Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

eye glasses and audio

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 5:09:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

This might be slightly off topic but I'm sure many of us are wearing
glasses, particularly those vets who've graduated to progressive lenses.
Since we all pretty much look at a computer screen all day, I was just
wondering if anyone has had they glasses perscription written to accomodate
mid distance and reading (close up)work. I saw my eye doctor today and he
highly recommended a second pair of progressive lenses without the long
distance. He says there's less lens distortion therefore a more usable
viewing area for mid-close use. My screens sit atop the overbridge of the
Argosy console for Pro Control, therefore I'm looking up at the screens
instead of ahead or down. So before I fork over the big bucks on new lenses
and frames (I need 'em anyway) I'd like to find out who is using what and if
they feel it works for them. Thanks!

It's been several years since I've participated or asked questions of this
group. I'm looking forward to picking up the learning process. Thanks!

Wally Wawro
WFAA-TV
Dallas, TX

More about : eye glasses audio

Anonymous
July 8, 2005 5:09:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

317C50KW wrote:
> wondering if anyone has had they glasses perscription written to accomodate
> mid distance and reading (close up)work.

Many do. I don't. Yet.

There's nothing really audio-specific about this question except for the
fact that some of the indicators you're looking at are illuminated and
some aren't...?
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 5:09:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

317C50KW wrote:

> This might be slightly off topic but I'm sure many of us are wearing
> glasses, particularly those vets who've graduated to progressive lenses.
> Since we all pretty much look at a computer screen all day, I was just
> wondering if anyone has had they glasses perscription written to accomodate
> mid distance and reading (close up)work. I saw my eye doctor today and he
> highly recommended a second pair of progressive lenses without the long
> distance. He says there's less lens distortion therefore a more usable
> viewing area for mid-close use. My screens sit atop the overbridge of the
> Argosy console for Pro Control, therefore I'm looking up at the screens
> instead of ahead or down. So before I fork over the big bucks on new lenses
> and frames (I need 'em anyway) I'd like to find out who is using what and if
> they feel it works for them. Thanks!
>
> It's been several years since I've participated or asked questions of this
> group. I'm looking forward to picking up the learning process. Thanks!
>
> Wally Wawro
> WFAA-TV
> Dallas, TX
>
>

My personal solution is progressive lenses with the mid range set for
normal computer viewing distance. It took me awhile to get used to
tipping my head the right amount for each viewing distance. It works for
me. YMMV.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 7:45:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 01:09:03 GMT, "317C50KW" <wallyw26@airmail.net>
wrote:

> He says there's less lens distortion therefore a more usable
>viewing area for mid-close use. My screens sit atop the overbridge of the
>Argosy console for Pro Control, therefore I'm looking up at the screens
>instead of ahead or down. So before I fork over the big bucks on new lenses
>and frames (I need 'em anyway) I'd like to find out who is using what and if
>they feel it works for them.

Are you over about 45?
If you're nearsighted, what's your correction (approximately, and
expressed in diopters)?

My reason for asking is that there just isn't any universal
answer, but there are some practical strategies for commonly
seen categories of vision. What's yours?

Folks on this newsgroup vary between some lucky (and young)
folks who can see around corners, through geezers no longer
able to pull focus through their infinity-focus-correction
lenses, to folks who read in Braille transcriptions.

Personally, as my negative diopter correction has increased,
and my ability to pull close focus has decreased, I've been
able to keep an arm's-length focus range available by
simply saving an older script pair of specs around.

My day job often requires focal lengths that aren't easily
available to me. The solution is *bright* light, sometimes
headworn. Your situation *will* be different.

Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
These days my thoughts are limited to the welfare
of my tribe.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 10:06:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

317C50KW wrote:
> This might be slightly off topic but I'm sure many of us are wearing
> glasses, particularly those vets who've graduated to progressive lenses.
> Since we all pretty much look at a computer screen all day, I was just
> wondering if anyone has had they glasses perscription written to accomodate
> mid distance and reading (close up)work. I saw my eye doctor today and he
> highly recommended a second pair of progressive lenses without the long
> distance. He says there's less lens distortion therefore a more usable
> viewing area for mid-close use. My screens sit atop the overbridge of the
> Argosy console for Pro Control, therefore I'm looking up at the screens
> instead of ahead or down. So before I fork over the big bucks on new lenses
> and frames (I need 'em anyway) I'd like to find out who is using what and if
> they feel it works for them. Thanks!
>
> It's been several years since I've participated or asked questions of this
> group. I'm looking forward to picking up the learning process. Thanks!
>
> Wally Wawro
> WFAA-TV
> Dallas, TX

