This should be controversial....hearing tests...

The original post not so subtly implies that the differences of opinion on Audiogon are related to varying degrees of hearing loss in its members. If that is what you meant to say, Nudaddy, you are obviously wrong. People with equally good hearing are by no means going to agree on what equipment sounds good to them. You don't have to be around the audio world more that a few weeks to clearly recognize this. It is the classically arrogant position of the worst sort of audiophile to say, "if you don't agree with me, it is because you can't hear."

There is more to hearing at the level of hi-fidelity audio than simple frequency detection, though that is of course where it all starts. Considerable processing by higher brain functions is required before sounds are even registered in consciousness. How they are then fully experienced is influenced by a huge number of factors that I suppose can loosely be thought of to ultimately produce a person's taste in audio. For differences in perceptions about hi-fi equipment, you would be much better off looking to these higher functions than the most rudimentary.

Bingo,

If you are posting on this forum, without knowing your handicap, then are you doing a disservice to others?

Sure, what you hear is only important to yourself. That is, until you decide to contribute an opinion on system matching or component evaluations. How many hifi mag reviewers have had their hearing tested?

To hear the absolute sound of live instruments for the hearing impaired individual is quite different from the non-impaired listener, no?

Perhaps the disparity in magazine reviews between measurements and listener notes is attributable to this fact.

The same hold true for late night listening. Most say it is because lower load leads to cleaner power. How about the following explanation: your blood pressure is lower and the blood flow to the inner ears less noticeable? (just an exaggeration to make a point)

I am not implying that perfect hearing is required for a self-evaluation of a component. But truthfully, it is ridiculous to argue that a person with selective hearing loss is the best person to contribute an opinion on a public forum without knowingly revealing this loss. What is the difference if a component has a suckout of 2 db at 3,000 hz or their hearing does? The net heard result is the same, right?

The importance is identifying the reason for such a result. How else to choose a starting point for system building? Personal preferences? Etc.? Without the merry-go-round syndrome.

Appreciating music (the Kind of Blue comment) and recognizing sound characteristics of a component are two different things. Each component has individual characteristics, not necessarily GOOD or BAD (as mentioned in another post)

I am not saying one cannot enjoy hifi if they have a moderate or partial hearing loss. Not at all. What I am saying, is that a self referential analysis of a component is essential, but what is printed may not be so useful. (Not if you the reviewer has hearing deficiencies which are unknown or undocumented.)

Ultimately, I ask this question because in the Absolute Sound, Harry Pearson recently stated that rather than achieving THE absolute sound, the future of hi-end audio would lead us to AN absolute sound. It got me to thinking...

I am just talking hear. :)

Keep it light....the wife comment was great.

Albert, that explaines the shirt and pants you were wearing the last time I saw you!!!

I, for one, know that I have a substantial decrease in hearing acuity at frequencies above 12kHz, but that doesn't mean that I enjoy music any the less. I think everyone should have one or more hearing tests as they get older (particularly after age 50), but that's just good preventive medicine.

What I'd like to make mandatory, however, is hearing tests for the "golden ear" equipment reviewers that write for the high-end mags. It would be fascinating to see which ones actually have hearing deficiencies, and which audio equipment they rate highly...