Reviewers and their hearing capabilities

well I was one of the ones that did make it to the Heathrow show and found it quite good this year. I'm not too sure why but it just felt better. Anywho, I saw Paul Messenger there on the Sunday and he was talking to a manufacturer about the sound of a particular system. I thought 'you are getting on for 60 years old' (maybe) 'can you really hear past 10khz and in both ears!'.

It's pretty much a well known fact that the human hearing system diminishes with time/ age. So how can we trust older reviewers? There is no way his hearing ability above 12khz is better than the average 20 year old. I don't know how old anyone is on this forum but around your 30's a mans hearing isn't quite what it was 15 years previous.

Maybe we should ask them (old reviewer men) to print out a graph of their hearing curve before commenting on a piece of gear.

Rob

 

Of course, if you listen to loud rock all the time, you're hearing is likely to be a whole lot worse than Paul Messenger's! I think the classic example is Roger Daltrey, Who , for all practical purposes, is deaf.

This is a question which interests me, as I am now (just) on the wrong side of 60. Fortunately, years of working in laboratories where hearing protection is rigidly enforced and a liking of classic music played a moderate volumes has left me with very good hearing, according to the little hearing aid shop just up the road, which does hearing tests for free. However, the graphs do show diminished ability to hear high frequencies. This loss, they tell me, starts in your twenties.

I'm no great fan of reviewers, but since most people apparently don't get presbycusis (the severe condition that has you saying "What?" all the time and constantly cranking up the TV volume) and most hearing is done in the mid-range anyway, and since most of the reviewers' readers are not really so far behind them in their loss of high frequency acuity, does it really matter?

 

does it really matter...

yes I think so. Although we are more sensitive to midband for conversation purposes, listening to music requires our hearing system to be much broader than just the midband. The violin does not cover the vocal region where our hearing is 'setup' for, and for imaging and soundstage we need both ears to be sensitive to a broader range of frequencies and be within a 10th of a dB of each other.

It's not loud music damage I am talking about but just the fact that above a certain age ALL OF US suffer from a loss of hf or worse.

So can we trust an older reviewer or would it be better if all reviewers were younger? I also don't feel experience in the audio field makes up for hearing loss.

Rob

 

There's very little musical information in the last octave. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

FWIW in my mid-40s I can still hear 17kHz, not that I want to. I remember hearing bats a long time ago, that loss is a bit more of a shame.

Paul

 

But to take your argument one step further, Rob, does it make sense to have reviewers with the auditory qualities of a bat, while most of the readership doesn't have that? Should we preface reviews with a statement to the effect, "If you're over 40, you shouldn't be reading this"?

Perhaps the answer is that these self-appointed gurus should not act as if they were gurus, and not fill up reviews with the sort of totally subjective, pompous, self-aggrandising nonsense that is par for the course these days. But then, all reviews would read much the same and they wouldn't sell too many magazines. Which, of course, would not be a bad thing at all.

(Paul, I actually hadn't seen yours when I wrote this, honestly!)

 

I hear massive discount or free review samples - that of course would keep your ear unbiased surely?..... I've lost count as to how many "favourable" reviews where they said they have kept the kit. Not naming publications....

 

Paul your reply is quite an interesting one. If you think there is nothing musically in that last octave (whether high or low) then should manufacturers just design audio that has a limited bandwidth?

Does it not make sense that a reviewer have very accurate hearing so he/she can make an accurate assessment of the piece of equipment that is being assessed? OR being able to hear sound of limited bandwidth is good enough?

Yes they do act as if they are gurus but maybe it is because they have lost their hearing abilities and feel insecure about telling the world that they are 30% deaf in one ear and only hear upto 10khz in the other.

Would you trust an 80 year old reviewer if he said 'the treble on this speaker sounds rolled off'?

I wonder if anyone has thought about it or if there are any other threads about the subject.

Rob

 

I don't think that presbycusis is much to worry about actually.