I have much the same problem. My close vision has gotten progressively
worse in recent years, affecting my ability to do audio or master at a
news network! Right now I rely on an old pair of prescription glasses
with missing nose guard and a lens that falls out, and a pair of $2.95
drugstore reading glasses for really close stuff. Neither is perfect,
but they're adequate. I'd be toast if I forgot to bring either to work.

If I were you, I'd measure the AVERAGE distance to all the things you
need to see, go to an eye doctor and ask for a scrip for that
distance, for work puposes. It's your choice to get either full frame
or lined bifocals.

BTW, quite a part WFAA played in history back in 1963!!!
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 12:19:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:V4ydnaH3L8JuYlDfRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>
> My personal solution is progressive lenses with the mid range set for
> normal computer viewing distance. It took me awhile to get used to
> tipping my head the right amount for each viewing distance. It works for
> me. YMMV.

At the risk of remaining distinctly "OT", I used to tilt my head so as to
get my screen in the close-up lens area of bifocals. One day sitting down
at my PC and tilting my head back co-incided with my body crunching one of
the small bones in my neck close to my spinal cord. A searing pain shot
through my body and I immediately lost nerve sensation in my left leg and
arm. Doctor told me that piece of bone had hit spinal cord.
It took 3 months before I was functioning normally again, and the early part
of that 3 months wasn't pleasant. (Age at time - ~ 45 years.)
I now ensure that my gaze when looking at the PC is close to normal - by
wearing prescription single vision specs.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:16:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I use 4 sets. One is distance, usless for the studio but great out in
the High Sierra. Second is older reading glasses with work well for
studio work at about 2~4 feet distance. Third is current reading
glasses. Fourth is the jewlers head worn magnifiers (2.5X) which I use
for bench work and surface mount rework.

Get your eyes examined and get the proper glasses. Don't rely on drug
store optics as each eye is different and these are the same for each
eye. You only have 2 eyes and 2 ears. They don't grow back!

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 7:07:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> While we have lots of teeth and only 2 eyes, modern cateract
> operations seem to be about as peoblematical as a root
> canal, maybe a little less so.

Glad to hear that. How to pay for it is the remaining
problematic issue. :-(

Goddamn fast neutrons.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 7:57:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> While we have lots of teeth and only 2 eyes, modern cateract
> operations seem to be about as peoblematical as a root
> canal, maybe a little less so.

Can myopia and/or astigmatism can be remedied in the
process? One would think so.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 11:50:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 8 Jul 2005 10:16:06 -0700, jwilliams3@audioupgrades.com wrote:

>Get your eyes examined and get the proper glasses. Don't rely on drug
>store optics as each eye is different and these are the same for each
>eye. You only have 2 eyes and 2 ears. They don't grow back!

I was examined. I need reading glasses. Different strengths for
different distances, but one eye requires slightly stronger lens than
the other. So I buy two pairs of cheap glasses, one of each
strength. The lenses pop out easily enough. I make up a personalised
pair.

Actually the "drug stores" here in the UK want 5 UKP plus for reading
glasses. I get mine from the Pound Shop. Everything priced
at...yes, you've guessed it :-)

I consulted my neighbour, an oculist. Would I really get a better
product from him, for MUCH more money?

"Well", he replied. "I suppose the frames would be a bit stronger.
But they'd break when you sat on them, just like the el-cheapo ones.
For simple reading lenses, I wouldn't bother."
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 11:50:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <sbitc1lth50d6f3o6sab2ql7lsqar7a0t8@4ax.com> lpayne1NOSPAM@dsl.pipexSPAMTRAP.com writes:

> Actually the "drug stores" here in the UK want 5 UKP plus for reading
> glasses. I get mine from the Pound Shop. Everything priced
> at...yes, you've guessed it :-)

Hmmmm . . . my last pair of glasses cost me about $350. Must have been
the Brooks Brothers frames.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 12:22:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:D an0cr0mq0@enews2.newsguy.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> While we have lots of teeth and only 2 eyes, modern
cateract
>> operations seem to be about as peoblematical as a root
>> canal, maybe a little less so.
>
> Can myopia and/or astigmatism can be remedied in the
> process? One would think so.

