
Pure tone thresholds at octave frequencies of 250 -
8000 Hz and inter-octave frequencies 3000 and 6000
Hz were measured utilizing the modified Hughson-
Westlake procedure for each participant. All
participants underwent an otoscopic examination and
tympanometry prior to audiometry to ensure absence
of any obstructions or significant middle ear
pathologies that might affect threshold testing. The
investigator provided an interpretation of the results
and informational counseling immediately after
testing.
Three participants wore dosimeters for a total of 9
days from morning until night including commutes to
better estimate a daily noise dose. Each participant
maintained a brief journal where they recorded the
3
 Sinnott and Weinstein Risk of Hearing Disorders for Audio-Post Engineers

 

day’s activity. The journal was used for reference otoscopy with no gross abnormalities noted in 91%
purposes to determine whether extra-curricular (N = 21). Two participants had non-occluding
activities contributed to the overall noise dose. These cerumen in the left ear with tympanic membranes
approaches were also utilized in [9]. partially visualized.

7. Results QUSP. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to measure

Demographic Information. Participants were 19 the overall internal consistency of the QUSP (i.e. is
males and 4 females (N = 23) audio post-production the questionnaire an internally consistent and reliable
sound recordists, editors and re-recording mixers measure of related variables)? The QUSP’s Cronbach
between the ages of 23 - 62 (M = 38.8 years). All alpha was 0.87 indicating good internal consistency
worked full time (M = 14 years worked). Sixteen and reliability. Table 1 shows the correlations of each
(70%) had been past or current musicians for at least individual participant’s QUSP scores plotted against
7 years. All performed a variety of duties as is mean binaural hearing thresholds, age, years as a
typical of this occupation, including re-recording musician and years worked as an audio engineer. No
mixing, assistant sound editing, dialogue etc. Three statistically significant correlations were found.
(13%) occasionally recorded and mixed music. All
reported additional history of loud sound exposure Table 1. Correlation coefficients between total QUSP scores
from concert going to gunfire. and participant variables. Results were not significant.

Audiometric Status. Hearing thresholds were mostly Pearson Product Moment

all in the normal range as defined by ≤ 25 dB HL, Correlation of Variables Correlation Coefficient (p < 0.05*)

however 17% (N = 4) had unilateral mild hearing loss QUSP scores and mean binaural
and 4% (N = 1) had bilateral mild to moderate thresholds (n = 23) 0.322
hearing loss. Audiometric notches as defined by QUSP scores and age (n = 23) 0.297
Coles criteria1 were found in 61% (N = 14). A higher QUSP scores and years worked
prevalence of notches was found in left ears as an engineer (n = 23) 0.226
compared to right (14 left ear notches, 8 right) but the
QUSP scores and years as a
difference was not statistically significant. Figure 1 musician (n = 17) 0.310
shown below reveals the mean hearing thresholds for
all participants with standard deviations by ear. A
slight notched pattern emerged. Mean thresholds Tinnitus was reported by participants by case history
were not significantly different between ears. and by answering “yes” or “sometimes” to the
question: “Does ringing or any noise in your ears
Mean Thresholds All Participants cause you to feel frustrated or stressed?” If the
participant answered “yes” or “sometimes,” further
Right Ear
-10
Left Ear   clarification was made as to whether it was
  continuous as opposed to occasional, and unilateral
0 or bilateral. 48% (N = 11) participants reported
continuous tinnitus in at least one ear. Loud sound
dB HL

10
sensitivity was reported by participants by
20
answering “yes” or “sometimes” to the question: Do
you feel like you are especially sensitive to loud
30 sounds?” 70% (N = 16) participants reported “yes” or
.5 1 2 3 4 6 8 “sometimes.” Fisher’s exact test was used to find
kHz associations between participant history of being a
musician, how many years the participant worked as
Figure 1. Mean and SD thresholds for all participants by ear. an audio engineer, and presence of an audiometric
notch with both reports of tinnitus and loud sound
Tympanometry revealed normal tympanometric peak sensitivity. No statistically significant associations
pressure, static acoustic compliance, and ear canal were found.
