Listening Skills Part Duex: What are you listening for?

"paralysis-by-analysis"

Man does that make sense.

I've read this thread 3 times. 

I should have just feed the damn chickens, then I'd be happier in spite of my simple self.. I guess that's my "pi equals MC squared", moment.

Does ESP (the P is optional) hearing make sense? It does to me..

Not ESD. Extrasensory Deception..

Comprehension is my weakness
deception is my enemy
perception is my salvation.

Good enough for me..

Regards

@hilde45 I guess my point is that there isn’t just one road to musical enjoyment and not everyone has the interest and even physical capability of improving their listening skills to the point of discerning minute details - and that we shouldn’t view that single piece of criteria as some definitive measure of whether they have arrived as a true audiophile, capable fully enjoying the system they created. I dislike seeing people’s opinions on music, gear and sound quashed with the familiar retort "Well obviously you can’t hear well and have poor listening skills."

With this said I do agree with MC that listening skills can be honed and that for some there is additional enjoyment that can be had - if a priority to the listener. Although I never deliberately set out to improve my listening skills over the years I did certainly recognize that with more experience I was able to discern musical and sonic aspects that many others didn’t. It came both naturally but also with sheer repetition.

You’ve probably heard of the 10,000 hour rule, which was popularized by Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Outliers.” He posited that it takes 10,000 hours of intensive practice to achieve mastery of complex skills. I do believe that applies to listening skills but mine were developed passively (or subconsciously) as I certainly have engaged in many multiples of this 10,000 hr rule - I simply was enjoying myself listening to music, playing guitar in several bands, and taking in an enormous amount of live music. I was noting over the years that I was hearing elements of music and sound that none (or very few) of my buddies do. This is fun for some to develop, adding to the enjoyment of their listening and music experience, while for others completely unimportant - which was my point.

clarity
details I hadn’t heard before
bass that blends
a natural sound
ways to improve 

whart-

Miller- did you think Mike Lavigne’s system bettered yours? Forget the money for a minute. Just in terms of overall impressions. Be honest....

Off topic. But a good question. To quote Mike Lavigne himself talking about mine, "It does some things better than mine."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now, unless we get some comments actually on topic the discussion will soon be closed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here. Let me get the ball rolling.

The very question whart raises is at the heart of the original topic. There’s things Mike, and myself, and everyone else, use to evaluate and decide for themselves what is "better".

My position is that among those many qualities might be things they are not even aware of. Just like I was unaware of any difference between CD players. Even though there is a difference, it took a lot of time and effort to learn to hear it. Just like the guys in the example above can’t hear any difference- even though it is there, they just haven’t yet learned to recognize it. Just like my Moab cabinet resonance bothers Rick so much he thinks there is nothing more important for me to fix, while I cannot hear it at all and Mike Lavigne himself listened and put his hand on it (and wasn’t that fun?!;) and found them impressively inert.

The examples are not the point. This is not a discussion about my system, my speakers, my anything. Just examples.

So different people clearly are attuned to different aspects of sound. That is not the question. More and more repetition of the same old same old is not the point of discussion. The topic is how do you go about learning to hear some new aspect of sound that you are UNfamiliar with?

It could be anything. Maybe you discovered things do change as they burn in. Or warm up. Or go late into the night. Maybe it was directionality. Anything you never heard before and then discovered learned to recognize it. How did that happen?

Hmmmm......so you put your spin on what others " seem to be saying" but in your own words not ours thus making it your interpretation of our , us... as simple.
Hearing , or listening as is the case , is not a simplistic action. Its quite complex. The simple truth here, is your missing the point in projecting yourself into others thoughts and opinions that a state of calm with no pre determined or pre conceived reason or outcome other than listening  for enjoyment can't give the same learned results over time . You may focus all you want and pretend to be able to only hear those "critical" listening points...but like it or not your ears and brain are hearing it all and storing it away. Perhaps some of you need to over focus on less of whats going on because your unable to filter things out and retrieve them without doing so. Perception..yes..so whats being missed while focus is narrowed away from the broad picture and how those other things correlate.
Interesting how knowledge is brought up as if to remind us you have it and perception or rather assumption is perceived we don't. As far as the wine thing goes, so your easily influenced to what others think you should do for how  their own experience works. Someone else could tell you a wholly different focus ...someone else might "simply" be able to see the totality of the whole experience.  I'm not a wine drinker personally, so I can't comment myself 
See, its very easy to minimize others isn't it. We all have our own way , the fact some of us have no need to over analyze and singularly focus on fine details doesn't mean we don't hear or know them. Some here, (OP) think the terminology of words is king to knowledge to know what your looking for. To others, we 'simple' think you need to of heard it to know what  it is your looking for, or , what we have have heard for reference in our grey archives. 
I respectfully and emphatically agree to disagree...enjoyment is a simple thing that complicating it erodes its very nature and beauty .
Your conflating two separate experiences as if one because of a simplistic approach doesn't have the same  complex action behind it right there to retrieve. Maybe some of you just can't do it in a relaxed state without a conscious filter and hyper focus ... sounds difficult and flawed ... like studying for a test vs experience and fun learning.
One you use often the other usually not. Perhaps its the added pressure self applied that usually adds the need to  bring up knowledge and self worth... It's ridiculous to assume one knows what another should hear and interpret let alone thinking the singular path to get there is the only road to how everyone else  should interpret and interact to and in their own environment . Suggestions, some ignore needing their own way , some use it as a starting point, others follow it blindly nodding away , some use it as if being the authority on it. Good teachers always allow the learning a path or interest they connect and relate it to , not a rigid this way only I know attitude.

 Some, post a question already having their own answer not wanting anyones input at all unless it aligns with theirs for confirmation and ego...research it... it's been posted already. 

Regardless music is the simple reason this exists. Enjoyment and stress removal is the simple reason we stay engaged. Listening is the basic  requirement for it.
Learning through memory and observation is a bonus.
Thinking you can't do both at the same time is sad . Assuming what you label as a simple approach is less knowledgeable is flawed and arrogant in my view. You think we don't read and have subtle feelers going on in our conscious and subconscious while enjoying listening... 
Your experience is yours..not mine . I can except that without reducing it. In kind without agenda is also a simple approach to things  ..as is in kind as in the first thread. It got back what it had gotten through memory over time ..simple...yes...