I think that myopia and presbiopia can be addressed, but
perhaps not fully remedied this way, while astigmatism is at
least sometimes due to the shape of the sensitive area of
the eyeball.

When the operation is complete, your eye loses its ability
to focus on distant and near objects, so a fixed focusing
range must be chosen. Sometimes one eye is optimized for
near work and the other is optimized for far work.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 12:22:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:

> I think that myopia and presbiopia can be addressed, but
> perhaps not fully remedied this way, while astigmatism is at
> least sometimes due to the shape of the sensitive area of
> the eyeball.

Still, if it is correctable with an external lense one would
think it correctable with an internal one. Even for myopia
I suppose the end result has some signifigant statistical
deviation around exact, though.

> When the operation is complete, your eye loses its ability
> to focus on distant and near objects, so a fixed focusing
> range must be chosen.

My eyes became fixed focus years ago, so no loss there. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 3:34:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:57:34 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>Can myopia and/or astigmatism can be remedied in the
>process? One would think so.

I've heard this to be true. 'Course, this info has a
validity somewhere between Urban Myth and Sheer Fantasy.
Will also be very interested in any responses.

For us geezers, the issue of pulling focus down from
infinity remains, natch. To add data in the Urban Myth
category, Lasik has been reported to me by the usual
iffy sources to also correct for focusing issues arising
from aging. Sorry, no real clue to validity; but someone
will know; the beauty of Usenet.

All the best,

Chris Hornbeck
"Betty, is that Jimmy's ring you're wearing?"
"umh huh."
"Gee, it must be great riding with him.
Is he picking you up after school today?"
"unh uh"
"By the way, where'd you meet him?"
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 7:12:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 18:01:03 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> When the operation is complete, your eye loses its ability
>> to focus on distant and near objects, so a fixed focusing
>> range must be chosen.

This explains a lot of the improbable but seemingly possible
that I've heard. Thanks.

>My eyes became fixed focus years ago, so no loss there. :-)

Fixed at about a thousand yards? Yeah, me too.
And the future rushes at us. Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"Betty, is that Jimmy's ring you're wearing?"
"umh huh."
"Gee, it must be great riding with him.
Is he picking you up after school today?"
"unh uh"
"By the way, where'd you meet him?"
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 8:31:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message > Hmmmm . . . my last
pair of glasses cost me about $350. Must have been
> the Brooks Brothers frames.

I haven't shopped it around yet but my doctor quoted me $404 for full
progressives, light weight lens, non reflective coating. For the
mid-distance-reading lens it would be around $230.

And that's without frames!

Thanks for all your answers.

Wally
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 8:31:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I haven't shopped it around yet but my doctor quoted me $404 for full
> progressives, light weight lens, non reflective coating. For the
> mid-distance-reading lens it would be around $230.

You pay for complexity and convenience. Think of it as a tool; if it
saves you time and effort and pain it's a good investment.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 10:49:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> >I haven't shopped it around yet but my doctor quoted me $404 for full
> >progressives, light weight lens, non reflective coating. For the
> >mid-distance-reading lens it would be around $230.

Hi,
My old man traveled to Lithuinia and got an corrective eye operation
done for the same price it cost me to get an eye test and two pairs of
specs. He sees better than I do now, and he got a week holiday in
Vilinus.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 11:54:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

317C50KW <wallyw26@airmail.net> wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message > Hmmmm . . . my last
>pair of glasses cost me about $350. Must have been
>> the Brooks Brothers frames.
>
>I haven't shopped it around yet but my doctor quoted me $404 for full
>progressives, light weight lens, non reflective coating. For the
>mid-distance-reading lens it would be around $230.

That's about half of what I pay for standard (non-progressive) lenses,
so that sounds like a deal to me.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 1:54:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <dan0cr0mq0@enews2.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:

> > modern cateract
> > operations seem to be about as peoblematical as a root
> > canal, maybe a little less so.
>
> Can myopia and/or astigmatism can be remedied in the
> process? One would think so.

