[log in to unmask] writes:

>Glenn Miller writes:
>
>>...  In other words, if the sound was loud enough it would have vibrated
>>through Beethoven's head directly to the inner ear.  B would have heard
>>conservation if people had simply raised their voice like someone shouting
>>in anger.  Clearly, this was not the case for Beethoven.
>
>Oh yes, it was.  For many years this was surely the case.  The vibration
>through the head was a possibility for Beethoven to hear.  It must have
>been the background of the fact that he put one end of a stick between his
>teeth and then put the other end on the piano. And more than one visitor
>informed us about Beethoven hearing him when he shouted.  However, later
>on the hearing loss worsened and it didn't help anymore, the stick nor
>the shouting.  From 1817 this was the case, while the first signs of loss
>of hearing date from about 1796.  One thing is for sure: it was a slow
>process, for as late as 1825 he was able to hear sounds, though only very,
>very loud ones and, interesting for an expert, high-pitched.

The point I was making was that if Beethoven had otosclerosis of the
middle and this was the cause of his deafness as you pointed out in your
first reply then it would go against the science of hearing and how the ear
works.  This is not so much about Beethoven per se than it is about medical
science being applied the known facts of B's life.  It is not possible to
be deaf from oto- sclerosis and have a normal functioning inner ear.  Even
if the middle ear bones were recovered and it was found that B's had the
disease it would NOT be the cause of his deafness.  At this point, the only
logical conclusion would be B had a mix loss and that it was nerve loss the
was the primary agent for his deafness.

Also, hearing bone vibrations through the head is different for conductive
loss than nerve loss.  If B had only otosclerosis throughout his life, he
never would have gone deaf and he would have HEARD all conversation if
everyone had spoken above his conductive loss--just needs to be louder.
Nerve loss can be volume loss and understanding speech and would have
presented far greater challenges for B.  And this does indeed appear to be
the case.  By the way, hearing aids benefit conductive loss best if surgery
on the outer+middle ear is not possible because hearing aids amplify sound,
to make louder.  Much more difficult to fit nerve loss; it involves
understanding and no hearing aid comes close to restoring your hearing
as many sufferers will attest.

>>I admit that I have not read everything on B deafness but any ear
>>specialist who studies B's case would figure out what type of loss he had
>>without knowing why he got the disease.
>
>Of course!  I've studied them all and the list of experts who pondered
>about is a long one.  Yet to this day they haven't reached consensus.
>
>Experts?----Historians? Biographers? Ear Specialists?
>
>Consensus on what? Whether he had otosclerosis of the middle ear?

Let the debate continue.  That this was the cause of his deafness--I cannot
believe that.  A few top ear specialists from major universities, give them
the basic facts of B's life and ask them is it possible to be deaf at the
end of his life, have otosclerosis of the middle ear (bones are affected)
and have a normal functioning inner ear--there can only be one answer--no.
If the debate is why he got the hearing loss(sensori-neural is the main
culprit) well, that can be hard to answer for people who suffer this malady
today.  If anyone is interested in finding out what a conductive loss
sounds like then you can do your on experiment.  Get some very good ear
protections muff, like hunters use, and you have a conductive loss as would
be for otosclerosis.

I often take out my hearing aids when driving on the highway to reduced
road noise and turn up the radio to listen to classical music.  And I have
a moderate loss in the right ear(conductive) and severe loss in the left
ear(conductive)

Glenn Miller