volume for of 96% (N = 22) participants. One patient
showed significant negative pressure in the left ear. Personal Dosimetry. Participant journals revealed
Tympanic membranes were fully visualized via that participants spent between 6 - 11 hours
performing audio post-production tasks (mean = 8.7,
                                                                                                                        SD = 1.6), an average of 1.5 hrs/day commuting on
1
The Coles notch criteria as described by [44]: at least one threshold at 3, 4
or 6 kHz is lower (worse) than thresholds at 1 or 2 kHz and at 6 or 8 kHz by the NYC subway, and a variety of other activities
at least 10 dB.

145th AES Convention, October 17-20, 2018, New York, NY, USA 4
Sinnott and Weinstein
such as “Watch movie at home.” Daily doses using
NIOSH criteria ranged from 12% - 76% (mean =
33%, SD = 22%) and overall continuous equivalent
sound levels (Leq) for the entire day ranged from 73 -
81 dBA (mean = 76 dBA, SD = 3 dBA). Figure 2
shows the breakdown of noise dose by activity.
Figure 2. Daily noise dose by activity.
The specific post-production engineering task that
resulted in the most intense Leq levels (78 - 86 dBA)
was “Mix review, playback and punching,” as
denoted in one APPE’s journal, roughly hours 1 - 5 in
Figure. 4. The task resulting in the lowest Leq levels
(< 71 dBA) was “Sound editing, emails, prepping,”
roughly hours 5 - 8.5 in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Graphical export from Etymotic Utility Suite
showing accumulation of noise dose and Leq.
7. Discussion
Audiometric Status. Hearing threshold results of this
study were both similar and different compared to
results of musicians and audio engineers from other
studies. Mean hearing thresholds for all participants
for 3, 4, 6 and 8 kHz were 9, 14, 10 and 6 dB HL
respectively with large standard deviations (> 10 dB
HL). One survey [32] reported 100 audio recording
engineers’ mean thresholds for 3, 4, 6 and 8 kHz to
be 7, 12, 14 and 12 dB HL with large standard
deviations as well. Mean thresholds for 3, 4, 6 and 8
145th AES Convention, October 17-20, 2018, New York, NY, USA
Risk of Hearing Disorders for Audio-Post Engineers
kHz of 59 musicians from the Chicago Symphony [6]
were lower (better) with 6, 5, 1 and -4 dB HL
respectively with large standard deviations. Fourteen
rock/pop musicians had mean thresholds of 8, 11, 9
and 5 dB HL for 3, 4, 6 and 8 kHz with standard
deviations under 10 dB HL [7].
It is unlikely that occupational sound exposure alone
can account for all of the audiometric notches and
hearing losses. Other analyses of classical musicians,
as reviewed by [36], reported that though hearing loss
exists for a percentage of musicians, hearing loss due
to music alone is “very small indeed” (p. 274), as
other etiologies included gunfire, conductive hearing
loss, machine noise and Meniere’s disease.
Similarly, participants in this current study reported
additional otologic histories that may contribute to
hearing status. Almost all (N = 16) reported regular
attendance at nightclubs and live music venues. One
participant worked in a “loud” coffee truck for 5
years, and another reported a recent viral infection
affecting his hearing. All were regularly exposed to
subway noise.
Though hearing thresholds were mostly in the normal
hearing range (-10 to 25 dBHL, or dB Hearing
Level), 5 participants did show mild to moderate
hearing losses, many had audiometric notches and
most reported tinnitus
and/or loud sound
sensitivity. Whether
reports of loud sound
sensitivity were truly
hyperacusis was
somewhat unknown,
as loudness
discomfort levels
were not tested.
Participants were
asked if loud sound
ever caused pain or
extreme discomfort,
and answers varied. Although we cannot realistically
pinpoint what, exactly, caused the notches, losses or
hearing disorders given the varied backgrounds, it is
likely that regular exposure to amplified sound during
work, often above 85 dBA, is one of the many,
though not the exclusive, contributing factors.
