Test Your Hearing With Just A PC And Headphones

toggle-button

Hearingtest serviceThere are quite a few sites online that claim to be able to test your hearing (or rather, your hearing loss). However, many of these are produced and maintained by companies who make or sell devices to help you hear better. So there's a chance that the results may not be totally impartial.

That's why a professional research engineer and sound designer decided to create his own. You'll find it at http://hearingtest.online/ and you just need a computer with headphones in order to use it. Once you've calibrated the test, which is explained on the site, you click on a series of icons to listen to a collection of sounds at varying levels of frequency and loudness. By plotting the point at which you can't quite hear each sound, you can create a graph that's similar to what a professional audiologist would produce. And you can get an idea of whether you have any significant hearing loss that might need to be investigated by a doctor.

The system is free to use.

 

 

 

 

Please rate this article: 

Your rating: None
4.142855
Average: 4.1 (14 votes)
toggle-button

Comments

http://www.borderware.com/domain_lookup.php?ip=bizland.com&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0&Submit=Search

I wouldn't visit this site

Given that bizland.com is hosting this site alongside a bunch of malware-infested spam machines, I could never recommend it. Reliance on these kinds of things that give a quick glance and if nothing obvious shows, pronounce it "SAFE!!1!" inspires no confidence.

I guess people who actually know something about Information Security sometimes lack patience with people who think they do. For my lack of patience, I apologize.

It's always nice when experts take the trouble to post here and point our mistakes. No doubt you can now provide us with verifiable information as to why the sites we use to check URL's are all totally useless? Suffice to say if we banned links from all hosting services that also host undesirable sites, our site would be pretty empty. MC - Site Manager.

Since you asked so nice :)

The sites you use to test are not useless but the way you interpret the results might just be. You appear to take the approach that unless one or more of these testing sites waves red flags at you, the target site is A-OK. I, on the other hand, am paid to be a little paranoid.

The common theme in all those reports, to the extent they are transparent about it, is they have little to no real information. So they assume that the site itself is safe. I prefer to think, no information means NO INFORMATION.

When the https:// link led to the certificate error citing bizland.com, I checked THAT site's reputation and it came up very, VERY red.

So now why would I give the benefit of the doubt to something hosted there? That red rating for the host shifted the burden of proof, in my mind.

Of course, my approach doesn't drive clicks so WTF do I know.

But this doesn't answer my question about dodgy sites hosted by the same providers as many other sites featured here. But by the tone of your post we have to assume you would not visit any site hosted by such a provider, although we could be wrong. :) MC - Site Manager.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/22/are-orthodox-jew...
https://www.kahomono.com/

So the point you make by linking to my blog and a 3.5yo comment on Hemant's blog... is...?

That both these providers host exactly the same type of site you say is a reason not to go there and yet you choose to do so (except of course in the case of our published link) and also host your own site on one of them. Maybe like me, other folks who are not experts like yourself, will find this a bit hard to understand. MC - Site Manager.

And here's a comparison that will make one go, Hmmm.

http://www.borderware.com/domain_lookup.php?ip=cloudfront.net&q=all (where Hemant's blog is hosted)

http://www.borderware.com/domain_lookup.php?ip=dreamhost.com&q=all (where my blog is hosted)

http://www.borderware.com/domain_lookup.php?ip=bizland.com&q=all (where hearingtest.online is hosted)

Festive!

Neither Hemant's nor my own blog site is so mis-configured as to create an urgency about checking beihnd the curtain.

This one, on the other hand seems to have a case of managerial logorrhea. SO there's that.

Because I needed you to do that for me, and thus confirm the efficacy of this "discussion."

The tone of your original post was that the site link posted in the above article is somehow dangerous to visit and you quoted one source for this despite every other I know of saying it's fine. This type of information we welcome however because sometimes mistakes are made (by us) or links we posted as being good some time ago have, for various reasons, changed to untrustworthy over time. It is reasonable however that we try to quantify the information given and so far you have not answered any of the questions posed such as: Why visitors to our site should regard your opinion about information security as being valid? Why we should assess the safety of the links we publish based on the hosting provider instead of the site itself? Why the ratings provided by other site checks should be dismissed as wrong? Why having quoted a particular verification source we should continue to view this site as bad despite this same source ranking it neutral? MC - Site Manager.

> Why visitors to our site should regard your opinion about information security as being valid?
I have been working in IT since 1978 and InfoSec exclusively since 2005. I hold CISSP, CISM and other security certifications - all current. I am a frequent presenter at regional information security conferences. If I liked traveling more I would present at a geographically wider selection of them :)

> Why we should assess the safety of the links we publish based on the hosting provider instead of the site itself?
Certainly you should do this when the hosting shows evidence of such blatant misconfiguration as in the OP. And spot-check it from time to time anyway, at random.

> Why the ratings provided by other site checks should be dismissed as wrong?
You have to read a rating to see what it's based on. The ones I saw were substantially based on, not having heard anything bad about it. But how long has it existed? I can't get WHOIS to respond for it just now. The .online TLD only became available in March '15 according to ICANN.

> Why having quoted a particular verification source we should continue to view this site as bad despite this same source ranking it neutral?
Lack of information is not evidence one way or another. A rating site will post "neutral" when it doesn't know, which is totally fair, but it's also not anything you can base a decision on.

"Lack of information is not evidence one way or another". Thanks, this is all we needed to know. As of this point we remain confident that users will not be compromised by visiting the link published in our article but we thank you for your input. MC - Site Manager.

So you and I have the exact opposite reaction to "NFI." Yours is, "Trust it." Mine is, "Hold off."

So just go to the address at the top of the page when you get the error, and delete the "s" from the "https".

link fail ;( Your connection is not secure

The owner of hearingtest.online has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website.

Learn more…

Report errors like this to help Mozilla identify and block malicious sites

hearingtest.online uses an invalid security certificate.

The certificate is only valid for the following names:
*.bizland.com, bizland.com

Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN

The HTTPS version of the page shows a certificate problem:

"hearingtest.online uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is only valid for the following names: *.bizland.com, bizland.com (Error code: ssl_error_bad_cert_domain)"

HTTP works fine.