Are you too old to be an audiophile?

Farjamed,
\
I'm glad you brought this up. Hearing is not necessarily age related. It's the mileage that matters. One scientists compared 80 year olds in Africa to 18 year ols in America. The old Africans, who did not employ modern technology, had better hearing.

Did you know that a hammer hitting a nail is within one Db of a chainsaw, and that the hammer is more damaging to hearing because the chainsaw produces constant noise? Always use hearing protection while fixing the house. Always wear hearing protection at stadium concerts. Never play those ratty MP3's loud enough for the whole bus to hear. When you get old, barring illness, your hearing will be great.

Hammy

Maybe the question should be "Are you to young to be an audiophile"?

When you attend a hi-fi show all you see are middle aged balding white guys who are 15+ pounds overweight. And this includes me!

better than a low quality system, and as long as you can appreciate that difference, you can enjoy being an audiophile.

I have a buddy that is 55 and had hearing loss due to being exposed to a loud noise in a confined space. He has to wear a hearing aid, and has had quite a bit of trouble with his hearing. He knows I'm an audiophile, but assumed he could no longer appreciate a good stereo so he didn't pay much attention to it, nor did he express any interest in hearing my system.

Then a friend asked for his help in picking out a stereo system for her husband. He went to a couple high-end stores and got all excited because even though he couldn't hear all the frequencies like he could before his hearing loss, he could still appreciate the difference between the various systems he previewed. In fact, he called me up to discuss the whole subject with the enthusiasm of someone that just made a great discovery. I think he might now buy a stereo of his own.

So I guess it's all relative. It may make no sense for him to buy a system like mine, but he now knows that he can hear that a cheap system sounds cheap and a better system sounds better. The main thing is to get people to enjoy their music at in whatever way they can.

And just to reinforce a point made by others, there's a big difference between hearing and listening. About 10 years go, an audiophile friend of mine taught me how to listen. I was shocked at how much I was missing until he pointed it out to me while doing some A/B comparisons of equipment. So while it's true that some people are just incapable of hearing certain frequencies of music, it's far more common that people with good hearing miss just as much because they don't know how to listen.

And besides, when you're older, what better use is there for your money that audio gear. Travel? The only travel that would make me happy is time-travel (backwards about 20+ years).

Well, John "Cougar" Mellencamp said life goes on, even after the thrill of livin' is gone. So you know, when you get older, a lot of the pleasures associated with being young aren't quite feasible, but lust for music can be indulged indefinitely.

Speak up sonny!

Maybe your to young to be a AUDIOPHILE!!

Isochronism!!! Sorry!!

Isocronism

Perfect!!!!

sorry for the spelling on the previous post hit submit instead of preview.

This hobby, to most here, is not about sound or hearing or music. It's about gadgets and twinkering and appriciateing well made and visualy pleasing equipment.

I'm young enough to still know everything!

Never to old Hello.

Farjamed

These are quotes that continue to bother me about your thread.

"One of the things about audiophiles I've always wondered is how they reconcile their age, and the scientific fact that their hearing isn't what it used to be, with their belief they can can hear all the nuances of high end gear, and even the cables."

"@Jax2 The point is that people read reviews of equipment, they come on to Audiogon and ask people's opinions of gear.. People/Reviewers respond in such detail about how certain speakers, amps, preamps, cables, etc sound to them. How accurate or useful can this information be if their hearing is compromised."

"This actually goes to something much deeper.

Taken from wikipedia "Audiophile":
Criticisms usually focus on claims around so-called "tweaks" and accessories beyond the core source, amplification, and speaker products. Examples of these accessories include speaker cables, component interconnects, stones, cones, CD markers, and power cables or conditioners.[15] Manufacturers of these products often make strong claims of actual improvement in sound but do not offer any measurements or testable claims. This absence of measurable (rather than subjective) improvement, coupled with sometimes high prices, raises questions about the truthfulness of the marketing.[16]
Roger Russell – a former engineer and speaker designer for McIntosh Labs – describes the introduction of expensive speaker wire brands, and critiques their performance in his online essay called Speaker Wire - A History. He writes, "The industry has now reached the point where [wire] resistance and listening quality are not the issues any more, although listening claims may still be made....The strategy in selling these products is, in part, to appeal to those who are looking to impress others with something unique and expensive."[16]
Skeptic James Randi, through his foundation, has offered a prize of $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate that $7,250 audio cables "are any better than ordinary audio cables".[17] In 2008, audio reviewer Michael Fremer attempted to claim the prize, and said that Randi declined the challenge.[18] Randi said that the cable manufacturer Pearl was the one who withdrew.[19]"


"I would like to know if I am taking advice from a buncha deaf old guys with different priorities because of physical limitations."

"DISCLAIMER: This is not meant to be offensive in anyway..."

Huh?

I'm too old for practically everything...so what!

Good listening,
Larry

I shall remain an audiophile through deafness and death.

