What kind of listener are you?

mc wrote " Back in those days I was very methodical in using my favored test CDs with tracks selected to help me run down my audiophile checklist, all of which was analytical. It was only when I caught myself lost in the music totally forgetting about the checklist that it dawned on me, this is what its all about."

I have the sneaking suspicion that all these pieces of the puzzle are actually there and occur at different intervals different times and use different areas of the brain.  Wondering if anyone has done a fMRI to see how mood as well as the type of music playing light up different areas.

A new piece of equipment makes me totally analytical, which I don't find as pleasurable.  After tweaking/break-in I fall back to "normal" position of being musical and typically remain there until the next tweak.

Interestingly, but not surprising, my wife can tell my mood simply by the music flowing out of the music room. 

Wife to me " Let me get this straight. You spend $2000 on speaker cables (actually it was 5k but don't tell her) because you can "hear the difference" but you can't hear me calling you from the kitchen"?

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.