2. misc-audio
  3. 186302-160688

The Ultimate Audio Modification: Golden Ears

Audio reviewers often differ in their impressions. They each have their preferences. Some like warm presentations; others don’t mind some brightness to get more detail. One reviewer may characterize the same piece of equipment as neutral while another reports that it emphases greater detail, or tighter bass, or a musical midrange. 

There are so many evaluation parameters to overwhelm any reader/viewer. There is tonal accuracy, instrument separation, width, height, and depth of stage. It’s enough to drive many prospective buyers into going for those devices that are most passionately described. Or buy into highly polished reviews delivered with television network anchor professionalism.

After reading so many reviews on a single piece of audio gear, we are often left wondering who is right. To their credit, most reviewers assert that their impressions are formed using their gear, in their imperfect listening rooms, and using speaker positioning that may not be achievable in most audiophile listening venues. They get credit for those caveats, but that does not make their recommendations any less flawed.

What makes most of the reviews we watch or read about questionable is that reviewers do not talk about the most important device in the audio chain, their hearing acuity. We often hear that so and so has golden ears. Great, but what does that mean? It typically means someone has many years of listening experience, and impresses with an ability to describe. I’ve never seen reviewer hearing test results or the wearing of a hearing device used to justify reviewer competence. 

We mostly assume reviewers have golden ears because they are in the business. But how do we know for sure? There is a way, of course. They could publish their hearing test results and describe corrective actions taken. It’s not difficult. There are no-cost tests available online and on our smartphones. 

Why then is it not done? Two reasons. Fear that deficient hearing, even if corrected, would lose them credibility. Second, correcting hearing deficiencies can be costly. A pair of high-end multi-channel hearing aids with EQ capability runs up to $6,600 and is not covered by insurance. Yet, what is $6,600 when so many of us, definitely over time, spend many times that amount in audio gear alone? For some audiophiles, it’s cable money.

As an audiophile for the last 50 years, I often regret not having tested my hearing until two years ago. It’s likely that my hearing acuity was not as bad during my younger years. Two years ago, my left ear tested with a huge dip in the mid-range. My right ear took a 45 degree, 40 decibel dive starting at 1 kHz. Where was the musicality some reviewers talked about but I could not hear? Where was the detail some reviewers claimed was in recordings?

Think of all the money I spent searching for gear and conditioning listening spaces in five homes. And what about all the time wasted disagreeing with others on audio gear when, more likely than not, we were each correct in what we heard. We just heard different things without knowing why. 

As reviewers often say: "This is what I think, but your mileage may vary". One-third of Americans are born with a hearing deficiency. Are you one of them and not know it? For as long as you have lived, what trauma have you brought upon your ears that may have caused peaks and valleys in your own frequency range.

Thank Mother Nature, or whoever is responsible for your good genes, if your hearing acuity shows a flat frequency response. If you see peaks and valleys, fix them as you have probably attempted many times over by buying new gear, improving room acoustics, or moving your speakers for the 100th time.

Consider that you’ll never really know if you have done everything possible to enjoy music to the fullest unless you are positive that your ears, that last piece of hardware in the audio chain, is as highly resolving as it can be. 

Some reviewers, particularly those looking for YouTube clicks, talk about Giant Killing gear. Until the next big bit of technology arrives. Many audiophiles feel disappointed at not seeing an end in sight. I’m finally ecstatic to positively know, with my “repaired golden ears”, that I have a rig and a listening space that is the most musical and resolving I can afford.

psalvet
ghdprentice
6,409 posts
 

Just a couple general comments.

I also have been in the pursuit of the high end for fifty years.

In general, I have read professional reviews continuously. The core has been The Absolute Sound and Stereophile, adding more recently HiFi+. In general, I find them to be very consistently interpretable. You have to know the terminology and be able to read in between the lines… key words will clue you in to the experience or any slant the reviewer has not been able to avoid. Reading reviews of the same product improve accuracy greatly.

Anyway, I find it pretty easy to read a few reviews and then listen to the component without any surprises.

However, step out of that circle of publications and it becomes complete chaos. You might be able to get something out of a Stereo Times or who’s that photographer now doing high fi review, or other formats… but most often it is a waste of time.

I appreciate your considered opinion on hearing. It all sounds very logical. But I guess the thing I have to say is I don’t think it is that simple. The brain is active and helps to make up for deficiencies.

Throughout the last 35 years my female partner who has much better hearing than I ever did has gone with me and listened to equipment and I can alway describe and take her for a tour of the sound quality… in both absolute and in preferences. Either of us can completely hear and describe difference some young whippersnapper sales person with much better hearing can’t even hear. We go running from a room with high frequency hash and distortion and he doesn’t even hear it.