Long live Audiogon,

What does this mean? I am not old and I have my hearing, but I am offened for the older people. I saw a program where a 76 year old guy made it to the top of Everest. What's so special about an audiophile? What's the thinking here, that when you're older, you can't do anything, just waiting around to die? Aren't there young people that have hearing loss? Aren't there musicians that have hearing loss and still play? I consider my self an audiophile, but some of these posts are creepy. An audiophile is probably way at the bottom of the list as a way to identify who I am.

As a general observation, hearing acuity does diminish over the years. In consequence, a twenty year old with "normal" hearing for his age group will hear more of what a good audio system has to offer than an eighty year old with "normal" hearing for his age group. The eighty year old, however, can still hear significant differences in equipment. Senior citizens can still obtain useful guidance from good audio reviews. And they are well advised to try components in their own systems when possible. In brief, they can still be audiophiles at their advanced age.

Farjamed, my observation/comment was not meant to offend. I don't know you, and I respect however you choose to participate in discussions on Agon. However, I will say that my experience is that, IN GENERAL, participants who seldom discuss music tend to also be ones who rely on specs, and are prone to want to declare this component as "the best", or "better than that one", without focusing more on aspects of sound reproduction that are more elusive, and harder to quantify.

Wether a component makes sound that resembles music or not has much more to do than with technical accuracy in the high frequencies. So, the ability of a person to accurately hear in the upper frequencies is only but one of many aspects of judging sound that matter. It is also interesting to me that while even the most open-minded audiophiles, who acknowledge that measurements don't tell the whole story, seldom acknowledge the limitations of the equipment doing the measuring. IOW, I am not willing to concede that because some piece of electronic equipment tells my audiologist that I can't hear anything above 14K (not the case), that my ear/brain are not processing that information at least to a degree that it is still relevant. Case in point: the 20hz-20k hz standard. It became the standard on "determination" that humans could not hear anything above 20k hz. It is now generally acknowledged that the standard is very inadequate, and that humans can, in fact, process information well above 20k hz; and that the presence, or absence, of such has a profound effect on the perception of information much lower in frequency. The brain also has a tremendous ability to fill in the blanks.

There is a lot about this stuff that we don't fully understand. And to a degree, I like it that way. I think that focusing too much on the technical detracts from the ability to put together a system that makes music; at least MY idea of what music should sound like.

You state that your Dad loves music, and that you can't understand why he can't hear the difference between two sets of earbuds. I suspect that it is not so much that he can't hear the difference, but that he just doesn't care; and that the act of trying to determine which one "sounds" better, detracts from his experience of listening to the music.

Well, you may not be a kid, Jax2, but you're a bunch younger than my son. BTW, I just bought a new cart and a spare armtube for my JMW 10.5i arm today.

Hey, who you callin' a kid?! I turn 51 on Friday my friend. Over half a century of valuable experiences up for grabs...what a valuable resource...get it while you still can. This is a limited time offer. In a few more years I'll be partially deaf and poppin' pills to raise the family flag. I'll have to turn in my Audiophile Decoder Ring and ID badge. Between the pension from Audiogon and selling off the system to some young buck who can better appreciate it, I'll have enough to buy me a Bose Wave, a years supply of Depends™, and a hearing aid. Maybe the government will have implemented the Soylent Green program by then and I'll have that to look forward to instead.

ok, have fun, kids.

Don't get me wrong, Farjamed, you asked a good question and it's prompted an interesting discussion. You have nothing to apologize for and I didn't really see you being offensive to anyone. Certainly no offense taken on my end. As far as your dad and the differences in what you hear, who knows. Just out of curiosity, have both of you actually tested your hearing to see if that is actually something that might be at play, or are you just assuming that because of the difference in your ages. If so, check out this article in the NY Times. And another fluff piece on CBS News here. It's not just older folks who are vulnerable to hearing loss.

I am reminded of a recent audition I was doing of two headphone amps. I have headphones that are a bit challenging to amp well, and certain amps do a better job than others. I was trying two of the amps that are reputed to do a very good job with these particular cans (and indeed they do). I'd made my own assessments of the two amps. Then a good friend who is also a music-lover/audiophile with many years of experience came to visit. He's another person I've shared plenty of listening sessions with in various places and we actually have pretty similar tastes, but are not always right in line with each others preferences. He listened and gave his assessment. He preferred a different amp for different reasons and did not echo many of the ways I was hearing the two. Then a third person came by who was picking up one of the two amps which I was borrowing. He is a headphone buff (honestly I don't know what his experience has been but his musical preferences are in another world from mine). He also listened using his music (as I said, very different from what my friend and I listen to). He had entirely different things to say about the two amps. Who's right? Which amp is better? Should you pay attention to any of the three of our different opinions based upon age...musical preference...experience...a hearing test....or?

