2. misc-audio
  3. 1169304472

Hearing loss and audio reviewers ? READ ON

I have always found it very funny that the age where many of us get finally able to afford some of the high end audio gear...comes at a time where our hearing is no longer 100%.

What about audio reviewers ?

What is even funnier is the ''analysis'' of minute sound differences between things like cables and amplifers by couch potato reviewers like Sam ''wine-and-dine-me-for-a-review'' Tellig - and so many others - that probably could not hear the difference between a Taco Bell and a cow bell - as we NEVER question their hearing ability.

Is this not a very important issue - and bias - to take into account - that would affect one's credibility when making any comments on how hi-fi gear sound? And these guys go on describing gear with ridiculous adjectives as if gear had a mind of it's own, and as if they can actually HEAR all of these subtilities.

I'm not saying some of these reviewers cannot hear properly - many can, of course. It's just that it would be nice to know what hearing competence they actually have before they use this very real power to either lift of harm some of the smaller manufacturers with their reviews.

What if, just for example, there was a hearing test done by an credible organization that showed that Mr.Tellig or (put your favorite reviewer's name here) and that showed hearing loss of 30% - or - even worse - a frequency area that has become insensitive to the reviewer. If for example, Tellig no longer can hear correctly in the midrange frequencies - and he goes on raving about brandX speaker and it's ''glorious midrange''?

I say publish a hearing graph for all of these reviewers that we put on a pedestal! I'm dreaming of course but you get the point...

B-T-W, same goes for ''expert'' salespeople comments in hi-fi shops.

This is why the ultimate test will always be our own ears-on experience. Anything else is just toy and gear lust - nothing wrong with that, that's what a large part of this hobby is about anyways....

What do you think ?
soniqmike
jaybo
4,478 posts
 
well put. i will add that the stakes for a great review are higher than ever. positive exageration is almost manditory for a smaller company to see a bright if shortlived future.
bigtee
803 posts
 
Personally, I think bias towards a particular type of presentation (sound wise) tells more. ST seems to like the British sound.
Hearing is a funny thing and it's not all about frequency measurements. I'm 54 years old and my last hearing test back in late 2006 showed my hearing (as frequency goes) to be well above average. However, my "Hearing" is not as good as it us to be. You know sound is not a single frequency. Your ears can become directional and your dealings with multiples of frequencies combined may diminish. It could be a mental thing! Try running a 60hz buzz and see when you can "Hear" a frequency an octive above. Then turn off the 60 hz and see how loud that frequency was before you heard it.
When I read reviewers articles, I try to look at what they liked over the years. It shows their biases. I found the bright, sterile sound of some audio equipment horrible. I like a little warmth and harmonic texture. Human voices don't sound sterile in real life! I look for reviewers with similiar tastes. We are ALL biased you know.
As for dealers "Experts" give me a break. Most learn a few buzz words and proclaim to be golden ears. It takes time to learn audio and to learn equipment. Every once in a while, you run across a true audiophile at a dealership. You can usually tell because they will dfiscuss all equipment equally and know what they sell is not for everyone. They also want be 20 years old!!!!
Sometimes, like audio, somethings measure like crap but sound good. In hearing, I think experience and other things matter also rather than basing solely on a frequency hearing test.
jameswei
883 posts
 
Just two observations in defense of older reviewers.

First, I believe much of a person's reviewing ability depends on knowing what to listen for. When I started this hobby, I couldn't tell the difference between a lot of things, like mid-fi versus high end. I find the more I listen, the more I can tell -- and this is a mental aspect, not just hearing. I expect reviewers should be fully ramped on this.

Secondly, I believe the more common hearing loss is at the high frequencies, and that this goes gradually. For example, at some point one may not hear the highs as well as before but still be able to hear them (at effectively lower volume/intensity). When the highest highs become completely inaudible, the next highest highs are heard at reduced volume, etc. on a rolling basis. If one listens to live music, say at concerts, one can get a fix on the observed loudness of the highs that can still be heard and compare that to reproduced music. If one can still hear something at 15k Hz, even though it may not be as subjectively as loud as when one was twenty years younger, one can still compare live versus recorded.

The fact that so much of music is not at the far extremes of frequency also supports the reviewers' reports. E.g., I am not going to discard JA's opinions now that I know he can't hear to 20k Hz.
nsgarch's avatar
nsgarch
2,524 posts
 
And other than Keith Lockjaw and Michael Tilson Tom Tom, most orchestra conductors are over 70. How do they do their jobs with such limited hearing? And Beethoven -- well, let's not go there . . . . . . . .
.
Post removed 
More to discover