Reviewers should have their hearing tested and post results

[Ron Texas]

I can't hear you. I have beans in my ears.

 

[Vacceo]

Yes that dial is in between ‘air’ and ‘perceptual accurcy’

If some day I drop by to see you and try a couple sets of speakers, remind me to play some Carcass, Benediction or Bolt Thrower to come up with colorful ways to describe the double kick drum.

 

[Bland_username42069]

None one can wire an amp for "timbral verisimilitude" like Ken Shindo.

(/s because I'm new here)

 

[Mart68]

High end electronics aren't sold on what they can make audible that lesser equipment cannot. They're sold on the emotional connection they give to the music.

So hearing acuity doesn't come into it.

Like washing powder - they don't sell on how clean it gets clothes anymore, now it's all about how effective it is at lower temperatures so you're saving the polar bears when you use it.

 

[Haskil]

As the title says, reviewers should have their hearing tested and post the results annually.

I saw this posted elsewhere, but thought it might be a good thread for a good chuckle. Since we are on ASR and AMIRM states that he is trained in critical listening maybe he should volunteer to be the first of many. Not trying to accuse him of anything, but he does post subjective listening tests for many speakers and headphones (along with measurements) why not subject himself first and ask others to follow suit?

What exactly are you checking?

You can specify ?

 

[TankTop]

What exactly are you checking?

You can specify ?

We could just start with a general hearing test, see how many of these guys are halfway deaf anyway

 

[MattHooper]

Meh. I don’t think it would make a difference to anybody.

The type of person who would demand to see a reviewer’s hearing test is probably already the type of person sceptical of subjective reports anyway. And would likely look to measurements in any case.

For myself, I generally looked to whether a reviewer accurately describes the sound of speakers that I’m familiar with, which can give me a bit of confidence in their track record.

Guys like Michael Fremer , Herb Reichert, John Atkinson…. they have been old for a long time now, and I have found their characterizations of loudspeakers to be pretty accurate and insightful.

 

[Chrispy]

Thinking of an eye test, you can be determined to have 20/20 vision but you may not be observant, or easily fooled by eye candy as another with the same rated vision....hearing test could be similar, doesn't mean what they describe using their hearing is particularly useful. Does make me wonder if they do have deficient hearing, will they wear hearing aids? Just pondering....but I doubt the general subjective reviewer would participate in any case.

 

[J.M. Noble]

Perhaps…but I would strongly advise anyone to steer clear of ‘listening training’ or whatever you want to call it.

This is a serious occupational hazard. I used to work in high end car audio (Nakamichi and McIntosh back then, not Pioneer and Rockford Fosgate) and I presently do a fair amount of live sound engineering. It's hard to turn the critical/technical ears off and just enjoy stuff sometimes--especially at live shows.

I had a hearing test a few years ago. I was expecting the worst, considering my professional history with loud stuff and being over 50, but other than a narrow dip at 8kHz (likely due to mild tinnitus in that range) both ears were normal. I told the audiologist that I am a musician and also work in sound production so she did an extended range test on the high end that they don't usually bother with, and I was good out to 14kHz or wherever they test to. I was shocked!

But even so, I certainly don't possess the hearing I had 30-40 years ago and no amount of training/experience is going to make up for it. I doubt there are very many fellow senior menu geezers (i.e. many/most reviewers) out there who are doing any better. Maybe we should take Jack Weinberg's advice to heart when it comes to reviews: "Don't trust anyone over 30."

 

[Descartes]

High end electronics aren't sold on what they can make audible that lesser equipment cannot. They're sold on the emotional connection they give to the music.

So hearing acuity doesn't come into it.

Like washing powder - they don't sell on how clean it gets clothes anymore, now it's all about how effective it is at lower temperatures so you're saving the polar bears when you use it.

So funny!

 

[Descartes]

This is a serious occupational hazard. I used to work in high end car audio (Nakamichi and McIntosh back then, not Pioneer and Rockford Fosgate) and I presently do a fair amount of live sound engineering. It's hard to turn the critical/technical ears off and just enjoy stuff sometimes--especially at live shows.

I had a hearing test a few years ago. I was expecting the worst, considering my professional history with loud stuff and being over 50, but other than a narrow dip at 8kHz (likely due to mild tinnitus in that range) both ears were normal. I told the audiologist that I am a musician and also work in sound production so she did an extended range test on the high end that they don't usually bother with, and I was good out to 14kHz or wherever they test to. I was shocked!

