The Ultimate Audio Modification: Golden Ears

Just a couple general comments.

I also have been in the pursuit of the high end for fifty years.

In general, I have read professional reviews continuously. The core has been The Absolute Sound and Stereophile, adding more recently HiFi+. In general, I find them to be very consistently interpretable. You have to know the terminology and be able to read in between the lines… key words will clue you in to the experience or any slant the reviewer has not been able to avoid. Reading reviews of the same product improve accuracy greatly.

Anyway, I find it pretty easy to read a few reviews and then listen to the component without any surprises.

However, step out of that circle of publications and it becomes complete chaos. You might be able to get something out of a Stereo Times or who’s that photographer now doing high fi review, or other formats… but most often it is a waste of time.

I appreciate your considered opinion on hearing. It all sounds very logical. But I guess the thing I have to say is I don’t think it is that simple. The brain is active and helps to make up for deficiencies.

Throughout the last 35 years my female partner who has much better hearing than I ever did has gone with me and listened to equipment and I can alway describe and take her for a tour of the sound quality… in both absolute and in preferences. Either of us can completely hear and describe difference some young whippersnapper sales person with much better hearing can’t even hear. We go running from a room with high frequency hash and distortion and he doesn’t even hear it.

Finally, I meet with experienced audiophiles (some much younger) and we are equally able to discuss very subtle nuances of a sound systems presentation even with my old and somewhat compromised hearing.

None of this is an analytical argument against your very logical case. But, it just strikes me that it probably just a bit too simplistic to capture the real complexity of the subject.

Finally, just because you have truncated hearing it does not mean a better system is a waste if time or money. A good system is not turned into a great system simply by reaching higher in the frequency spectrum. Every aspect of sound improves. Also those higher reaches in sound have an impact on the lower ones that you can hear (think harmonics) so, them being there improves what you can hear.

Excellent post imo. As someone with 66 year-old ears, it resonates. I have listened to my Stereophile CD Test Disc recently to check my ears’ frequency responses, and I can still hear to 12Khz (I was hoping it was still 15Khz). What it doesn’t reveal are possible dips and inconsistencies. I am not sure I want to know! I am already spending >$10k on oral surgery and some implants, due to some hereditary dental issues. That should be hi-fi money, dammit!

As I watched these videos of Robert Harley’s superb listening room and reference system (>$1 million retail?), I realized that it wouldn’t be a wise investment for me at this age even if I had tons of money. Then again, an acquaintance who is a very respected hi-fi designer was involved in building a system for an 80 year old man that is easily a $1 million system in a $5 million house. The man only hears to 8Khz, but that million bucks got him a glorious 20-8000hz!

I do agree with what I think ghdprentice says, that learning to "hear well" and just casually listening aren’t the same. True with many things. I know as a pro photographer for 30 years, I "see" differently than most people, responding to subtle changes in the light, color balance and temperature, light and shadow, tonal scale, etc from decades of CRITICAL looking, not just casual watching. Just as good musicians hear nuances in pitch, rhythm, etc. I have a friend who is an international caliber classical pianist (with a 160 IQ!), and when he talks about the nuances and complexities of music, it is like me trying to comprehend physics, which I barely passed 40+ years ago. It is interesting that many really good musicians aren’t hi-fi audiophiles. One would think that they would want to best music reproduction they can get, but they hear even music on the car radio differently than non musicians, in their heads.

You kids, protect your ears, whether you listen to live music (concerts) or are a musician. Almost every rock musician I’ve met of a certain age has hearing loss.

Robert Harley’s Listening Room

Pt 1: High-End Room Construction & Acoustic Treatment

Pt 2: Reference System

https://youtu.be/OtUcfiaN6CY?si=1tAQ_LBrxzqpzjGD

https://youtu.be/ykNrHac1Zbo?si=pBFpnUaJxZ0Z4GzQ

psalvet

We mostly assume reviewers have golden ears because they are in the business.

I certainly make no such assumption, and do not believe in the concept of "golden ears." While some people have better hearing than others, most of us share basic human physiology, which limits our abilities. None of us can run like a cheetah or hear like a bat.

Some listeners are better trained and have more experience, but that doesn't mean they have "golden ears."

