With aging ears, do we turn to Low-Fi now?

I'm convinced. Selling all. Should I replace my electronics with Pyle, GPX, Innovative Technology, Crosley or some other brand? I need to get the worst bang for the buck here. And what should replace the Khorns? All suggestions will be considered.
 
I don't know if its my reduced hearing at age 60, or a loss of interest, But I have lowered the bar for SQ to the point where I am using 3 of matrix 5.1 SS modes on my Onkyo 70 wpc AVR for music. I even use units FM tuner (which actually has reasonable specs) and a Sony Blu-ray disc player for CD's. The scary part is how much I'm thoroughly enjoy the music through a pair of Energy C1 bookshelf speakers w/5.5" woofer, a PSB center, Tiny Minimus 7 rear speakers, and an Energy S10.3 10" 200w sub (which makes up for a lot).

Not long ago I spent some serous cash for the clean, Transparent system I always wanted. Now it sits, seldom used in my rec room, While I enjoy the 5.1 channel matrix SS from my Onkyo AVR. And I don't even care. Funny how things change.
 
Absolutely I've changed! As the audiologist so nicely put it, my hearing is within the average range for people my age, and that age is quite different than when I started in the hobby in the 1970's. The suggestion that I referenced was that Bose may have been targeting an older audience with the particular frequency balance they built in to some of their products, Wave products in particular. Whether they did or not, it's a voicing that works well for me and some of my similarly aging family and friends.


I don't know that I would ever call the sound impressive, which to my mind suggests some kind of wow factor to the experience, but vocalists and musicians are fairly easy to follow and understand, which keeps music interesting record after record, and with a sound that is rich, smooth, and non-fatiguing. I would characterize the sound as "satisfying" rather than impressive.

The audiologist has a way with words that both soothes and irritates... diplomatic. I used to work in the business which involved a busy sales floor and the sales people had an expression for Bose... 901's at that time... that went 'no highs no lows must be Bose'. My comments are biased from that experience... not that Bose targeted an older audience, just that their product inherently had no highs or lows in the first place. I think your term of 'satisfying' is much more accurate.... saying it was impressive came from my biased reference of 'for what it is'. I liked the 901's, thought they were pleasing... non-fatiguing, smooth, spacious sound field... with certain kinds of music, especially for background, non intrusive listening. Bose had an employee purchase at the time which packaged their 901's with their 1801 amp for $600. Everybody bought one so they could resell it unopened. I bought one and lived with it awhile.. made great rear speakers in a quad system, seemed to enhance front to back separation with matrix encoded discs. Actually... all speakers running it sounded good, front speakers were JBL S8, three way... the Bose worked well with the JBL.
 
Was wondering if you could expand on this, I for one would be very interested in any information you might be able to provide. How do you find a qualified practitioner, number of treatments that may be required to obtain desired results, are the results "durable", or are continuous treatments required? Anything you could tell us would be greatly appreciated!!
You can youtube a myriad of explanations on treating ears and hearing.
For instance,
Good Luck!
 
I've found this table very interesting.

grondtonen.jpg
 
I'm convinced. Selling all. Should I replace my electronics with Pyle, GPX, Innovative Technology, Crosley or some other brand?
Fortunately, the answer is quite simple and replaces not only electronics, but speakers as well. The choice depends mostly on the size of room you're wanting to fill with sound. Up to about 400 square feet, the Bose Wave music system IV is all you need. For larger rooms, the Bose Acoustic Wave music system II might be preferred. I bought both some years ago on their 30-day trial, and ended up preferring, and keeping, the smaller unit, returning the larger one for a full refund. A friend of mine found the larger unit to work best in his home. I also bought the SoundLink adapter to receive wireless music and other audio entertainment from my computer; it looks like they offer similar or even more advanced capability in their Wave SoundTouch system IV.
 