Another example...over the years I've had many musicians come by and, usually in passing, hear my system (I never actually invite people to listen unless I know it's an activity they enjoy), whatever form it may take at the time. My wife's family has two musicians and my wife's degree is in music performance. Now a few musicians have stopped and listened in awe and have made some very vivid observations about what they were hearing, but many...no most, just get into the music and basically shrug off any appreciation for how it was being presented. My wife's family all know what's up with my system, but none of them really get it, and their few observations would not at all indicate they are listening from the same standpoint I am, or have the same appreciation of what's going on. I know none of them have the same priorities in assembling a system, and none really care about the same things I do. Who's right? Which approach is "better"? Are they deaf, or is their hearing otherwise impaired? Don't think so, and in many ways, musically they are far more sensitive to some aspects of presentation than I am. Still, they just don't care whether the music is coming out of a boom box or a thoughtfully assembled system that cost as much as a car. Who should you listen to for advice and on the basis of what? It's a valid question you ask about hearing. I don't know that the answer is so simple, except to say that ultimately you're the best judge of what sounds right to you.

BTW, I love the illusion of soundstage (with a 2-channel speaker system) as well, so we're on the same page there. There are plenty of folks who feel it's way overrated, but it does thrill me.

Like I said in the original disclaimer I meant no offense to anyone. The title was just to draw attention. Obviously I do not discriminate against the opinions of the "elders" in these forums.. I come here looking for that advice, after all. I have no doubt that experience is much more inportant than ones ability to hear above 14khz. It was just something that o had wondered and thought it would be an interesting discussion. Food for thought.

For me, what most impresses me about a system is imaging and soundstage but I do value the higher frequencies because I can't stand the muffled sound. When I first started looking for speakers I was looking at b&w. What I didn't like about several of their more conventional floor stander designs were that they sounded closed in and boxy to me. What attracted me to the gallo 3.1 which I own currently was the fact that they sounded so open and had a wide range in which the treble does not fall off. At least horizontally anyway.

One of the main reasons I even started the wondering that started this
Topic was my dad. I bought him some high end shure earbuds which I think are amazing for portable playback. He wasn't impressed by them. He didn't think they were any better than the other pair I'd bought him for
home listening which are the Sony 7506. He is not hearing impaired. He loves music. Why can't he hear the difference? That was my thought process. Now I don't want to get in to the models of headphones because that's not the point, but I have te shure e5c headphones and bought my dad the newer shure se530. I could hear the difference between these two and it's in the midrange. The 530 has a much much better midrange to the point I almost bought a pair for myself even though I already have the e5c. The e5c isn't bad but the 530 is amazing by comparison. Why can't he hear this? Granted he isn't impressed by the e5c, and he is just one man. Could be that it's because he doesn't listen as closely as I do but I find that odd because he prefers headphone listening to
Speakers because he says he can hear tiny details on headphones. Anyway that's just what got me thinking down this road we are all on. Thanks for all the responses. Hope no one was too offended because that was not the point and I'm sure I could use all of your help in bettering my system. Even the deaf old guys. :)

** typed on an iPhone so forgive any typos or random capital letters please

So let's assume someone can only hear between 250hz and 2kz. Still gonna tell me it doesnt matter? I mean no offense to you if you are not trolling just trying to elicit a reaction, but I truly do not understand how you do not understand this point.

No offense taken, and no, I am not trolling. I'm offering a different perspective which happens to be my own. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter that our hearing acuity is different from each other. I'm saying that is one of an infinite number of factors at play that might make you and the next person unique and different. I'm saying that another person's ability to hear and discriminate a way that music is reproduced by a system to their own personal liking does not hinge on any one thing, but a whole universe of of diverse factors. Pointing at one of those factors and judging that they are someone who should be ignored or listened to based on that single factor is ludicrous, IMHO (ie he's older than 60 so his opinion probably bears no relation to what a 30 year-old might prefer - in fact they may prefer exactly the same kinds of things). Take the example about the detective you liked that someone came up with (and I agree, it is a good metaphor for some of what is at play here). Make that detective a one-eye'd detective, or one who is otherwise visually impaired and may not see quite as sharply as the next person. I'd still posit that based on his/her experience (we'll assume he/she is a longtime veteran like Columbo - and Peter Falk actually does have a glass eye) he would see more at a crime scene than the average untrained and inexperienced person. Take my previous reference to my longtime audiophile friend who is deaf in one ear - I've listened to many various systems with him over the years, in many locations. I've listened to his comments on those systems and I will tell you for certain that he may not hear soundstage, but his ability to discriminate and facilitate improvements is top notch in my book. We also have somewhat similar, but not identical, musical tastes and I think that does help. So holding someones ability to hear above 15khz, 12khz, or whatever, does not seem like a given qualification for that person giving very valid and astute observations about the way a system sounds. In your example of someone whose hearing was severely impaired I just don't have enough experience with that to comment, other than there are speakers that I've heard with very limited range that are profoundly enjoyable. I suppose I would weigh severe hearing impairment in if it was something I knew about them, just as I might weigh in their preferences in music, sure. As far as the example of the dealers pushing some wire that Douglas mentioned in his post - one could as easily assert that they had an agenda in selling the wires they represented, over other possible choices as well as the one Douglas already owned (which meant no sale to them). Indeed they also could have had hearing impairments and tastes that do not match Douglas's tastes, and also could have been praising the wires based on their use in a different system. I don't know. I'm not sure why one would jump to the conclusion that they had hearing impairment and that was the cause of their preferring the wires they did. Again, so many things at play and all of that is just speculation and really does mean nothing. Ultimately what counts is what you enjoy yourself - I don't think one can elicit a formula for screening reliable candidates to provide you with those answers. The best candidate is you.

