Unlike my father, I used ear protection when he was using chain saws, drills, impact hammers, etc. Unlike my wife, I use ear protection at rock concerts. My hearing is good to 16 kHz when tested. Probably better. I'm 65 and have excellent hearing. My father's hearing substantially deteriorated in his early 80s. My wife can't stand piccolos, flutes and percussive piano sounds. My mother, who like me, protected her hearing all her life, also has excellent hearing at age 87. So, protect your hearing and you probably won't lose it, unless bad genetics are involved.
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 posts total
@rkronk Kris Kristofferson was misdiagnosed with Alzheimer's. He actually had Lyme disease. He recovered from Lyme disease and continued performing. The most irritating aspect of posting meaningful tweaks on this forum is the knuckleheads here automatically accuse you of shilling for the manufacturer. What it reveals is that they don't have acute hearing by claiming that sonic improvements are imaginary and audio products are snake oil. It also reveals that the systems they listen to don't allow discernment of improvement because they're listening to crappy gear. |
It doesn't get much more pretentious than this. Insinuating the people that choose to buy less expensive, higher value gear can't hear the differences is ridiculous. I had some some high end speakers displayed in my showroom back in the 1990s...that had a patent on the cabinet design...which placed the most lifelike image of live musicians into the room that I have ever experienced, and have not experienced since. I demoed them to a prospective customer that absolutely loved them. I asked the gentleman that referred him to me what the prospects thoughts were. Answer: Not expensive enough. Most people buy equipment based on what they can hear. Some people buy equipment because the price is higher, regardless if it actually sounds better. A $500 interconnect will not make a $500 amplifier present a better image in the room...and spending that kind of money expecting that result because someone simply said it would...makes no sense to me.
|
It doesn’t get much more pretentious than this. Insinuating the people that choose to buy less expensive, higher value gear can’t hear the differences is ridiculous.You are right... And no one need to pay to buy acoustic or psychoacoustic law.... they cost nothing to apply and make a difference bigger than ANY upgrade... Relating price and S.Q. exceeding a certain boundary quality is no more possible....And this boundary is way more low than what most audiophiles think.... |
- 223 posts total