Are you too old to be an audiophile?
04-12-11: Douglas_schroeder You make some good observations, Douglas, but I'm not sure I reach the same conclusions you do. Maybe I'm unclear about your view on what is, IMO, the critical question of this thread... For audiophiles, what is the average peak age of technical listening? By "technical listening," I mean something like: the ability to discriminate differences in resolution, frequency response, transient response, harmonic accuracy, dynamic range, imaging, soundstaging, PRaT, coherence, and so on. The contrast to *technical* listening is *aesthetic* listening, which is something like: the ability to discriminate differences in interpretation, emotion, authenticity, imagery, beauty, and so on. I say "average peak age" because some audiophiles probably peak later than others, just like marathoners. But still it may be possible to generalize about an age range of peak performance for audiophiles, just as we can generalize about the age range of peak performance for marathoners. With that in mind, I suspect that, for audiophiles, the average peak age of technical listening lies somewhere in the broad range between 35 and 60. Some reasons I suspect that... 1. While fluid intelligence starts to decrease at around the age of 25, crystallized intelligence increases up until the mid to late 60's. I believe that technical listening is mostly *acquired* knowledge and expertise, and hence a form of crystallized intelligence, which increases with age. When fluid and crystallized intelligence are averaged together, the average peak age is somewhere between 35 and 60, which is the range I have speculated for the average peak performance of technical listening. Admittedly, this is a guess. 2. While age correlates with intellectual and artistic *productivity*, it does NOT correlate with intellectual or artistic *quality*, as judged by the ages at which intellectual and artistic masterworks are produced. In other words, as people age, they do less, but they don't do it less well. The studies that demonstrate this include the works of classical composers, FWIW. 3. As everyone knows, age related hearing loss is principally a consequence of damage to the hairs/cells of the ear, typically resulting in diminished high frequency perception. But the perception of an audio system's frequency response is only one element of technical listening. Technical listening is also a matter of the perception of an audio system's transient response, resolution, harmonic accuracy, dynamic range, imaging, soundstaging, PRaT, coherence, and so on. There is little reason to believe that age-related hearing loss results in a significant diminishment of the ability to discriminate those characteristics. Hence I believe that the bulk of technical listening remains largely unaffected by age-related hearing loss. The reason, I suspect, is that technical listening isn't principally something that happens "in the ears." It's principally something that happens in the brain. For these reasons, and others I haven't mentioned, I believe that, for audiophiles, the average peak age of technical listening is older than some posters on this thread seem to suggest. Bryon P.S. FWIW, I am younger than 40. |
@Jax2 You either don't get it, or as just trolling, not sure which... But if you are legitimately trying to understand my point, read Douglas Schroeder's posts. He gets it. You keep harping on the "neutral" thing. Forget I said that. I don't use an EQ either so you can stop harping on that too. I don't see how you don't understand how hearing loss can affect one's ability to judge a system. Not saying there is a prize for it, or that having "perfect" hearing is all that matters, just that the ABILITY to HEAR matters. In math, sometimes the easiest way to see how variables will affect a function is to put in variables that represent an extreme. So let's assume someone can only hear between 250hz and 2kz. Still gonna tell me it doesnt matter? I mean no offense to you if you are not trolling just trying to elicit a reaction, but I truly do not understand how you do not understand this point. @Dan_ed I chose that topic so people would read it. It is meant to sound controversial to grab people's attention. Are you too deaf to be an audiophile? You can be. If you can't hear audio is of no importance to you. Too poor? I would say no, although obviously in extreme cases the answer is yes. No money? No system at all. Too stupid? Based on some of the responses I've gotten, I'm going to have to go with no. You can never be too stupid to be an audiophile. :) Before anyone jumps on that.. It's a joke people. But obviously you can never be too irrational to still be an audiophile. How else do you justify $20K speaker wire. I am not saying I know more about high end audio than anyone on this board. I don't. You can see some of my other posts to see what my system is, and I know it's not great, but its just my starting point. I am sure that with experience you get better at building a better system, learning what you like, etc.. however one chooses to word it. My main point is that I will read people talking about the most minute details of their system, or the room, or whatever, but ignoring the fact that their hearing is the ultimate variable. You can't tell me that the frequencies above 10, 12, 14khz don't matter. Granted, to those who can't hear above that, they dont, and those frequencies arent important in building a system (for themselves), but what if you can hear above 14 or 15 or 16 or 18 khz? What if your system is always outputting a 110db sound at 40khz?? Wouldn't bother you, or anyone else for that matter, but your dog would be going nuts! Im not arguing that the midrange isn't important. I'm not saying that there is much music 'up there' or that they are my favorite frequencies. I don't understand why you think it's a topic that's hard to take seriously, but I agree with you that it sounds like most people are starting to worry. Most of the responses seem defensive to a question that was meant to be for fun. Obviously, with age comes experience (and the ability to build a better audio system) but not logic. With the exception of Douglas Schroeder, everyone here seems to think that the cables, power chords, window treatments, exact speaker placement, the type of knot in the rug covering their floor, the stands, spikes, etc etc, matter, but that their hearing, and any hearing loss they make experience with age, doesnt. What sense does this make?? None. This actually goes to something much deeper. Taken from wikipedia "Audiophile": Criticisms usually focus on claims around so-called "tweaks" and accessories beyond the core source, amplification, and speaker products. Examples of these accessories include speaker cables, component interconnects, stones, cones, CD markers, and power cables or conditioners.[15] Manufacturers of these products often make strong claims of actual improvement in sound but do not offer any measurements or testable claims. This absence of measurable (rather than subjective) improvement, coupled with sometimes high prices, raises questions about the truthfulness of the marketing.[16] Roger Russell a former engineer and speaker designer for McIntosh Labs describes the introduction of expensive speaker wire brands, and critiques their performance in his online essay called Speaker Wire - A History. He writes, "The industry has now reached the point where [wire] resistance and listening quality are not the issues any more, although listening claims may still be made....The strategy in selling these products is, in part, to appeal to those who are looking to impress others with something unique and expensive."[16] Skeptic James Randi, through his foundation, has offered a prize of $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate that $7,250 audio cables "are any better than ordinary audio cables".[17] In 2008, audio reviewer Michael Fremer attempted to claim the prize, and said that Randi declined the challenge.[18] Randi said that the cable manufacturer Pearl was the one who withdrew.[19] ---- |
@Altbrewer You bring up a very interesting point about "live music." I feel like this is completely different topic unto itself but a very interesting one. In my experience, a recording sounding "live" or like "real music" has more to do with how it was recorded and people's natural "expectations." By "expectations" I mean, how your brain subconsciously expects it to sound in the room you are currently in. I say this because I am a musician and record music. There have been times I have recorded things (with cheap equipment) and played it back over my "system" and thought it was real. As in, when I heard the voice I literally thought it was in the room with me. When I say cheap, I mean the mic on my laptop, or an inexpensive condenser mic, and when I say "system" I mean my computer speakers. I have accomplished this with "good" equipment too, but to me the ability for a recording to sound "real" has much more to do with how it was recorded than how it is played back. As for hearing loss, I totally agree with you.. it sounds good to you.. that truly is all that matters :) |
I often find it interesting, and telling, to look at the posting history of participants in a thread; particularly when there is disagreement. In the case of this thread, there are two posters, Douglas Schroeder, and Farmajed, who share a strong dissenting view. If one looks at their posting history, one notices that in the case of Douglas there are many posts in threads about equipment and technical matters, and only three posts in threads about music. In the case of Farmajed, not a single post about music. |
