At What Point Do You No Longer Trust Your Ears when Adjusting Your Amp?

[AlsoRan]

Awhile back, I was in a small music shop and heard to guys arguing about the tone of an amp. At this particular amp setting, one guy thought it did not have enough treble, the other thought it had too much. One was clearly getting frustrated and both appeared to be in their 60's. The salesman came over and I overheard him join the "discussion."

Later on, I spoke with the salesman and he said that he runs into this from time to time. A customer's hearing loss is so bad that they don't know how an amp really sounds. Some get frustrated, others are aware and trust their fellow musicians when the set their amp controls at gigs.

Have any of you folks experienced this? How in the world can musicians agree on the tone of an amp, then, if their hearing is damaged? Heck, can I even trust my own ears?

[r_cc_c]

Good questions.
There are many article about hearing loss. Let's put that aside for now.

In a production environment, there is conductor or producer in the room to make the judgement.
A lot of time, musicians need to follow producer's guidance to get the final product out. That include the tone of your instrument or even the instrument itself. Even top player will follow producer's direction.

For personal enjoyment, I say is your own call regardless of hearing loss.

When friends get together and play, I say wait till other complain and get a compromise so everyone can enjoy the music.

Rick

[339 in june]

Sorry, can you repeat a little bit louder ?

[r_cc_c]

Regarding hearing loss and making judgement on sound...

When listening to music, I trust my reference monitor to tell me how other producer/mastering engineer perceive as good sound.
Use your favorite music and well recorded music in recent years, play through a good quality player (D to A) and reference speakers (Genelec, Neumann (Klein + Hummel), some Mackie, JBL, Tannoy..etc).

Does the music still sound good to you?
Any instrument you used to hear but no longer hear? (high pitch bell is a good example)

As many had pointed out, your hearing will adjust to the equipment.
At least when you are in doubt, there is a reference for you.

I did quite a number of recording and had done work in all stage of audio production.
This is the experience and solution I came up for myself.

Guitar amp is generally design for guitar and particular music style.
It is not "science" but for personal preference.
In such case, using it as a reference to hearing loss might not be effective.

[Greentone]

I know that I hear well across the musical spectrum...but only up to a bit above 13,000hz. That's good for a man my age who had been an active firefighter for 25 years (lots of mechanical noise to deal with). However, there are bells and cymbals that don't sound as exciting as they used to.

Setting a guitar amp, OTOH, is still WELL within my working bandwidth.

[henryrobinett]

I'm not sure what the question is. First of all I'd stop seeking agreement on anything. Tone is entirely subjective. If it sounds good to you is is good. Period. People hear things differently, even with hearing loss.

[AlsoRan]

I'm not sure what the question is. First of all I'd stop seeking agreement on anything. Tone is entirely subjective. If it sounds good to you is is good. Period. People hear things differently, even with hearing loss.

I compare it to evaluating a colorful painting when you are color-blind. It might look great to you, but the colors might be completely garish to those with normal color vision. I also compare it to a cook who partially lost his sense of taste, and maybe loads up a dish with too much salt. Or a person who can't smell very well (true story) loading themselves up with too much perfume.

To me, the same would be true with a fellow cranking up the treble on his amp because he is unable to hear it well like the guy in the music shop. His buddy was saying there was no way he would play with him since the amp had the bass way down, and the treble way up.

Now a conversation of what sounds good to an individual is one of those relative conversations that I would say to each his own - just don't make me listen to it if I can't appreciate it.

[jazzbow]

Aside from hearing loss another thing should be considered.

Hearing problems caused by colds, ear wax and ear infections.

I know from experience that a heavy cold can impair my sense of guitar amp tonality and I have noticed that atmospheric pressure can affect my hearing too.

But this is all subjective to the individual.

I have a Baxandall tone stack on my valve amp and I have memorised all the settings for my guitars so I know where my starting point is regardless on how my hearing is at any given time.

Also the latest music project band I'm involved with sees me having a middle frequency tone with bass cut and a bit of treble to help out for the O/D sections. The neck pickup only comes in for the quieter set but all the other tunes require bridge or both pickups with the guitar tone control used to roll off the treble.

I tried a Tele with a CC pickup and the drummer complained it was too mellow and I have to admit it didn't cut through unless the bridge was engaged.

[rickshapiro]

My hearing is shot in many ways. For live shows I wear musicians ears and things can sound pretty sucky. For live gigs, I spend the time during sound check to get everything to my liking. I may ask for other opinions but very often I will just have to have some faith that the soundguy is doing his best. If I get my rig close he can take it the rest of the way.