What matters in listening to kit is making sense of what you are hearing, whether you are listening for pleasure, for for product development or, yes, as a reviewer. That takes experience and an educated/practised 'ear', but certainly not a ruler-flat hearing response. All the interesting stuff is done by the postprocessing in wetware anyway

 

Stradivarius made his best violins between the ages of 54 and 76.
Some(MOST!) of our finest musicians and conductors are over 50.
You need to do more research into 'how' we hear-there's a whole lot more to it than frequency response eg most uhf is 'heard' via bone conduction and not down yer lugholes.
Also check out how the brain 'locates' sound-your within 1/10th of a dB comment was nonsense
Take my advice-ignore reviewers-young or old and listen for yourself.

 

absolutely.

 

So, should all Zerogainers have an electoral role verified, age visible indicator when they post so we know if they are talking boll&$ks?

As I age and yes age comes even to me, I think I have got more discerning - well I would say that wouldn't I.
I have the money to audition / buy more expensive kit, I like a, well shall we say more mature type of music, looking for dynamics etc and I can definitely tell a peak limited piece of music when I hear it - Something most teens seem to struggle with
I perhaps like the company of my leather recliner more and more. All of which is excellent news - who says hearing isn't like a muscle or brain power that needs constant training.
Like a muscle you should not over strain it or the case of ears - brain them...
Your average rock concert or rave goer has 10000watts+ blasted at them for hours and is deaf for a few days afterwards as a result.
I've always looked after my hearing - ear plugs when going to and racing in motorsport events. Never really like loud gigs etc.

So yes there is perhaps a perfect age / experience level.

No idea what that would be - anyway it's my hearing and I'll like it if I want too.

 

I sort of agree with some points but do definitely disagree on others. How can someone assess high frequency accurately when their own hearing is impared in this region? How can one describe imaging qualities if the sensitivities of both ears are different. These two examples are quite common amongst the older community. Experience cannot help with high frequency loss or deafness.

I take it then it is OK for older reviewers to comment on areas of audio reproduction even if they themselves cannot hear them properly?

 

Two quick thoughts:

Becasue such judgements are relative, not absolute. Hearing changes so slowly with aging I think you keep a pretty good idea f what 'well balanced ' resents as - even if you don;t benefit from it all.

the curves for each ear are rarely the same in anyone, regardless of age.

Like I said, the interesting stuff happens in the brain. Look at how the ear really works - more like a spectrum analyer than anything else. But somehow its fed through this magical bit of 'software' that also infers a sense of rhythm, that perceives 'structure' in a series of unconnected sounds, that distinguishes time and place of several(many) different instruments/sound sources from a single waveform... that can learn to 'not hear' interference adaptively - and a bunch of other interesting things, for profit and for pleasure. The quality of the transducer on the end of it is not the whole picture - but it's this bit that static FR curve measurement tells you about.

 

Generally they do...

Do you feel FM radio is rolled off?

Paul

 

Paul - FM radio is definitely rolled off. BUT do you think your amplifier, CD, speakers or cartridge on your turntable are rolled off and if so why did you purchase them? Do you like bandwidth limited audio?

Felix - the brain is remarkable without a doubt but you can't tell me that if you are 40% down in both ears then the brain 'makes it up' because if you really believe that then tell my step brother that his brain isn't working properly! Yes the brain does some clever things but high frequency compensation to 18khz it cannot do.

maybe the question or thread title should be:

Do we all hear the same and if not why not.

 

No, I'm definitely not saying we hear the same; we don't, in a similar way that what you think of as 'green' and what I do, probably don't concide exactly.

What I'm saying is that 'absolute hearing' is no more important to musical enjoyment (and communicating one's perceptions) than absolute pitch is. Nice to have, sure, but not essential by any means.

 

I don't understand. CD doesn't do more than 20kHz, LP is usually worse, old analogue tape players have real problems reaching 20kHz. Most people of whatever age are quite happy about this.

Do you know what is between 15k and 20k on your CDs?

I think you are rather completely missing the point. If you want to assess hifi by its frequency response then a machine is 100s of times better than even your ears.

Paul

 

Interesting that where hearing is concerned you learn nowt if you don't listen-research the subject a bit..say why does a supertweeter operating above even your brothers >18khz hearing affect his perception of the sound?
For example 40% down is what? less than 3db that's what-you've got a much wider in room L/R amplitude variation from your speakers due to room effects.