If they believe they can hear a difference, what does it really matter? One's perception is one's reality.
94 responses Add your response
This is sounding like yet another “baiting” thread. Maybe this forum section should be renamed :-) inna could you you be more specific please? I think helomech has interpreted your OP as dissing people who think they have “golden ears” where I interpret you as dissing people who you think have poor hearing/listening skills (hence yoir comment “so why buy good stuff?”) Can you clarify which group of people you started this thread to insult? Thanks ;-) |
" One’s perception is one’s reality " Amen to that! Nothing here to get insulted by. Fact is, this is a very important thread that is way too often overlooked. No two people hear the same, no two recordings are the same, and, no two listening environments produce the same. What do the more seasoned listeners say about products usually, "get what sounds good to you". The last 15 or so years I’ve seen many audiophiles moving back to simple designs. As well I see many moving back to a sound that was created in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. It was for the most part a more relaxed top end with a fuller body mid and bottom, musical and round. Not lacking detail or dynamics mind you, but giving a fullness that many systems in the upper price range fail to deliver recently. "why buy good stuff"? Well that's the other question. Personally I don't see price tags as representing "good stuff" in playback. Michael Green |
Michael, I believe I understand what you are writing, but maybe not. Several times I have been tempted to start a thread inquiring if anyone else has ever had or experienced systems, as I have, in the 60's and 70's, where the mid level components came together to produce a beautiful sound? A sound that was so special that anyone who came into the room commented on it. And the components were so mainstream that one would laugh today. The sound was so natural, and the room boundaries just melted away. |
Yes I remember the 60's and 70's audio and I couldn't wait to get away from it what with idler drive turntables and Quad amps churning out hum by the bucketload. Move onto the milenium and we now have equiptment that can resolve from grooves or pits levels of detail that we could only dream of then. I know which century I want to belong in and to the question my ears are 65 years old and I now can't hear above 13K but what I do have left I still can discerne good from bad when it comes to hearing hi fi systems and the old chestnut can you still hear the triangle ? well I can . Too many people in this forum think that their hearing is special well take a hearing test , get your ears syringed and then maybe you may just hear then the difference a cable and a fuse may make to your system. |
inna
There are clearly people whose hearing is, shall I say, very special.I can't imagine how you could assess anyone's hearing remotely relying only on their posts in an Internet forum. That's what's odd about the title of this thread: How good is your hearing ? And how do you know ?The real question to the OP is: How would you know how good my hearing is? Not: How would I know how good my hearing is. |
Hi Jetter you said "Michael, I believe I understand what you are writing, but maybe not. Several times I have been tempted to start a thread inquiring if anyone else has ever had or experienced systems, as I have, in the 60’s and 70’s, where the mid level components came together to produce a beautiful sound? A sound that was so special that anyone who came into the room commented on it. And the components were so mainstream that one would laugh today. The sound was so natural, and the room boundaries just melted away." Yes, we are on the same page! There are more people moving back to that sound, or stayed in that sound, than all of high end audio. When HEA went discrete it also "squeezed" the sound. A lot of this is due to the new (in the 90’s) types of circuit boards, over built chassis, complicated drivers and dead speaker cabinets. HEA created a sound that left out a lot of warmth, natural dynamics, and spacious harmonics, in search of detail and black holes. The result, systems that can easily fatigue the ear and brain. Also systems that are limited with the range of recordings that can be played musically. In the 60’s and 70’s playback was on the right path, and just needed a method of tuning plus the right tools to get things to that next level of performance. Systems, even un-tuned, could play large varieties of music with relatively simple adjustments. Some of the more basic receivers and matched speakers sounded amazing setup nicely, still do. Remember when looking inside of the basic components you saw a tan colored circuit board, or one side green and the other tan? These gave a lot of that warm character. Same goes for those wood chassis and old transformers and cap designs. Those components breathed and gave huge soundstages with tons of easy to listen to music. And, you could sit anywhere in the room, or other rooms, and the sound carried in tone and balance. Michael Green |
