Amps and Women

That women have better hearing acuitiy is an established fact. It seems to be genetic and not just environmental, as suggested above. They seem indeed to be especially sensitive about the upper frequencies, but their astuteness is in no way limited to just there. I've been into this hobby for more than thirty years and never made major decisions without a pair - or best multiple pairs -of female ears. Believe me guys, they are practically ALWAYS dead right and to the point.

In all this discussion about differences in hearing between the sexes and if its genetic or not, I wonder if "listening" would not be the better expression. I also wonder if its a quantitative thing, in the sense of the frequency range you are capable of hearing, or if it is rather a qualitative thing, in the way you listen to what. Another puzzling thing: Why is it that people who are known to have defects in their intake ability for higher frequences will imediatedly notice if there is a cut off above say 15khz in any given piece of music. They will tell you, that there is something "wrong", but in terms of pure sience they are not supposed to notice anything at all. Can anybody clarify?

Great post, but would the males not also be in need of an early warning system when out hunting and gathering? I suppose you suggest, that women, being forced to live more passive, needed an even more finely honed hearing acuity, compared to the males. Wonder what anthopologists have to say to that. Any around?

Very nice post, Adamanteus and I've rated it accordingly. I haven't got your training and I won't start a war either, but in the face of this mighty opposition, as you so rightly point out, was it really just our cortex, in interpreting signals though hearing, smelling, sight, whatever better than all those beasts and the Neanderthal men, that helped us to survive as a species? What your statement seems to infer, if I interpret it correctly, is something like no "need" for different sensual acuity between genders, because that would not have helped anyway against all that mighty opposition. Now what Katharina seems to imply is that the better the cortex is fed with information, the better its bearer has a chance to survive and since women, to her reasoning at least, had to lead a more "passive" existence, they needed a better "radar" to stay alive. So I think your post does not really fault her argument. To me the weak spot in in her assumption might be the passivity aspect. I think Ka's idea is fascinating, but I cannot say of course, if its valid or not.

Deklay, this is fascinating, because after trying another subwoofer in my system the other day, my lady in question found, that finally the music had the right underpinnings, whereas I found the bass still illadjusted and simply too much. Coincidence? Perhaps not.