[Rclark]

  Or at least how does one review gear without at least first divulging the stats of one's ears? Are you even capable of hearing the entire range of sound being produced? Are you wearing a hearing device? Do you suffer from tinnitus and other ailments? After all, the experience with equipment is nice to have, but what happens once the decades start to slip past and you forget what it was like to hear above 10k? After all, aren't the ears and their quality also part of the review system?

 I often find myself reading these reviews nowadays, and will often see them written by older gentleman, and I often wonder just how useful the review actually is, beyond measurements and the technical stuff.

 I think it should become a standard for in a review, one should divulge their age range and/or hearing test results in some abbreviated form. Especially for reviews of more expensive gear, if you think about it after you laugh, it does make sense. For professional reviews I mean. Such as in the audio magazines and review site. Forum reviews by forum users are by their very nature less serious.

[Photon46]

Your query seems to imply you believe that audio system analysis and evaluation is a "by the numbers" process that can't be valid if one's hearing doesn't include the last upper octave or two of hearing. If that's the case, no reviewer over the age of around 20-25 would be given credence because by that age the majority of males show the onset of hearing decline. That's as silly as saying no musician or conductor is qualified to be a meaningful evaluator of instruments or orchestral playing because they can't hear the highest overtones or harmonics of any given instrument or orchestra. Music is an objective aggregate of physical phenomena organized by human emotion and intelligence and it takes both subjective and objective faculties to evaluate. I know in my case, there's been a deeper understanding of music that evolves with aging, but my hearing's declined a bit. Have my preferences in audio gear and the basic type of sound I like changed even though I've lost acuity above 14-15 hz.? No, not one bit. Would knowing if a reviewers hearing was down 3 db. at 18khz.make any difference in how I received their review, probably not too much once I knew their basic preference in sound reproduction. The more gear one hears, the broader that data base for comparison. I think broad exposure to living with different gear is necessary for meaningful reviews and it takes time to acquire this exposure.

[jtwrace]

No.  At the end of the day, you the consumer should be doing everything possible to listen to the product yourself and shouldn't be buying soley based on reviews.  The review is intended to be a guide for where you maybe should look NOT actually purchase.  Basically giving you more products to consider.

[jaxwired]

The truth is that appreciating and distinquishing between great audio equipment rarely requires great hearing.  It's much more a matter of training what to listen for and how to listen.  It's practice, not innate hearing ability that makes a great reviewer.  Much like with wine tasting.  Nothing wrong with my sense of taste yet I couldn't tell a $200 bottle of wine from a $4 bottle...

[Niteshade]

Physically: As one ages, if they know the limitations of their hearing, then it should be fine. Any age: The same thing can be said AND listening is always better if you keep the spuds out of your ears!

Emotion: There is always going to be some of that. Has nothing to do with age. In fact, emotion may be a good thing for some facets of a review. I have my favorite songs as others do. If it is played well, I **know** it and it makes me extremely happy. This emotional experience will undoubtedly provide the listener with added insight and improve the review.

[Photon46]

I think the ability of  audio equipment to communicate the emotion of music is more important than being numerically accurate. I suppose if one's a total objectivist, then one would say that ability to communicate numbers accurately is the sole criterion for achieving this. I don't buy this at all though, reality is far more complex than measurements. If you buy this line of reasoning you'd believe you could totally define the difference between Janet Baker's voice and Joan Sutherland's by presenting enough data points on graphs.

My wife and I were discussing this while taking a jog this morning. She has suffered from hearing loss and LOUD tinnitus all her adult life. On a hearing response graph, she can't hear anything above 9khz. effectively. But you know what, when we go on listening excursions to evaluate new gear, she arrives at the same conclusions I do. We make sure to not talk about it or try to influence the other while listening, so I don't think it's a case of unconscious influence either. Even though she suffers from not being able to hear a large part of the audio frequency spectrum, she still totally gets the gestalt of a given piece of gear.

[Elizabeth]

IQ test s for all posters before being allowed to post. hearing tests also.
No one allowed to post without complete evaluation either.
Clear up the fuzz postings too.
Making arbitrary rules would certainly run afoul of the law. 

