Wikipedia

Talk:The Hum

The New Zealand story

[edit]

I would like to remove at the headlines "Possible explanations/Tinnitus/Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions" the sentence “Recordings of sounds that appear to be the Hum, such as that made in Auckland, would indicate that otoacoustic emissions cannot explain all occurrences of the Hum.” Comments: In Auckland there have been made several measurements of low-frequency environmental sounds, which is comparable to the vast number of measurements of hobby physicians all over the world, who experience their own hum and think, this is the only one hum. Not one single measurement, like Mullin`s matching test with musicians, has been performed to find, whether the measured sound correlates with the hum of all the hearers. Four hearers “confirmed” the sound, which is not a reliable approach. Brummfrosch (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is currently structured, and, indeed, as the Hum is currently reported in the English-language press, some hums are clearly not internal. This section needs to reference that, either by reference to the recording or by reference to a non-internal hum. Bromley86 (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear the hum in rural Tauranga. This started in March 2020 in covid lockdown. It continues everyday to various degrees. I can block it out with ear plugs. Some others hear it. I feel It’s possibly a change of frequency, 5G technology or the Schumann resonance. Some times it’s so intense I have to play music to drown it out. Wisdomkeeper74 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English language Wikipedia obviously still has difficulties to separate different events into different articles of Wikipedia. This is embarrassing but not my problem. My problem is that an Auckland article is placed into the section Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions, although it has absolute nothing to do with SOAEs nor uses a single word about SOAEs, but speculates about the humming of sand dunes or the sounds of the motion under the earth as sources for the Hum. This article should be restricted to a separate esoteric section like the colliding ocean waves and the moan with pleasure of fish. Brummfrosch (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reverted for a couple of reasons. (1) As above. (2) You're making an unsupported connection between tinnitus and the hum (i.e. 1-9% may experience tinnitus, but that has nothing to do with low frequency noises). Bromley86 (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, using colons allows you to thread a conversation, like this. Bromley86 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this chapter we are not talking about New Zealand´s funny low frequency noise but about the correlation between tinnitus and spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. As I already told: The quality of this article is not my it is the problem for native English people. Brummfrosch (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NZ point: see above. Tinnitus point: then you'd need to provide a source that links tinnitus with low frequency noises. Adding "Between 1 percent to 9 percent of people hear these otoacoustic emissions as disruptive tinnitus" gives the impression to anyone reading that this statistic is somehow related to the Hum. Bromley86 (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each sound without a corresponding external source is tinnitus by definition. Therefore Hum is tinnitus by definition. Why do all these poor guys not understand this fact and still look again and again for external sources and this in a complete unprofessional way? Why did the physicists in New Zealand not run frequency matching tests? Then they would have realized that hum is not this measured 56 Hz tone but that everyone is experiencing a different hum-frequency, which would have proven that the 56 Hz is a vacuous environmental noise that hearers not even hear, and that low frequency environmental noise has nothing to do with the Hum. They did a bad turn and a favor to all the hearers, who cannot accept that they have a special form of tinnitus. Because all these facts have been confirmed in the article of Mullins and Kelly already more than 20 years ago, I am so staggered by the stiff opposition in this topic. Brummfrosch (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the key problems you have. We have no source that excludes external sources for the Hum. We have no source that says it's all tinnitus/SOAEs. We have Baguley who seems to believe it's more along the lines of hyperacusis. So, whilst you believe you've solved it based on (if I understood correctly) measurements that you'd taken of your own ears over 10 years, we don't have that from anyone else. Bromley86 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not answer my question but instead introduce a disease as cause for hum? Hyperacusis at best is a footnote when involving persons with inner ear damage and ordinary tinnitus into the class of hearers. By doing this you do hearers no service, because: 95% of hearers have a sound ear and a normal to extraordinary hearing ability, which has been proven by otologists in Germany. All my activities are not my personal believe but the results of questionnaires from hundreds of hearers and measurements. I will send you the corresponding publication to your email address. The main problem I now can realize out of the discussion is that your cited hum-activists begin with the second step and ignore the relevance. This is unprofessional and shameful! 1) The physicists try to find low frequency acoustic signals with sensitive devices without checking the relevance in matching tests with hearers. 2) The otologists dig out something they have learned, also without running matching tests and without checking the low frequency hearing ability of hearers (they mostly don’t have the equipment and start at 125Hz upwards) I repeat again: WHY DID THE PHYSICISTS IN NEW ZEALAND NOT RUN MATCHING TESTS? Without these tests we are involved with esoteric speculation. Do you really want this? If you are not familiar with the meaning of matching tests read again at Mullins and Kelly or Frosch or bow out. If you cannot bring this matching test proof, I will have to reverse your revert partly, because YOU MADE AN UNSUPPORTED CONNECTION (saying in your words) between environmental noise and hum in New Zealand. Have fair dos. Brummfrosch (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't introduce Hyperacusis, Dr. David Baguely did.
I am not here to do hearers a service. You'll forgive me if I don't take your word on uncited reports of proof by German otologists.
Your questionnaire is likely not usable in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, thank for mailing it to me.
AFAIK the NZ scientists did run matching tests; that's where the 56 hertz figure was taken from (The scientists are measuring the frequency by playing a second low frequency to someone who can hear the humming. When the person can no longer hear the hum, the frequency they are playing is the same as the humming noise.).[1]
However, irrespective of whether or not this is what you're referring to, you have yet to show any reputable (i.e, with respect, not you) source for the definitive statement that the Hum=SOAE. I'd suggest that you might not want to go down the literal Wikipedia rules route, because then everything in the SOAE section will be removed. The point is we do not have any souce, other than roundabout references by Mullins & Kelly that were not in their article, such as this. The whole SOAE section (and most of the Tinnitus section) is synthesis. I happen to find SOAE a credible explanation, which is why I support its inclusion, but it's all basically someone's original research; if we're going to include OR, then we certainly have to draw attention to the faults in the reasoning. Bromley86 (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a matching test the hearer himself, not the scientist, adjusts volume and frequency of a tone generator until his hum and the external sound from the tone generator are identical. This has not been done in the New Zealand/Auckland-test, where the scientists adjusted the tone generator. Running a test this way is not lege artis, because it is open for psychological external influence. I welcome your support for the theories of Mullins & Kelly and Frosch, and I am sure you accept a compromise, not to eliminate but to move the sentence “Recordings of sounds that appear to be the Hum, such as that made in Auckland, would indicate that otoacoustic emissions cannot explain all occurrences of the Hum.”[8] from SOAEs to history/Auckland, because it has absolute nothing to do with SOAEs. Brummfrosch (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the article again and now that SOAEs are nested under Tinnitus, I'm happy for that section to address this. We don't need to move that sentence there as Tinnitus already has statements that draw attention to the explanation not being comprehensive. No need to mention it in the Auckland section. So I've removed that sentence.
Incidentally, I don't support your theory, I just accept that it's just as possible as any other unproven theory. That position is not going to change in the absence of someone publishing in a reliable source. Bromley86 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it might be easier to use the Auckland recording to make the point in Tinnitus than the current, largely uncited, statements. I'll see if I can restructure Tinnitus with cites to Leventhall or similar. Bromley86 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem, the Hum article in Wikipedia is facing, is the lack of an exact definition. We are trying to combine completely different phenomena into one article. As long as one global internal and several local external phenomena are not distinguished, we are condemned to fail. We must not defend this moribund structure of an all-in-one device suitable for every purpose. The first step therefore is to bring a clear definition and to remove all local external events from the global internal hum-phenomenon, before we discuss details of tinnitus together with colliding ocean waves and the mating call of fish. Are you the man with vision to split the current Hum article? Brummfrosch (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst they may well be different phenomena, they have not be reported in reliable sources as such. So you'll likely not get anywhere with your project. Bromley86 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - we will see. Brummfrosch (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Oslofjord Hum

