Lament of a Musician’s Hearing

Cover image was taken by the author and edited in Picsart.

Sometimes, what is most important to us is what we take for granted. For a musician, that is their hearing, although most of us don’t take many steps to preserve it, often going to rehearsal or lessons without any form of hearing protection. For a school musician, this means going a few hours a week being exposed to loud noises without any way to block them, and for a professional, this duration is even longer. If we don’t want to lose our hearing to the piercing sound of a piccolo in our ears, it’s possible we might have to make some changes to the way we rehearse.

Hearing Loss in Musicians Compared to Other Professions

Some might question whether playing an instrument actually increases hearing loss or if there is a larger outside factor at play. To investigate this, a study was conducted comparing the hearing loss of people with a variety of different backgrounds and found that professional musicians were 3.51 times more likely to have noise induced hearing loss and 1.45 times more likely to have tinnitus (Schink et al., 2014), which suggests that the job that someone works in has a large impact on that person’s hearing. This makes sense considering the significant amount of time the average adult spends working. Musicians tend to get the short end of the stick here as a good portion of that time is spent listening to loud music, which oftentimes when playing is right in your ear.

Source: taken by author and edited in Picsart.

Reducing Ear Damage

Since the consequences of continued exposure to loud noise can become severe over time, it is important to take steps in order to prevent excessive damage. First and foremost, musicians should be aware of the risks that long periods of practice can have on their hearing; they should be able to watch for warning signs and know what safe sound levels are (85 dB TWA (time-weighted average) for eight hours in one day, which is around the noise level of a food blender, heavy traffic, busy restaurant, or movie theater (How Loud Is 85 Decibels | What Does 85 DB Sound Like, 2021)). It is also beneficial to get an audiogram and have access to a sound-level meter to make sure you aren’t exceeding the safe sound levels (Chesky, 2008). Also, most students have some sort of hearing protection device or HPD (around 69% percent according to one study) that they can use during rehearsal to block some of the sound (Olson et al., 2016).

Source: (Lowery, 2023)

The Great Balance

If the measures to be taken are seemingly so obvious and simple, why aren’t they more common? Even if the resources are readily available, it turns out that protecting one’s hearing still comes with its downsides. According to several music students, even though there are clear advantages to using things like HPDs, such as hearing preservation, reduction in noise exposure, and the ability to play longer without taking breaks, there are also significant disadvantages to consider like decreased auditory perception, issues with communication, less comfort, and many reported improved performance when not using HPDs (Olson et al., 2016). The goal of an ensemble is to make music that sounds good (well, and have fun, hopefully), so naturally, the musicians in an ensemble would not want to sacrifice their sound to protect their hearing, which is something they might not even be conscious of because damage happens gradually.

So how do we balance the desire to play well with the desire not to go deaf before we get old? Perhaps this will be a question better answered in the future, maybe even by someone reading this article, and we’ll have a device that still lets us hear everything we need to without all of the damage. Maybe we’ll have a way to reverse hearing loss that’s as easy as drinking medicine to cure a cold. But for now, while maybe not during performances, we can just do what we can, however little it may seem, to protect one of our precious senses. We only have five, after all.

References

Chesky, K. (2008). Preventing Music-Induced Hearing Loss. Music Educators Journal, 94(3), 36–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4623689

How Loud Is 85 Decibels | What Does 85 dB Sound Like. (2021, November 18). Decibel Meter App | Best Digital Sound Level Meter for Your Smartphone. https://decibelpro.app/blog/how-loud-is-85-decibels/

Lowery, K. (2023). How to choose the best hearing protection [Online Image]. In audibel.com. https://www.audibel.com/preventative-care/the-best-hearing-protection/

Olson, A. D., Gooding, L. F., Shikoh, F., & Graf, J. (2016). Hearing Health in College Instrumental Musicians and Prevention of Hearing Loss. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 31(1), 29–36. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48714485

Schink, T., Kreutz, G., Busch, V., Pigeot, I., & Ahrens, W. (2014). Incidence and relative risk of hearing disorders in professional musicians. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 71(7), 472–476. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43869897

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.