For the studio, I rely on kind averaging what I am hearing over multiple sources. I will play back over 3 different monitoring systems, car stereos, different headphones. If something is really wrong, it is wrong over all. In the end I do need to have others listen and provide opinions.

I just cannot stress over it when playing live, I think the small and sometimes large differences that we may perceive in tone is lost on most in audiences.

Bottom line, I cannot trust my ear completely across the frequency spectrum, the best I can do is strive for something that sounds and feels good to me. I will not recover my hearing.

Regards,

Rick

[henryrobinett]

I compare it to evaluating a colorful painting when you are color-blind. It might look great to you, but the colors might be completely garish to those with normal color vision. I also compare it to a cook who partially lost his sense of taste, and maybe loads up a dish with too much salt. Or a person who can't smell very well (true story) loading themselves up with too much perfume.

To me, the same would be true with a fellow cranking up the treble on his amp because he is unable to hear it well like the guy in the music shop. His buddy was saying there was no way he would play with him since the amp had the bass way down, and the treble way up.

Now a conversation of what sounds good to an individual is one of those relative conversations that I would say to each his own - just don't make me listen to it if I can't appreciate it.

Sure. But still it's subjective. My job, as I see it, is to learn to trust myself. If it's too trebly or bass heavy ill hear about it. I might try and change my mind or not. Maybe I just LIKE that sound and you and most other don't. It's my sound. A lot of people didn't like McClean playing sharp or Coltrane's sound. Some people don't like my sound. It's all taste and taste is subjective.

[vintagelove]

Awhile back, I was in a small music shop and heard to guys arguing about the tone of an amp. At this particular amp setting, one guy thought it did not have enough treble, the other thought it had too much. One was clearly getting frustrated and both appeared to be in their 60's. The salesman came over and I overheard him join the "discussion."

Later on, I spoke with the salesman and he said that he runs into this from time to time. A customer's hearing loss is so bad that they don't know how an amp really sounds. Some get frustrated, others are aware and trust their fellow musicians when the set their amp controls at gigs.

Have any of you folks experienced this? How in the world can musicians agree on the tone of an amp, then, if their hearing is damaged? Heck, can I even trust my own ears?

Hello, you can test this pretty easily. Get a signal generator (Im sure there is a free app of some sort), sweep up the frequencies until you can't hear anymore. You will have to know the limitations of whatever you're listening to (iow the speakers might not respond all the way to 20k). But the best way is to have a young person in the room, they will tell you if they can still hear it when you can't. If they can hear it at 15k, and you can't, thats your threshold.


Funny story, in a recording class (complete waste of time btw, I could have taught the class. In fact, the "teacher" as part of a "test" asked us to harmonize a melody. I copied the track, alt+click and dragged it up a third... she was apparently unaware you could do this, smh...) there was an older gentleman teaching the class, he did the experiment above to demonstrate to students what certain frequencies sound like. Anyway, so he starts sweeping up gets to MAYBE 15k, and was like "there, it's gone"... Meanwhile a class full of 20 year olds were looking at him like he's crazy. We could all hear it.

He says with a chuckle "You guys can hear that? Seriously? Sh@t, I just mixed somebodies album today"....

[Nate Miller]

I worked on airplanes when I was in the Navy and military flight ops get pretty loud. I had a documented 5% hearing loss when I left the service over 20 years ago

but I believe that your musical ear gets better every year and that is independent of your physical hearing. What I mean is that your high frequency hearing will degrade, but you'll be able to perceive more with your musical ear even though your physical hearing is degrading with age.

Rich Matteson had the best ears of anybody I was ever around, and he was near the end of his career when I had him for improve there at North Texas. Jack said the same thing all the time...he might be falling apart, but those ears keep getting better every year that goes by

I've played with lots of guys in their 70s, too, and those fellas all could hear just fine

so the day I don't trust my own ears will be the day they lay me out in a pine box

[AlsoRan]

Great stories!

Not trying to whine, but I have problems with higher frequencies due to my former job of 26 years. After my experience in the guitar shop, I have often wondered if I would end up "cranking on the treble" myself.

[henryrobinett]

A huge pet peeve of mine is musicians who can't trust themselves - or audio engineers. It's like a sickness or insecurity or inexperience. People just have this tendency to want to be like everyone else, which as far as I'm concerned is the anthesis of what jazz is for me. I've seen it in the world of audio engineers with guys, mostly older, who argue that one can't hear the difference between 44.1k and 96k. This is so very obvious to me I can't tell you. But these guys will throw "null tests" which is as close as anybody knows how to "scientifically prove" what you are hearing. The idea, as I understand it, is to have a digital copy, which is 1s and 0s. If you lay one on top of the other you can prove they're identical because the audio will disappear. As a genius digital developer told me, quietly, is that it is excruciatingly easy to make two files null. Files that are obviously different. Different DAWs, EQs, reverbs will still null. So there must be something else going on. I can hear the difference between 88.2 and 44.1 blind folded. Irony intended.

Guys who figure out there's ONE way to play jazz, or blues or whatever -- a song. Student - "No, no! That's not the way it goes! I saw a youtube video!" I was jamming with a student of mine on a SRV tune Paradise Riviera. He kept trying to show me I was playing the song wrong because I wasn't playing it like SRV.

So I don't care what anybody says, or how they, these ear dead old people - younger than me in many cases because I'm old - I TRUST MY EARS. If you can't hear what I hear that's totally fine. It's subjective.

Guitar players who want to sound like XXX or tweak hours on their tone is cool. But when it supplants actually being able to play guitar, its a critically bad diversion. Worrying about what other people think about your tone or after a certain point your playing, is worthless worry. It's debilitating because it gets in your way. Writing music to try to second guess what other people will like or not is a harmful waste. Learn to stubbornly trust who you are and what you like, . . . NOT ANYONE ELSE.

[vintagelove]

A huge pet peeve of mine is musicians who can't trust themselves - or audio engineers. It's like a sickness or insecurity or inexperience. People just have this tendency to want to be like everyone else, which as far as I'm concerned is the anthesis of what jazz is for me. I've seen it in the world of audio engineers with guys, mostly older, who argue that one can't hear the difference between 44.1k and 96k. This is so very obvious to me I can't tell you. But these guys will throw "null tests" which is as close as anybody knows how to "scientifically prove" what you are hearing. The idea, as I understand it, is to have a digital copy, which is 1s and 0s. If you lay one on top of the other you can prove they're identical because the audio will disappear. As a genius digital developer told me, quietly, is that it is excruciatingly easy to make two files null. So there must be something else going on.

Guys who figure out there's ONE way to play jazz, or blues or whatever -- a song. Student - "No, no! That's not the way it goes! I saw a youtube video!" I was jamming with a student of mine on a SRV tune Paradise Riviera. He kept trying to show me I was playing the song wrong because I wasn't playing it like SRV.

So I don't care what anybody says, or how they, these ear dead old people - younger than me in many cases because I'm old - I TRUST MY EARS. If you can't hear what I hear that's totally fine. It's subjective.

Guitar players who want to sound like XXX or tweak hours on their tone is cool. But when it supplants actually being able to play guitar, its a critically bad diversion. Worrying about what other people think about your tone or after a certain point your playing, is worthless worry. It's debilitating because it gets in your way. Writing music to try to second guess what other people will like or not is a harmful waste. Learn to stubbornly trust who you are and what you like, . . . NOT ANYONE ELSE.

Hello, I totally agree with your post,

except

null test are 100% conclusive scientific evidence that two files are exactly the same.

the example you gave, 44.1 vs 96k, would NOT null. As you pointed out, you would have to have tin ears to miss that, and they do. Much of the signal might disappear, but there would be very low levels of audio remaining. That would be proof they are different.


A properly conducted null test would easily display this. The problem is, most folks don't even know where to begin to make sure the null test is valid. It is science, in order for two files to null to silence (anything else but silence means differences), once you flip the phase, at each of those 96,000 sample points, the files would have to be identical. I'm sure you know signal disappears when flipped out of phase (really polarity), a null test is that to the extreme.

I agree to trust your ears, but if you happen to shift your head a half of an inch for the second listen, the sound you are perceiving is different, just like if you moved a microphone a half an inch. So it's always good to have science back up what your ears tell you.

plus you know after 20 years you could give a sh@t about little tests etc. let me record the part and move on with my life!!! If it sounds good (to a trained ear) it's good. Trust your gut.

[henryrobinett]

Hear we go. I don't NEED science to back up my ears. I think science is always marching forward. Science is ALWAYS wrong until it advances, then we make excuses for why blood letting wasn't actually good.

[princeplanet]

Hello, you can test this pretty easily. Get a signal generator (Im sure there is a free app of some sort), sweep up the frequencies until you can't hear anymore. You will have to know the limitations of whatever you're listening to (iow the speakers might not respond all the way to 20k). But the best way is to have a young person in the room, they will tell you if they can still hear it when you can't. If they can hear it at 15k, and you can't, thats your threshold.


Funny story, in a recording class (complete waste of time btw, I could have taught the class. In fact, the "teacher" as part of a "test" asked us to harmonize a melody. I copied the track, alt+click and dragged it up a third... she was apparently unaware you could do this, smh...) there was an older gentleman teaching the class, he did the experiment above to demonstrate to students what certain frequencies sound like. Anyway, so he starts sweeping up gets to MAYBE 15k, and was like "there, it's gone"... Meanwhile a class full of 20 year olds were looking at him like he's crazy. We could all hear it.

He says with a chuckle "You guys can hear that? Seriously? Sh@t, I just mixed somebodies album today"....

If you're a mixer and you got nothin' over 15K, you might overdo those "air" frequencies, but it's nothing that a spectrum analyser can't alert you about. Even if not, the mastering engineer can put that top octave right (say 12K to 24K) easily enough. Most recorded music lives between 60hz and 12Khz anyway. Back to topic, the post about using a reference to put your ears in the same playing field as the "average" listener is on point.

[vintagelove]

Hear we go. I don't NEED science to back up my ears. I think science is always marching forward. Science is ALWAYS wrong until it advances, then we make excuses for why blood letting wasn't actually good.

Hello, I don't mind agreeing to disagree. I just thought both sides should be presented, mostly because on this forum it hasn't been discussed/argued to death.


The main point was after you do it for ten years, your ears develop to the point where you can confidently trust your gut and not have to second guess/test every little decision.

Probably a big part of that is knowing your tools. I'm sure either of us could set up the gear for an incoming session without hearing a single thing. The right mic for the job, would be placed in the right place, with the gain staging roughly correct. We might literally need twenty seconds to tweak the preamps gain.

But with experience, you know what works and what doesn't, and with that comes not second guessing your ear.

[vintagelove]

If you're a mixer and you got nothin' over 15K, you might overdo those "air" frequencies, but it's nothing that a spectrum analyser can't alert you about. Even if not, the mastering engineer can put that top octave right (say 12K to 24K) easily enough. Most recorded music lives between 60hz and 12Khz anyway. Back to topic, the post about using a reference to put your ears in the same playing field as the "average" listener is on point.

Of course, but if you've been doing it forever, you already know which mic to put where etc, to get the results you want. You would simply accept the fact that you might not hear that 18k as well as the intern... Who needs to read a book to figure out where to plug the mic..


I think the "problem" here is people who's ears are shot from standing in front of cranked Marshalls for thirty years. They're also probably not very good musicians truth be told. Great players obviously spend a lot of time making sure their tone, from their fingers, to the amp, are pleasing.

Also, back in the day when the world was filled with twins and super reverbs, it took work to sound bad. You have to be really "special" to wrangle a bad sound out of a vintage super reverb.

[oldane]

I agree with the thought of hearing loss and cranking up the treble as we get older. It's especially treble loss we suffer. I think I am experimencing it myself a bit. With a number of well known saxophonists, I have noticed that their tone got sharper, brighter, more reedy and more piercing as they grew older. Coleman Hawkins, Lucky Thompson, Don Byas and Dexter Gordon were among them. They all started out with butter smooth sounds but ended with steely hard tones.

[JazzNote]

I agree with the thought of hearing loss and cranking up the treble as we get older. It's especially treble loss we suffer. I think I am experimencing it myself a bit. With a number of well known saxophonists, I have noticed that their tone got sharper, brighter, more reedy and more piercing as they grew older. Coleman Hawkins, Lucky Thompson, Don Byas and Dexter Gordon were among them. They all started out with butter smooth sounds but ended with steely hard tones.

Hmmm, i see your point, but i wouldn't think it was just due to hearing loss. Maybe starting as well behaved young gentlemen they grew into being angry old men.

[iim7V7IM7]

Hear we go. I don't NEED science to back up my ears. I think science is always marching forward. Science is ALWAYS wrong until it advances, then we make excuses for why blood letting wasn't actually good.

Please, dont confuse medicine with science. Doctors "practice" the "art" of medicine...