Hearing loss and audio reviewers ? READ ON


I have always found it very funny that the age where many of us get finally able to afford some of the high end audio gear...comes at a time where our hearing is no longer 100%.

What about audio reviewers ?

What is even funnier is the ''analysis'' of minute sound differences between things like cables and amplifers by couch potato reviewers like Sam ''wine-and-dine-me-for-a-review'' Tellig - and so many others - that probably could not hear the difference between a Taco Bell and a cow bell - as we NEVER question their hearing ability.

Is this not a very important issue - and bias - to take into account - that would affect one's credibility when making any comments on how hi-fi gear sound? And these guys go on describing gear with ridiculous adjectives as if gear had a mind of it's own, and as if they can actually HEAR all of these subtilities.

I'm not saying some of these reviewers cannot hear properly - many can, of course. It's just that it would be nice to know what hearing competence they actually have before they use this very real power to either lift of harm some of the smaller manufacturers with their reviews.

What if, just for example, there was a hearing test done by an credible organization that showed that Mr.Tellig or (put your favorite reviewer's name here) and that showed hearing loss of 30% - or - even worse - a frequency area that has become insensitive to the reviewer. If for example, Tellig no longer can hear correctly in the midrange frequencies - and he goes on raving about brandX speaker and it's ''glorious midrange''?

I say publish a hearing graph for all of these reviewers that we put on a pedestal! I'm dreaming of course but you get the point...

B-T-W, same goes for ''expert'' salespeople comments in hi-fi shops.

This is why the ultimate test will always be our own ears-on experience. Anything else is just toy and gear lust - nothing wrong with that, that's what a large part of this hobby is about anyways....

What do you think ?
soniqmike
Old and famous conductors usually conduct a bunch of very experienced or very talented musicians. They have more to worry about every musician getting to the right flow and tempo of the music, guiding everyone to be in-sync with what is happening. They have less to worry about a musicians's clarinette to be off pitch, sharp of flat, as most musicians of caliber have mastered this aspect.

This is why I think older conductors are busy keeping the whole puzzle in place, but mainly in regards to the overall placement of the notes and pace. Their undertanding of the structure of a piece, and their ability communicate it in waving that ''baton'' and get everyone to follow together is the skill and talet they most need to have.

They probably have to have less of the type of ear needed to discern one flat note from a trombone playing in the back, unlike what the high school teacher needs to have when teaching music to younger or less-experienced musicians who may not yet be able to produce a constant note with regularity and the right pitch.

Just my opinion, but based on some experience too....
Standard threshold hearing test will not correlate well with the ability to discern audiophile/musical minutiae. It's a well observed phenomena that musicians and engineers who have had decades of frequent exposures to extremely loud music and show signs of permanent hearing damage are still able to hear subtle sound qualities. To a large extent knowing what to listen for can more than compensate of some impairment in physical ability.
I haven't kept up with the literature in decades, but there used to be a debate about whether HF hearing loss was natural or noise-induced, with some evidence that populations not exposed to noise did not suffer HF hearing loss with age. At the same time and in the same journals, there was wide spread speculation that exposure to high amplitude music at rock concerts would lead to a rise in HG hearing loss -- noise doing the greatest damage about a half octave above the actual exposure. And, of course, anyone who shoots firearms without ear protection is just asking for it.

Having been involved with psychoacoustic research in my early career, my hearing has been tested hundreds of times and found to be quite good. But a couple of years ago, I developed the symptoms of Manier's disease, with tinnitus and LF hearing loss. Yet it hasn't interfered with my enjoyment of stereo music, and I'm particlurly fond of chamber music and jazz where imaging and detail are so critical.

db
Bigtee
When I read reviewers articles, I try to look at what they liked over the years. It shows their biases. I found the bright, sterile sound of some audio equipment horrible. I like a little warmth and harmonic texture. Human voices don't sound sterile in real life! I look for reviewers with similar tastes. We are ALL biased you know.

A PERFECT answer. I tell people the same thing.

It matters not so much how every reviewer hears, but how a reviewers hearing (and taste) matches up to your own preferences.

If reviewer "A" always loves equipment and set ups that you hate, avoid his recommendations.

If reviewer "B" hits the bulls eye most of the time, raving about the same things you like, then give that equipment a shot to see if it works for you.

I have listened to so many systems that I can sit down with someone and get input on what they like and recommend changes that will get them closer to where they want to be. It does not matter if the changes are what I like, only that I understand what direction THEY want to go.

That's why so many different kinds of equipment are popular and why there is disagreement as to what is best.
I have some hearing loss at age 49. I listen to different components with the same ears. I can tell differences even with my compromised hearing. After all, they are my ears. Whether it is component A or component B, I hear them with the same ears.