Finally, I meet with experienced audiophiles (some much younger) and we are equally able to discuss very subtle nuances of a sound systems presentation even with my old and somewhat compromised hearing.

None of this is an analytical argument against your very logical case. But, it just strikes me that it probably just a bit too simplistic to capture the real complexity of the subject.

 

Finally, just because you have truncated hearing it does not mean a better system is a waste if time or money. A good system is not turned into a great system simply by reaching higher in the frequency spectrum. Every aspect of sound improves. Also those higher reaches in sound have an impact on the lower ones that you can hear (think harmonics) so, them being there improves what you can hear.

patrickdowns's avatar
patrickdowns
497 posts
 

Excellent post imo. As someone with 66 year-old ears, it resonates. I have listened to my Stereophile CD Test Disc recently to check my ears’ frequency responses, and I can still hear to 12Khz (I was hoping it was still 15Khz). What it doesn’t reveal are possible dips and inconsistencies. I am not sure I want to know! I am already spending >$10k on oral surgery and some implants, due to some hereditary dental issues. That should be hi-fi money, dammit!

As I watched these videos of Robert Harley’s superb listening room and reference system (>$1 million retail?), I realized that it wouldn’t be a wise investment for me at this age even if I had tons of money. Then again, an acquaintance who is a very respected hi-fi designer was involved in building a system for an 80 year old man that is easily a $1 million system in a $5 million house. The man only hears to 8Khz, but that million bucks got him a glorious 20-8000hz!

I do agree with what I think ghdprentice says, that learning to "hear well" and just casually listening aren’t the same. True with many things. I know as a pro photographer for 30 years, I "see" differently than most people, responding to subtle changes in the light, color balance and temperature, light and shadow, tonal scale, etc from decades of CRITICAL looking, not just casual watching. Just as good musicians hear nuances in pitch, rhythm, etc. I have a friend who is an international caliber classical pianist (with a 160 IQ!), and when he talks about the nuances and complexities of music, it is like me trying to comprehend physics, which I barely passed 40+ years ago. It is interesting that many really good musicians aren’t hi-fi audiophiles. One would think that they would want to best music reproduction they can get, but they hear even music on the car radio differently than non musicians, in their heads.

You kids, protect your ears, whether you listen to live music (concerts) or are a musician. Almost every rock musician I’ve met of a certain age has hearing loss.

Robert Harley’s Listening Room

Pt 1: High-End Room Construction & Acoustic Treatment

Pt 2: Reference System

https://youtu.be/OtUcfiaN6CY?si=1tAQ_LBrxzqpzjGD

https://youtu.be/ykNrHac1Zbo?si=pBFpnUaJxZ0Z4GzQ

Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,656 posts
 

psalvet

We mostly assume reviewers have golden ears because they are in the business.

I certainly make no such assumption, and do not believe in the concept of "golden ears." While some people have better hearing than others, most of us share basic human physiology, which limits our abilities. None of us can run like a cheetah or hear like a bat.

Some listeners are better trained and have more experience, but that doesn't mean they have "golden ears."

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
12,700 posts
 

Each one of us had innate or unconsciously acquired biases, but most trained recording engineers trained acousticians and trained musicians had "golden ears" consciously acquired new biases ...

"Golden" means trained... Not trained by listening 300 amplifiers or speakers in relation to their price tags... Trained in musical and in acoustical factors and recording conditions and experimental and experiential concepts ...

Why did i say "trained" ?

Because nobody can perceive easily and accurately an acoustic factor without any concept about it...Without any concept we perceive nothing or chaos... Ask a baby...

Concept and perception are deeply intertwinned...

Most reviewers are sellers... Not trained...

This is why concepts are necessary not only to hear but to listen...hearing with conscious perceptive understanding...

Seeing a lion and a cheetah is RECOGNIZING by habit the two... But really seeing them and understanding seeing them the MEANING of their morphology differences is another matter... It ask for a zoologist trained eyes... Naming a lion is not seeing a lion... Just naming a piece of music or a set of sounds by recognition does not means seeing and hearing really this piece of music or this set of sounds in all his perspectival deep meanings ..

"Golden" seeing exist too... Read Leonardo Da Vinci nature observation and Goethe morphology or colors observations or Archimedes method of seeing ....Or just Darwin descriptions...

Or just study the creator of fractal geometry to understand why we need concepts to perceive any form... Mandelbrot book  about fractal geometry was first published in french in 1976, the writer was unknown researcher at Bell laboratories and his book was so amazing it is till today one of the great one hundred most important book i ever read...

Without concept we see and hear nothing, we are "robot" recognizing what we unconsciously be programmed by education to recognize on a superficial level...

 

czarivey
5,697 posts
 

Guys sometimes golden ear isn't always you really want. It is actually dermatological disease of accumulating "gold" dust with sticky liquid between ear shell and head skin. 

More to discover