Each one of us had innate or unconsciously acquired biases, but most trained recording engineers trained acousticians and trained musicians had "golden ears" consciously acquired new biases ...

"Golden" means trained... Not trained by listening 300 amplifiers or speakers in relation to their price tags... Trained in musical and in acoustical factors and recording conditions and experimental and experiential concepts ...

Why did i say "trained" ?

Because nobody can perceive easily and accurately an acoustic factor without any concept about it...Without any concept we perceive nothing or chaos... Ask a baby...

Concept and perception are deeply intertwinned...

Most reviewers are sellers... Not trained...

This is why concepts are necessary not only to hear but to listen...hearing with conscious perceptive understanding...

Seeing a lion and a cheetah is RECOGNIZING by habit the two... But really seeing them and understanding seeing them the MEANING of their morphology differences is another matter... It ask for a zoologist trained eyes... Naming a lion is not seeing a lion... Just naming a piece of music or a set of sounds by recognition does not means seeing and hearing really this piece of music or this set of sounds in all his perspectival deep meanings ..

"Golden" seeing exist too... Read Leonardo Da Vinci nature observation and Goethe morphology or colors observations or Archimedes method of seeing ....Or just Darwin descriptions...

Or just study the creator of fractal geometry to understand why we need concepts to perceive any form... Mandelbrot book  about fractal geometry was first published in french in 1976, the writer was unknown researcher at Bell laboratories and his book was so amazing it is till today one of the great one hundred most important book i ever read...

Without concept we see and hear nothing, we are "robot" recognizing what we unconsciously be programmed by education to recognize on a superficial level...

Guys sometimes golden ear isn't always you really want. It is actually dermatological disease of accumulating "gold" dust with sticky liquid between ear shell and head skin. 

Two points re: "Golden ears" and old ears:

1. It doesn’t seem to be necessary to actually be physiologically capable of hearing all frequencies in order to “listen well.” I don’t know how to explain this, but I have a sweet anecdote to illustrate it. My music teacher was Botso Koresheli; he grew up in Georgia (Tbilisi) and had to leave because of Stalin. For some years, he lived in southern Germany, and performed—violin—in the Munich Philharmonic. One week, their guest conductor was the great Bruno Walter, who was already quite elderly, and had significant hearing loss. And yet.... 

As Botso told the story, during rehearsal, someone in the second violins was playing a particular note on an open string. Walter stopped the orchestra, said that someone was playing on an open string, and gently requested that they not do so. So the music began again, and a minute later Walter again brought the players to a halt: “Someone is still playing on an open string. Please; no more!” They began again, and once more a minute later, Walter stopped the orchestra. This time, he didn’t say anything, but everyone saw a tear roll down his cheek. No one played on an open string after that.

I tell the story to make a point about “critical listening.” If the 80 year old Bruno Walter could hear a single violin playing on an open string, there’s hope for all us old guys. Maybe it’s "neural plasticity"—the brain’s ability to "re-wire" itself to make up for some cognitive loss or other. Or maybe it’s the kind of "conceptual" sophistication that is at the bottom of all perception, as Mahgister remarks. Whatever it is, embrace it.

2. I would attach a screen shot of a chart of the frequency ranges of various musical instruments and male and female voices below if I could. It was posted to a tube fetish site called "glowinthedarkaudio"; you can find it there under "Opinions." Nothing on the chart exceeds 4 kHz. Sure, there are overtones higher than that. But...

Just sayin’.

What a great post and meaningful anecdote... Thanks...

I will add that we dont hear a "playing tonal timbre" only by frequencies analysis... A tonal timbre is a BODY with a face  not only a concept, it is a concept made flesh as sound , a complex entity Walter has deal with all his life as dealing with a human being...You can recognize someone you love and his walking style at a long distance, in the same way Walter knew how the violin must sound and perceive it as the brain /ears do with way more than just fourier analysis of a frequencies bundle...

