[Can Junkie]

How many times have you put your new set of cans driven buy a nice amp on your Spouses ears , may be your GF, may be even your Daughter, only to hear them say, "that is nice". And you think "What the,..... "(you know what). Lets take a look at how we developed as a species. Way back before all the tech we enjoy today we depended on our senses in a much different way. If you were a Hunter, your sense of hearing was critical to your survival. The difference between  becoming prey instead of predator, in many instances, might be ones ability to not only have good hearing, but the ability to differentiate sounds. The pitch of an animals growl, the sound of the under brush under movement, all can help identify the type of animal. Your chances of not only avoiding a predator, but acquiring prey required significant use of our stereo audio senses to locate sounds. Long story short, everything about your hearing, if your gender was the hunter, was designed to locate and differentiate sounds. You, through evolution, have been tuned to use your hearing in some very specific ways. Any experience that enhances these abilities is naturally welcomed by you. In other words, you are already set up to locate and identify sounds and your body craves any enhancement that may be available in this area. So,...when you are exposed to HeadFi equipment (Audio in general too) which allows you to locate and differentiate sounds better than you can normally do, you naturally like it.
Just thought about this today and it seemed to be logical. Anyway,...what do you think?

 

[billybob_jcv]

I think H. Sapiens is somewhat interesting in that in general, each of our senses sucks compared to the other animals in our environment - both our prey and our predators. It's really amazing that we didn't end-up on the evolutionary junk heap - let alone rise to dominance!

Here's another view: Our hearing sucked so bad compared to all the other animals, that we had to evolve other traits (like intelligence and walking upright) just to survive.

 

[mutabor]

Here's another view: Our hearing sucked so bad compared to all the other animals, that we had to evolve other traits (like intelligence and walking upright) just to survive.

 
In my opinion hearing and other senses are shaped by intelligence. Humans don't need to hear very distant sounds. Our hearing is adapted to speech recognition and high sensitivity to tiniest vibrations would hindrance decoding of speech patterns. 
 
So what was the question? Why there are much more male composers than female ones? 

 

 

[Nusho]

But its an interesting concern. I think what you are getting to is that males would have had to evolve much superior hearing than females in order to survive, and thus when it comes to music like composing or even being interesting in high quality audio, you see many more males than females --this forum is testament to that difference .
Its an interesting and logical hypothesis for sure! But you may have to look up data on this (Google?) -- predominantly that males have on balance better hearing than females.

 

[Nusho]

http://arlenetaylor.org/sensory-preference/423-gender-hearing-differences
 
IDK but according to this women have better hearing than men? But maybe the study isnt talking about what you are -- maybe its not about the detail of sound, but about the frequency range of it and differing between sound. Of course, male hearing has to be less sensitive to volume difference because a hunter with too acute hearing may get frightened or out of his environment when he hears something loud -- he has to be comfortable with being around danger. Yet, he also has to be able to differeciate and locate noise at a level greater than females.
SO maybe the article points to how females may have lower volume tolerance levels but doesnt address how males may have better differentiation abilities overall.
Moreover, women may be able to concentrate on certain melodic lines at once but cannot concentrate at many at the same time. Of course, a woman needs to be able to hear the distinctive cry of her baby from far away, and thus can probably hear better at the higher register at which a baby screams and can tell his or her sound better than men. But when it comes to lower frequencies, and handling different sound inputs at hte same time, males may be superior! 
So I dont know how accurate studies on this have been, but there is a lot involved.
Gosh i hope some of this made sense

 

[Nusho]

Also consider that music has traditionally been a male dominated scene. In the days of rituals and music which accompanied it, males usually played; early instruments took manpower to play. Furthermore, gender roles excluded females from playing music -- females were usually not used for entertainment purposes except when it was in plays, or sensual pleasure. Like we get into audiophilia from our friends or those we know well, which mostly end up being guys more than girls. So obviously, this would be a male dominated platform. Furthermore, i think audiphiles would feel more at home on this blog if htey were males. But how about the females who bought a nice earbud, really liekd it, did some more research, and got interested in audiophilia? Who knows aboutt hat -- but maybe ur onto something.
 
Possibly its also about the interest of sound. Genetically, sounds for males may be a more euphoric experience which stimulates more faculties; you had to be tip top on your toes as a hunter.
Idk im taking over ur thread ...ill stop

 

[billybob_jcv]

Bah - be careful to consider the timespan over which you are suggesting evolutionary changes may have occurred. I doubt the timeframes for social norms and music used as entertainment are long enough for evolutionary change to occur. In addition, I would find it very hard to believe that an entertainment activity like music would drive evolutionary change. The formation of the mammalian inner ear is a very important demarcation point in evolution. The mammalian ear is considerably different than the reptilian ear - and all mammalian ears have a very similar structure - which tells scientists that the formation of those key inner bones in the mammalian ear occurred very, very early in evolution. I have read that human hearing evolved to: 1) Allow localization of sound sources, 2) Identify & understand human speech, 3) Hear the cries of human infants

 

[proton007]

I doubt its got anything to do with audio or auditory perception.
There are two trends I believe that are at play here. First, not everyone is technologically oriented. Part nature, part nurture.
Second, there's the gender divide in technological preferences (more males, less females). Maybe nature.

