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

Showing 15 responses by csontos

My goodness! Your moniker certainly precedes you. Wow. In my world it wasn't cool to openly be a fan of the Monkees unless you were under 12 years old but I couldn't help liking them.
Well, maybe surprised. I've never seen a response curve rise at the top end. But there's a point to be made of what spl a speaker actually begins to flatten out it's response to published spec.
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?
Sorry, didn't mean to highjack the thread. It's just that as Mapman confirmed and David12 referenced, distortion can skew an otherwise well laid out/engineered listening space whether it's deliberate or not. I really don't think a quality speaker is ever going to be the culprit since they always have a descending response. No matter how good the amp or source, there's always going to be a degree of sibilance which seems to me to be where the the answer lies. Vocal clarity is the toughest to achieve and the effort to do so may be an incidental consequence to the overall response of an amp. On the other hand, there's a marked difference between vinyl/analogue and digital sources. The latter seeming to be tipped up but imo only those that are vinyl conversions. However, I may very well be one of those old farts they're compensating for.
Sure, but I'm referring to that being produced by the amp. Or should I say, emphasized by it?
It really is about distortion. And that coming from the amp imo. Lively or not, it sounds good when it's clean. It's interesting how topics come full circle to affirm conclusions arrived at on other threads. However, mine are still debatable.
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.
Since when has HI-FI been an attempt to emulate P.A. or live unamplified sound? HI-FI is simply an attempt to fool you into thinking you're 'hearing' something live.
But that's just it, Mapman, it is your gear that is responsible for mimicking the original recorded event. How well it achieves it is tantamount to reaching the goal of a realistic facsimile. It's only after you've reached that goal that you can attribute success to the recording.
If you haven't heard them for a long time, I bet you would. Micky Dolenz had a great voice.
Micky Dolenz appeared at the CNE I think a couple of times after their demise. I was much too old by then.
I think there's a bit of confusion in the op's last statement that applies to all of us in that the variables introduced by the engineer and the ability of the system overall to reproduce a 'real' image are two very different issues. The cues that convince us of reality are component performance related and the engineer's take on the information is truly the only thing that is subjective in regards to that question. Also, sounding 'real' doesn't care about circuit topology. The tube guys don't have exclusivity on what is pleasing reality and what is not. I have to answer the op's question with a no. Simply because audiophiles' ears are also very discerning and the competitive nature of the industry dictates that without a flat frequency response there is no hope in competing. Unless of course there is some sort of conspiracy going on which is highly unlikely.