I am finding the dicussion here well reasoned and seasoned with experience. However, I will politely disagree with the majority here. I do not feel that hearing loss is negligible in the establishment of systems. Any compromise is a strike against setting up the best rig.
One does not begin a search for the best by downplaying potentially critical factors which may inhibit success. I have built enough rigs to know that its not just the big changes but the minor differences which may spell the difference between a glorious sounding rig and a merely acceptable sounding one.
I also have seen enough to know that there is widespread hearing difficulty in the audiophile community. This is inherent to the age of those engaging in the hobby, as well as a recognized phenomenon as a result of lifestyle choices - loud concerts, loud motorcycles, loud work environments, etc.
The consequences of such hearing loss can be seen in such things as persons adamantly claiming cables make no difference. When I see someone who has tried different cables and still insists they make no difference, I automatically conclude that they have hearing loss. Even worse, when an audiophile states that different amps make no difference; serious hearing deficiency.
I mean no offence to anyone here, and I can certainly appreciate the beneficial influence of experience in pursuit of one's best sound. However, a compromise is a compromise, which ever way you state it. Compromises have adverse effects on the outcome, be it budgetarily, WAF influence or diminished hearing.
Farjamed, I'm with you on this particular thought. There is a real/distinct difference between musical experience and hearing acuity. I shook my head in agreement when you mentioned the CRT. I have one sconce in my listening room which buzzes with an insect-like high pitched sound which is so subtle but drives me nuts! It is the filament of the incandescent bulb at a certain level on my lighting system. I can hear it from about 14 feet away and often I turn the sconces off and use only the can lighting because it bothers me.
I have had wonderful audiophiles in my room who have very strong opinions of what sounds best, but they have had hearing loss due to being in live bands, working in loud factories, etc. They simply can't hear things the same way someone without impairment can. Any way you cut it, their ears are not as capable in establishing rigs. They may work hard to make up for it, but it's a factor.
I have learned to weigh the advice of people in regard to establishing systems based on the evidence that they may have hearing loss. I do not discount their advice, but I do factor in what I know about their hearing, which can help to discern why they make their selections of gear.
It is entirely possible I will have a different opinion when I am in my 70's. You know how it is; if we didn't have driver's license tests everyone's sight would miraculously be perfect enabling them to drive their car. in the same way it seems incredible that everyone's hearing seems to be so good that they can build the best systems. ;)
Sorry, but that begs credibility. I do believe there are concrete steps which can be taken to achieve what I consider to be the essentials of an outstanding system. Hearing loss is a tremendous impediment to success. This assumes there are better and worse sounding systems in an absolute sense. Obviously many will disagree with that premise. I proceed, however, from that premise and seek to build in clearly defined improvements to systems, having experienced that to my ears music is far more enjoyable as a relaxing pasttime when the system is taken to a much higher level of performance.
I realize that my perspective is likely not popular, and it may incur some intense disapproval. Nevertheless, I believe it is correct.
For those with hearing challenges this all might be a moot point; after all, if you can't hear it, so be it. You enjoy what you can hear, and "it's about the music," etc. Perhaps this paritally explains why that phrase appears so often in threads. If there's a lot of hobbyists who have hearing difficulties then it would make sense that they conclude the search for the ultimate rig is a futile effort with compromised hearing.
However, for someone who's trying to gain advice from others, it can be a significant concern. |
Dopogue, Dan_ed, I appreciate your input.
I am 48, have been building two channel audio systems since my early 20's, so for about 25 plus years. I have built dozens upon dozens of HiFi systems in that time. Would my argument carry more weight if I was 63, or perhaps 71? To some, perhaps, but not in principle.
My argument is not one based on age and experience but physical ability. I'll point out again that my agenda in taking this position is not to attack individuals who are older and have hearing loss. If a person were hearing compromised in their teens would we suggest that this would be an advantage in setting up a system? Of course not. But somehow, because we want to protect the more aged (those with the big bucks in this hobby) we pretend that hearing compromises are a non-issue. Since when does experience in listening to music translate into making hearing difficulties magically disappear or over time be of no hindrnace to achieving a better result.
If anyone wants to follow Mrt into his quagmire of audio relativism go right ahead. Distinguishing better and best systems is an easy thing to do; in fact we do this naturally as we hear them. At shows we nearly automatically categorize and rate different rigs, ending up with our personal list of favorite/best systems.