QUSP. One of the purposes of the QUSP is to obtain
information about the patient that more objective
measurements are unable to do. There were little to
no correlations between QUSP scores and
audiometric status, years worked as an engineer,
years as a musician and age, indicating that the
QUSP provides information that cannot be extracted
5
Sinnott and Weinstein
from pure tone threshold results, age or experience
alone; this provides support for using the tool in the
clinic.
Participants had numerous follow-up questions
during the QUSP. Overall, it may be most useful as a
counseling tool; a way to educate engineers about
additional disorders that can result from cumulative
loud sound exposure (e.g., diplacusis or distortions)
that most were previously unaware of. If the patient
has high scores, the QUSP could be used in
combination with the Musician Oriented Scale of
Improvement [33] to help provide more extensive,
tailored recommendations, goals and strategies for
hearing loss prevention strategies.
Dosimetry and Sound Exposure. Dosimetry indicated
that all engineers were exposed to well under a 100%
dose, 5 out of 9 were even under a 25% dose.
Compared to the study on studio music engineers by
Bulla and Hall [9], the overall noise doses in our
study (12% - 76% using NIOSH criteria) were lower
than their 23% - 290% Department of Defense
criteria (which is similar to NIOSH) or 12% - 57%
OSHA dose. This could be due to film sound
engineering activities having a greater dynamic
range, from quiet dialogue editing sessions to the
heavy sound effects and music scenes. Additionally,
activities varied from quiet business emailing to
setting up a mix session. The loudest part of an audio
post-production engineer’s schedule is typically the
re-recording mix. Loud scenes will be played back
and tweaked repeatedly. While there were re-
recording mix sessions during some of the dosimetry
measurements in this study, most days were not
exclusively mix sessions. Furthermore, the industry
standard is for mix rooms to be calibrated to 85 dBC
SPL, however some engineers mix at 82 or even 78
dBC to avoid ear fatigue (a positive by-product of
which may be hearing loss prevention). For 4 of the
9 days measured, the engineers monitored at 78 dB,
the other days were unknown.
8. Inadequecies of OSHA and NIOSH Criteria
Dosimetry results should be interpreted with caution
because they potentially downplay the importance of
hearing conservation needs. Noise dosimetry is based
on A-weighted sound level measurement that OSHA
developed decades ago to predict whether industrial
workers were at risk for PTS as described by a 10 dB
decrease in the average threshold at 2, 3 and 4
kHz. I.e., these criteria are sensitive only for
significant hearing loss with large threshold shifts
and do not predict smaller threshold shifts, changes in
frequencies > 4 kHz or audiometric notches. NIOSH
is more conservative with a decrease by 15 dB in any
145th AES Convention, October 17-20, 2018, New York, NY, USA
Risk of Hearing Disorders for Audio-Post Engineers
threshold up to 6 kHz. With both criteria, some
audiometric notches may not be considered a PTS.
Additionally, OSHA is only protective for 75% of the
population, so 1 in 4 people may still develop hearing
loss while adhering to their permissible exposure
limits [14]. NIOSH criteria still allows 8% of the
population to slip through the cracks. Additionally,
PTSs are assessed with pure tone audiology.
However, pure tone audiometry is not sensitive for
hearing disorders such as tinnitus and cochlear
synaptopathy2 [34]. Also, OSHA and NIOSH criteria
are based on continuous, steady, noise-like sound
over a 40-hour workweek, not including weekends or
after-work activities [35] thus not perfectly
appropriate for people who engage in loud
recreational activities. Finally, dosimetry is not
accurate for impulse sound [36]. In this study, we can
assume that peaks and transients regularly reached
over 105 dBC (the maximum headroom of each
individual speaker in a properly calibrated studio)
and in a surround sound studio or theater, combined
speakers output transients that can reach up to 140
dBC, deemed unsafe even by OSHA.
9. Recommendations
Though noise doses are low and Leqs conservative,
levels did consistently surpass 85 dB, therefore audio
post-production engineers should still incorporate
hearing conservation strategies into their daily lives.