I think the OP's question is a bit ambiguous. One's hearing may be physically impaired due to age, injury or whatever. But I think the OP means ability to differentiate between a merely good system and a very good system, i.e, one that is capable of producing realistic instrumental timbre, low level information, etc. As a trained musician and a past recording engineer, I've often wondered what non-musicians were actually listening to when they judged a system. I don't think you can ever know. But one thing I learned in my years of working in music - never assume someone else can't hear something just because you can't. IMO. |
Michael, how can you advocate the old soulful ways when you use digital source as a reference ? You can't make good stuff from s... In fact, in my experience many if not most people can hear pretty well, as far as I can tell. Yeah, my musician friend sometimes harassed me - can't you hear that ? The hell I couldn't. Hearing should not be perfect but it should be good to be able to "feel the message in music". So, people here who brag about how great their digital based system sounds are either BSing me or can't hear a thing. It never sounds great, it can sound tolerable - that's all. |
I'm getting older but my hearing is still intact. I can hear a faucet drip on the other side of our house. It's a good thing, because my wife (four years younger) is almost deaf. Am I bragging? Probably, but I have found a way to compensate for these aging ears. Headphones. I have two pair of Stax (009s, and Lambda Pros), and a pair of B&W headphones (for portable listening). Buying a high quality, tube headphone amplifier for the phones isn't cheap, but nowhere near the cost of a megabuck system. It works for me! |
cleeds, Exactly. A thread asking “how good is your hearing?” is certainly a reasonable topic for a thread. But the OP makes it clear the thread actually wasn’t started with good intentions, but is rather an occasion for inna to insult the hearing of others and have a “laugh” at others expense. Oh...and if anyone notices this obvious fact it’s “who, little old me? If you think I meant to diss anyone’s hearing - that’s on you, not him. We we should ask members like inna to do better than start baiting threads like this, that start with self-satisfied implied insults. If this thread takes an informative direction it will be despite the OP. |
"Michael, how can you advocate the old soulful ways when you use digital source as a reference ?" I think you've mentioned that somewhere else as well. I kind of let it pass by without much comment. Digital is an audio language just like analog is. Once that language is put in motion it is all analog signal. TT's, Tape and CD's are all mechanical devices. I can't stand the sound of almost all CD Players, to me they sound like tin cans. However some players it's a different story. It's all in the way they are built and the parts used, and CDP's are much different than TT's or Decks and shouldn't be treated like they are the same. here's an example I don't like the sound of CDP's that use big transformers. The players I use have tiny transformers. I also don't like the sound of CDP's made out of metal. I don't like the sound of CDP's using certain types of materials on the circuit boards. Lastly, I don't like the sound of CDP's that are higher mass. CD's themselves as a medium I love and prefer over any other mediums, with the exception of 2" tape on a very tricked out old Studer. However having that tricked out old Studer sitting in another room and needing adjusted per tape is no longer practical for me. Plus I'm no longer able to get my hands on 1st generation masters. Michael Green |
Inna Can I also point out something else. Anyone who has spent a fair amount of time being a professional tape runner (the guy who does duplication) on whatever level becomes aware of outer to inner revolution distortion. Once you experience this to the point where it’s ingrained into your scull, it sticks with you forever. It shows up in tape speeds and vinyl pressings alike. The analog language is more susceptible to this than the digital language, before it gets to the analog signal stage. Set up two systems, one using tape and one CD (don’t do this on the same system). Play the CD system and skip from the first track to the last (play 30 seconds of each). The sonic cue is the same. Now play the first song on your RtR then fast forward to the last track. The cue is different. On vinyl it’s more so. Lastly, the reason I like CD’s more is the repeat button. I’m not so crazy about any recordings first pass through the system. I put the player on repeat and usually get interested on the 3rd or forth pass as the system settles into the signals vibratory structure. If I compared a tape, vinyl and CD on the first pass, I would more cases than not pick the tape or vinyl over the CD (recording dependent). However the tape nor the vinyl give me this option, and after about the 3rd or so pass the CDP usually walks away from the others. Michael Green |