I suppose so since they take out the old lens and put in a new one. I
assume they pick one from stock sizes that comes closes to focusing a
point at a distance on your retina, wherever that happens to be
relative to the position of the lens.

I've never heard much about the permanence of the new lens, though.
The few people I've known who have had a lens replaced have been
pretty old. My mother had it done on one eye when she was about 70 and
died before it wore out (and before the other eye got bad enough to
warrant lens replacement).

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 1:54:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <paGdnWcugo9XhVLfRVn-tA@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

> When the operation is complete, your eye loses its ability
> to focus on distant and near objects, so a fixed focusing
> range must be chosen. Sometimes one eye is optimized for
> near work and the other is optimized for far work.

Having both eyes work differently would drive me nuts. In fact, it
has, recently. When I picked up my latest glasses, things looked a bit
stranger than usual with a new prescription, but after giving them a
week to try to get used to, I decided that something had to be wrong.
One eye was fine, but the other one was always blurry. I found that by
rotating the lens, I could clear it up, so I took them back to check.
Sure enough - they were correct according to the order that was sent
to the lab, but there was a digit missing in the cylinder axis for the
astigmatism correction from what the doctor wrote.

They couldn't blame that one on bad doctor's handwriting - it was very
clear. I think the person entering the data tabbed over to the next
field one digit too soon. Good thing it wasn't the data that
controlled the laser carving of the lens in the LASIK process.

(does anyone know anything about the standards for software
development and software quality used in designing those control
systems?)



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 4:44:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

studiorat wrote:
>
> My old man traveled to Lithuinia and got an corrective eye operation
> done for the same price it cost me to get an eye test and two pairs of
> specs. He sees better than I do now, and he got a week holiday in
> Vilinus.

Why Lithuania? How did he hook up with the clinic and make
arrangements?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
July 10, 2005 3:32:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"studiorat" <daveslevin@02.ie> wrote in news:1120916972.392804.316980
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
>> >I haven't shopped it around yet but my doctor quoted me $404 for full
>> >progressives, light weight lens, non reflective coating. For the
>> >mid-distance-reading lens it would be around $230.
>
> Hi,
> My old man traveled to Lithuinia and got an corrective eye operation
> done for the same price it cost me to get an eye test and two pairs of
> specs. He sees better than I do now, and he got a week holiday in
> Vilinus.
>

I'll be there in about a month, but certainly not to let anyone mess with
my eyes!
July 10, 2005 3:37:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1120906135k@trad:

> Having both eyes work differently would drive me nuts.

Likewise. I used to simply be near sighted. Now I have one "hi-beam" and
one "low-beam" - So I have two pair of glasses, one for distance and a
progressive set for reading and computer work. It's maddening to be
changing glasses all the time.

I recently read an article that people tend to go from near sighted to far
sighted as they age, so I wonder about the long term effectiveness of
corrective surgery.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 5:08:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Xns968F4DB83259Cxxxyyyzzz@216.77.188.18> xxx@yyy.zzz writes:

> I recently read an article that people tend to go from near sighted to far
> sighted as they age, so I wonder about the long term effectiveness of
> corrective surgery.

More like they go from nearsighted to less nearsighted. I haven't
progressed that far yet, but I'm becoming more nearsighted less
rapidly than I used to. In my teens and 20s, I was changing
prescriptions every year or two. My last prescription lasted eight
years, and other than a small change in the astigmatism correction,
that's what I'm currently using for my "in house" glasses.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 5:35:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

317C50KW wrote:

> This might be slightly off topic but I'm sure many of us are
> wearing glasses, particularly those vets who've graduated to
> progressive lenses.

Hmmm ...

> Since we all pretty much look at a computer screen all day,
> I was just wondering if anyone has had they glasses perscription
> written to accomodate mid distance and reading (close up)work.

Yes.

> I saw my eye doctor today and he highly recommended a second
> pair of progressive lenses without the long distance. He says
> there's less lens distortion therefore a more usable
> viewing area for mid-close use.

He is right, my optometrist gave the same advice.

I have a pair of long distance no progression and a pair of screen-read
progressive, and I curse myself for getting progressive instead of dual
field with a sharp division. I will not have another pair of
progressives, they are 90 percent unsharp and 10 percent sharp. That
said, after some 6 weeks of learning to use them they work well for
"less than 5 feet".