Then a lost by aging of the upper higher range means not deafness, it means a light impediment nothing else...I am 72 years old and i tuned my room by ears to my utmost satisfaction for my "limited" ears... Not for yours... 😊

Two points re: "Golden ears" and old ears: 1. It doesn’t seem to be necessary to actually be physiologically capable of hearing all frequencies in order to “listen well.” I don’t know how to explain this, but I have a sweet anecdote to illustrate it. My music teacher was Botso Koresheli; he grew up in Georgia (Tbilisi) and had to leave because of Stalin. For some years, he lived in southern Germany, and performed—violin—in the Munich Philharmonic. One week, their guest conductor was the great Bruno Walter, who was already quite elderly, and had significant hearing loss. And yet.... As Botso told the story, during rehearsal, someone in the second violins was playing a particular note on an open string. Walter stopped the orchestra, said that someone was playing on an open string, and gently requested that they not do so. So the music began again, and a minute later Walter again brought the players to a halt: “Someone is still playing on an open string. Please; no more!” They began again, and once more a minute later, Walter stopped the orchestra. This time, he didn’t say anything, but everyone saw a tear roll down his cheek. No one played on an open string after that. I tell the story to make a point about “critical listening.” If the 80 year old Bruno Walter could hear a single violin playing on an open string, there’s hope for all us old guys. Maybe it’s "neural plasticity"—the brain’s ability to "re-wire" itself to make up for some cognitive loss or other. Or maybe it’s the kind of "conceptual" sophistication that is at the bottom of all perception, as Mahgister remarks. Whatever it is, embrace it. 2. I would attach a screen shot of a chart of the frequency ranges of various musical instruments and male and female voices below if I could. It was posted to a tube fetish site called "glowinthedarkaudio"; you can find it there under "Opinions." Nothing on the chart exceeds 4 kHz. Sure, there are overtones higher than that. But... Just sayin’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More to discover

• The ultimate system? Cost no object

It is true in my forty year history as an ear doctor that men seem to lose thier high frequency more than women.its great your wife can help.women were better at color matching shades of teeth for crowns on teeth.implants are great but expensive better than dentures.hearing aids have come a long way in technology even though it's the best we have its still not like natural hearing.its a great statement for the kids to protect thier hearing.they never told our generation that.enjoy the music and life.

(...and sometimes it's a toss betwixt the DIY Home Lobotomy on YT or Alberts' Audio Augermentation  Array...

"Just screw them in until it stops being painful; when (and if) you do regain consciousness, it'll all be alright...."

Huh?

;)

@ghdprentice. I completely agree with you. I've been reading the Hi Fi press since the late 1970s - both UK and US publications. Along with TAS and Stereophile, Hi Fi News is pretty reliable. As you say, over time one gets to know various reviewer's likes and dislikes and to read between the lines. In addition, when one triangulates that with personal listening to the products under review one can form a sort of aural LUT that can make reviews useful. John Atkinson and Paul Miller's measurements help further. Personally, I find most of the online journalism pure gobbeldygook.

Wouldn't a set of hearing aids also have its own sonic signature? 

"Wouldn't a set of hearing aids also have its own sonic signature? "

Absolutely! My 73 year-old ears have needed hearing aids for years now. It has been an expensive journey through several pairs of $6500+ hearing aids that sounded so irritating that I couldn't stand to hear conversations through them, let alone music. 

Finally a musician recommended Widex hearing aids to me! Also very expensive but they are the most natural sounding hearing aids I am aware of. I consider them to be one of the best audio system upgrades I have ever made. 

One last point: even with young and properly functioning hearing, perception varies from individual to individual. No one hears exactly the same, just as no one sees exactly the same. And that is before experience and training enters the picture.

@cleeds 1++

What you get out of most reviews is the reviewer's preference. One reviewer will always say the more expensive piece sounds better. Another expects a system to be way too bright. Most reviewers have no idea what they are listening to because they have never measured it. One can have no idea what a speaker is doing in a given room without measuring it. Reviewers should publish the frequency response of their reference system and of what they are reviewing. They should also tell you the volume they are listening at. As an example a speaker/room with a rising frequency response in the 3 kHz to 6 kHz range will sound very detailed at low levels, but will have unacceptable sibilance at higher levels. 

Some people, who are every experienced, can tell what a system sounds like basically by knowing what type of speaker is involved and by looking at the frequency response curve. 