The audiologist has a way with words that both soothes and irritates... diplomatic. I used to work in the business which involved a busy sales floor and the sales people had an expression for Bose... 901's at that time... that went 'no highs no lows must be Bose'.
Never quite understood that criticism, particularly with respect to the 901's since published tests showed very good, even response from about 40 to at least 14,000 Hz. I've read that research shows that a frequency range of 60-8000 Hz will give me 90% of what a full symphony is capable of playing, and that 40-14,000 Hz represents virtual perfection. The DIN standards for high fidelity specified a response range of 40-12,500 Hz. A lot of small speakers won't make it down to 40 Hz, but Alan Shaw of Harbeth makes a compelling case for the satisfactory sound that can be had even when all frequencies below 60 Hz are eliminated, and limiting low frequencies to 60 Hz is said to be more neighbor-friendly in living situations in which you must share walls.
 
I guess there are some who don't want to hear the open E string on a bass (41.2Hz). Me, well, I want to hear as much as possible. Although my high frequency hearing may be declining that's not the case for bass.
 
Never quite understood that criticism, particularly with respect to the 901's since published tests showed very good, even response from about 40 to at least 14,000 Hz. I've read that research shows that a frequency range of 60-8000 Hz will give me 90% of what a full symphony is capable of playing, and that 40-14,000 Hz represents virtual perfection. The DIN standards for high fidelity specified a response range of 40-12,500 Hz. A lot of small speakers won't make it down to 40 Hz, but Alan Shaw of Harbeth makes a compelling case for the satisfactory sound that can be had even when all frequencies below 60 Hz are eliminated, and limiting low frequencies to 60 Hz is said to be more neighbor-friendly in living situations in which you must share walls.

We used to play with limiting system response with high end equalizers, cutting off the response above 10 kHz, 12 kHz, 15 kHz... or below 60 Hz, 50 Hz, 40 Hz, 30 Hz. WE all pretty much agreed that removing everything above 15 kHz was barely noticeable, above 12 kHz, definitely noticeable but still satisfactory, above 10 kHz and the sweetness of timbre started to disappear. Below 40 Hz made quite a difference, below 30 hardly unless it was a particular passage known for bass...like the opening of Thus Spoke Zarathurstra... or certain Emerson Lake and Palmer tracks. In my experience, compared to floor standers...like altec 19s, JBL L 300s, AR 10s or 11s, Infinity Monitor IIs, the four Bose 901s, which were in the same room, did not have any of the impact and performance of those speakers with their extended frequency response and dynamic range using multiple sized drivers. The four Bose were powered by the their own 1801 power amp with their dedicated equalizer. The others used the same pre amp and source but different power amp...an SAE as I remember. Different sources... records, a Shure V-15 type III, a Tandberg reel to reel with a commercially recorded tape, a Harmon Kardon 1000 cassette deck. I did like the sound of the Bose 901 series, but do not think they are capable of delivering high impact extended frequencies like others listed.. which is okay, but Bose marketed them as though they did... sold many as disco systems which in my opinion was not an application for them... disco and high level reproduction needed 'pounders' that could project high spl across the spectrum without fatigue. Many JBL, Altec, AR, Bozak, Klipsch type systems could... they could make a bass drum hit with impact and produce bass that would make your pant legs shake... make you forget everything but the music... they could play softly too. With the sale people, that is the source of the criticism against the Bose, fueled by their advertising. We were all young at the time. Sales personal opinion had nothing to do with selling them though.. the margin was good and in many ways they easy to sell.. the sound was pleasing and women liked them for the look, and the stands were neat as well as the fact they could be chain mounted from the ceiling.. with the optional wood trim kit they looked very nice. I saw many of them in tastefully designed dens supplied with nice electronics tucked behind built in walnut enclosures.
 
Hey, is this thread still open!?? :rflmao:


What I take from being nearly 45 (birthday in 2 weeks) is that I tend to care less about overall sq, and more about enjoying music.

I've got the big bad-boy system (Vandersteen, Aragon 18K II, blah blah) and yet, I have a blast spinning stuff on my low end tt and thru an old non-restored Pioneer SX3400.

Ultra high fidelity ain't my be-all, end-all anymore.

I still want some Dunlavys, tho.
 