> My screens sit atop the overbridge of the Argosy console
> for Pro Control, therefore I'm looking up at the screens
> instead of ahead or down. So before I fork over the big
> bucks on new lenses and frames (I need 'em anyway) I'd like
> to find out who is using what and if they feel it works for
> them. Thanks!

Finn Kaufmanas of 3D-lyd, currently in optometrist training - classical
recording is not in itself enough to make a living in this size market,
told me that it could be that I had gotten the wrong kind "near-close"
progressives, ie. with the transition to the read field beginning too
early. I will probably supplement the current ones with a pair of
far+read classic bifocals first and then replace the screen+read
progressives with screen+read bifocals next and I will thoroughly enjoy
smashing the progressive glasses with a hammer. I am plain too used to
be able to see sharp in all directions through my glassses and it is
literally a pain in the neck not to be able to so do.

> It's been several years since I've participated or asked questions
> of this group. I'm looking forward to picking up the learning
> process.

it is all about perspective, isnt it .... O;-)

> Wally Wawro


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 5:35:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <42D107F5.289D8362@mail.tele.dk> SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk writes:

> I have a pair of long distance no progression and a pair of screen-read
> progressive, and I curse myself for getting progressive instead of dual
> field with a sharp division. I will not have another pair of
> progressives, they are 90 percent unsharp and 10 percent sharp. That
> said, after some 6 weeks of learning to use them they work well for
> "less than 5 feet".

People seem to be vain about their glasses, and anything that makes
them look less remedial seems to be considered a good thing. When I
got my previous prescription, I found that I didn't have to look more
than a few degrees off the straight-through axis of the lens before
things would get blurry. This was really annoying when doing things
like backing my car into the garage (unlike Linda Blair, I can't turn
my head 180 degrees) or trying to catch a house number out of the
corner of my eye when driving by.

I went back to the optician and complained, they tried again, with the
same result. I finally asked what material they were using for the
lenses, and they told me it was the latest high refractive index
plastic that made the lenses lighter and thinner. I suggested that
they try plain old plastic (which was cheaper), they re-made the
lenses from that, and they have a much greater working angle.

I asked the optician whether this was normal with high-index plastic,
and he said it was. When I asked how they could sell something like
that which obviously doesn't work, and he said that most people will
put up with distortion to get thinner lenses. Now I know to tell them
to not try anything fancy when they make the lenses.

> Finn Kaufmanas of 3D-lyd, currently in optometrist training - classical
> recording is not in itself enough to make a living in this size market,
> told me that it could be that I had gotten the wrong kind "near-close"
> progressives, ie. with the transition to the read field beginning too
> early.

This reminds me of some of the discussions we've had about computers
and audio here. Now not only do you have to have some knowledge of
music, audio, electronics, and acoustics, and computer hardware,
drivers, and operating systems, but you need to know optics and be
aware of the developments in optometry. We may not have to become
opticians, but apparently we need to know what questions to ask and
be able to make suggestions that will give us glasses that work for
the things we do besides watch television and play tennis.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 5:35:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
> This reminds me of some of the discussions we've had about computers
> and audio here. Now not only do you have to have some knowledge of
> music, audio, electronics, and acoustics, and computer hardware,
> drivers, and operating systems, but you need to know optics and be
> aware of the developments in optometry. We may not have to become
> opticians, but apparently we need to know what questions to ask and
> be able to make suggestions that will give us glasses that work for
> the things we do besides watch television and play tennis.

Thanks for the info. It will be very helpful when I go back to
get my eyes measured (after too many years).
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 9:09:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

It was cheaper than at home...
Apparently, they are very good at it there???
He got a friend to arrange it for him.
DS
July 10, 2005 11:34:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1121002976k@trad:

>
> In article <42D107F5.289D8362@mail.tele.dk>
> SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk writes:
>
>> I have a pair of long distance no progression and a pair of
>> screen-read progressive, and I curse myself for getting progressive
>> instead of dual field with a sharp division. I will not have another
>> pair of progressives, they are 90 percent unsharp and 10 percent
>> sharp. That said, after some 6 weeks of learning to use them they
>> work well for "less than 5 feet".
>
> People seem to be vain about their glasses, and anything that makes
> them look less remedial seems to be considered a good thing. When I
> got my previous prescription, I found that I didn't have to look more
> than a few degrees off the straight-through axis of the lens before
> things would get blurry. This was really annoying when doing things
> like backing my car into the garage (unlike Linda Blair, I can't turn
> my head 180 degrees) or trying to catch a house number out of the
> corner of my eye when driving by.
>
> I went back to the optician and complained, they tried again, with the
> same result. I finally asked what material they were using for the
> lenses, and they told me it was the latest high refractive index
> plastic that made the lenses lighter and thinner. I suggested that
> they try plain old plastic (which was cheaper), they re-made the
> lenses from that, and they have a much greater working angle.
>
> I asked the optician whether this was normal with high-index plastic,
> and he said it was. When I asked how they could sell something like
> that which obviously doesn't work, and he said that most people will
> put up with distortion to get thinner lenses. Now I know to tell them
> to not try anything fancy when they make the lenses.
>
>> Finn Kaufmanas of 3D-lyd, currently in optometrist training -
>> classical recording is not in itself enough to make a living in this
>> size market, told me that it could be that I had gotten the wrong
>> kind "near-close" progressives, ie. with the transition to the read
>> field beginning too early.
>
> This reminds me of some of the discussions we've had about computers
> and audio here. Now not only do you have to have some knowledge of
> music, audio, electronics, and acoustics, and computer hardware,
> drivers, and operating systems, but you need to know optics and be
> aware of the developments in optometry. We may not have to become
> opticians, but apparently we need to know what questions to ask and
> be able to make suggestions that will give us glasses that work for
> the things we do besides watch television and play tennis.
>

Although I didn't know about the different lenses, in my case it doesn't
much matter, since I wear them at work, they have to be polycarbonate for
safety reasons(which I actually thought was the only thing available for
lenses in plastic).

I managed to go through three sets of progressives this last go-round.
Turns out the lens formulation that worked well for me is no longer made,
so I have a pair now that is acceptable, but recently discovered they are
not uniform across the visible spectrum. Small red lettering on a monitor
is blurry, period.

I too may dispense with progressives next time and go with straight tri-
focals.

-Bruce
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:12:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bruce" <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote in message
news:Xns968F4DB83259Cxxxyyyzzz@216.77.188.18
> mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in

> I recently read an article that people tend to go from
near
> sighted to far sighted as they age, so I wonder about the
long
> term effectiveness of corrective surgery.

More specifically what happens is that as you age, your eyes
lose their ability to change focus.

The almost-universal occurance of farsightedness is
apparently due to the fact that distance vision is usually
the eye's natural state.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:23:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Xns968F9EC80E2BFxxxyyyzzz@216.77.188.18> xxx@yyy.zzz writes:

> Although I didn't know about the different lenses, in my case it doesn't
> much matter, since I wear them at work, they have to be polycarbonate for
> safety reasons(which I actually thought was the only thing available for
> lenses in plastic).

I think mine are a polycarbonate, but there's "High-index" and
regular. Anyway, they're tough.

> I have a pair now that is acceptable, but recently discovered they are
> not uniform across the visible spectrum. Small red lettering on a monitor
> is blurry, period.

I've been told that this is a "male" thing. Most men have trouble
seeing red text on a monitor. I do.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:24:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1121030087k@trad:

>> I have a pair now that is acceptable, but recently discovered they
>> are not uniform across the visible spectrum. Small red lettering on a
>> monitor is blurry, period.
>
> I've been told that this is a "male" thing. Most men have trouble
> seeing red text on a monitor. I do.
>

I'm 56 and male, and the red has been getting harder to focus on monitors
for several years. I blame my eyes, not my glasses. I have the impression
that the red focuses at a different plane than the center of the spectrum
for me. Specifically mixed color text gives me the thrill of moving the
red into focus by muscle only if I move the rest out of focus. I assume
that is a symptom of chromatic aberration of some kind, but have not
thought about it carefully.

Peter A. Stoll
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:39:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:12:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>More specifically what happens is that as you age, your eyes
>lose their ability to change focus.
>
>The almost-universal occurance of farsightedness is
>apparently due to the fact that distance vision is usually
>the eye's natural state.