Yes, Farjamed, we should not loose respect for our audiophile elders; they do have a tremendous amount of wisdom, and also experience with gear that is invaluable.

Perhaps I was a bit too harsh on the guys at the Quad/Naim dealership in saying I would never return. They were 1.5 hours away, so dismissing it was relatively easy. Very likely I would have visited again over time had they been local. Just because one has some hearing difficulty does not render their opinion or experience of no value.

It's difficult to admit hearing limitations because the entire audiophile culture is built upon hearing well - hearing "good" (left to one's own interpetation) music, hearing it on a good system, hearing it in a good environment, hearing it with good company, hearing it with good ears as well, to a degree. Advice is assumed to be given on the basis of good hearing, which it clearly cannot always be.

A point in favor of the "buncha deaf old guys," one of whom I may be some day; their experience IS very valuable and one must sift out the wheat from the chaff. They often have a huge knowledge base of technical information about what components and speakers go best with each other, what systems are better for different kinds of music (especially if one is focusing on a specific genre of music), how different media are recorded and might sound played back, etc. Turning your back on such knowledge would be a big mistake. Listen to them and take the experience. Be willing to try a recommendation but don't be surprised if you hear something different than described once in a while. It goes with the territory.

After my frustrating experience with the CL-3 cable I by no means wrote off all older audiophiles. Some of the most beautiful and insightful thoughts have come from those who have been in the game longer than I have. I simply enforced a rule that I would weigh advice given differently if I learned that hearing loss was a factor. With time you find out who hears things similar to you and who does not. I would go so far as to say that the differences between what an individual who selects a certain type of technology, say speakers, can be more opposed to one's style of listening than whether or not they have some hearing loss.

I'm not intending to give the impression that hearing acuity is the biggest factor in finding a mentor. I believe it counts, but there are many reasons to hold in esteem audio elders and consider their advice. Simply conduct your own tests and reach your own conclusions, and eventually you'll be an old half deaf guy too (virtually before you know it)!

Thanks Farjamed and Frogman...

I like that crime scene analogy, too. I also think our sense of (audible) contrast is more developed than most. Just like a photographers sense of color contrast is better than non-photographers. It's all about the ear-to-brain or eye-to-brain connections.

When my wife asks me to listen to a noise at night, I don't listen for the noise, I listen to the quiet. Better contrast.

their hearing is the ultimate variable.

However, it is a variable over which we have no control. It MAY (emphasis on MAY) explain some strong differences of opinion over particular pieces of gear, but since there is little I can do about it, and since it is an immutable facet in my perception of sound, I'm not gonna worry too much about it. IOW, I'm gonna trust MY ears, even if they no longer work for $hit due to age and too much R&R in my 'ute ;~)I guess what I am trying to say is that my perception of the music I hear when I sit down tonight is a product of the interaction of the software, each piece of hardware, those little cilia in my cochlea, and my brain. Your perception will not and cannot be the same as mine, unless we are identical twins, with identical environmental exposures, listening to the same recording at the same time. BTW, I accept and respect your explanation of the thread title as an attention getter, but I also understand Dan-ed's taking issue w it. Us old coots can get pretty testy.

@Frogman Not sure what your point is. I don't come on here to talk to people about music. I like what I like, I don't need people's opinions on music. I do however need opinions on gear because it's impossible to test out every possibility and because people on here know a lot more about what gear is available out there than I do, and how it might be paired to achieve desirable results. Ultimately it is my opinion what sounds good to my ears, but again, as Douglas Schroeder astutely points out, I would like to know if I am taking advice from a buncha deaf old guys with different priorities because of physical limitations. Why is it so hard for people to admit that the ability to HEAR plays at least some role in all of this?
As for the fact that most people are in disagreement with me and Douglas.. again, what is your point? Being in the majority doesn't make you right.

@Mijs, I totally agree with you, and you make a great analogy with the crime scene.

Frogman, yes, I would assume there is a natural shift toward media and the experience as one gets older. I just chatted with an industry professional the other day who repairs/restores rather large speakers. He recalled the big monsters which he used to use in his main system, but has scaled back his rig. Why? He's getting to the point where he doesn't want to deal with the size of them. Instead of pushing for ultimate performance he is talking about accepting compromises. For whatever reason we all have to do so at some point.

