Aging and Treble and Income?


I'm in my late 50s; been listening to, and playing, music for most of my life. I still occasionally haunt the salons, but these days not to buy new gear; more just curiosity about developments in our wonderful hobby. These days I just buy music; records, CDs and the odd download.
I was listening to a very expensive system recently, a combination of an excellent digital front end, feeding an exotic tube array of components, and outputting via a beautifully constructed set of English high-end speakers.
A very impressive sound to say the least. Not like real music though: very very good hi-fi, but not real.
One of the obvious oddities was the frequency response above maybe 4k. Just incorrect. Very clear, very emphasised and incisive, no doubt, but not right.
And it occured to me that this isn't unusual. And then a set of questions came to me. For the purposes of this debate I will exclude the 128k iPod generation - their tastes in listening are their own, and as much driven by budget as space constraint as anything else. I prefer to concentrate on the generation that has increased leisure and disposable income. It's a sad fact that this generation is plagued by the inevitability of progressive hearing loss, most often accompanied by diminished ability to hear higher frequencies. But it's this generation that can afford the 'best' equipment.

My question is simply this: is it not possible (or highly likely) that the higher-end industry is driven by the need to appeal to those whose hearing is degrading? In other words, is there a leaning towards the building-in of a compensatory frequency emphasis in much of what is on the shelves? My question is simplistic, and the industry may indeed be governed by the relentless pursuit of accuracy and musicality, but so much that I have hear is, I find, very difficult to listen to as it is so far from what I believe to be reality. Perhaps there has always been an emphasis in making our sytems sound "exciting" as opposed to "honest": I can understand the pleasure in this pursuit, as it's the delight in technology itself and I see nothing very wrong in that. But, all this emphasised treble....I just wonder if anyone out there in cyberspace agrees with me?
57s4me

Showing 3 responses by tostadosunidos

Perhaps some newer speakers are designed to sound more like what younger people are used to hearing: headphones--clear to the point of being bright, with much detail. One might say "nothing left to the imagination."
I put on 'phones yesterday (some "okay" Audio Technicas) to finish an LP side I was already listening to when some people came home prematurely. I couldn't take a steady diet of that sound. At least for the material (classical, violin concerto) it didn't make it. Way too clinical and bright. Very fatiguing IMO.
Young people are doing the bulk of the buying. They want it loud and exciting, even grossly exaggerated, on both ends (rap is all about the low end in cars and headphones, rock needs to scream as well as thump).

Audiophiles are older and mostly (I think, and I hope) looking for authentic reproduction of sounds that actually can exist, whether acoustic or electric/electronic, in a natural state.

Anyway, I'm suggesting that any slant toward the top end may be an effort to create more "sizzle and snap" for the young, not the old.

Just a thought.
Csontos, you nailed the problem for club/rock concert music: the live version is often too loud and usually mixed by guys who lost their own hearing decades ago.
This part I can attest to: they start by getting the best, loudest drum sounds they can, then add the best, loudest bass they can. This leaves no space for the rest of the instruments and voices and results in the cacophony that has passed for good live sound for ages.
Just my 2 cents' worth...