2. misc-audio
  3. 1362968056

Aging and Treble and Income?

I'm in my late 50s; been listening to, and playing, music for most of my life. I still occasionally haunt the salons, but these days not to buy new gear; more just curiosity about developments in our wonderful hobby. These days I just buy music; records, CDs and the odd download.
I was listening to a very expensive system recently, a combination of an excellent digital front end, feeding an exotic tube array of components, and outputting via a beautifully constructed set of English high-end speakers.
A very impressive sound to say the least. Not like real music though: very very good hi-fi, but not real.
One of the obvious oddities was the frequency response above maybe 4k. Just incorrect. Very clear, very emphasised and incisive, no doubt, but not right.
And it occured to me that this isn't unusual. And then a set of questions came to me. For the purposes of this debate I will exclude the 128k iPod generation - their tastes in listening are their own, and as much driven by budget as space constraint as anything else. I prefer to concentrate on the generation that has increased leisure and disposable income. It's a sad fact that this generation is plagued by the inevitability of progressive hearing loss, most often accompanied by diminished ability to hear higher frequencies. But it's this generation that can afford the 'best' equipment.

My question is simply this: is it not possible (or highly likely) that the higher-end industry is driven by the need to appeal to those whose hearing is degrading? In other words, is there a leaning towards the building-in of a compensatory frequency emphasis in much of what is on the shelves? My question is simplistic, and the industry may indeed be governed by the relentless pursuit of accuracy and musicality, but so much that I have hear is, I find, very difficult to listen to as it is so far from what I believe to be reality. Perhaps there has always been an emphasis in making our sytems sound "exciting" as opposed to "honest": I can understand the pleasure in this pursuit, as it's the delight in technology itself and I see nothing very wrong in that. But, all this emphasised treble....I just wonder if anyone out there in cyberspace agrees with me?
57s4me
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
manufacturers are sensitive to criticism by reviewers, so they design equipment, with the goal of minimizing "coloration".

many current production components lack warmth and seem to be a bit peaky in the treble.

i have had arguments with designers at shows, regarding this issue, years ago. however, i realize it is a useless discussion.

however giving the consumer as much "resolution" as possible at a price point, seems to be the conventional wisdom.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,341 posts
 
I wonder how much of the perceived tipped up treble in modern gear is due to digital sources and the way they sound on most commodity digital players, especially via earphones, compared to analog in the past?

Are good modern earphones tipped up? I am not so sure they are. Most modern digital does not sound like analog or even digital from 20-30 years ago. Either medium is capable of being better these days. I'm not so sure there is anything quantitative that can be cited to support the argument that modern gear is tipped up in the treble. Look at the detailed published specifications and response curves readily available on headphone sites for most modern popular earphones/plugs. Most of the good ones show as flat in response as most anything I have ever seen on paper.

Then there is the assertion that use of negative feedback in amplification devices can produce harmonic artifacts that might be perceived as louder or brighter than otherwise. I do not doubt this is the norm with much mass produced SS gear, and probably even some "high end" stuff, but not all. I would say that I think it was way more predominant as a problem of significance for most back in the early days of SS receivers and amps from Japan, 30-40 years ago or so.
schubert
7,386 posts
 
At the end of the day all a speaker can do is let you know how your amp sounds.
Albertporter is uber-correct on imaging, greatest halls in world are clear and do not image.Why folks freak out over "imaging" is unclear.
rx8man's avatar
rx8man
1,484 posts
 
It seems, the goal of "live" reproduced music in our rooms really "is" a flavor and hall perspective preference, so where does it end?

A friend and I (mid 50's) both prefer a slightly more immediate, livelier presentation, not because we have bad hearing, it's because we don't like falling asleep!
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,341 posts
 
"greatest halls in world are clear and do not image.Why folks freak out over "imaging" is unclear."

Live venues do " image" depending on size,acoustics and where you sit, though granted hearing location of individual instruments is not a big consideration in most cases.

More importantly regarding recordings and playback in our homes/rooms, is the imaging as experienced at a live event is seldom found captured accurately on recordings, though some recordings particularly on certain labels that focus on this like Mapleshade, Dorian, and MErcury Living PResence largely, for example, do attempt this and do a pretty good job.

Recordings are mostly mixed and mastered in studios which is not the same as a live perspective in most cases.

Spatial cues exist in all recordings, live or studio, to various degrees.

Spatial cues in recordings lost during playback might rightly be considered a form of distortion, since you do not hear everything that is in the recording if the spatial cues are not delivered to the ears correctly as part of imaging and soundstage. Its a big factor in suspending disbelief that what you hear is real and not just a recording/reproduction. At least, that is how I look at it.
More to discover