. . . I did like the sound of the Bose 901 series, but do not think they are capable of delivering high impact extended frequencies like others listed.. which is okay, but Bose marketed them as though they did. . ..
Well, I can't defend the 901's too much. After all, when they could still be found in hifi shops, I compared, preferred, and purchased Klipsch La Scala rather than 901's (though I later ended up liking the little Linn Saras better than the Klipsch). But it's interesting that even the rather derogatory review put out by Stereophile found them impressive in a way, saying, "The 901 sounds fantastically open and spacious, with a big, fat low end and a socko you-are-there presence that seems to put the performers right in the room, surrounded by the original auditorium."
https://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/425/index.html
 
Well, I can't defend the 901's too much. After all, when they could still be found in hifi shops, I compared, preferred, and purchased Klipsch La Scala rather than 901's (though I later ended up liking the little Linn Saras better than the Klipsch). But it's interesting that even the rather derogatory review put out by Stereophile found them impressive in a way, saying, "The 901 sounds fantastically open and spacious, with a big, fat low end and a socko you-are-there presence that seems to put the performers right in the room, surrounded by the original auditorium."
https://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/425/index.html

Yeah.. the Stereophile review. I agree about the spacious but the rest is a bit overdrawn. If I had a suitable spare room I'd like to have a set of 901s. They can be very pleasing... thing is, they have such a different sound it's hard to compare them to anything else. The right spacing behind them, wedge back, in an open room they sound very airy.. can look right at them and they hardly seem to be the sound source. It is amazing what they were able to do with nine four inch drivers in that little wedge shaped cabinet. I remember when they first came out... reading the literature before seeing the product... everyone sort of laughed at the idea of nine pumped up little drivers with a couple of hundred watts... like if Sound Design suddenly decided to make a big version of one of their ideas and marketed them against big name Hi Fi. Listening though they had a pleasant sound all their own...but they didn't produce the presence of impact of a quality floor stander.... which some people do not want. Women sure liked them..... would say the word Bose almost reverently...:)
 
Having read a few posts lately regarding people having trouble hearing high frequency sound when they age, I am certainly on the same boat here. I did some hearing tests and found that I could only hear up to 10-12Khz these days, I think mostly because of working in noisy heavy industry at young age. ... This has generated my thoughts, do we turn to low-fi systems to satisfy our needs when we are aging?

I'm in the same situation, hearing-wise - spent my youth in machine shops and rock venues - now approaching mid-sixties with tinnitus and top-end hearing loss. Best I can do is mis-quote Mr. Thomas:

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Rage, rage against the dying of the SQ"

No low-fi for me just yet.
 
Yeah.. the Stereophile review. I agree about the spacious but the rest is a bit overdrawn. If I had a suitable spare room I'd like to have a set of 901s. They can be very pleasing... thing is, they have such a different sound it's hard to compare them to anything else. The right spacing behind them, wedge back, in an open room they sound very airy.. can look right at them and they hardly seem to be the sound source. It is amazing what they were able to do with nine four inch drivers in that little wedge shaped cabinet. I remember when they first came out... reading the literature before seeing the product... everyone sort of laughed at the idea of nine pumped up little drivers with a couple of hundred watts... like if Sound Design suddenly decided to make a big version of one of their ideas and marketed them against big name Hi Fi. Listening though they had a pleasant sound all their own...but they didn't produce the presence of impact of a quality floor stander.... which some people do not want. Women sure liked them..... would say the word Bose almost reverently...:)

Very off topic, but I miss my Bose 601 II's I restored (and sold for a healthy profit). While they didn't sound like anything else I had, they sounded......fun? If I was less discriminating, I'd have kept them. Certainly a nice experience, especially with live music. Mated to my old Carver 900 The Receiver, it was one hell of a nice sounding system.
 
When you attend a live concert do you ask the performers to tone down the quality of the performance? When you step out side do you ask nature to tone down the sounds you hear or the quality of the view your old eyes see? Of course not. So why lower the quality of your hi fi?. Remember what Paul Klipsch use to recommend. That your go out as often as you can to live concert that is un amplified to tune up your ears, so when you go home you know if your system is working as it should. I bet you will find you might need to improve your system. I always do.
 