But even so, I certainly don't possess the hearing I had 30-40 years ago and no amount of training/experience is going to make up for it. I doubt there are very many fellow senior menu geezers (i.e. many/most reviewers) out there who are doing any better. Maybe we should take Jack Weinberg's advice to heart when it comes to reviews: "Don't trust anyone over 30."

Especially subjective reviews!

 

[restorer-john]

Any reviewer wanting to have their opnions on sound to be taken remotely seriously should have an extensive hearing analysis done regularly and publish the results. But, it'll never happen. Mainly because most of them are over 50 years old and their hearing is on a rapid downhill slope. Their credibility in the hearing acuity part would be shot to pieces.

But, they have decades of experience in listening and knowing what to listen for, and that is extremely valuable to their readers/audience.

It's a bit like old, rich guys buying supercars they can't drive with the reflexes they had in their 20s and 30s but couldn't afford back then.

 

[MattHooper]

In my industry we have some pretty senior guys on the mixing board and they still pull off great mixes.

 

[Ron Texas]

In my industry we have some pretty senior guys on the mixing board and they still pull off great mixes.

The only thing I know how to mix is a Manhattan.

 

[amirm]

As the title says, reviewers should have their hearing tested and post the results annually.

I saw this posted elsewhere, but thought it might be a good thread for a good chuckle. Since we are on ASR and AMIRM states that he is trained in critical listening maybe he should volunteer to be the first of many. Not trying to accuse him of anything, but he does post subjective listening tests for many speakers and headphones (along with measurements) why not subject himself first and ask others to follow suit?

It is admirable that you are asking for some qualification for someone to become an audio reviewer. Alas, the solution you are providing is not going to work.

Here is Harman's controlled testing of different groups:

Let's agree that the young college students are likely to have the highest hearing range. Yet they did so poorly due to lack of training and thinking "everything sounds great."

What blew all of them out of water was Trained listeners. It is *that* skill that you want to seek in a reviewer, not what frequency response they have.

As noted, even if we go by your request, the data is not there. I have taken three audiology tests. In all cases, the testing was limited to 8 kHz, and the presentation was some graph with four data points on it or some such thing.

In the interest of transparency, I have significant age related high frequency loss. So you don't want to trust my hearing above 10 kHz. Fortunately below that, I do quite well beating many in controlled testing. Indeed the audiologist report showed higher than average population sensitivity in mid frequencies.

Bottom line, I like to see the industry develop a certification program for people to get trained and pass. As it is, anyone who can get loaned audio gear tells the world he is a reviewer and that is that.

 

[JSmith]

qualification for someone to become an audio reviewer

Surely some form of measuring equipment is a prerequisite in 2024? Rather than just a word salad...


JSmith

 

[amirm]

Surely some form of measuring equipment is a prerequisite in 2024? Rather than just a word salad...


JSmith

That too.

 

[MattHooper]

The only thing I know how to mix is a Manhattan.

I won’t believe you until you’ve had your taste buds tested!

(or until I’ve tasted one of your Manhattans myself)

 

[pablolie]

I never ever trust anyone's always subjective hearing impressions to begin with. And anyone can post fake hearing tests on the internet. I'd rather trust my own ears when it comes down to that, thank you very much for wasting your time In fact we deal with "I can hear" every other time in audio discussions, and I believe it as much as the claims of people that can levitate at home.

 

[TankTop]

It is admirable that you are asking for some qualification for someone to become an audio reviewer. Alas, the solution you are providing is not going to work.

Here is Harman's controlled testing of different groups:

Let's agree that the young college students are likely to have the highest hearing range. Yet they did so poorly due to lack of training and thinking "everything sounds great."

What blew all of them out of water was Trained listeners. It is *that* skill that you want to seek in a reviewer, not what frequency response they have.

As noted, even if we go by your request, the data is not there. I have taken three audiology tests. In all cases, the testing was limited to 8 kHz, and the presentation was some graph with four data points on it or some such thing.

In the interest of transparency, I have significant age related high frequency loss. So you don't want to trust my hearing above 10 kHz. Fortunately below that, I do quite well beating many in controlled testing. Indeed the audiologist report showed higher than average population sensitivity in mid frequencies.

Bottom line, I like to see the industry develop a certification program for people to get trained and pass. As it is, anyone who can get loaned audio gear tells the world he is a reviewer and that is that.

Thank you for your response, it is valued! I still think many reviewers past the age of 50 may be more than half deaf… lol… making up numbers as I go