The strongest recommendations for APPEs are
regular hearing evaluations to monitor any gradual
changes in hearing status. If threshold shifts are
noted, the audiologist can discuss hearing
conservation strategies with the patient. If some over-
compensate, for example by increasing the level of
the high frequencies to compensate for loss of high
frequency sensitivity, visual tools such as real-time
spectral analyzers can help keep the mix balanced.
Dialogue editors can use spectrograms to help
identify soft, unwanted, high-frequency noises.
Unlike live musicians who require quick temporal
reactions and the need to constantly adjust their
intonation, audio post production engineers work in
steps. They start and stop constantly, revise and
refine, and team members check each other’s
work. The process is more akin to an orchestral
rehearsal. The “performance” happens in the movie
theater. Thus, hearing impairments and hearing
disorders may not actually have dire consequences on
the ability to perform their job activities.
2
Cochlear synaptopathy, called “hidden hearing loss” in lay terms because
traditional measures do not identify it, refers to the degeneration of synapses
between the auditory nerve and the cochlea’s inner hair cells. Thousands of
synapses can die before soft sound identification (hearing thresholds) is
affected; however consequences such as difficulty identifying a target signal
(e.g., speech) in noise still exist.
6
Sinnott and Weinstein
High Fidelity Hearing Protection. NIOSH
recommends hearing protection for any sound that
reaches 85 dBA [35]. We do not expect and will not
encourage sound engineers to start wearing hearing
protection at all times. It is unnecessary given the
low noise dose and overall low-risk sound exposure
levels. APPEs can wear a personal, low cost
dosimeter. If a 50% dose is reached, they can choose
to then use hearing protection when they are unable
to turn the level down for particularly long and loud
scenes. High fidelity, low attenuation, custom
silicone earplugs should be favored. Etymotic
Research developed an earplug filter that attenuates
sound by 9 or 15 dB with a relatively flat frequency
response up to 8 kHz (above which the sound is
attenuated by > 15 dB). Many companies
manufacture custom earplugs using these filters.
However, some earplugs, like those manufactured by
Sensaphonics, are crafted with a sound bore that is
shaped to resonate 2700 Hz, the natural resonance of
the human ear canal [38] [39]. The ear canal portion
reaches the second bend, which is helpful for
reducing the occlusion effect, and ear impression
technique is detailed and specific for optimizing the
seal, even for professional vocalists who move their
mouth to extreme positions. All of these carefully
designed features contribute to a more natural sound
quality that professional musicians will accept, so
engineers may, too.
Audiological Evaluations. In addition to the
ubiquitous pure tone thresholds from .25 – 8kHz,
audiologists should perform additional tests for
APPEs to identify early signs of hearing loss such as
cochlear synaptopathy (a.k.a., “hidden hearing loss”),
after which hearing conservation and compensatory
strategies can be discussed. Extended high frequency
(EHF) thresholds should always be tested for APPEs.
If results show poor extended high frequency
thresholds, APPEs will know to compensate by
relying more heavily on visual tools like
spectrograms. A recent study showed that musicians
have significantly worse EHF thresholds compared to
non-musicians [42], so APPEs are at risk given that
many are or were also musicians. Additionally, poor
EHF thresholds are believed to contribute to
difficulty understanding speech in noise [26].
Loss of frequency selectivity and widening of critical
bands can lead to a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss
[17]. This may cause an action scene with a pounding
musical score to sound muddy. It is unknown
whether re-recording mixers with SNR loss
compensate by mixing the dialogue higher. A higher
SNR will likely be appreciated by audience members
145th AES Convention, October 17-20, 2018, New York, NY, USA
Risk of Hearing Disorders for Audio-Post Engineers
with hearing impairment, however the engineer
should still be aware of the overall, aesthetic impact
of this approach3. Audiologists can measure SNR
loss with speech-in-noise tests like the QuickSIN [40]
or Words in Noise [41].
Finally, OAEs (transient and distortion product) are
recommended to provide information about the inner
ear’s outer hair cells, as changes can be detected prior
to elevated thresholds on the traditional audiogram.
10. Limitations
The study did not use random sampling, and there
was a small sample size of only 23 participants.