[acresm22]

No, no peak age. I read audio reviews for entertainment value only. My equipment buying decisions are not influenced one iota by what reviewers say.
Golden ears or not (and I'm inclined to think not), reviewers are responding to their own biases and preferences, as well as to advertising budgets, internal reviewing policies, etc.
I used to enjoy Sam Tellig's reviews in Stereophile because of his writing, not because they shed any light on the stuff he was reviewing. He was always a fanboy for Cary, Musical Fidelity, etc...you could count on a glowing review every time. In fact, Sam would ONLY write glowing reviews. If a piece of equipment came his way that he didn't like, you wouldn't see it reviewed.
I'm reminded of some comments from Frank Rich when he decided a few years ago to quit writing op-ed pieces for the NYT. He said something to the effect that it was increasingly difficult to be in a job that required you to have strong opinions about things you don't always feel all that strongly about.

[macrojack]

For me the entire genre "peaked" at least 15 years ago. Reviews are just plain formulaic. I don't much care about the info they provide except for useful details like how many inputs and outputs, is there a remote, does it go to eleven?

[Æ]

The truth is that appreciating and distinquishing between great audio equipment rarely requires great hearing.  It's much more a matter of training what to listen for and how to listen.  It's practice, not innate hearing ability that makes a great reviewer.  Much like with wine tasting.  Nothing wrong with my sense of taste yet I couldn't tell a $200 bottle of wine from a $4 bottle...

Bravo!

[TONEPUB]

You shouldn't by ANY piece of gear based on a review, one of ours or otherwise.

With everyone's room, hearing, software and personal preferences being different, hopefully a good review can describe a component well enough that you would want to investigate it for yourself to see if it performs as described and if it meets your needs.

I've told many a manufacturer that our job isn't to sell the gear, it's to hopefully make their phone ring.  But in the mid - late 80's a good review in Stereophile or TAS meant money at the box office.

With so many online outlets and forums, hopefully the consumer is able to get more information about a particular piece of gear before they take a test drive, but in the end, you either respond to the component or you don't, just as you would with a car, etc etc.  It doesn't matter how many times Car and Driver tells me that a Lexus is a great car, I don't want one.

And considering that we've received thousands of emails over the years from readers who have gone to listen to various things and felt we've done a good job of describing components that they've gone on to purchase, I feel that we're on the right track, but there is always room for improvement.

[jmc207]

The truth is that appreciating and distinquishing between great audio equipment rarely requires great hearing.  It's much more a matter of training what to listen for and how to listen.  It's practice, not innate hearing ability that makes a great reviewer.  Much like with wine tasting.  Nothing wrong with my sense of taste yet I couldn't tell a $200 bottle of wine from a $4 bottle...

Bravo!

Seconded!

[acresm22]

The truth is that appreciating and distinquishing between great audio equipment rarely requires great hearing.  It's much more a matter of training what to listen for and how to listen.  It's practice, not innate hearing ability that makes a great reviewer.  Much like with wine tasting.  Nothing wrong with my sense of taste yet I couldn't tell a $200 bottle of wine from a $4 bottle...

Yeah, I don't really agree with the "training how to listen" stuff. And to use your own analogy, there was an interesting study several years ago about how wine connoisseurs responded favorably to a cheap wine that was rebottled in an expensive package.

[TONEPUB]

We had a very similar experience with the Polk Audio LSiM 707's.  They are some of the best speakers I've heard lately and with a price tag of only $3995.  I put black tape over the small logos and had a few of my more snooty audiophile friends over to listen and they all thought the speakers were $20k a pair.  When I told them that they were only 3995 and made by Polk Audio, they lost interest.

Lew Johnson and Bill Conrad told me they had the same experience with a well known reviewer when they told him that their latest creation was $15,000 - the praise flowed until they told him the real price of $3795.

The problem is that there's been just enough crappy sounding stuff with an expensive price tag, that more expensive can mean better, just not 100% of the time.

I think the point of practice (or as I like to call it, seat time) is critical. 

[Æ]

there was an interesting study several years ago about how wine connoisseurs responded favorably to a cheap wine that was rebottled in an expensive package.

This was even more interesting: Alcohol placebo.

"Fake Alcohol Makes You Drunk." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/3874.php

[JRace]

My day job is to evaluate hearing and fit hearing aids.
My night job is to evaluate stereo gear and write reviews.

So I feel I am in a good position to comment on the original post. My experienced opinion?
A hearing test will tell you nothing about the persons ability to evaluate audio gear.

A standard hearing test will only determine how quiet of a sound you can detect between the frequencies of 125Hz - 8kHz, and how well you comprehend speech when delivered at your comfort level. These results are compared to what is considered 'normal hearing'.

