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
This chart tells me I'm not hearing sibilance in the vocal range. I'm confused. Does TIM not cause sibilance at any frequency? I'm associating sibilance with clarity. Is that wrong?
While tipped up treble may open a window to all that's on recording, I agree it does not sound like music.
I agree. I think the high fidelity business in general is driven by ooooh's and aaaaaah's, which usually come from detail, detail, detail. There are many manufacturers out there who are trying to emphasize a particular frequency ranges.

I always thought this was due to the fact that the audiophile who spent lots of money wanted to be able to show others what he got for his money. "Did you hear that?" "Whoa!"
Maybe you're right, maybe it is simply due to aging geezers being harder of hearing, so the industry has to turn up the 'presence' range.

I'm quickly coming up on my mid 50's, and I admit that I was chasing that absolute sound for many years. Lately though, I have been seeking more musical gear and less transparency. I realize that I'm not hearing every last detail anymore, but listening is more relaxing and enjoyable.
Well, it's nice to know I'm not alone!!
Just as a reference (as my name probably hints..) I'm one of those audio-bores who found an excellent pair of Quad 57 ELS speakers, and as a result has given up any real intention of ever 'improving' his system. I'll never get over the fact that this ugly-looking speaker routinely performs the kind of magic that speaker makers still try to emulate - 65 years later!
I think Schubert is correct. Today's hifi industry is not at all geared toward classical music, as the original industry was. They assume that people are listening to mostly electronically produced music. This obviously makes a huge difference, as electronic timbres are much easier to reproduce than acoustic ones. This is not as much of an oversimplification as it seems. Part of it is also the recordings themselves and the digital processing. It just doesn't result in quite the right sound. Clean and detailed, yes. Really capturing all of the timbral nuances of acoustic instruments? Not so much.