Between these participants, their professional,
recreational and occupational history of sound
exposure varied significantly and so it is impossible
to know the exact etiology of audiometric notches,
reports of tinnitus and reports of loud sound
sensitivity. Equipment limitations could decrease
external validity of the audiometric results, as three
different audiometers were used in multiple locations.
Though all were calibrated, the times between the
most recent calibration varied. Both insert earphones
and supra-aural headphones were used which could
result in elevated low frequency thresholds (250 &
500 Hz) for participants using inserts.
11. Recommendations for Future Research
Future studies with more participants are warranted
and including extended high frequency audiometry is
crucial. Validity and test-retest reliability of QUSP
should be assessed. The QUSP is a tool designed for
audiologists to administer, however those unfamiliar
with APPE activities may not fully know how to
interpret the QUSP, so educational materials for
audiologists should be designed. Though preliminary
dosimetry provided some information that will be
sure to ease some APPE fears, more dosimetry for
longer periods of time, especially for all day re-
recording mix sessions, should be conducted to get a
better idea of the noise dose during the most extreme
work days and to more accurately provide
appropriate recommendations. Outreach is needed to
increase awareness of audiological services for
APPEs. Organizations such as the Sound Editors
Guild, sound editor unions and audio post-production
houses in Hollywood and New York City, then
nationally and globally, can be contacted as well as
university programs, by local audiologists for care
and education.
3
Engineers and researchers connected with the BBC in the UK are working
on implementing object-based audio broadcasts so that hearing impaired
listeners can independently control levels of dialogue, music and sound
effects [43]. Results showed improvements for many of the hearing impaired
participants.
7
Sinnott and Weinstein
12. Conclusions
The 23 audio post production engineers were from a
variety of ages, backgrounds and reported a variety of
sound exposure histories. Most demonstrated some
indication of hearing disorders including audiometric
notches and self-reported tinnitus and loud sound
sensitivity. The QUSP was administered and shown
to have good internal consistency. Scores mostly did
not correlate with pure tone threshold results,
indicating that the questionnaire is a valuable tool for
further assessing these engineers’ hearing needs.
Noise dosimetry results indicated that these engineers
are not at risk for permanent threshold shifts as
defined by OSHA and NIOSH due to occupational
sound exposure, however noise dosimetry should not
be the sole approach for assessing risk, especially
since hearing difficulties can arise prior to threshold
shifts. Many participants with notches and tinnitus
were under 40 years old, with potentially 25+ years
left of their careers. Whether occupational sound
exposure is significantly contributing or not, all audio
post production engineers should undergo routine,
audiometric evaluations and learn about hearing
conservation strategies in order to prevent hearing
disorders due to occupational, recreational and urban
sound exposure. Additional hearing conservation
practices such as utilizing a personal noise dosimeter
and wearing appropriate hearing protection when
necessary should be considered.
13. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Etymotic Research
and the CUNY Graduate Center for providing
supporting grants to complete this research.
For a copy of the Questionnaire for Sound
Professionals (QUSP) or the lead author’s full
doctoral capstone paper on this research, please email
the lead author.
  in highly amplified music reproduction. Canadian
References
[1] Emmerich, E., Rudel, L., & Richter, F. (2008). Is
the audiologic status of professional musicians a
reflection of the noise exposure in classical orchestral
music?. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-
Laryngology, 265(7), 753-758.
[2] Kähäri, K. R., Axelsson, A., Hellström, P. A., &
Zachau, G. (2001). Hearing assessment of classical
orchestral musicians. Scandinavian Audiology, 30(1),
13-23.
[3] Luders, D., de Oliveira Goncalves, C. G., de
Lacerda, A. B. M., da Silva, L. S. G., Marques, J. M.,
145th AES Convention, October 17-20, 2018, New York, NY, USA
Risk of Hearing Disorders for Audio-Post Engineers
& Sperotto, V. N. (2016). Occurrence of tinnitus and
other auditory symptoms among musicians playing
different instruments. The International Tinnitus
Journal, 20(1), 48-53.
[4] O'Brien, I., Driscoll, T., & Ackermann, B. (2013).
