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
Would be interesting to do an RTA on what people think is "tipped up". Surprised myself when I did. Turned out that what I thought was relatively flat was down more than a few dB by 10K.
A bright treble in most cases is really just distorted treble. If the system is capable of playing the treble clean then you can have a lively top end without fatigue.
" But I definitely agree with you that there is too much close miking and over-emphasis by engineers."

There are also a lot of 50+ year old audio engineers who have hearing loss in the upper frequencies. I've been in studios with engineers that have spent years working with rock bands and they are doing a final mix w/o being able to hear the full audio spectrum.
It's equal to driving blind. (note that I said in the Rock music world).
Thanks for the link Chayro.

03-12-13: Sarcher30
A bright treble in most cases is really just distorted treble. If the system is capable of playing the treble clean then you can have a lively top end without fatigue.

Absolutely true.
Sarcher has a good point and I would agree.

Both my Triangle and Dynaudio monitors are very revealing up top and can go from lovely top end with the right setup to meh easily with the wrong setup around them. It need not cost a fortune, just be done well. I've seen something as simple as rolling a tube in a DAC or the right IC make all the difference.

My larger more full range OHMs are tougher to make sound irritating on the top end, but have outstanding bandwidth and dynamic headroom and pretty much any change of even often debatable significance can be heard with those, more so than the others.