Sorry if I don't fully agree, but what I wanted to say is that if a technical measurement (audiogram) of a sensory event as hearing can be considered a fact, I do not believe it can also be considered "everything" about that sensory event, especially if related to hearing.
Hearing is a sense, and generally and briefly speaking senses are extremely complex and articulated systems and in some circumstances there may even be so-called vicarious mechanisms that are not yet fully explored, of which we know something, but certainly not everything.
In other words, I think (and as I said I absolutely cannot prove that) that listening to a sound message reproduced by an audio system totally cut from 10 Khz and above is not and cannot be the same as listening to the complete musical message not only obviously for a young and healthy listener, but for anyone, even for those who cannot perceive frequencies above that threshold.
Even because hearing does not work like an ON/OFF switch, but involves many factors, it is not just a membrane (the eardrum) that vibrates or does not vibrate or vibrates "less".
Again, just my 2 cents... 🙂
Last edited:
Perhaps see if you can find a cheap second hand graphic equalizer, I bought a new behringer fbq graphic equalizer for around £38.00 an it's the best money I've spent on HiFi. Even if you don't use it permanently, you can use it to diagnose what's wrong.
^ good advice, but to tame a breakup in a midrange, you need to add the filter directly on the midrange just before the driver itself
My father is 75 and cant hear anything above 10khz, I used to be able to hear 18k and some records had ultrasonic noise which bothered me a lot and was so loud and annoying, (sibiance?) and now I can listen to the same records and not be bothered at all, I know there is THD high up there but I can't hear it at all now I can only hear up to 16.5k 10 years later.
My father can hear immediately the difference in loudspeakers and amplifiers, he loves the clarity of the SS amps and he doesn't like tube amps because of added noise floor and less silent between notes.
I prefer the fluidity of the tube amps.
My father (75) can immediately hear problems in loudspeakers, he has a reference Grado headphones which also deliver accurate clarity and amazing bass and ambiance.
I would say , invest in a quality small loudspeakers, I found Castle Acoustic makes a very good for money small speaker, EPOS too!
But if you want fatigue less and more details you have to move up to Harbeths, B&W, I prefer by far the p3esr and the 805D to Sonus Faber towers, KEFs , Warfendale, Paradigm, etc etc
A Hypex module or the new Creek Class D are very smooth sounding and hard to beat, I prefer class AB amps such as Accuphase.
With tubes I have more listening fatigue due to added noise and less balanced sound sometimes.
My father can hear immediately the difference in loudspeakers and amplifiers, he loves the clarity of the SS amps and he doesn't like tube amps because of added noise floor and less silent between notes.
I prefer the fluidity of the tube amps.
My father (75) can immediately hear problems in loudspeakers, he has a reference Grado headphones which also deliver accurate clarity and amazing bass and ambiance.
I would say , invest in a quality small loudspeakers, I found Castle Acoustic makes a very good for money small speaker, EPOS too!
But if you want fatigue less and more details you have to move up to Harbeths, B&W, I prefer by far the p3esr and the 805D to Sonus Faber towers, KEFs , Warfendale, Paradigm, etc etc
A Hypex module or the new Creek Class D are very smooth sounding and hard to beat, I prefer class AB amps such as Accuphase.
With tubes I have more listening fatigue due to added noise and less balanced sound sometimes.
Often directivity issues are between 1000-10.000Hz.... so we'll within the range of most people's hearing. There's only a tiny bit of energy above 15k. So much more importance in getting the bass right with the smoothness and eveness of the filter/cross over between midrange and tweeter
From my point of view i would try to solve it step by step.
If the problem now is the frequency response i would take a graphic equalizer, possibly with 8-10 bands per channel, and possibly vintage.
This is because there is a lot of choice and the price/quality ratio should be good.
Furthermore, the operation is simple and intuitive and suitable for the memories of older enthusiasts.
For the same reasons i would not take a class D or wi-fi amplifier.
Vintage, simple and class A/AB.
The preamplifier is not essential but i prefer separate components, therefore a preamplifier and a power amplifier.
Generally you go down this road to be able to choose the pre+amp combination that you like the most after numerous tests.
If i may make a suggestion, a good Rotel pre+amp combo from the 90s offers good sound at a modest price.
