What is your point; that only 2 year olds are qualified to make judgements on the sound of reproduced music? Yes, absurd...
The Absurdity of it All
50-60-70 year old ears stating with certainty that what they hear is proof positive of the efficacy of analog, uber-cables, tweaks...name your favorite latest and greatest audio "advancement." How many rock concerts under the bridge? Did we ever wear ear protection with our chain saws? Believe what you will, but hearing degrades with age and use and abuse. To pontificate authority while relying on damaged goods is akin to the 65 year old golfer believing his new $300 putter is going to improve his game. And his game MAY get better, but it is the belief that matters. Everything matters, but the brain matters the most.
223 responses Add your response
An arbitrary decision that it somehow must be a bunch of old stubborn guys who are the only ones hearing such things. Falling to recall, or understand, that these people were also younger when they discovered this and heard it. that it is not some sort of late in life discovery and some form of weird 'old man insistence' of being right. Ok. Sure. Whatever. If attempting to use logic, one must use the entire package and all data, not just selective projected bits of each. Otherwise the answers and conclusions are as inaccurate as the question posed. |
| Post removed |
OP, you talk as if we old timers just started life at 60! Sorry, but I've been playing music for 50 yrs and bought my first record at age 8. That would be 62 yrs ago. The one advantage that age has is experience. In my case, 60 yrs of hearing music, both live & recorded. So, yes, I CAN speak with a certain amount of authority. Science cannot prove everything. To believe so is SCIENTISM. Again, 96% of the universe is missing. Yet modern man believes he has a great amount of knowledge, in spite of the fact that there is only 4% that can possibly be known. And of that, the smartest may know .5% at best. Maybe less. So what does man REALLY know in the full scheme of things? An extremely small amount. |
Expository Writing 101: 50-60-70 year old ears stating with certainty that what they hear is proof positive of the efficacy of analog, uber-cables, tweaks...name your favorite latest and greatest audio "advancement." How many rock concerts under the bridge? Did we ever wear ear protection with our chain saws? Believe what you will, but hearing degrades with age and use and abuse. To pontificate authority while relying on damaged goods is akin to the 65 year old golfer believing his new $300 putter is going to improve his game. And his game MAY get better, but it is the belief that matters. Everything matters, but the brain matters the most.You were doing a pretty good job (okay honestly you were doing a horrible job, but pretty good for here) building a case for, well something. You are upset- triggered, frustrated, confused- that much is clear. Point being to encourage more humility and less dogmatism.Ahh, and you thought to accomplish this with.... a bunch of unrelated gripes? D-. If you submit a re-write today we will drop the D-. Agreed? |
Few points: First, your general point -- "dogmatism is bad" -- seems easy to grant. To that I would only add, "Mean people suck." Second, people who have learned to listen may have more to say than people who haven't, regardless of age. I used to think that if I was having a problem with my computer, I could just ask any nearby teenager or twenty-something. Turns out, most of them don't know how these things work, either. Find someone who knows, and age is irrelevant. Indeed, people using computers longer know more because you had to do more to get them to work, early on. Third, if my hearing is that of a 50-something, why wouldn't I want the advice of someone in my generation, with a roughly commensurate hearing ability? We don't ask kids about the taste of wine because their taste buds are not in the same state as ours, and their preferences are wildly different. |
Well OP I took care of my ears. Every concert (well over 150) I wore ear protection if it was needed.. The last 50 - 60 I went to they were pretty small venues, WITHOUT a lot of LOUD!!! I still kept plug in my pocket.. A lot of my counterparts (mechanics) didn't take care of there ears... BAD buddy.. A lot of the engine guys like me are just DEAF.. I always used plugs and muffs.. Always.. You actually got sent home if you were caught being a dumbass. Not protecting your ears.. The secondary stuff cinched it for a lot, drag racing, hot rodding bikes, loud music, WEAPONS fire (huge one) not supervised (no muffs). BASSHEADS for get it, I wouldn't hire one.. PERIOD To dumb to protect your ears.. Dummy... No I ain't laughing.. DUMMY!!!! I've see KID almost pass out in "The Breach" A bass chamber I built.. DUMMIES!! LOL |
People need to have their hearing tested and measured and report the certified results here. Then one can rightfully claim golden ears and tell others what they may be missing. Any age. Until then..... In all seriousness, an old guy is way way way more unlikely to hear what a young guy hears. That folks is a scientifically established fact. Those are so inconvenient sometimes! So just take that into consideration when advising others. Maybe that’s why its mostly all old guys in the club here. |
Strange and flawed premise. It should read something like: Isn’t it amazing that those who’ve had their ears in this game for most of their lives can still call it correctly when something is better or amiss? And, does that indicate that the ear-brain relationship operates on a level that we have yet to fully understand? Could it be that there’s more computational operations going on behind the curtain than perviously thought? That would be a better starting point than a gripe. All the best, Nonoise |
I have to admit we all need to take a look at our selves in the mirror and acknowledge that we are all in deed getting older ( average audiophile age is above 50 now) and we cannot hear all the things we used to regardless of perceived experience. if you have not had your hearing tested recently I'd suggest you do, you may be surprised at how much you have lost, or surprised at what you have not. regardless above 50 your not hearing what you used to period. doesn't mean its bad, or not enjoyable, etc. just facts. facts seem to be missing more often then not on here lately. |
I apologize if my post appears to be a futile "gripe." Realistic appraisal of old ears and what they can and cannot hear. Not taking that into account AND then espousing true doctrine and ridiculing the measurement gang. Not exactly entertaining perspective. (I never saw anyone wearing ear protection at any rock concerts or car races until just recently. My first rock concert was 1971, Deep Purple or Elton John. Memory cells gone the way of my hearing.) Joe |