Play any instrument or hear anyone's voice, there are so many nuances, some of which are probably perceived beyond our awareness, at least in the beginning. Perception and its processing are very complex and not fully understood things. To a degree it is individual, subjective, but the foundation is common. "Sensitive hearing" is a talent, an art form. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
inna wrote: Michael, languages are untranslatable. Wow that’s ridiculous. Just a flat out erroneous claim. If the language is digital you must not convert it into analog, you must take it as it is. This is for machines not humans, as we are now. Says inna. The logic you are proposing is simply untenable. The process of recorded sound to play back relies on transducers; that is of transducing one form of energy/signal to another. To use your analogy, of translating one "language" to another. Microphones transduce acoustic energy into electrical energy. Right there you are changing the signal to a whole different "language." Speakers are electrical transducers, converting electrical energy into acoustic energy. With a lot happening in between. Oh no, if you play a vinyl record, so beloved by many audiophiles (including me) now the signal has been translated to a new physical language - physical grooves! Just how alike to a real trumpet playing are physical grooves in vinyl???? Better not translate that again it should just stay as grooves. Drat, how do we get to hear it? Oh yes, by translating those physical structures into an electrical signal, that go through other alterations to be translated again by the speaker. If we took the principle you are trying to sell about digital being an invalid form because it must be converted from one system of information to another, we couldn’t listen to analog either. It’s just silly. I have a really nice turntable set up and a digital source, and both sound fantastic, as a great many audiophiles have found. But of course, the implication inna has set up here will be that’s because we aren’t "talented listeners" whereas inna of course is a talented listener. We are so fortunate to have "talented listeners" like inna tell us what’s what. This whole thread is based on a silly ego stroke. |
Who cares? Why would hearing loss affect my ability to hear differences between speakers or amps or dacs and prefer one to another? I hear what I hear. Whether it’s the same as what someone with “perfect hearing” hears doesn’t matter. That said, I know I’m better at listening and pay more attention than the average person. I’d say my perception is above average. I have a good friend who is a professional jazz violinist and his hearing isn’t great but he can hear things in music I’ll never hear. He knows exactly what instruments are playing and can transpose it into sheet music or pick up his instrument and play each part for you. He can also tell exact differences between audio equipment. I have no doubt he has more hearing loss than I do. Which is to say, the natural world doesn’t have a lot of sound in the frequencies where we lose hearing... so.. who cares? |
I remembered this article, about high-school students having their cell phone ring at a high enough frequency so the adults can't hear it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/06/13/new-york-schoolkids-use-cell-phone-ring-tone-teachers-cant-h... I think just the opposite of inna though regarding hearing quality vs. equipment quality. As my hearing is going down, I'm wanting my equipment quality to compensate as much as possible for it. Of course, the other problem is when you're young and can hear perfectly, you can't afford the better equipment, so I listened on "The Record Eater" turntable. |
As I age, its the loses that really hurt. The loss of friends, of family, of bike riding 50 miles, of the ability to retain thought or using the word that I knew so well but can't recollect ... the loss of secure balance the loss of a successful day at work... but the loss of acute hearing is a particularly hard loss. I still know music, but the magic of the separation of instruments, depth perception, the cleanliness of a triangle is just not there. Live today, for tomorrow is a different place. |
How many of you speak more than one language fluently ? Try to translate and you will see that it will never be good enough, even relatively close languages. Not dialects, that's different. And that is analog into analog translation. Try to translate poetry and you will see even more clearly. I read many books in two languages, translations varied from pretty good to ridiculous, never good enough. Musicians often don't have great set-up because for them it is all far from real. They can listen to boombox just for outlines and ideas. Besides, they are already musicians. |