Sound exposure of professional orchestral musicians
during solitary practice. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 134(4), 2748-2754.
[5] Phillips, S. L., Henrich, V. C., & Mace, S. T.
(2010). Prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss in
student musicians. International Journal of
Audiology, 49(4), 309-316.
[6] Royster, J. D., Royster, L. H., & Killion, M. C.
(1991). Sound exposures and hearing thresholds of
symphony orchestra musicians. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 89(6), 2793-2803.
[7] Samelli, A. G., Matas, C. G., Carvallo, R. M.,
Gomes, R. F., de Beija, C. S., Magliaro, F. C., &
Rabelo, C. M. (2012). Audiological and
electrophysiological assessment of professional
pop/rock musicians. Noise and Health, 14(56), 6.
[8] Schmidt, J. H., Pedersen, E. R., Juhl, P. M.,
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Andersen, T. D., Poulsen,
T., & Bælum, J. (2011). Sound exposure of
symphony orchestra musicians. Annals of
Occupational Hygiene, 55(8), 893-905.
[9] Bulla, W. A., & Hall III, J. W. (1998, September).
Daily Noise-Level Exposures of Professional Music
Recording Engineers. In Audio Engineering Society
Convention 105. Audio Engineering Society.
[10] Fortin M, Hetu R. (1994). Characterization of
occupational sound exposure of professional involved
Acoustics. 22(3): 87-88.
[11] Järvinen, A., Olkinuora, P., Airo, E., Toppila, E.,
Savolainen, A. (2004). Noise Exposure in Broadcast
Programme Production. In Proceedings of the 18th
International Congress on Acoustics (ICA 2004),
Kyoto, Japan, 2004, Vol. IV, pp. 3195 - 3198.
[12] Warszawa, A. and Sataloff, R. T. (2010). Noise
exposure in movie theaters: A preliminary study of
sound levels during the showing of 25 films. Ear,
Nose & Throat Journal, 89(9), 444.
[13] Rao, N. S., Ajay, B., Ramesh, B. S., Naidu, G.
G., Krishna, L. P. R., & Krishna, L. M. (2015). Noise
levels in twenty selected cinema theatres in
8
Sinnott and Weinstein
Visakhapatnam city, Andhra Pradesh, India. Noise &
Vibration Worldwide, 46(2), 10-17.
[14] Niquette, P. A. (2009). Noise exposure:
Explanation of OSHA and NIOSH safe-exposure
limits and the importance of noise dosimetry. Elk
Grove Village: Etymotic Research Inc.
[15] Chesky, K. (2008). Preventing music-induced
hearing loss. Music Educators Journal, 94(3), 36-41.
[16] Santucci, M. (2009). Protecting musicians from
hearing damage: A review of evidence-based
research. Medical Problems of Performing Artists,
24(3), 103-107.
[17] Moore, B. C. (2015, June). Effects of Sound-
Induced Hearing Loss and Hearing Aids on the
Perception of Music. In Audio Engineering Society
Conference: 58th International Conference: Music
Induced Hearing Disorders. Audio Engineering
Society.
[18] Salvi, R. J. (1993). 4000 Hz noise
damage. American Journal of Audiology, 2(1), 21-21.
[19] OSHA, O. N. E. (1983). Hearing Conservation
Amendment. Final Rule, Part II, 9738.
[20] Rosenstock, L. (1998). Criteria for a
recommended standard: Occupational noise
exposure. National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, (98–126), 1-122.
[21] Alpiner, J. G., & McCarthy, P. A. (Eds.). (2000).
Rehabilitative Audiology: Children and Adults.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
[22] Weinstein, B. E. (2015). What hearing
impairment measures do not tell us—But self-report
measures do. The Hearing Journal, 68(11), 26-28.
[23] Chasin, M., & Hockley, N. S. (2014). Some
characteristics of amplified music through hearing
aids. Hearing research, 308, 2-12.
[24] Rutledge, K. L. (2009). A music listening
questionnaire for hearing aid users. University of
Cantebury. Master’s Thesis.
[25] Stormer, C. C. L., Sorlie, T., & Stenklev, N. C.