[edit]

The phenomenon has also been reported in Oslo and the Oslo fjord:

...in case somebody wants to contribute a section on that.

Vegard (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay

[edit]

A comparable phenomenon has also been reported in Tampa Bay:

The case seems to be solved now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hum /Tinnitus

[edit]

I just searched for "phantom low frequency, low volume, oscillating mechanical sounds". This article "The Hum" was the first listed. I am preparing for a hearing exam that is a follow up to consider to be fitted with hearing aids. I was out in the wilds of the St. Joe River Valley of Idaho USA for 12 days in which the wind was often unusually still. The loudest thing I typically hear in the stillness is due to tinnitus composed of two high frequency tones, one in each ear. I have been diagnosed with asymmetric hearing for which the literature describes a consequence where the location of the source of sounds is messed up by the brain trying to compensate for the discrepancy between the ears (supposedly for being able to respond with fight or flight to approaching danger). A brain scan returned the finding of "nothing remarkable" (humorous to my wife). In the wilds atop a mountain I wondered aloud to my adult daughter what the very far off pulsating industrial generator like hum sound was. She didn't hear it. Eventually I noticed I only heard it from the left ear, but always in whichever direction the ear was turned. Never from the right ear. That seems to eliminate that it has a geographical outside source. When I plugged the left ear or both ears with fingers I didn't hear it, but the unharmonious tinnitus would be louder. At home in the quiet of the night I hear it, and get the same results experimenting with the left ear. For now I am supposing that it may be an industrial sound imprint from my days in a machine shop, something like an earworm (a disagreeable song, eg. "It's a small world after all"). I think the brain responds to the power of suggestion sometimes in the presence of vaguely similar sounds when we strain to decipher what we are hearing, similar to eye strain through poor field glasses enhanced by ones imagination. Pure speculation on my part. It is disturbing to think the sound may not be real. All this is to say, there is likely a spectrum of circumstances and sources of real and imagined hums, but not a single universal cause. I suggest we eschew blanket statements. Thank you to all who have pursued solving explanations for this phenomenon. There is some solace to finding I am not alone with this. HumGrub (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello stranger. Counterpoint, I also have tinnitus and have heard the Hum since I was a child. I can differentiate between the two sounds. The former originates from inside, while the Hum seems to have an outside source. When I close my ears, I can't hear the Hum only because I can't hear anything else.
From what I can tell, as you described, it sounds like a low frequency (which travel far), rumbling hum, sometimes peaking and subsiding in intensity. Pulsating, occasionally, as you said. When I went outside to look for the source, I couldn't hear it anymore. Only when I was inside in silence I could detect the sound usually. It seems to be the combined acoustic output of many pieces of industrial/mechanical equipment, some perhaps faulty. So an anthropogenic, industrial origin. To me at least, this is a satisfactory cause. I've learned to live with the Hum, just as I learned to live with my tinnitus. Take pride that you're part of the lucky 2% who can hear it. Cheers. :) 2601:85:C100:46C0:403E:E0A4:8120:77B2 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]