 

[Nusho]

Bah - be careful to consider the timespan over which you are suggesting evolutionary changes may have occurred. I doubt the timeframes for social norms and music used as entertainment are long enough for evolutionary change to occur. In addition, I would find it very hard to believe that an entertainment activity like music would drive evolutionary change. The formation of the mammalian inner ear is a very important demarcation point in evolution. The mammalian ear is considerably different than the reptilian ear - and all mammalian ears have a very similar structure - which tells scientists that the formation of those key inner bones in the mammalian ear occurred very, very early in evolution. I have read that human hearing evolved to: 1) Allow localization of sound sources, 2) Identify & understand human speech, 3) Hear the cries of human infants

Entertainment and evolutionary change are two completely different subjects. I was merely saying that music has over time become a more masculine activity. But the point is that it seems men may have had evolutionary advantages to superior hearing than females, which may explain the lack of females in the music industry, especially when it comes to composing, mixing, etc.
But all the studies ive seen seem to suggest that female hearing may be more acute than male hearing, which proposes questions

 

[proton007]

  Entertainment and evolutionary change are two completely different subjects. I was merely saying that music has over time become a more masculine activity. But the point is that it seems men may have had evolutionary advantages to superior hearing than females, which may explain the lack of females in the music industry, especially when it comes to composing, mixing, etc.
But all the studies ive seen seem to suggest that female hearing may be more acute than male hearing, which proposes questions

 
Evolutionary advantages, maybe, but hearing? Nope.

 

[Nusho]

   
Evolutionary advantages, maybe, but hearing? Nope.

Possibly. Its an epigenetics question. But I think the time frame may have been long enough to conduce certain changes -- but then its about which continents, what types of societies, how big of a difference? You are possibly correct.

 

[billybob_jcv]

I would argue that at least since the industrial revolution, and possibly as far back as the formation of the first city centers, the environment for the majority of humans has been MUCH noisier than in prior ages. Wouldn't this have harmed our hearing compared to our ancestors? And if so, then wouldn't the hearing of a bush tribesman be better than that of a city-dwelling audiophile?

I think hearing ability and evolution has nothing to do with the percentage of males on head-fi - I'm with proton - this is simply the higher percentage of lonely male geeks in ANY tech forum - regardless of whether it is audio, video, cars, computers, cameras or smartphones.

 

[Nusho]

Possibly but noisier city environments wouldn't affect genetic code. The huntsman analysis proves that there may have been a survival advantage to hearing better -- the noisy city provides no such advantage to any folk.
But maybe im wrong I mean it sounds hella far off tbh. But hey, epigenetics is  a hell of a lot of fun to think about and play around with eh?
 
But yea why is the whole world of audio -- especially mixing, mastering, composing, etc. and even audiphilia such a male dominated scene? If both sexes have the same capacity to hear and both experience the same euphoria when it comes to sound, what differences are there?

 

[billybob_jcv]

I still think you are selectively choosing the evidence to fit your theory. Turn this around... Do men see better than women? There are certainly also far more males in video & photography forums than females. Why don't the same conditions apply?

This whole thread sounds like one of the logical fallacies, but I don't know enough about rhetoric to name the fallacy. I'm just having trouble getting from A->B->C. It seems like what I'm reading is: A) Women don't seem to care as much about audio as men. 2) Men needed to have good hearing to survive the prehistoric environment. 3) The modern male therefore cares more about audio than the modern female because his prehistoric role conditioned him to get more enjoyment from aural excellence.

I just don't see it...

 

[proton007]

  Possibly but noisier city environments wouldn't affect genetic code. The huntsman analysis proves that there may have been a survival advantage to hearing better -- the noisy city provides no such advantage to any folk.
But maybe im wrong I mean it sounds hella far off tbh. But hey, epigenetics is  a hell of a lot of fun to think about and play around with eh?
 
But yea why is the whole world of audio -- especially mixing, mastering, composing, etc. and even audiphilia such a male dominated scene? If both sexes have the same capacity to hear and both experience the same euphoria when it comes to sound, what differences are there?

 
Nusho,
Gender differences exist not only in Audio, but most fields in technology. Some say its evolution, men have always been better at making and using tools. Others say its because women haven't been involved in these fields traditionally, they don't see the appeal of entering them now.
 
I for one would say that men are generally more drawn towards taking things apart, seeing how they work, and tinkering with them. Hence most musicians have been men, and most scientists and engineers have been men as well.
 
In addition, the emotional rigidness in men gives them the ability to turn any activity/hobby into a profession (meaning, facing the emotional stress of running a business etc). You'll find a lot of women are good at the same things, but not all of them turn their interests into a profession.
 
Do women have the same physical ability? Yes. But having a physical ability doesn't mean you're drawn to the same activities as the rest, because professions need both physical  and mental abilities.
 
Most of us are capable of running, but not everyone likes to run, and even among those who do like to run, not everyone can run a marathon (its more of a mental game).