To be rated as normal you must be able to detect all sounds between 125-8000, at a level between -10dB HL and +25dB HL (HL is SPL with our equal loudness curve factored in amongst other things).

[Zero]

RClark,

There are many problems with this proposition.  For starters;  Whose place would it be (outside of the publication itself) to determine when a reviewer has hit his/her expiration date? What criteria should be used to justifiably terminate the reviewers job? Age? Results from their most recent hearing test? Who will determine what specific parameters will be used to draw the line between those who are deemed capable of reliably assessing the performance of gear to those who cannot? Who's going to pay for these trips to the Audiologist? Who is going to ensure that the Audiologist is using equipment that is up to the task of taking 'career changing' measurements? And if such standards were to be imposed on reviewers, then wouldn't it also be prudent to demand the very same thing from the folks who actually design and sell hi-fi gear?

Going off that thread of thought; why should the criteria stop there? What about the persons past history/experience with hi-fi? Shouldn't there be a standard that each person should be required to meet before they adorn the 'reviewing' stripes?  What about their room? Pictures of their space along with graphs displaying how the room measures per the reviewers listening chair would be nice. Also, shouldn't every reviewer have ample reference points? What kind of gear should a reviewer own before they are deemed worthy of evaluating gear?  And again.. who is to determine all of these standards?  Anyway...  as you can tell...  the list can go on and on. 

Personally, I think the above notions are a tad ridiculous. Most of the folks who rock the 'reviewer' stripes are unpaid volunteers who write for Ezene's that honestly have very little influence over the market to begin with. And while I'm all about holding up stringent standards to those we elect into positions of real power - I feel that doing the same for hi-fi reviewers is pure nonsense. As a reader, all you have to do is take a review for what it is; one persons (hopefully educated) articulation of their experience with a product. Nothing more. Nothing less. 

And if you're lucky, you'll find a reviewer (or two) whose impressions are consistently aligned with your own. For me, that reviewer is Neil Gader. I find that I agree with his assessments most of the time. Which means I could honestly give a sh!t about what he owns, what room he uses to evaluate gear, or what the results of his latest hearing test look like. All I need to know is that if he gives something a solid thumbs up, then there's a strong chance that I too would like the same product.  THAT is when a reviewer/review truly becomes a valuable asset. Or at least - that's how I see it.

[JohnR]

And if such standards were to be imposed on reviewers, then wouldn't it also be prudent to demand the very same thing from the folks who actually design and sell hi-fi gear?

No no no  It's the buyers that should be made to take the test 

Seriously though, I've seen it suggested that people who post positive impressions or evaluation of gear on forums should be more candid about revealing what their room is actually like. Perhaps it would help people to take reviews into context better if some key room measurements were made available. It surprises me that you wouldn't care what the room was (wrt the example reviewer you mentioned) - I'd be curious to know why you think it would make no difference.

[Letitroll98]

Well, it took less than 24 hours for Rclark to get thoroughly beat up on this one.  Does one applaud his courage for asking questions like this, or feel insulted at the obvious age bias discrimination displayed?  If one asked if black people should be banned from music reviews because of they're propensity to gravitate toward rap, I think we'd all be suitably appalled and the thread would be binned post haste.  No dear sir, I don't think your proposal has any merit in the least.

Rclark has proved to be a gentleman in the face of pointed criticism on another controversial thread recently posted, so expect no less of him here.  On that thread both the quality of his system and his hearing were called into question.  So should Rclark be shouted down from posting his impressions on audio equipment because he can't hear differences in cables?  I don't think so, he didn't seem too happy about it, so why the flip the script here?  A final aside, my GF is legally deaf in one ear and has reduced hearing in the other.  I know of no finer and more discerning ear for audio quality, or lack thereof, in my ancient 58 years on your planet.       

[Rclark]

I can understand how it can be taken offensively, especially if one is of a certain age, but it's a completely fair question.

Perhaps professional reviews can be done in pairings, with a trained, younger ear as well as the seasoned hand.

If one were in the market for a Ferrari, one wouldn't want to read or watch reviews exclusively done by 70 year old arthritic ex-racers, because you wouldn't be given the full account of the car's performance. Heck, even Top Gear has a Stig.

It's completely fair and if you just calm down and think about it, it makes sense to do reviews with good ears. I know, that for me personally, as I can hear up pretty high, it matters that aubjective portions of reviews are sometimes done with less sensitive personal equipment. I am not offended by the question at all, as much as you, at 58 are.