Of course this is not in an absolute sense, but it is our ranking, and that's what counts when we lay down our money. But it's funny how many people end up agreeing on what constitutes the best sound. To suggest that because there is no "perfect" system somewhere hearing loss is a non-issue is a non-sequitur. This is why I have said more than once that Mrt obufscates matters rather than contributing practical help. He loves to sit and philosophize; well, that doesn't get one a better rig! I DO firmly believe that achieving a better result with a system enhances one's enjoyment of the music and love for it. So, I'm automatically going to be on guard for anything which inhibits that goal.
I thought of another age related example - arthritis. I have been a jogger for about that same amount of time, about 25 years. Over the past three or four years there are more pronounced aches in my body related to exercise. Is this the beginning of arthritis? I do not know. Whether arthritis or not are these aches an advantage to my running? Certainly not. Do they magically disappear? No. Do they hinder me from running as fast as I used to? When I time myself the answer is yes.
The effect has been incremental; I've added about 30 seconds of time to each mile. When I'm jogging it seems like virtually no difference, but in absolute terms the performance has suffered. If I were a young guy like Farjamed would I want to learn pacing from a guy with arthritis (a natural progression; who's blaming anyone for arthritis or hearing loss?), who can't run at the same pace as they used to? Or would he prefer a man who is arthritis-free and can run faster? (Again, an imperfect analogy, but it does illustrate the potential deleterious impact of a physical limitation). Perhaps an older man without arthritis in good condition would make for a wonderful running partner; someone with experience and no physical impediment.
It's not logical to suggest the young runner will get the same results no matter which running partner he chooses. Perhaps an older more experienced runner has incredible passion and his arthritic condition should be ignored. That is the argument of those debating me. Runners know there's a million ways to run, and that there's no "perfect" running, but there IS poor running/training and better running. People shooting for being the best in running do not take a laissez-faire attitude about the mechanics and training involved in running.
I do not take a laissez-faire attutude about building audio systems. There are things which enhance and things which inhibit making the best rigs, and no amount of wishful thinking changes it. I do not spend a lot of time worrying over such things, but when the topic is brought up it needs to be accepted for what it is, a problem to be overcome. I do wear earplugs when playing raquetball, and both foam earplugs and a set of head muffs when running the lawn tractor. I do not want to invite hearing damage, and I strongly suggest to Farjamed and other younger audiophiles that they actively protect their hearing if they want to ward off environmentally induced hearing loss.
In a similar fashion to the example of arthritis negatively impacting the running, hearing loss has a real world consequences. Am I saying that it makes establishing rigs with better sound more difficult? Yes. (Again, if you want to flounder in a sea of uncertainty with questions such as, 'What's better sound?' feel free). Go to a show and you'll know what better sound is in one day or one weekend.
Part of the problem inherent in this discussion is the ignorance of most audiophiles that they think there is far less room to advance the rig than there really is. On the spectrum of systems far too many sit around the medium quality mark and are fooled into thinking they have true top end sound. My point is important simply on the premise that if someone can't hear well they might not be motivated to move into the category of top end sound. That may not be too much of an issue for them, but it IS an issue if they are presuming to be teaching others what great sound is like!
|
I could have made my illustration of running with arthritis even stronger with an exaple of a young person with juvenile arthritis; similar condition independent of age. I think of one young woman who battled it from nearly the cradle, who progressed from wheelchair to crutches to free walking - after several surgeries. Outstanding lady; tremendous example of determination and choosing to take a positive attitude in the face of physical challenges. She is now a marvelous school teacher! :) |
Dan_ed, I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to see that for some of us the question of hearing acuity and age is important. You say, "...I do think this is a topic that is hard to take seriously. It sounds more like some of you guys who are just starting to realize that you are getting older are starting to worry. Most people are much more interested in what their health will be, or what sex will be like. ;-)"
This IS an audiophile forum, not a general health or sexual health forum. It is perfectly natural for a person who is keenly involved in music and audio systems to wonder about age related effects on listening and enjoyment of the system. That is especially so if the person is younger, getting interested in establishing a rig, and has reasons to wonder about the guidance he might receive - as seems to be the case with our OP.
Seeing approximately half of the audiophiles who have passed through the door of my listening room and turned out to have significant hearing loss (shared in discussion, usually only after I point out some nuances in the music/system which they cannot hear, but which others who hear the same music readily discern) the question of the impact of potential hearing loss arises.
The difficulty of this issue of hearing loss does impact real world decisions on setting up systems. About 7 years ago I stopped at an audio shop which was steeped in the Quad/Naim tradition. The two store reps were helpful and showed me some CL-3 rated in-wall cabling I could use to wire my surrounds in my HT I was building. I appreciated the discussion but was quite surprised to see that they were using the very same in-wall cabling for their main two channel rig in the store and I questioned it.
