What kind of listener are you?


I'm an All-Arounder: Equal parts Analytical, Thrill, and Feeling. Push comes to shove feeling matters most, but they are all very close to equally important to me. 

This is a very useful breakdown of a very complex subject, listening. How we listen to and evaluate components and systems. 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ndZrj7DSmk00WIORrcS_siKnUK_kj3SrFFamrWJxGh8/edit#heading=h.2x4z0...

What kind of listener are you?
128x128millercarbon
rsf507....MSA....Male Selective Attention....;)

I've noticed that the females of the species have a tendency to continue talking, even when one's left the room and is generally 'out of earshot'.

Then you get groused at, as you've noted.

The reversed condition gets 'blown off' as well.

If you point this out, you get a 'different earfull', generally negative.

Blame it on DNA...it doesn't help much, but everything finds a scapegoat eventually.....;)
@barts, I completely agree that a new piece of equipment or added tweak causes more analytical listening. But, perhaps we should substitute the adjective "scientific" for "analytical" listening, as we are obviously trying to prove to ourselves that some kind of "change" has taken place (hopefully for the better!).

Personally, I don't mind the occasional analytical listening sessions, as they provide some variety of perspective and it keeps me from getting too complacent.  
I'm definitely an AF listener because I will analyze a song for why I think it brings pleasure. Very rarely will I get a chill from a song, but when I do, it's from just a few songs and always at the same point in the song, so I wouldn't call myself a thrill listener.

While the The 3 Pillars of Great Sound Quality is good because it categorizes and formalizes sound quality and listener types, it needs to be combined with a "What makes this song great" analysis. Having a system that matches the sound quality that a listener likes means nothing if the music sucks. Of course there are differing opinions on what makes a song good or bad, but there are some songs or albums that have generally attained consensuses of great and there should be some detailed analyses of why they are regarded as great (maybe this has been done already so it would just be a matter of compiling the analyses).

For my own personal tastes of what makes a song great, obviously melody is incredibly important. But what I've come to find out is that I get pleasure from music recorded with the wall of sound concept. I want to hear horns, backup singers, strings, etc. I think this is what today's popular music is missing. It's not that the melodies of today's popular music are necessarily bad, it's that it sounds so sparse and uninteresting.


I resent my analytical "half" it takes away from my enjoyment of any music.  In my case it's simple; if I analyse and look for something wrong, I inevitably find it.  If I take the "just relax and listen to some music" route, I'm always more satisfied.

Mark
With respect I think that if you break listening down into categories you need to rethink your approach. It is either organic or it isnt. So I guess it is pure feeling for me. The experience is either immersive or it is not. Of course