With age I can certainly see that one's emphasis would tilt toward the "leave well enough alone," perspective even when hearing loss is not an issue. When space or energy no longer allow for mucking with the gear what can one turn to as a means of keeping the audiophile fire burning? An endless source of new experiences in music, a tremendously fulfilling alternative to the hunt for the gear. :)

Mijs, Bravo!

I should have also pointed out that in the case of the posting history of posters holding the other (majority) viewpoint, there is a far greater percentage of posts about music in relation to posts about gear.

Dan_ed, I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to see that for some of us the question of hearing acuity and age is important. You say, "...I do think this is a topic that is hard to take seriously. It sounds more like some of you guys who are just starting to realize that you are getting older are starting to worry. Most people are much more interested in what their health will be, or what sex will be like. ;-)"

This IS an audiophile forum, not a general health or sexual health forum. It is perfectly natural for a person who is keenly involved in music and audio systems to wonder about age related effects on listening and enjoyment of the system. That is especially so if the person is younger, getting interested in establishing a rig, and has reasons to wonder about the guidance he might receive - as seems to be the case with our OP.

Seeing approximately half of the audiophiles who have passed through the door of my listening room and turned out to have significant hearing loss (shared in discussion, usually only after I point out some nuances in the music/system which they cannot hear, but which others who hear the same music readily discern) the question of the impact of potential hearing loss arises.

The difficulty of this issue of hearing loss does impact real world decisions on setting up systems. About 7 years ago I stopped at an audio shop which was steeped in the Quad/Naim tradition. The two store reps were helpful and showed me some CL-3 rated in-wall cabling I could use to wire my surrounds in my HT I was building. I appreciated the discussion but was quite surprised to see that they were using the very same in-wall cabling for their main two channel rig in the store and I questioned it.

Their response was that they had conducted comparisons; the CL-3 was as good as any higher end speaker cable. I mentioned my speaker cable at home and they fairly dismissed it. I decided that since it was not terribly cheap and the amount I needed was nearly the entire spool I would buy it all and use the few extra feet to conduct a test of my own between my speaker cables and the CL-3. I had come to the conclusion years before that cabling was significant in influencing sound, so this would be a good price/performance test.

The CL-3 was crap; it had the effect of turning my system into a giant boom box, worse in every appreciable way. Reinstalling my speaker cables was like breathing life back into a dead body, the difference was that profound. My conclusion was two-fold; those men could not hear for sh_t, and I would never go to them again for anything related to advice in establishing an audio system. It seems they believed they were really sharp, avoiding the costly cable in order to get what was to their ears the same result. They thought they were doing me a favor by giving me such inside information.

I learned through that relatively inexpensive lesson that anyone in the audio industry can be subject to grave error in their recommendations and or handicap in hearing. Having such an experience I vowed that I, from conducting listening tests, would be the arbiter of what form my rig would take. Had I been a newbie and simply accepted their conclusion based on authority my system would have been compromised and had I not put their advice to the test it might be compromised indefinitely.

Perhaps there is no perfect standard somewhere, but in the real world of audio system building when someone gives you advice which worsens your rig it becomes a perfectly good reason to avoid their advice. They said they had listened and done the comparisons and could hear no difference. My only logical conclusion is that they were hearing impaired, leading to a poor recommendation. After all, they seemed sincere; they could have sold more expensive cables to customers they said. It seems they literally could not hear a compelling reason to do so. All their customers were shorted in helpful system building advice.

It was the very kind of experience that perhaps Farjamed dreads, getting guidance from someone who is incapable of giving the best guidance. It is a real possibility.

Does hearing acuity matter? You bet. Would I take unweighted system building advice from someone I suspect has a hearing impediment. Absolutely not.

I often find it interesting, and telling, to look at the posting history of participants in a thread; particularly when there is disagreement. In the case of this thread, there are two posters, Douglas Schroeder, and Farmajed, who share a strong dissenting view. If one looks at their posting history, one notices that in the case of Douglas there are many posts in threads about equipment and technical matters, and only three posts in threads about music. In the case of Farmajed, not a single post about music.

@Altbrewer You bring up a very interesting point about "live music." I feel like this is completely different topic unto itself but a very interesting one. In my experience, a recording sounding "live" or like "real music" has more to do with how it was recorded and people's natural "expectations." By "expectations" I mean, how your brain subconsciously expects it to sound in the room you are currently in. I say this because I am a musician and record music. There have been times I have recorded things (with cheap equipment) and played it back over my "system" and thought it was real. As in, when I heard the voice I literally thought it was in the room with me. When I say cheap, I mean the mic on my laptop, or an inexpensive condenser mic, and when I say "system" I mean my computer speakers. I have accomplished this with "good" equipment too, but to me the ability for a recording to sound "real" has much more to do with how it was recorded than how it is played back.