Their response was that they had conducted comparisons; the CL-3 was as good as any higher end speaker cable. I mentioned my speaker cable at home and they fairly dismissed it. I decided that since it was not terribly cheap and the amount I needed was nearly the entire spool I would buy it all and use the few extra feet to conduct a test of my own between my speaker cables and the CL-3. I had come to the conclusion years before that cabling was significant in influencing sound, so this would be a good price/performance test.
The CL-3 was crap; it had the effect of turning my system into a giant boom box, worse in every appreciable way. Reinstalling my speaker cables was like breathing life back into a dead body, the difference was that profound. My conclusion was two-fold; those men could not hear for sh_t, and I would never go to them again for anything related to advice in establishing an audio system. It seems they believed they were really sharp, avoiding the costly cable in order to get what was to their ears the same result. They thought they were doing me a favor by giving me such inside information.
I learned through that relatively inexpensive lesson that anyone in the audio industry can be subject to grave error in their recommendations and or handicap in hearing. Having such an experience I vowed that I, from conducting listening tests, would be the arbiter of what form my rig would take. Had I been a newbie and simply accepted their conclusion based on authority my system would have been compromised and had I not put their advice to the test it might be compromised indefinitely.
Perhaps there is no perfect standard somewhere, but in the real world of audio system building when someone gives you advice which worsens your rig it becomes a perfectly good reason to avoid their advice. They said they had listened and done the comparisons and could hear no difference. My only logical conclusion is that they were hearing impaired, leading to a poor recommendation. After all, they seemed sincere; they could have sold more expensive cables to customers they said. It seems they literally could not hear a compelling reason to do so. All their customers were shorted in helpful system building advice.
It was the very kind of experience that perhaps Farjamed dreads, getting guidance from someone who is incapable of giving the best guidance. It is a real possibility.
Does hearing acuity matter? You bet. Would I take unweighted system building advice from someone I suspect has a hearing impediment. Absolutely not. |
Frogman, yes, I would assume there is a natural shift toward media and the experience as one gets older. I just chatted with an industry professional the other day who repairs/restores rather large speakers. He recalled the big monsters which he used to use in his main system, but has scaled back his rig. Why? He's getting to the point where he doesn't want to deal with the size of them. Instead of pushing for ultimate performance he is talking about accepting compromises. For whatever reason we all have to do so at some point.
With age I can certainly see that one's emphasis would tilt toward the "leave well enough alone," perspective even when hearing loss is not an issue. When space or energy no longer allow for mucking with the gear what can one turn to as a means of keeping the audiophile fire burning? An endless source of new experiences in music, a tremendously fulfilling alternative to the hunt for the gear. :) |
Yes, Farjamed, we should not loose respect for our audiophile elders; they do have a tremendous amount of wisdom, and also experience with gear that is invaluable.
Perhaps I was a bit too harsh on the guys at the Quad/Naim dealership in saying I would never return. They were 1.5 hours away, so dismissing it was relatively easy. Very likely I would have visited again over time had they been local. Just because one has some hearing difficulty does not render their opinion or experience of no value.
It's difficult to admit hearing limitations because the entire audiophile culture is built upon hearing well - hearing "good" (left to one's own interpetation) music, hearing it on a good system, hearing it in a good environment, hearing it with good company, hearing it with good ears as well, to a degree. Advice is assumed to be given on the basis of good hearing, which it clearly cannot always be.
A point in favor of the "buncha deaf old guys," one of whom I may be some day; their experience IS very valuable and one must sift out the wheat from the chaff. They often have a huge knowledge base of technical information about what components and speakers go best with each other, what systems are better for different kinds of music (especially if one is focusing on a specific genre of music), how different media are recorded and might sound played back, etc. Turning your back on such knowledge would be a big mistake. Listen to them and take the experience. Be willing to try a recommendation but don't be surprised if you hear something different than described once in a while. It goes with the territory.
After my frustrating experience with the CL-3 cable I by no means wrote off all older audiophiles. Some of the most beautiful and insightful thoughts have come from those who have been in the game longer than I have. I simply enforced a rule that I would weigh advice given differently if I learned that hearing loss was a factor. With time you find out who hears things similar to you and who does not. I would go so far as to say that the differences between what an individual who selects a certain type of technology, say speakers, can be more opposed to one's style of listening than whether or not they have some hearing loss.
I'm not intending to give the impression that hearing acuity is the biggest factor in finding a mentor. I believe it counts, but there are many reasons to hold in esteem audio elders and consider their advice. Simply conduct your own tests and reach your own conclusions, and eventually you'll be an old half deaf guy too (virtually before you know it)! |
