Are you too old to be an audiophile?

The "nuances of high end gear" do not exist exclusively in frequencies above 14K. Dynamic contrasts exist at all freqs.

You lose some abilities when you age and you gain others.

I would rather have the ability to "get" 100% of the 90% I can hear verses 70% of the 100% I was able.

Not that I hold any more stock in their opinions than I do for any other person with two ears and a heart and soul who happens to love music, but apparently some hold the staff of the audio rags in somewhat elevated esteem. I wonder the age of some of the senior writers and editors there. And what about the manufacturers of some of the most revered gear...why don't you go ask Nelson Pass to "reconcile his age"? I know at least two audiophiles who are deaf in one ear so they do not hear soundstaging cues, one I've known personally for over three decades. Both have made some of the most astute and sensitive assessments of how a playback system sounds that were dead-on to my own feelings about the same (obviously soundstaging was not included). I met a guy at a headphone meet recently who was mostly deaf and listened to headphones at 100++ db levels in order to enjoy the music he loved. Though the differences he heard were not as pertinent to me with my average hearing, who am I to question his profound enjoyment and enthusiasm for the hobby. Who am I to question someone elses enjoyment of music, or what sounds best to them? Sure, discussions can be interesting and may make one reflect differently on what they are hearing, or try something new out and compare. I've quoted a post before that rings true to me, and I'll paraphrase here - ultimately the recreation of a musical event is an illusion that takes place in ones brain via the stimulus provided to the various sensory systems involved and filtered through experience so individual as to never find a match in the entire population of this planet. Who are we to question someone else's experience of that illusion? It's their illusion, going on in their brain...not in ours. How is one illusion better than another and how would you ever possibly know that, to compare the two illusions...and why does it even matter? The enjoyment of music and of the reproduction thereof is entirely subjective. We are not machines spewing out graphs on paper. There are other very good points above, and there are resources online and at your local audiologist if you really want to test your hearing. Last time I checked last year I could not hear past 16khz at age 50. What does that matter really? I have not a clue. How did Beethoven reconcile composing his last symphony when he couldn't even hear the music except in his own mind? Not really the same question, but perhaps illustrates my question to you - what's the point?

Not meaning to divert from main topic here but an observation of mine: I'm sixty-ish and find it interesting when listening to music that anytime I pull the edges/lobes of my ears outward a bit my audible perception of high frequency sound improves. My unscientific explanation for this is that by pulling my ears outward I'm increasing the surface area of my ear that catches the sound waves. Interesting though that no improvement is heard in low frequencies from doing this. Note: this is with my ears well irrigated from wax. Opinions welcome scientific or otherwise.

1. Hearing merely begins at the ears. It is a brain process. The sustained interest older audiophiles have devoted to the hobby results in knowledge and expertise that ENHANCES the brain process of hearing. This fact more than makes up for older listeners' diminished frequency perception. I suspect this is what Elizabeth was alluding to when she said that there's an important difference between hearing and listening.

2. Perhaps older audiophiles would be at a significant disadvantage if technical listening were reducible to hearing frequency response. Thankfully, it is not. In addition to hearing frequency response, there is also hearing transient response, harmonic accuracy, resolution, soundstaging, PRaT, dynamics, coherence, etc.. Diminished high frequency perception might have some effect on the perception of each of those characteristics, but NONE of them is reducible to frequency response.

3. In addition to the TECHNICAL characteristics just mentioned, the appreciation of music is most importantly a matter of listening to its AESTHETIC characteristics: its beauty, emotion, interpretation, authenticity, imagery, etc.. The appreciation of those aesthetic characteristics is largely learned through experience. That would give older listeners another potential advantage over younger ones.

IMO, frequency response is one of the most over-valued characteristics among a particular segment of audiophiles. Likewise for frequency perception.

Bryon

could some one define audiophile ?

does it mean equipment obsession, sound quality obsession, or a love of music ?

if any of the above connotes being an audiophile, such a state is independent of age.

it's all a matter of interests.

being old does not mean abandoning hobbies.

in fact i think more audiophiles are over 40 than under 40.

and i bet more audiophiles are over 60 than under 30.

i think being an audiophile is more likely an older person's pursuit than a younger person's interest.