As for hearing loss, I totally agree with you.. it sounds good to you.. that truly is all that matters :)

@Jax2 You either don't get it, or as just trolling, not sure which... But if you are legitimately trying to understand my point, read Douglas Schroeder's posts. He gets it. You keep harping on the "neutral" thing. Forget I said that. I don't use an EQ either so you can stop harping on that too. I don't see how you don't understand how hearing loss can affect one's ability to judge a system. Not saying there is a prize for it, or that having "perfect" hearing is all that matters, just that the ABILITY to HEAR matters. In math, sometimes the easiest way to see how variables will affect a function is to put in variables that represent an extreme. So let's assume someone can only hear between 250hz and 2kz. Still gonna tell me it doesnt matter? I mean no offense to you if you are not trolling just trying to elicit a reaction, but I truly do not understand how you do not understand this point.

@Dan_ed I chose that topic so people would read it. It is meant to sound controversial to grab people's attention.

Are you too deaf to be an audiophile? You can be. If you can't hear audio is of no importance to you.
Too poor? I would say no, although obviously in extreme cases the answer is yes. No money? No system at all.
Too stupid? Based on some of the responses I've gotten, I'm going to have to go with no. You can never be too stupid to be an audiophile. :) Before anyone jumps on that.. It's a joke people. But obviously you can never be too irrational to still be an audiophile. How else do you justify $20K speaker wire.

I am not saying I know more about high end audio than anyone on this board. I don't. You can see some of my other posts to see what my system is, and I know it's not great, but its just my starting point. I am sure that with experience you get better at building a better system, learning what you like, etc.. however one chooses to word it. My main point is that I will read people talking about the most minute details of their system, or the room, or whatever, but ignoring the fact that their hearing is the ultimate variable. You can't tell me that the frequencies above 10, 12, 14khz don't matter. Granted, to those who can't hear above that, they dont, and those frequencies arent important in building a system (for themselves), but what if you can hear above 14 or 15 or 16 or 18 khz? What if your system is always outputting a 110db sound at 40khz?? Wouldn't bother you, or anyone else for that matter, but your dog would be going nuts! Im not arguing that the midrange isn't important. I'm not saying that there is much music 'up there' or that they are my favorite frequencies.
I don't understand why you think it's a topic that's hard to take seriously, but I agree with you that it sounds like most people are starting to worry. Most of the responses seem defensive to a question that was meant to be for fun.

Obviously, with age comes experience (and the ability to build a better audio system) but not logic. With the exception of Douglas Schroeder, everyone here seems to think that the cables, power chords, window treatments, exact speaker placement, the type of knot in the rug covering their floor, the stands, spikes, etc etc, matter, but that their hearing, and any hearing loss they make experience with age, doesnt. What sense does this make?? None.

This actually goes to something much deeper.

Taken from wikipedia "Audiophile":
Criticisms usually focus on claims around so-called "tweaks" and accessories beyond the core source, amplification, and speaker products. Examples of these accessories include speaker cables, component interconnects, stones, cones, CD markers, and power cables or conditioners.[15] Manufacturers of these products often make strong claims of actual improvement in sound but do not offer any measurements or testable claims. This absence of measurable (rather than subjective) improvement, coupled with sometimes high prices, raises questions about the truthfulness of the marketing.[16]
Roger Russell – a former engineer and speaker designer for McIntosh Labs – describes the introduction of expensive speaker wire brands, and critiques their performance in his online essay called Speaker Wire - A History. He writes, "The industry has now reached the point where [wire] resistance and listening quality are not the issues any more, although listening claims may still be made....The strategy in selling these products is, in part, to appeal to those who are looking to impress others with something unique and expensive."[16]
Skeptic James Randi, through his foundation, has offered a prize of $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate that $7,250 audio cables "are any better than ordinary audio cables".[17] In 2008, audio reviewer Michael Fremer attempted to claim the prize, and said that Randi declined the challenge.[18] Randi said that the cable manufacturer Pearl was the one who withdrew.[19]
----

I believe the mark of any music lover leans toward trained hearing, not (necessarily) top hearing performance. Most of us have no better or worse hearing than the average person. However, unlike the average person, our ear-brain connections have become more discriminating, focused, and appreciative over the years.
An analogy: We can SEE everything that a crime scene detective sees, but unlike us, he immediately recognizes clues and valuable information. His vision is no better than ours, just well-trained.
That said, at 56 I can still hear butterflies land in my neighbor's yard. ; )

Re live music, I believe the Absolute Sound about 30 years ago used to frame the reference as live, unamplified music.

Certainly some live music sounds terrible.

However, even terrible live music usually has an immediacy and impact which is lacking in many audio systems.

04-12-11: Douglas_schroeder
In a similar fashion to the example of arthritis negatively impacting the running, hearing loss has a real world consequences.

You make some good observations, Douglas, but I'm not sure I reach the same conclusions you do. Maybe I'm unclear about your view on what is, IMO, the critical question of this thread...

For audiophiles, what is the average peak age of technical listening?