Yeah; if I understand it correctly, the "relaxed" state
of focus is infinity focus, and all closer focus requires
pulling down from there by warping the eyeball itself.

Old eyeballs harden and/ or muscles weaken (does anyone
know which predominates?), progressively losing the
ability to pull focus. Or our arm's get shorter; can't
remember which.

A thousand years ago, somebody like me, with half-assed
teeth and -4 diopters eyes wouldn't have contributed to
the future gene pool and ten thousand years ago probably
wouldn't have reached maturity.

In another hundred years, neither will matter at all in the
first world, maybe even in the whole world. Gotta hope.

If, of course, some whack-job doesn't blow it all up first,

Chris Hornbeck
"Watch the dying day, blushing in the sky,
Everyone is up tight; So, come on night.
Everyone is gone, home to oblivion." -E.S.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:39:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

> A thousand years ago, somebody like me, with half-assed
> teeth and -4 diopters eyes wouldn't have contributed to
> the future gene pool and ten thousand years ago probably
> wouldn't have reached maturity.
>
> In another hundred years, neither will matter at all in the
> first world, maybe even in the whole world. Gotta hope.

And a whole lot of other things, perhaps more serious, that
would have been weeded out of the gene pool back then. I'm
not sure the patch job we will end up being is something I'd
hope for unless genetic technology can remedy disgenics.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:07:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <znr1121030087k@trad>, Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>In article <Xns968F9EC80E2BFxxxyyyzzz@216.77.188.18> xxx@yyy.zzz writes:
>
>> Although I didn't know about the different lenses, in my case it doesn't
>> much matter, since I wear them at work, they have to be polycarbonate for
>> safety reasons(which I actually thought was the only thing available for
>> lenses in plastic).
>
>I think mine are a polycarbonate, but there's "High-index" and
>regular. Anyway, they're tough.

There are actually several different polycarb types, of varying indices.
They all scratch pretty easily in my experience, and splattered solder
will destroy them.

There are also a bunch of different glass types as well, including a
few high-index and extremely-high-index glasses.

>> I have a pair now that is acceptable, but recently discovered they are
>> not uniform across the visible spectrum. Small red lettering on a monitor
>> is blurry, period.
>
>I've been told that this is a "male" thing. Most men have trouble
>seeing red text on a monitor. I do.

I have never had a plastic lens that didn't have severe birefringence.
It helps if you get a smaller lens, and I think going to a high index
glass helps a huge amount.

On the other hand, I can tell the diffeence between different kinds of
fluorescent lamps by the way the light breaks up.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:17:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bruce <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> I recently read an article that people tend to go from near sighted to far
> sighted as they age, so I wonder about the long term effectiveness of
> corrective surgery.

If that's true, then shouldn't there be a time in your early-mid
thirties when your vision becomes perfect for a week?

ulysses
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 3:42:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Re: eye glasses and audio

Group: rec.audio.pro Date: Mon, Jul 11, 2005, 10:17am (EDT-1) From:
ulyssesnospam@rollmusic.com (Justin Ulysses Morse)
Bruce <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
I recently read an article that people tend to go from near sighted to
far sighted as they age, so I wonder about the long term effectiveness
of corrective surgery.

If that's true, then shouldn't there be a time in your early-mid
thirties when your vision becomes perfect for a week?
ulysses<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

No. What happens as you age is that if you're myopic (near sighted) you
need less distance correction so your Rx could go from -6.00 to -4.75.
If you're presbyoptic (far sighted) your Rx could go from +6.00 to
+4.75.

The biggest change occurs in your near point (reading) vision as the eye
muscles lose their ability to to shift from near to far and to maintain
focus.

It's amazing what I remember from my mis-spent youth in the optical
business.

Eric
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:46:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Justin Ulysses Morse" <ulyssesnospam@rollmusic.com> wrote
in
message
news:1121095074.4e2277ac7d0f8627f2592646d8b29ac2@teranews
> Bruce <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
>> I recently read an article that people tend to go from
near
>> sighted to far sighted as they age, so I wonder about the
>> long term effectiveness of corrective surgery.
>
> If that's true, then shouldn't there be a time in your
> early-mid thirties when your vision becomes perfect for a
week?

For me it was like years 42-46. I started out only a little
nearsighted.
!