I think one, just one, of the major contributors to the confusion about the results of loss of hearing at an advanced age is the failure of people to recognize much of what they hear and judge audio highs by resides in much lower frequency ranges. So when they hear sound clearly in the 1500 to 3000 hz range they attribute this to sounds in the 5000 (+/-) range and think their hearing is still pretty good. My age related loss of hearing mainly affects what it does to my appreciation for holographic imaging - I can still hear all the notes, just not so much the 'air'. Which is good. I'm no longer an airhead! And, therefor, I'm not inclined to discuss (or argue about) my views, or those of others, of cables/interconnects and power cords. But I still hear and appreciate the music! |
Why, oh why, is there so much projection done on the part of the flat earth naysayers? They are the ones with their panties in a bunch, not the hobbyists. They are the ones who preach dogma, not the other way ’round. They are the ones who want consensus on their terms and brook no argument. That, and they are so very, very tiring. All the best, Nonoise |
Why, oh why, is there so much projection done on the part of the flat earth naysayers? (i.e. ones who reject basic science). They are the ones with their panties in a bunch, not the hobbyists (you mean the ones that fight tooth and nail at every opportunity to use their eyes for listening? those ones?). They are the ones who preach dogma, not the other way ’round (dogma, like claiming things don’t work that do, or that they are infallible, that dogma?). They are the ones who want consensus on their terms and brook no argument. (those awful people and their awful terms, like reliable, and repeatable, and ears only. horrible horrible people). |
Everyone looses some part of their hearing at different frequencies, young and old . In the service , shooting weapons ,weed whacking, mowing our lawns, snow blowing ,leaf blowing, for certain not everyone or even most always wore hearing protection at all times ,even a blender is technically too loud.As you get older you will loose certain frequencies ,some more then others . That’s life .I am 62 and went to plenty of concerts where it may have been too loud ,So be it .I enjoyed it and I still enjoy music daily . just be great full for what you can hear. |
Human hearing of great maestros, matured over fifty are not out of their place because some ignorant people here will claim so...A great maestro can spot a single musician playing right or wrong or not playing in his orchestra in spite of his age.... Hearing pitch and musical cues are not always innate, it is a learned ability, save for perfect pitch hearer.... And pitch perception DOES NOT reduce itself to pure frequencies hearing, it is not so simple...Save for simple mind.... And this war between subjectivist and objectivist is ridiculous... People short of argument take a side in an deadlock case, an ended road ... And some came here quarelling people who speak about their sound experience with gear to ask them pass a hearing test or a blind test if not attack them... These audio threads are for PARTAKING experience and information... Blindtest CANNOT be systematically organized and anyway are NOT the solution.... Is it not ridiculous? Which one the most ridiculous? Take your side... But this is waste of time... Better to read a book..... I will not suggest here for the moment the book i was reading, someone supposedly informed qualify the writer to be ignorant without even knowing the book , after all the writers’s life of studying acoustic...Is it not astounding ? It astound me the BIAS of some here and i dont speak about hearing bias here.... 😊 I will read the book... |
Audiogon is an audiophile site. Why their are so many people here who detest audiophiles (at any age) is a mystery.Very simple... Some "Not so great mind" like to bash minds which they estimated lower than themselves in knowledge and experience... It is mankind story.... It is way better to be enthusiast, trustful, open, if you are a true great mind for sure....Life is more easy....And the thinking process is more creative if not more neutral....I dont doubt you are one of those true great mind boxer... My best to you.... |
Sounds to me like a standard existential crisis. If we were to look at the process of ‘hearing’ music, and try to find the most ‘repeatable’ method of doing so, no matter the subject, the first thing to remove from the picture would be the brain. Too much experience coloring the sound. Next would be the ears, then air, then walls, then speakers. The problem is that once you have removed these things, there is no ‘hearing’ left. The process is subjective and flawed, and looking for scientific repeatability is a fools errand. Our experience of hearing is just that - an experience. Sartre solved the problem by putting existence ahead of essence. Our subjectivity (enlarged with age) makes for more critical listening ability. The essence (pure music without colorization) can only happen after the existence, therefore is already processed and colored by it. There is no hearing without the faults this thread is trying to identify and resolve. This shouldn’t mean that we give up on a subjective ideal, that would be too unhuman of us. Instead we should succumb to the flawed process and learn to appreciate the wealth of subjective folly that comes with age. Even bad directions can get you to the right place, if your willing and able to enjoy the trip (and not stuck with an oar). Just my 2 cents - except the last part. That was Homer. He’s old. |
Newbee-- Good point. And maybe that explains an odd phenomenon with hearing aids. You put them in; you hear sounds you cannot hear otherwise. But what then happens is when you take the aids out, you once again can hear those sounds. (Your notes may explain how the brain can do this--likely by associating those low frequencies with the ones the hearing aids demonstrate to the dumb-ass brain are missing.) |
Sounds to me like a standard existential crisis. If we were to look at the process of ‘hearing’ music, and try to find the most ‘repeatable’ method of doing so, no matter the subject, the first thing to remove from the picture would be the brain. Too much experience coloring the sound. Next would be the ears, then air, then walls, then speakers. The problem is that once you have removed these things, there is no ‘hearing’ left. Correct. https://youtu.be/5FELdBsixGg?t=115 |
I am 61 and get my hearing checked as part of my annual physical. The nurses always comment that my results are comparable to a teenager. I am one of those that claims to hear a difference between stock power cables and speaker cables. I can’t tell you what you can hear, but I can hear a difference. Isn’t that what really matters? There is no wrong or right. |
I'm reminded of a Rodney Dangerfield joke when said he'd needed a second opinion and was told he was also ugly. |