I worked with fighter jets for years which gave me the nifty, dual-frequency ringing in my ears. I hear to 10.4K in one and 11.5K in the other. The left ear suffers a modest drop out centred around 6K. You wouldn't think that I could distinguish the noise of a shot gun racking a shell from an oboe! I bought my first big speakers from a half deaf (hearing in only one ear) elderly man who pointed out things that my dumb, young ears didn't notice. The body adapts wisely.

Recently I broke my great amp and am using an old, stereo receiver to power my speakers. The music is very clearly inferior. I still enjoy it. It's music. What's not to like?
So with regard to the original question; with inferior hearing ability should we move to more modest gear? I think not.

A huge part of the hobby is the gear too. I still enjoy fiddling with gear and hearing the difference between them.
 
Whew, long read and it even included a bonus discussion on the fidelity of 901's. My tinnitus is usually moderate and in mostly in the left ear. Well it's friggin' raging in both ears now. Then again I had a hip replacement a week ago tomorrow. I'm off my regular non-narcotic meds for fibromyalgia in favor of Lovenox and Norco which means 3 days of constipation followed by 3 days of the opposite. One thing for sure is stress is a serious factor. The elimination of alcohol hasn't seemed to make a difference. Still having coffee in the mornings though. I saw this thread yesterday, but couldn't read it - I was too upset. At the risk of overshare I was crying over my loss of hearing, I was in despair. You see I had set aside a project for recovery to spend some time testing my home built Yamahstein head phones and making further adjustments using the Ultimate Headphone Test. The first test for low freq extension went well at 20-25 Hz. The 2nd test for high freq extension was devastating. The 22kHz to 8kHz sweep was a bust, I heard nothing, nada, zilch. I tried speakers, my other headphones, other amps, other tone generators - same dead air. Then I realized it was my ears. I ran some more sweeps and found the highest I can hear is just under 7kHz. I was devastated. My plan is to followup with the ENT and audiologist and go from there. Like other's have said here - what sounds good to you is what you should have. No more, no less. I'm pretty sure I'm done chasing specs for higher and higher-fi though.
 
Ultra high fidelity ain't my be-all

Agreed, the only requirement should be you are happy with what you have. Sometimes people think someone who doesn't strive to reach the level they are at doesn't appreciate SQ or the music as much as they do. The real players in the audio world have to have top-shelf gear and half-speed masters. I call BS on this.
I have a race car that is pretty fast, is everyone who is slower at the track a wanna-be? Is everyone faster a better builder than me?
 
Very off topic, but I miss my Bose 601 II's I restored (and sold for a healthy profit). While they didn't sound like anything else I had, they sounded......fun? If I was less discriminating, I'd have kept them.
That doesn't seem terribly off-topic. Whatever response anomalies the 601 II's had to make them sound unlike anything else you had, even if their measured response might not be in keeping with what we think of as high fidelity, they made music fun. This is in line with the OP's finding greater enjoyment in a system and pair of speakers that he doesn't feel reproduces the incoming signal with as great a degree of fidelity as some of his other equipment, saying, "it has more forward (in your face) sound. With smaller and close proximity of the listening space, the sound it produces has compensated my hearing loss on high frequencies in my opinions." The one review I saw of the Ditton 15 seems to agree, "Pretty little speakers with relatively clean and bright sound. Quite unbalanced though, with treble dominating over all other frequencies."

Roger Russell has an interesting article that includes information on age-related and other types of hearing loss. http://www.roger-russell.com/hearing/hearing.htm

One example is that the average man of your age already has a sensitivity to 8 kHz sound that is about 20 dB lower than the average male between 15 and 25 years of age. Related to this, Russell wrote, "the amount of highs can be compared between two speakers but judgment cannot be made on which speaker has the most accurate highs and best overall frequency balance. Often, persons with a high frequency hearing loss will favor speakers or other equipment with exaggerated highs to compensate." Exaggerated frequency ranges are not in keeping with the concept of fidelity in sound, but if it sounds better to a person, so what? I don't know what Bose does with respect to frequency response in their little table radios, but it helps my aging ears hear more of what's going on in the music, especially at the low volumes I need to listen at.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom