Category: Music

It’s no secret that I’ve been infected with the HiFi bug since I was originally exposed to it in the 70s (the glory days of consumer audio as they’re known) in high school by my buddy Ken. Over the years, I’ve spent thousands of dollars in pursuit of that ideal sound and the irony has not been lost on me that as I’ve gotten older and my disposable income increased, allowing me the ability to chase after this ill-defined dream, my hearing has also been steadily diminishing on probably the same scale. I painfully discovered this in the early 2000s when I blew out a pair of tweeters in my system while trying to hear an 18kHz tone.

I’ve come to accept I can’t really hear pretty much anything over about 12kHz any more. Do I know I’m missing “something” that I used to hear? Yes. Maybe some of the “sparkle” that’s clearly lodged in my memory of these performances. Does that lessen my appreciation of music in any way? Not one bit.

That’s why this post on Reddit (copied below) resonated with me. I don’t know how many of you are as HiFi obsessed as I’ve been all my life or are just casual listeners, but I know that most—if not all—of my readers fall within in the same age range as myself and I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

---

A Small Theory About Audiophiles and Aging (Curious What You Think)

I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I’m genuinely curious whether it resonates with anyone here.

We all know age-related high-frequency hearing loss (presbycusis) is normal. Most of us could hear close to 18–20 kHz as teenagers. Over time, that upper range gradually declines. It’s subtle, but measurable.

At the same time, the people who go deepest into the hobby (high-resolution libraries, serious DACs, carefully chosen amplifiers, room treatment, premium speakers) often aren’t 20-year-olds. They tend to be older.

Of course, disposable income plays a role, but not always. I know very wealthy people in their 20s and early 30s who could afford serious systems if they wanted to.

Here’s the thought:

As our hearing changes, music doesn’t sound exactly the way it did when we were younger. Not worse, necessarily. Just different. Maybe a little less sparkle. A bit less “air.” Slightly less immediacy in the top end.

So we start refining.

We upgrade the source. Then the DAC. Then the amp. Then the speakers. We experiment with positioning, isolation, cables, power. Each change brings subtle differences. Sometimes clearly audible, sometimes more subjective, but meaningful.

What if part of that drive isn’t just about objective fidelity?

What if it’s also about chasing a memory?

Not a specific frequency response curve, but the feeling of how music hit us when our hearing was at its peak. The internal reference we formed in our late teens or early twenties.

In that sense, the audiophile journey might be partly restorative. We’re not only optimizing equipment. We’re trying to align our present experience with an earlier sensory benchmark.

Interestingly, this might also explain why some listeners gravitate toward slightly warmer presentations over time. A smoother top end, richer harmonics, a more relaxed character. Not necessarily more accurate, but more satisfying.

I’m not saying this is the whole story. Gear differences are real. Room acoustics matter. Recordings matter. Taste evolves.

But I do wonder: does the intensity of the pursuit increase as our hearing subtly shifts?

Has anyone here actually tested their high-frequency hearing recently and noticed a correlation with the sound signature they prefer?

Curious to hear thoughts, especially from people who’ve been in the hobby 20+ years.

I’m 45, by the way. Keen bass player. I keep spending money upgrading my three hi-fi systems, and yet I’m still chasing what those first CDs made me feel when I played them on our family’s very average Sony CD player through cheap earphones.

It was 1994–95, and that remains one of my most powerful “audiophile” experiences.

Addendum:

The more I read the thoughtful replies you’re taking the time to write, the more I realize that what I’m describing probably goes beyond simple EQ or frequency response.

Maybe what I’m actually chasing isn’t “more treble,” but things like staging, separation, definition, presence — that sense of space and realism that makes music feel alive.

It’s also possible that when I was younger, it wasn’t just my ears that were different, but my brain. I was more attentive, more curious, more emotionally open to discovering what music could be. I remember being genuinely overwhelmed by those songs, even through what I now recognize was a very average system.

So perhaps part of the reference point I’m trying to get back isn’t purely acoustic. It might be cognitive and emotional as well.

I hope this clarifies what I meant in the original post.