Are you too old to be an audiophile?

WOW! SO many responses. And seemingly no hostility either. Thanks!

I totally agree that it's all about the enjoyment of the music and how you perceive it, and that most of the music lies in the midrange and not in the extreme upper frequencies. I also agree that its about LISTENING and not just HEARING, but obviously compromised hearing must degrade the ability to accurately judge a system from a neutral perspective. For example, if you can't hear about 14khz then adjusting an EQ all the way up or down above tat point makes no difference to you, but may be driving others crazy!

but obviously compromised hearing must degrade the ability to accurately judge a system from a neutral perspective.

I'm not sure I get this. What's the point. Who needs to judge a system from a neutral perspective? Do any of us listen from a neutral perspective? What would a neutral perspective be judging a system based upon and how does that bear any relation to how any one of us may actually enjoy (or not) that system? That's like suggesting some culinary dish be judged from a "neutral" perspective...really, how do you do that and what is the point?

I often get the feeling from this sort of slant on the hobby, that it's some kind of contest and there will be prizes awarded at some point. Who's gonna' win the shiny new George Foreman Grill this year?! I can't wait to find out.

@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?

Dopogue, I was thinking the same. Doug, how old are you? If we were to take your stance one step farther we should all give up in our early twenties 'cuz we all know it is nothing but downhill from there. ;-)

Dopogue, Dan_ed, I appreciate your input.

I am 48, have been building two channel audio systems since my early 20's, so for about 25 plus years. I have built dozens upon dozens of HiFi systems in that time. Would my argument carry more weight if I was 63, or perhaps 71? To some, perhaps, but not in principle.

My argument is not one based on age and experience but physical ability. I'll point out again that my agenda in taking this position is not to attack individuals who are older and have hearing loss. If a person were hearing compromised in their teens would we suggest that this would be an advantage in setting up a system? Of course not. But somehow, because we want to protect the more aged (those with the big bucks in this hobby) we pretend that hearing compromises are a non-issue. Since when does experience in listening to music translate into making hearing difficulties magically disappear or over time be of no hindrnace to achieving a better result.

If anyone wants to follow Mrt into his quagmire of audio relativism go right ahead. Distinguishing better and best systems is an easy thing to do; in fact we do this naturally as we hear them. At shows we nearly automatically categorize and rate different rigs, ending up with our personal list of favorite/best systems.
Of course this is not in an absolute sense, but it is our ranking, and that's what counts when we lay down our money. But it's funny how many people end up agreeing on what constitutes the best sound. To suggest that because there is no "perfect" system somewhere hearing loss is a non-issue is a non-sequitur. This is why I have said more than once that Mrt obufscates matters rather than contributing practical help. He loves to sit and philosophize; well, that doesn't get one a better rig! I DO firmly believe that achieving a better result with a system enhances one's enjoyment of the music and love for it. So, I'm automatically going to be on guard for anything which inhibits that goal.

I thought of another age related example - arthritis. I have been a jogger for about that same amount of time, about 25 years. Over the past three or four years there are more pronounced aches in my body related to exercise. Is this the beginning of arthritis? I do not know. Whether arthritis or not are these aches an advantage to my running? Certainly not. Do they magically disappear? No. Do they hinder me from running as fast as I used to? When I time myself the answer is yes.

The effect has been incremental; I've added about 30 seconds of time to each mile. When I'm jogging it seems like virtually no difference, but in absolute terms the performance has suffered. If I were a young guy like Farjamed would I want to learn pacing from a guy with arthritis (a natural progression; who's blaming anyone for arthritis or hearing loss?), who can't run at the same pace as they used to? Or would he prefer a man who is arthritis-free and can run faster? (Again, an imperfect analogy, but it does illustrate the potential deleterious impact of a physical limitation). Perhaps an older man without arthritis in good condition would make for a wonderful running partner; someone with experience and no physical impediment.

It's not logical to suggest the young runner will get the same results no matter which running partner he chooses. Perhaps an older more experienced runner has incredible passion and his arthritic condition should be ignored. That is the argument of those debating me. Runners know there's a million ways to run, and that there's no "perfect" running, but there IS poor running/training and better running. People shooting for being the best in running do not take a laissez-faire attitude about the mechanics and training involved in running.

I do not take a laissez-faire attutude about building audio systems. There are things which enhance and things which inhibit making the best rigs, and no amount of wishful thinking changes it. I do not spend a lot of time worrying over such things, but when the topic is brought up it needs to be accepted for what it is, a problem to be overcome. I do wear earplugs when playing raquetball, and both foam earplugs and a set of head muffs when running the lawn tractor. I do not want to invite hearing damage, and I strongly suggest to Farjamed and other younger audiophiles that they actively protect their hearing if they want to ward off environmentally induced hearing loss.

In a similar fashion to the example of arthritis negatively impacting the running, hearing loss has a real world consequences. Am I saying that it makes establishing rigs with better sound more difficult? Yes. (Again, if you want to flounder in a sea of uncertainty with questions such as, 'What's better sound?' feel free). Go to a show and you'll know what better sound is in one day or one weekend.

Part of the problem inherent in this discussion is the ignorance of most audiophiles that they think there is far less room to advance the rig than there really is. On the spectrum of systems far too many sit around the medium quality mark and are fooled into thinking they have true top end sound. My point is important simply on the premise that if someone can't hear well they might not be motivated to move into the category of top end sound. That may not be too much of an issue for them, but it IS an issue if they are presuming to be teaching others what great sound is like!