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
I don't care how good or bad the recording is. To me the fun of it all is to reproduce the recording as faithfully as possible. One of my favorite test cd's is the Monkees greatest hits. Very compressed so also very taxing on the gear. I wonder how many of you can say it sounds great. IME, all recordings have the potential to exhibit a satisfying level of reality. How you get there it seems is this site's age old question. Probably every other site's as well. The secret is not in...wires,cables, and MD.., if you get my drift. But that's another thread, already exhausted.
"I wonder how many of you can say it sounds great. "

My Monkees best of CD sounds the best it ever has by a huge margin, yes even great! I love it! Same story for most any decent quality CD of pop music from that time frame.

At the same time, these sound nothing like your typical "audiphile" recording, again mostly due to macrodynamics and the way the recording is mixed.

I would not have said that probably at any time prior to my most recent system upgrades/tweaks though.
What you're hearing on the Monkees' albums are the best LA studio players, so there is some good playing in there. Excellent playing, actually. Not sure I would enjoy listening to those tunes at this point, but to each his own.
Mapman'
Michael Nesmith was the only musician in the group...
tho, he was also unable to ride a unicycle without training wheels...