Vintage.
Just to start.
Or even to finish.
Vintage also means that the component is old and may need service, either now or over time.
I prefer vintage, always.
My opinion.
Almost always, without any doubt.
The reverse for me, for the above reasons. It may have been excellent at some point in the past, but you just never know exactly what the thing is doing now unless you go through the trouble of measuring, testing, listening. Life is too short for all that when you can get A performance from any number of modern amps for less $$.
Harbeth can XO high , and that is a key to the non fatigue, their drivers don't eat up details at these frequencies.
whenever you XO at like above 2k on normal drivers they are only mumbling so you lose 1/2 at least from 1k to 4k
Then you lose a lot of phase details in sub 1khz and loses a lot of rapidity/coherence.
Then on top of this the tweeter gets hurt by the high energy it must suffer from the decay under 1khz.
When you have a driver able to sing without losing details up to 3, 4k all these inconveniences are gone.
It is major... So unless you want to spend some money to get there, some full-range diy could be for you.
whenever you XO at like above 2k on normal drivers they are only mumbling so you lose 1/2 at least from 1k to 4k
Then you lose a lot of phase details in sub 1khz and loses a lot of rapidity/coherence.
Then on top of this the tweeter gets hurt by the high energy it must suffer from the decay under 1khz.
When you have a driver able to sing without losing details up to 3, 4k all these inconveniences are gone.
It is major... So unless you want to spend some money to get there, some full-range diy could be for you.
Of course everyone has their own opinion.
I said that i always prefer vintage for a construction fact first of all, because in the vast majority of cases it is more robust and simpler therefore faster in the eventual repair.
There is a lot of choice, also for the type of sound.
Many come from recognized designers.
Less integration and no SMD.
And a modern component, especially in the low and medium prices, is made in China.
No, thanks.
If you open a Rotel (for example) the circuit is very simple, common components, good construction and excellent sound.
If something fails, any technician can repair it without major problems, therefore at reasonable prices.
In the 90s i bought Rotel pre + amp, i was very satisfied and they still work perfectly, no problem.
After so many years, the most likely thing is that in some time the capacitors will have to be replaced, nothing more.
But this is not a failure, it's normal wear.
And when it happens, i will do it myself with very simple equipment.
For used stuff it also depends on how the owners use the devices, but this is usually a problem with car audio components.
The domestic one is more relaxed.
I don't despise those who buy new material, it's also a question of philosophy, but i can't do it.
Especially the speakers.
I've seen the market change too much over the years, for me.
I'm too sensitive..
Last edited:
So a 400w/ch Hypex NCore amp half the size of a shoebox is worse quality than say a 50yo Phase Linear 700 behemoth which often liked to destroy themselves & speakers they're connected to? 😂
Not!
I've owned (and in the past, sold) lots of Rotel gear. It's been a good middling to low high end brand. They have had their share of successful & not so successful products, subject to the usual wear & year of time & use. I have repaired some of their amps, others not. Few have reached the performance of Hypex and Purifi; I would put very few, if any, 20th century amps above these.
I don't question the sound quality of Hypex, but i don't think it's necessary to always aim for "a better sound".
Also because it's a subjective parameter.
Class D is also appreciable for the low absorption compared to vintage classes, but someone may not care about a power of 400w/ch or the size of half a shoebox.
Maybe it's more advisable for use in a car.
I don't know the Phase Linear 700, but it's likely that among so many vintage products there are also some badly made ones.
I've heard of Hypex for its performance, many enthusiasts talk about excellent sound, but in the end i think it's always a matter of taste.
For example, i particularly like high polarizations, high absorption, class A... so i will hardly consider class D, but this is a choice dictated by a personal orientation.
Maybe one day i will listen to a Hypex and change my mind.
However, the eye also wants its part, and in a room, an elegant satin front of a well-sized and robust vintage device can give satisfaction.
Rotel a simple example.
But the topic is bsmith's, i hope the discussion can be useful to him.
Also because it's a subjective parameter.
Class D is also appreciable for the low absorption compared to vintage classes, but someone may not care about a power of 400w/ch or the size of half a shoebox.
Maybe it's more advisable for use in a car.
