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
Post removed 

Two points re: "Golden ears" and old ears:

1. It doesn’t seem to be necessary to actually be physiologically capable of hearing all frequencies in order to “listen well.” I don’t know how to explain this, but I have a sweet anecdote to illustrate it. My music teacher was Botso Koresheli; he grew up in Georgia (Tbilisi) and had to leave because of Stalin. For some years, he lived in southern Germany, and performed—violin—in the Munich Philharmonic. One week, their guest conductor was the great Bruno Walter, who was already quite elderly, and had significant hearing loss. And yet.... 

As Botso told the story, during rehearsal, someone in the second violins was playing a particular note on an open string. Walter stopped the orchestra, said that someone was playing on an open string, and gently requested that they not do so. So the music began again, and a minute later Walter again brought the players to a halt: “Someone is still playing on an open string. Please; no more!” They began again, and once more a minute later, Walter stopped the orchestra. This time, he didn’t say anything, but everyone saw a tear roll down his cheek. No one played on an open string after that.

I tell the story to make a point about “critical listening.” If the 80 year old Bruno Walter could hear a single violin playing on an open string, there’s hope for all us old guys. Maybe it’s "neural plasticity"—the brain’s ability to "re-wire" itself to make up for some cognitive loss or other. Or maybe it’s the kind of "conceptual" sophistication that is at the bottom of all perception, as Mahgister remarks. Whatever it is, embrace it.

2. I would attach a screen shot of a chart of the frequency ranges of various musical instruments and male and female voices below if I could. It was posted to a tube fetish site called "glowinthedarkaudio"; you can find it there under "Opinions." Nothing on the chart exceeds 4 kHz. Sure, there are overtones higher than that. But...

Just sayin’.

 

What a great post and meaningful anecdote... Thanks...

I will add that we dont hear a "playing tonal timbre" only by frequencies analysis... A tonal timbre is a BODY with a face  not only a concept, it is a concept made flesh as sound , a complex entity Walter has deal with all his life as dealing with a human being...You can recognize someone you love and his walking style at a long distance, in the same way Walter knew how the violin must sound and perceive it as the brain /ears do with way more than just fourier analysis of a frequencies bundle...

 

Then a lost by aging of the upper higher range means not deafness, it means a light impediment nothing else...I am 72 years old and i tuned my room by ears to my utmost satisfaction for my "limited" ears... Not for yours... 😊

Two points re: "Golden ears" and old ears:

1. It doesn’t seem to be necessary to actually be physiologically capable of hearing all frequencies in order to “listen well.” I don’t know how to explain this, but I have a sweet anecdote to illustrate it. My music teacher was Botso Koresheli; he grew up in Georgia (Tbilisi) and had to leave because of Stalin. For some years, he lived in southern Germany, and performed—violin—in the Munich Philharmonic. One week, their guest conductor was the great Bruno Walter, who was already quite elderly, and had significant hearing loss. And yet....

As Botso told the story, during rehearsal, someone in the second violins was playing a particular note on an open string. Walter stopped the orchestra, said that someone was playing on an open string, and gently requested that they not do so. So the music began again, and a minute later Walter again brought the players to a halt: “Someone is still playing on an open string. Please; no more!” They began again, and once more a minute later, Walter stopped the orchestra. This time, he didn’t say anything, but everyone saw a tear roll down his cheek. No one played on an open string after that.

I tell the story to make a point about “critical listening.” If the 80 year old Bruno Walter could hear a single violin playing on an open string, there’s hope for all us old guys. Maybe it’s "neural plasticity"—the brain’s ability to "re-wire" itself to make up for some cognitive loss or other. Or maybe it’s the kind of "conceptual" sophistication that is at the bottom of all perception, as Mahgister remarks. Whatever it is, embrace it.

2. I would attach a screen shot of a chart of the frequency ranges of various musical instruments and male and female voices below if I could. It was posted to a tube fetish site called "glowinthedarkaudio"; you can find it there under "Opinions." Nothing on the chart exceeds 4 kHz. Sure, there are overtones higher than that. But...

Just sayin’.

 
 
 
 

It is true in my forty year history as an ear doctor that men seem to lose thier high frequency more than women.its great your wife can help.women were better at color matching shades of teeth for crowns on teeth.implants are great but expensive better than dentures.hearing aids have come a long way in technology even though it's the best we have its still not like natural hearing.its a great statement for the kids to protect thier hearing.they never told our generation that.enjoy the music and life.

(...and sometimes it's a toss betwixt the DIY Home Lobotomy on YT or Alberts' Audio Augermentation  Array...

"Just screw them in until it stops being painful; when (and if) you do regain consciousness, it'll all be alright...."

Huh?

;)