@psalvet

Great Post. Everything I could meaningfully add has already been stated by subsequent posters. Let me just say that a professional reviewer probably has no economic incentive to reveal their hearing results. If they aren’t perfect, it will make them suspect. And even if they do have a great audiogram, it would only be meaningful if all other reviewers (i.e., the competition) were compelled to publish there results as well. Unless that happens all reviewers could simply imply they don’t have an issue and there is no way to verify their claims

"Reviewers" are first and foremost authors.  Their work is more likely better accepted for their literary content of the review is favorable and they can prove their large vocabulary and unique descriptive terms.  I do know of one reviewer that used to play favorites with his reviews.  Very positive for his friends, less so for their competition.  Others were less biased, but still brought personal experience into their "objectivity."  

There is ONLY ONE SET OF EARS TO TRUST.  Your own.  You either like a speaker or not.  Upstream electronics can make a difference so keep that in mind.

Personally, I have heard one pair of Golden Ear speakers, one of their top models.  In the room I heard them and on the electronics that were used, they were dismal.  That is inconsistent with reviewers' opinions.  What I heard was probably severely compromised by upstream electronics and uncontrolled room acoustics.

I don’t read purely subjective reviews as much these days, but early on I got good general impressions from reviewer’s subjective impressions about different speaker types, tube vs solid state amps and pre-amps, digital vs analog sources, cables, etc. It was all useful for me after I spent some time getting to listen to the reviewed equipment. The specifications meant little to me at that point. I learned what I like, what I don’t like, and what I don’t seem to be able to hear. At this point I can pretty much go by specifications and measurements and tell from that what kind of experience I’m going to get. That makes me more inclined to read reviews where the equipment gets rigorously measured, preferably by independent reviewers who get the same results. Still, if I’m about to spend some money I’ll definitely read whatever professional and other subjective reviews are out there.

One thing I have noticed is that if a component has a lot of user reviews there will always be differing opinions, sometimes completely contradictory, but a subjective consensus seems to rise if there are enough reviews, and my experience has been more often than not that I agree with that consensus. I also enjoy large sets of feedback from long time users because you get to learn about issues that can sneak by a professional reviewer who only has one copy of the product.

Hearing declines with age, but a lot of the issues with even the very best hifi systems are easily audible to those of us with far less than perfect hearing. There will always be things to work on that you can hear and enjoy. You've seen the videos of the guy who's deaf and uses a balloon to feel and enjoy audio vibrations? I met him at the Pacific Audiofest this year. That guy seems to be enjoying himself as much as any audiophile I've ever met. 

Golden ears was made up to promote all audio reviewers to a higher pedestal. Is there such a thing as golden eyes for video? 

We all hear differently, and we all like different types of frequencies: some like a lot of bass, some like a creamy midrange, or an analytical sound. There is no golden formula here. I know if I go into a room at an audio show with benchmark equipment, it will be on the very cool analytical side, or go into a McIntosh/classe/tube room, you will get a more warmer sound.

I haven’t listened to any of these so called audio reviewers for years because everything that comes out of their reviews is that this component even with its flaws is the best of the best, highly recommended. I’ve never seen a negative audio review nor a review that rates a set of components from 1st to last place.

I’ve bought stuff on the trusting years of the guys from the magazines and I honestly don’t know that we were listening to the same equipment. Most of these guys are getting old and so are there ears…. I know they have a lifetime of experience but it only makes sense to have somebody trained who is like in their 30s

I thought this was about the speakers. 👎

@mrskeptic excellent contribution!

I don't take much notice of 'golden ears'.   We all have different hearing including the golden eared and there is nothing special about them. Forget about the fact that your hearing is not flat and rolls off at about 10KHz, so what? You have 9 octaves left to enjoy. This does not mean that although you can't hear a 10KHz sine wave that the last octave does not need to be reproduced, it does and very much so. This higher frequency information which goes way out past the usual claimed limit of 20KHz contains harmonics which complete the waveform and allow the reproduced piano to sound more like a piano and in turn reduce listener fatigue through not having to mentally fill in the missing parts. This is the reason a supertweeter can bring so much to the party, like a sense of space, air and sound stage.

If you listen to a piano after having it equalised, by whatever means, so that it provides an equalised flat response to your non-flat hearing it would sound totally wrong and nothing like the piano you have grown to love. For natural sound it obviously requires a flat response from the amp, speakers and room.