I don't know the Phase Linear 700, but it's likely that among so many vintage products there are also some badly made ones.
I've heard of Hypex for its performance, many enthusiasts talk about excellent sound, but in the end i think it's always a matter of taste.
For example, i particularly like high polarizations, high absorption, class A... so i will hardly consider class D, but this is a choice dictated by a personal orientation.
Maybe one day i will listen to a Hypex and change my mind.
However, the eye also wants its part, and in a room, an elegant satin front of a well-sized and robust vintage device can give satisfaction.
Rotel a simple example.
But the topic is bsmith's, i hope the discussion can be useful to him.
That's rather strong language. There are absolutely people who can hear the effects of different speaker cables in a particular system. First of all though, the system has to be clean enough not to totally mask the effects of the cables. If you can't hear it then fine, but best not to call some honest people liars. Yes, there are some snake oil cables, but that doesn't make them all snake oil.
Hearing is definitely more than mechanical, the cochlea is an active device, and much of hearing processing occurs neurologically, not mechanically. Look up "otoacoustic emission" and "auditory illusion" to get a feel for how non-intuitive and complex hearing actually is.
Yes that's not in any doubt. My point is that if the mechanicl process suffers due to aging, the size of the sensory signals transmitted to the brain would be reduced. For example, suppose the tympanic membrane became thickened and / or less flexible, it's not a stretch of the imagination to see that the frequency response would be affected, more so at high frequencies than at lower ones. Any of the subtle psychoacoustic or neurological effects would follow from this rather than be the cause themselves.
The brain is clearly unable to compensate for the lack of 'signal'. Also, whaat happens with Tinnitus (which I have in my left ear)?
The brain is clearly unable to compensate for the lack of 'signal'. Also, whaat happens with Tinnitus (which I have in my left ear)?
As said, when and if there is a hypoacusis (that's a hearing impairment, which can have different degrees: mild, moderate, severe or deep), the experience of listening to a musical message reproduced by an audio system cannot be the same as that of a healthy and young subject, and it will also be proportionally a reduced and incomplete listening experience.
We obviously all agree on this.
My hypothesis, not (yet) demonstrated, is that the above does not automatically mean that a hearing impaired listener can give up that portion entirely of the acoustic spectrum that he himself is not able to fully perceive, because if the whole portion of the frequency response of the audio system corresponding to the deficit that the listener with hearing loss presents were entirely cut then his experience of listening would result further worsened, IMHO.
Even becaure one doesn't just listen with his ears only.
We obviously all agree on this.
My hypothesis, not (yet) demonstrated, is that the above does not automatically mean that a hearing impaired listener can give up that portion entirely of the acoustic spectrum that he himself is not able to fully perceive, because if the whole portion of the frequency response of the audio system corresponding to the deficit that the listener with hearing loss presents were entirely cut then his experience of listening would result further worsened, IMHO.
Even becaure one doesn't just listen with his ears only.
Last edited:
Sorry, don't agree. If you have suffered a frequeny dependant hearing loss due to waer & tear in the mechanical side then you might as well think you can imagine what you've lost.
I recommend Googling Occupational Hearing Loss. It;s due to long term exposure to loud sound and is irreversible.
I recommend Googling Occupational Hearing Loss. It;s due to long term exposure to loud sound and is irreversible.
No problem, it seemed obvious to me that I wasn't talking about extreme cases or pathologies, also because here would certainly not be the right context.
Even because extreme cases generally speaking don't need further comment.
Anyway, I reiterate the concept/hypotesis that the sound message reproduced by an audio system must be left intact even if the listener has a non-extreme hearing loss at certain frequencies.
No one will convince me otherwise, also because most likely no one will ever be able to prove it. 😉
Even because extreme cases generally speaking don't need further comment.
Anyway, I reiterate the concept/hypotesis that the sound message reproduced by an audio system must be left intact even if the listener has a non-extreme hearing loss at certain frequencies.
No one will convince me otherwise, also because most likely no one will ever be able to prove it. 😉
Dream on as indeed no one can prove you wrong and you can't prove you are right. Still uncpnvinced, however, though I would never deliberately restict the frequency range of my audio gear to match my hearing range because it's not a sharp cutoff, just reduced sensitivity.