[toolio]

There is a certain relativity that kicks in at all stages of life. Sure, my hearing is not as good as it was when I was young. But the hearing I have still benefits from making the best of the sound that is available to me. In fact, as my hearing ages I'm interested in squeezing the most out of it. Listening to poorer audio quality--whether it be low bitrate music or poor equipment--will only make naturally worsening hearing less pleasant when it comes to music. And because at an advancing age I can afford better equipment, it seems like the ideal time in life to be paying more attention to audio equipment and music quality. And my tastes in music have changed, so I'm now far more interested in jazz vocals than hard rock. Do I regret not being able to take advantage of better sound when I was younger? Maybe, but I'm not sure I would have noticed the difference back then (acknowledging that the options are better today than they were in the past). I was more interested in noise than good audio back then, which seems to be a common sentiment in this discussion. Nothing wrong with that. I also preferred a dozen crappy beers back then to one or two good ones today. Getting old is a bitch, lol.

 

[bigshot]

The first thing you have to do is define exactly what it is that degrades as you age... That is ultra high frequencies above 15kHz.
 
Then you have to determine the importance of the loss to the fidelity of music... Almost negligible.
 
15-20kHz is only four musical notes. But we don't even hear it as notes, because it is far beyond our ability to discern pitch. No acoustic musical instrument has fundamentals that reach that high, and the only ones with audible harmonics in that range are cymbals and triangles. But we can't even hear those, because the fundamental and lower harmonics in cymbals and triangles totally mask it.
 
It's great that redbook covers the full range of audible frequencies. In one fell swoop, it covers everything in theory. But in practice, the bleeding edge of hearing at the top is extremely unimportant when it comes to the perception of sound quality in music.
 
If you have actual hearing *damage* that affects the core frequencies below 10kHz, that is another thing altogether. But that only comes with extremely advanced age, and by then every organ in the body is starting to give out.
 
The whole concept of hearing degradation due to age is grossly overstated in this forum.

 

[Bytor123]

Pardon? (joke!)

 

[bigshot]

 

[Soused]

What tips are you using on this IEM?

 

[toolio]

The whole concept of hearing degradation due to age is grossly overstated in this forum.

Unfortunately many people suffer greater hearing loss in one ear than in the other. In some ways that can be far more annoying than general, balanced loss when it comes to audio...ior just about anything, for that matter.

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

A lot of people think that high quality audio depends on frequency extension. The truth is, with recorded music, very high and super low frequencies are relatively unimportant. The thing that separates the men from the boys in music reproduction is the BALANCE within the core range. A balanced response is MUCH rarer and more difficult to achieve than most audiophiles imagine. They spend their time chasing gnat's wing's differences and ignore the elephant in the corner entirely.

This. I used to sort of ignore the frequency response in search of detail, for the longest time I listened to my HE-400's wishing I had bought a pair of HD600 . I feel satisfied with my HD800, but also sometimes I wonder what it would've been like to have the LCD-X instead. Oh well, the soundstage is worth it in my opinion.

Also, a lot of young people blast music and don't necessarily have better hearing. Nobody claims young people see better, why hear better... it depends on the person. I'm 19 and I can only hear up to 13.5 kHz because I used to listen far too loud for four or five hours a day (living even in a small town and listening outside is way too damn loud, it required like three times the volume compared to being in a quiet room). Mind you, below that 13 kHz my hearing is pretty much perfect... for now at least. I dread listening "slightly loud" and still slowly destroying the remainder of my hearing .

 

[Soused]

This was me, by the way. Accidentally logged into the first account I made.

Also, a lot of young people blast music and don't necessarily have better hearing. Nobody claims young people see better, why hear better... it depends on the person. I'm 19 and I can only hear up to 13.5 kHz because I used to listen far too loud for four or five hours a day (living even in a small town and listening outside is way too damn loud, it required like three times the volume compared to being in a quiet room). Mind you, below that 13 kHz my hearing is pretty much perfect... for now at least. I dread listening "slightly loud" and still slowly destroying the remainder of my hearing .

I thought people's eyesight also gets worse the older they get?

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

I thought people's eyesight also gets worse the older they get?

They do, but just because someone is young doesn't gauruntee that they'll have better eyesight than an old person. I know a ton of young people that need glasses and also some old people that don't. I was just trying to point out that younger people don't necessarily always have better hearing. I've seen a lot of older people (around 50, not that old but still) on the forums who can hear 17 kHz, but I can only hear 13 kHz (and a non-audiophile friend of mine only 16 kHz). I think when it comes to hearing it's far more important how careful you are about volume and avoiding loud situations, rather than age.

I'm not trying to suggest that on average older people have better hearing though .

 

[wiinippongamer]

Mind you, below that 13 kHz my hearing is pretty much perfect..
 

Keep telling yourself that as you curl up into a ball on a corner.

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

Keep telling yourself that as you curl up into a ball on a corner.

I've had it tested, from 250 Hz to 8 kHz (the tested range) my hearing was perfectly fine. I've got enough time to experience more equipment before my hearing starts to suck. Once it goes below 10 kHz I'll probably start learning an instrument and spend less time caring about sound quality .

Most people into audio probably don't even realize they have bad hearing if they do. I certainly didn't until I realized it cut off so quickly in the high frequencies with a tone generator.

 

[bigshot]

10-20kHz is only an octave after all.

 

[SilentFrequency]

Because young people also have more hope and a more vivid imagination, so they can "fill in the blanks" better.

Only men care enough about how their favorite artists sound like to shell out the dough.

Have to disagree as I'm a young swf hd800 owner (albeit my dad bought them for me along with amplifier as gifts)

Maybe old men just like to moan about things in general so need top of the range headphones to find one thing less to moan about?

And men in general look upon top range headphones as boys toys to tinker about with?

Only joking (maybe)

 

[Bill-P]

Have to disagree as I'm a young swf hd800 owner (albeit my dad bought them for me along with amplifier as gifts)

Maybe old men just like to moan about things in general so need top of the range headphones to find one thing less to moan about?

And men in general look upon top range headphones as boys toys to tinker about with?

Only joking

(maybe)

Well, you will find that old men will still groan until they get the Stax SR-009 coupled with the Blue Hawaii...
 
...or the JPS Labs Abyss coupled with Cavalli Liquid Gold...
 
Beyond that, I consider myself quite young, and I work so I can afford an HD800 rig without much issue, but I still find that I'd enjoy something that's far less bright than the HD800 on a regular basis.
 
It's more about the tuning, I think.

 

[bigshot]

Just equalize and make it perfect. The HD-800s are capable of sounding just about any way you want them to sound.