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
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.
Csontos, you nailed the problem for club/rock concert music: the live version is often too loud and usually mixed by guys who lost their own hearing decades ago.
This part I can attest to: they start by getting the best, loudest drum sounds they can, then add the best, loudest bass they can. This leaves no space for the rest of the instruments and voices and results in the cacophony that has passed for good live sound for ages.
Just my 2 cents' worth...
" HI-FI is simply an attempt to fool you into thinking you're 'hearing' something live. "

Agree with that. WHy else spend so much dough? But its all an illusion. You either have bought into it or not. That's what most music lovers seek with their home playback gear I think.

Of course many live performances at many venues have a lot of rough edges sonically. That goes with the territory. THere are some excellent venues out there though and I have heard excellent live sound in all kinds of venues recently from large football stadiums, to small nightclubs, larger performance halls to smaller intimate rooms.

I want my recordings to convince me I am at an event similar to the better ones I have witnessed live, even if that might include all the rough edges. IT goes with the turf. As long as its a result of the recording/reproduction and not my gear in use to play it, I am a very happy camper.
The problem with live music is it comes with....live people in the crowd..someone interrupts the show or is rude in my room I just smack em!
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.
Audiophile would be a much happier bunch if they had control over how things are recorded. But we don't, so better to just forget about it and enjoy the music. Recordings are what they are. I gotta say thought that these days, I find the huge majority of recordings in all genres enjoyable. There are very few that make me wince enough to be unhappy. Thats not to say they are all near perfect....far from it. Each is what it is. Most are average. But average is sounding pretty good to me as a whole these days and that's a good thing. I could not ever have said that prior to my most recent round of system upgrades. But, now that I feel my system is well above average, it is hard for me to relate to those who constantly complain about recording quality. To me its more likely due to unrealistic expectations (audiophiles live by that which is why #s are dwindling and I suppose some esoteric vendors that promise the world thrive) and/or deficiencies during playback.
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...
If you haven't heard them for a long time, I bet you would. Micky Dolenz had a great voice.
While driving the other night I tuned in to one of those psychedelic radio hour shows and heard a song I hadn't heard before. When the set was finished the dj identified the unknown song as one by The Monkees. It was an excellent song from the era.
My sister had one of their albums back in the day. I would agree with those who believe they don't get credit for their music contribution.
Michael Nesmith was the only real musician in the group and a pioneer in music video. Remember "Elephant Parts"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MGtgbe917M
I saw the Monkees play before they hit it big big at a Columbia Studios family Easter day gathering way back when. They sounded good enough from what I can remember.

They hit it big soon after and I was a big fan of their TV show. My dad and Davy Jones were on the same bowling team. I wish I still had that picture of Davy Jones sitting on my dad's lap at the bowling lanes with the rest of the team, both grinning and holding bears. Good memories.

All the best,
Nonoise
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.
It wasn't so much that I was a fan. When Columbia Studios had their annual Easter Day family gathering it was on the (now Warner Bros.) backlot and there were lots of activities and things to do.

My family even stood in line to have the 3 Stooges autograph some pictures. I never liked Larry after that as he was rude to my mother after signing stuff all day and asked her if she were some kid. Curly spoke right up and made up for it when he saw the hurt on my mothers face.

The Monkees were playing at the end of the lot were a stage was set up and had a nice crowd.

All the best,
Nonoise
Micky Dolenz appeared at the CNE I think a couple of times after their demise. I was much too old by then.
The OP has but an interesting concern at our feet .
Are hearing does start to drop off as we age , even if we take good care of are ears , but I think for most of us it is very gradual .

I think we spend to much time listening to ones own system . When I hear a system that I think is too bright , is it too bright or just brighter than what my ears / brain are used to ? What made me think of this was when I was listening to a live Jazz band and heard many things that seemed wrong , was this the environment we were in or do we just become to used of one type of sound , a sound that we designed ?
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.