By "technical listening," I mean something like: the ability to discriminate differences in resolution, frequency response, transient response, harmonic accuracy, dynamic range, imaging, soundstaging, PRaT, coherence, and so on. The contrast to *technical* listening is *aesthetic* listening, which is something like: the ability to discriminate differences in interpretation, emotion, authenticity, imagery, beauty, and so on.

I say "average peak age" because some audiophiles probably peak later than others, just like marathoners. But still it may be possible to generalize about an age range of peak performance for audiophiles, just as we can generalize about the age range of peak performance for marathoners.

With that in mind, I suspect that, for audiophiles, the average peak age of technical listening lies somewhere in the broad range between 35 and 60. Some reasons I suspect that...

1. While fluid intelligence starts to decrease at around the age of 25, crystallized intelligence increases up until the mid to late 60's. I believe that technical listening is mostly *acquired* knowledge and expertise, and hence a form of crystallized intelligence, which increases with age. When fluid and crystallized intelligence are averaged together, the average peak age is somewhere between 35 and 60, which is the range I have speculated for the average peak performance of technical listening. Admittedly, this is a guess.

2. While age correlates with intellectual and artistic *productivity*, it does NOT correlate with intellectual or artistic *quality*, as judged by the ages at which intellectual and artistic masterworks are produced. In other words, as people age, they do less, but they don't do it less well. The studies that demonstrate this include the works of classical composers, FWIW.

3. As everyone knows, age related hearing loss is principally a consequence of damage to the hairs/cells of the ear, typically resulting in diminished high frequency perception. But the perception of an audio system's frequency response is only one element of technical listening. Technical listening is also a matter of the perception of an audio system's transient response, resolution, harmonic accuracy, dynamic range, imaging, soundstaging, PRaT, coherence, and so on. There is little reason to believe that age-related hearing loss results in a significant diminishment of the ability to discriminate those characteristics. Hence I believe that the bulk of technical listening remains largely unaffected by age-related hearing loss. The reason, I suspect, is that technical listening isn't principally something that happens "in the ears." It's principally something that happens in the brain.

For these reasons, and others I haven't mentioned, I believe that, for audiophiles, the average peak age of technical listening is older than some posters on this thread seem to suggest.

Bryon

P.S. FWIW, I am younger than 40.

The live music standard is like any other, entirely relative as you've said. What live music sounds like to you may not be what it sounds like to me. It's like the difference of what a given wine might taste like to you and how it might taste to someone else. I have a very limited tolerance for the mediocrity of some of the live music presentations I've attended - either the venue itself, or more likely the mixing/amplification. This tolerance seems to be getting less and less as I get older and as my system has improved. In fact I find listening to my system more engaging than many live presentations of the same music...certainly more intimate. Certainly there are many exceptions too.

If there is an absolute definition of audio perfection, I suppose the answer in my case is yes. However, equipment performance measurements are usually dismissed in these forums as being unable to really describe how equipment sounds or which piece is better.

I have often seen the pursuit of audio equipment perfection framed in the concept of "sounds like live music." This is a relative standard, and even if what live music sounds like to my ears changes over time, I can apply the same frame of reference to my system as my ears age. So, my system still approaches the sound of live music TO ME, regardless of my hearing frequency loss.

I know I have high frequency hearing loss, so I do not attempt to tell other people what equipment sounds like. I do wonder if my system sounds terrible to others, but don't care too much since it sounds good to me and does not annoy my wife.

Farjamed, I don't doubt that you don't mean to offend anyone. However, just re-read your question and ask yourself if it could have been phrased in a better way.

Are you too old
Are you too deaf
Are you too stupid
Are you too poor

See what I mean? I'm not offended, but I do think this is a topic that is hard to take seriously. It sounds more like some of you guys who are just starting to realize that you are getting older are starting to worry. Most people are much more interested in what their health will be, or what sex will be like. ;-)

There are other reasons why one would set up a system differently as they get older. Like using the knowledge about what they prefer that has been acquired by the years of experience listening to hi-end equipment. It could be that their tastes have changed and so voice things a little differently.

I'm also left with the question what do to blame when you hear some twenty-something's system that is utter crap?

@jax There is no point. It was a disucssion for the sake of discussion. I don't see what part of "if you can't hear above 14hz then adjusting an eq all the way up or down above this makes no difference to you but droves others crazy" you don't understand. If you don't see any point in it then don't participate in this discussion. Simple as that. Your hearing is flawed, or not, and doesn't matter either way.