inna, you still seem to be stretching to come up with justifications for the fact you personally (apparently) just don’t like digital sources. You are just ignoring what I pointed out before; that analog involves gross changes of the form of carrier for a signal, and your logic works against analog as much as digital. When acoustic energy is transduced into electricity it is then NOTHING LIKE the organic thing that sat in front of the microphone. How much like an actual entire symphony orchestra is a teeny, tiny stream of electricity? And yet a teeny stream of electricity is used to represent an entire orchestra until it reaches the speakers to be translated back to acoustic energy. And..again...sit in front of a live orchestra....look down at the grooves of a record. If you can not admit the astounding alteration that the sound of a symphony has undergone to be changed in to plastic grooves, you just can’t be taken seriously. In trying to portray the digital carrier system as somehow turning real sounds in to some unnatural "other" form, you simply are ignoring the same happens in analog. Further, your reasoning ought to apply to visual signals as well, such as video cameras and televisions. If your reasoning were correct "you ought to keep the visual information all analog." But the digital TVs and sources of today are now vastly more realistic than any analog TV signals we had before. We get it. You don’t care for digital. But your rationalisations in trying to go beyond your mere opinion, to prescribing how things ought to be as if you’d found some objective truth to declare, just don’t hold water. |
@bdp24 I'm curious: when you talk about your high frequency hearing loss, did you mean it was already gone 30 years ago, or that now your hearing tops out at 15k? If it tops out at 15k now, and if you are middle aged, that's quite good. I'm almost 55 and mine tops out just under 15k. Which frankly surprises me, especially given having played in very loud bands earlier in life and working in production sound for 30 years. There's various on-line "how old is your hearing" tests and I come up with a "hearing age" of between 38 and 40 years old, so not doing too badly at almost 55. But I believe I'm now at the crest in age where hearing starts taking a bigger dive in the high frequencies...so I better get as much listening in while I can enjoy those sparkling highs, while I can! But, I've been protecting my hearing for a long time. I started noticing Tinnitus in the early 90's and that put the fear-of-gawd in me, so I started protecting my hearing from then on. Many of the guys I played with in bands who didn't protect their hearing are now having some pretty serious hearing issues! Like waking up one morning and all their high frequency is gone! |
@prof, the hearing test and my learning of the loss of frequencies above 15k was back in my late 30’s, when I had my "Musician’s Ear Plugs" made. A wax mold is made of one’s ear canal, a soft rubber reproduction of it manufactured, which when inserted into one’s ear canal comes out just to the canal entrance. On that end of the plug is a small hole, into which the little plastic tab on the back of provided "attenuators" is inserted. The attenuators are flat discs about 1/2" in diameter and 1/8" thick, available in different values of dB attenuation---5dB, 10, 15, etc. I’ve used the plugs ever since, and they are great. The attenuation is even across the frequencies, so the resulting sound heard has the same quality as non-ear plug, with only the SPL reduced. The only problem they have caused me is in regard to dynamics---it’s hard to gauge how hard to strike my drums and cymbals to achieve proper balance with the other instruments and vocals. I haven’t had my ears tested since, but my tinnitus has progressed as I’ve gotten older. When I lay down at night, the hissing in my ears (like white or pink noise) is quite noticeable. I put on a CD, and the hissing gets masked. |
Using a tone generator, I'm good from 7Hz to 18kHz. Sometimes audio quality is how it's delivered though, like a CVT vs Automatic in car terminology.7hz is very Impressive, that would be 2 octaves lower than the lowest note on a piano. I am guessing its a rumble you can hear and not a specific note? |
Why do some believe that enjoying music starts with the ability to hear frequencies of 14k and up? My frequency hearing limit is currently around 12k, and I still love music as long as it sounds the way I think it should. I'm way over 60 years of age, but I'm still very much able to hear differences, can hear differences between equipment, specially speakers, so I'm still able to make choices, and to purchase the equipment which sound right to my ears. Anyway, believe me, (and I'm sure most of you know) a vast majority of the audible music is not in the 14k-18k frequency range ;) |
