Why this matters: Hearing loss is not uniform across frequencies, and we use huge portions of the spectrum for different functions (truck backup beepers vs. car engine noises, both used to identify what's coming your way).
a) conduct a hearing test
b) do a hearing based EQ on incoming sound?
c) do sound profiles (ie, optimize for speech?)
Realize that calling already may use some of this - using microphones to pick out speech from background noise etc.
For folks who have hearing issues you could have one device that would cover your movie watching, your phone calls, and hearing enhancement. For $180.
It could not. A hearing test requires an environment with exceptional isolation and flat-response drivers (iPods are not remotely flat) to be done properly.
> do a hearing based EQ on incoming sound
It could, given a proper prescription for the EQ, and an understanding of the response curve of the iPods' mic and drivers.
> do sound profiles
Not required, the EQ is tied to your hearing damage, not your environment.
On a whim I tried Apple's wireless sync. It's end to end, and works as well as I could with manual tuning (which I would do by filming at high speed a time audio sync track)
https://www.reddit.com/r/appletv/comments/itm711/psa_wireles...
So they demonstrated a consumer device could, in a few seconds, generate a fantastic sync solution across my entire input -> output -> room stack. Or I could spend an hour fiddling around in settings.
Airpod pro's provide a some level of isolation already especially if you run the fit check. airpods are also not that bad.
You could do a calibration curve at factory if needed for drivers. You could run a very user friendly process to fine tune, in the comfort of your own home, a profile of your hearing loss. You could update this anytime.
You could then also obviously offer some presets to amplify things in a targeted way. At the dinner table? Focus on voices. At a concert, do a music preset.
We've heard all this before with camera's by the way. The iphone doesn't have a "real camera". Yes, I used to shoot full frame. Yes, the iphone's cameras are "crap". But for many people they are "good enough", and they have other benefits, ease of use, easy to learn, not a big extra expense etc.
Let the market decide, apple can provide a warning -> if you want to wait for insurance to approve a hearing test, then schedule one, then wait for a device to be ordered and ship, then go back, then be dependent on an audiologist to tune things for you etc you should do so, but if you want, try out little app here to see if it helps.
I really hate it when people say "let the market decide" when it comes to health care. It's how we get $10,000 suppositories (a story earlier this week).
It appears you really like Apple's audio hardware (whereas I think it's middling crap), know little about hearing loss, and I don't feel like arguing the points.
Congratulations, you win.
As to whether AirPods etc are crap - I’ll let you have you opinion- I like them and they seem to sell well
Perfect is perfectly acceptable to aim for, when it comes to your hearing for life.
Without controlled test environment you cannot compare as your test environment will change your thresholds, and therefore make the test invalid.
It's probably good enough for an temporary situation, but I wouldn't trust it long term. Improper amplification can damage your hearing further.
* If the earbuds you use to perform the hearing test are the same ones you use with the resulting EQ profile, why does it matter whether the earbuds are flat or not? If you're taking measurements in a transformed coordinate space, and applying those measurements in the same transformed coordinate space, shouldn't that be equivalent to taking measurements in the original coordinate space and applying them in the original coordinate space?
* Why isn't active noise cancellation a good enough form of noise isolation?
* If using an EQ profile that only matches your hearing loss imperfectly can damage your hearing, wouldn't the same thing apply to EQ profiles that aren't intended to correct hearing, like the media player presets "classical music", "rock music", etc.? For that matter, wouldn't it apply to a flat EQ profile? Is there something special about an imperfect hearing correction EQ profile, compared to other EQ profiles?
You also have to account for the microphone, which can (and will) have its own bias. Measuring from a flat response source, and producing for a flat response mic/speaker combination will produce the most accurate results.
> active noise cancellation
ANC creates sound artifacts at low volumes. It also provides, in ideal circumstances, around 25Db of noise reduction. You probably want between 40 and 80Db (or more) of noise reduction, depending on the ambient noise level around you. The threshold of hearing hovers around 10Db for healthy ears. Healthy ears can hearing your own heartbeat in an anechoic chamber (as close to 0Db as we can get).
> wouldn't the same thing apply to EQ profiles that aren't intended to correct hearing
If you're correcting for a 40Db loss at one frequency (taken randomly from the surrounding threads), applying it to a frequency where you have only 20Db loss can result in an extra 20Db of sound at that frequency. 20Db is 4x louder by perception, and over 6x higher pressure.
For a point of reference, Apple music's EQ curves are 12Db, 24Db if you set the extremes. So yes, they could damage your hearing, but that will depend more on the volume than the EQ.