(2017). Tinnitus, Anxiety, Depression and Substance
Abuse in Rock Musicians a Norwegian Survey. The
international tinnitus journal, 21(1), 50-57.
145th AES Convention, October 17-20, 2018, New York, NY, USA
Risk of Hearing Disorders for Audio-Post Engineers
[26] Spankovich, C., & Le Prell, C. (2017).
perspectives On:“normal” Hearing and Perceived
Hearing Complaints. Audiology Today, 29(6), 34-44.
[27] O’Shea, B., Dunckley, K., Malyuk, H. (2018).
Investigation of Trends in Extended High Frequency
Hearing Sensitivity in the Music Industry. Rush
University.
[28] Gez Saperstein, Lilach. (2017). A Systematic
Review of Occupational Music-Induced Hearing
Loss. CUNY Academic Works. Capstone Project.
[29] Ventry, I. M., & Weinstein, B. E. (1982).
Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a new
tool. Ear and hearing, 3(3), 128-134.
[30] National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. (1998). Criteria for a recommended standard:
occupational noise exposure: revised criteria
1998. US Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
[31] Cook-Cunningham, S. L. (2014). Personal noise
dosimeters: Accuracy and reliability in varied
settings. Noise and Health, 16(70), 143.
[32] Martinez, C., & Gilman, S. (1987, October).
Results of the 1986 AES Audiometric Survey. In
Audio Engineering Society Convention 83. Audio
Engineering Society.
[33] Beach, E., Mcginnity, S., Sewell, J. (2018).
Musician Oriented Scale of Improvement (MOSI).
HEARsmart. https://hearsmart.org/be-
hearsmart/audiologists/
[34] Liberman, M.C., & Kujawa, S.G. (2017).
Cochlear synaptopathy in acquired sensorineural
hearing loss: manifestations and mechanisms.
Hearing Research, 349, 138-147.
[35] Kardous, C., MS, Themann, C.L., Morata, T.,
Lotz, G. (2016).Understanding Noise Exposure
Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental
Noise. Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Blog. Feb. 8, 2016. Retrieved from:
https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-
blog/2016/02/08/noise/
[36] Woolford, D. H., Carterette, E. C., & Morgan,
D. E. (1988). Hearing impairment among orchestral
musicians. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 5(3), 261-284.
9
Sinnott and Weinstein
[37] Plack, C. J., Barker, D., & Prendergast, G.
(2014). Perceptual consequences of “hidden” hearing
loss. Trends in Hearing, 18, 2331216514550621.
[38] Etymotic Research, Inc. (2016). Musician’s
Earplugs. Technical Specs.
[39] Miskowicz, C. (2017). Personal Interview on
Earplug Design. Conducted at Sensaphonics Hearing
Wellness, Chicago, IL.
[40] Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI,
Revit LJ, Banerjee S. (2014). Development of a quick
speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise
ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired
listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America. 2004 Oct;116(4 Pt 1):2395–2405.
[41] Wilson, R. H., Carnell, C. S., & Cleghorn, A. L.
(2007). The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test with
multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise
maskers. Journal of the American Academy of
Audiology, 18(6), 522-529.
145th AES Convention, October 17-20, 2018, New York, NY, USA
Risk of Hearing Disorders for Audio-Post Engineers
[42] Dunckley, K., O’Shea, M., Santucci, M.,
Malyuk, H. (2018). Music-Induced Damage May Not
Be Localized to Conventional Audiometric
Frequencies. American Academy of Audiology
Conference 2018. Nashville, TN. April 29, 2018.
[43] Shirley, B. G., Meadows, M., Malak, F.,
Woodcock, J. S., & Tidball, A. (2017). Personalized
object-based audio for hearing impaired TV viewers.
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 65(4), 293-
303.
[44] Lie, A., Engdahl, B., Hoffman, H. J., Li, C., &
Tambs, K. (2017). Occupational noise exposure,
hearing loss, and notched audiograms in the HUNT
Nord Trøndelag hearing loss study, 1996–1998. The
Laryngoscope, 127(6), 1442–1450.
http://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26256
10