Ummm, sorry, but you lost me there. I don't use an equalizer at all. I was not referring to that part of your statement, which seemed to be only an example you were setting forth. I said that I see no point in having a neutral standard for the reasons I've already stated, it is not that I don't see a point in participating in this discussion (or else I would not be). I questioned why you find such a concept advantageous (beyond your illustration of using and equalizer, which I'd guess that most folks in these forums do not). It's like trying to establish a neutral standard for criticizing movies or food or wine...it's entirely subjective and you're better off learning something about the tastes of the individuals making the criticism, how they might relate to your own, and then, even still, use it as a point of departure...a guide perhaps. If reproduction of the music in the upper frequencies is very important to you, then it might be worthwhile to find others who share that priority to seek out their opinions (which I would still use only as a suggestion to investigate on your own). I noticed in another forum I participate in that a good many of the members of the forum have very different tastes in music than I do. I have, more often than not, found also that their priorities in what components make that music they love really work for them is not necessarily the best solution for the music I prefer to listen to, but there are a few in that forum who do share similar musical tastes and I have found their preferences are actually closer to my own in the gear that works for them. That's the closest I've been able to come to some sort of more 'reliable' kind of approach to filtering out various criticism. There are so many infinitely complex things about how each of us respond to music, and to virtually everything else in life, that to try to classify it, graph it, stuff it neatly into little cubicles and quantify it, seems a bit silly to me.

most music is in the mid range region. a loss of acuity above 14k, doesn't affect your ability to hear differences between 1k and 3k.

its the harmonics that occur above 14k , not the fundamental.

@Douglas you seem to be the only person here who sees the point I am trying to make. Totally agree with your analysis just don't have to patience to express it as eloquently as you have. As I said originally I am not trying to offend anyone or say my hearing is perfect or better or any of that. Was just curious if people realized the truth about aging and how they viewed that in regards to being an audiophile.

@jax There is no point. It was a disucssion for the sake of discussion. I don't see what part of "if you can't hear above 14hz then adjusting an eq all the way up or down above this makes no difference to you but droves others crazy" you don't understand. If you don't see any point in it then don't participate in this discussion. Simple as that. Your hearing is flawed, or not, and doesn't matter either way.

I got back into audio about three years ago. I'm 67 years young and wear hearing aids. I'm amazed and happy that I can hear more than I thought I could. Last year I had my audiologist program one of three channels without noise filtering or compression. He couldn't understand why I wanted to do this. So I used the analogy of the MP3 music file. He still didn't get it. Any way he reluctantly made the adjustment. Because of that adjustment I'm able to hear more music. Every audiologist I've encountered don't know a dam thing about adjusting hearing aids for listing to music. They always assume I'll being listening at to high a SPL.

Despite wearing aids I'm able to discern changes in my system when I apply a tweak, change cables, crystals etc. The main reason I'm able to discern these changes is as Elizabeth said I "listen". Unfortunately many people assume because I wear aids I don't hear well enough to really appreciate music. And when I tell them I'm a audiophile the response is, "a what". When I attempt to explain the joy I experience from this great hobby they look back and forth from my face to my hearing aids with a disbelieving look. So I no longer bother, I don't have time to waste; I have too much music to LISTEN to.

Yes! I should be 25 instead of 55!

That's right. It's all pointless. There is no use in worrying about life, you won't survive it anyway.

Listening to Television is not the same as listening to music. I suspect that even when there is some hearing loss, people are still able to feel the emotional impact of the music they are lsitening to. It is about the music, isn't it?

@Jax2 The point is that people read reviews of equipment, they come on to Audiogon and ask people's opinions of gear.. People/Reviewers respond in such detail about how certain speakers, amps, preamps, cables, etc sound to them. How accurate or useful can this information be if their hearing is compromised.

Audiophiles want to talk about how they can hear the difference in a cable. How much positioning, room treatments, stands, etc, etc, etc, can make a difference in sound, yet most here seem to be arguing that their ability to HEAR doesn't matter. IRONIC?

Whether reviews come from someone here, a reviewer, or a reliable friend who you have a track history with, any and all of that should be a point of departure to varying degrees and ultimately you should make your own choices and base those choices on your own direct experience and not someone else's. At least for me, it is far more rewarding in that way. I don't come here to take convert peoples opinions to a shopping list. I do enjoy the discussion though, and especially enjoy talking about music and getting recommendations there.

Aside from that, you did not really answer my question to you: What's the point of a "neutral perspective" since not any one of us listens from one? You might interpret something as sounding "warm" while someone else may say its "cool and analytical" to them, regardless of whether that component falls into some arbitrary idea of what is "neutral". You could establish "neutral" by measuring response with machines but none of us actually are machines and machines do not have emotions and experience and all the infinite complexities and imperfections that make us human. So I ask you; what's the point, even in the context of a discussion about how human beings experience this stuff? It goes to the argument of some "Absolute" or universal goal that all audiophiles should be striving for. Pardon me, but I believe that's total cow pie talk. If it were so the options would have narrowed down long ago and there would be a far sharper focus on the same kind of sound and design goals. This is far from the truth. Many different people = all kinds of tastes = all kinds of options = all kinds of ways of expressing and interpreting zeros and ones or the movement of a stylus on vinyl. Bring your music to one of the shows and take it from room to room and tell me what "neutral" is. My bet is if you do that and ten others do it you'll all come back with varying opinions. And that's all any of these discussions are about; opinions. Sad as it may be, there will be no George Foreman Grill prize awarded for the person who is the most rightest, bestest audiophile here. I hope no one was holding their breath on that one.