Summary
A German industry association's short guide to planning induction loops that meet EN 60118-4.
Key findings
- States that in most cases a visitor who switches a hearing aid to T in one of the many existing public loops hears little more, and blames wrong planning of the loop and amplifier; it gives no survey or measurements.
- Gives the EN 60118-4 requirements as a frequency response within ±3 dB from 100 Hz to 5,000 Hz relative to 1 kHz, a recommended field strength of 100 mA/m ±3 dB and a maximum of 400 mA/m, citing the 1999 German edition, and says these values must be checked and recorded at commissioning.
- Says ordinary 100 V public-address amplifiers driving a loop cannot meet these requirements because high frequencies are lost, which it gives as the reason older loops gained a reputation for poor quality.
- Claims that loops commissioned to the standard are "praktisch weitgehend wartungsfrei" (in practice largely maintenance-free).
Limits
Trade body guidance with no data behind its statements about existing loops or maintenance. It cites the 1999 edition of the standard, since replaced by the 2006 and 2014 editions. The document is dated January 2013 ("Stand 1/2013").
Read the original
Cited in
- How is an installed hearing loop checked against IEC 60118-4, and how often does it pass?Partly answered
- What does each system cost to install and to run over its life?Open
Cite this source
ZVEI (German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Association), sound systems working group. Induktive Höranlagen: Barrierefreies Planen und Bauen für Hörgeschädigte (Induction loop systems: accessible planning and building for people with hearing loss). ZVEI (Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Elektronikindustrie). January 2013. https://www.zvei.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Verband/Fachverbaende/Sicherheit/Fachkreis_Beschallungstechnik/LGB-Induktive-Hoeranlagen.pdf (accessed 9 October 2026).
Every finding here cites its source, and who funded each source is labelled. This site does not recommend products. Found an error or a missing study? Suggest a correction.