Listening Skills Part Duex: What are you listening for?


Had a few experiences lately that together were a stark reminder of something known for a long time, because I lived it myself.  

In the beginning, or at any rate going back to about 1991, I was unable to hear any difference between different CD players and DACs. Even some amplifiers, they might not sound exactly the same but I was hard pressed to say why.   

This went on for a long time. Months. Many months. Like okay a year. Whatever. During which time I was driving around hitting all the Seattle/Portland area stores listening to everything I could find. About the only difference big enough to be sure of was receivers. They for sure are crap. But even there it was hard to say exactly in what way. Just the difference there was glaring enough it was obvious this is not the way to go. But that was about it.    

All during this time of course I was reading Stereophile and studying all the reviews and building up a vocabulary of audiophile terms. The problem, seen clearly as usual only in the rear view mirror, was not really being able to match up the terminology with what I was hearing. I had words, and sounds, but without meaning, having no real link or connection between them.   

One day after yet another frustrating trip to Definitive I came home and put on my XLO Test CD and was listening to the Michael Ruff track Poor Boy when it hit me, THIS IS THAT SOUND!!!  

What sound? Good question! The better high end gear is more full and round and liquid and less etched or grainy. Poor Boy is Sheffield, all tube, and so even though being played from CD through my grainy etched mid-fi the tubey magic came through enough to trigger the elusive connection. THIS is "that sound"!  

Once triggered, this realization grew and spread real fast. In no time at all it became easy to hear differences between all kinds of things. "No time at all" was probably months, but seemed like no time at all compared to how long I was going nowhere.  

What happened? There are a near infinite number of different sonic characteristics. Attack and decay, fundamental tone, harmonic, and timbre, those were a few of the early ones I was able to get a handle on- but the list goes on and on.   

Just to go by experience, reading reviews, and talking to other audiophiles it would seem most of us spend an awful lot of time concentrating real hard on our own little list of these terms. We have our personal audiophile checklist and dutifully run down the list. The list has its uses but no matter how extensive the list becomes it always remains a tiny little blip on the infinite list of all there is.   

So what brought this to mind is recently a couple guys, several in fact, heard some of the coolest most impressive stuff I know and said....meh. Not hearing it.   

This is not a case of they prefer something else. This is not hearing any difference whatsoever. At all. None. Nada. Zip. 

Like me, back in the day, with CD.  

These are not noobs either. We're talking serious, seasoned, experienced audiophiles here. 

I'm not even sure it comes down to what they are listening for. Like me in '91, hard to know what you're listening for until you know what you're listening for.   

Which comes first?
128x128millercarbon
I believe that the primary thing to listen for is the proper tonality of instruments. That, of course, requires knowledge of what live instruments sound like.

A proper audio system will have enough resolution to enable the listener to discern between an oboe and a soprano sax, a violin and a viola, vibes and marimbas, and even drums heads equipped with animal skins vs acrylic.  

A proper audio system will be seamless in its presentation from top to bottom. It will have crystal clear highs that don't pierce the eardrums, a midrange that allows the human voice to sound natural, and a bass that is not boomy, but tonally correct. 

A proper audio system gives the listener a performance that is as close to real as possible, where one puts away the thought of the sound, and just gets absorbed in the music.

A proper audio system will recreate music in such a way that it will get the listener emotionally involved in an almost spiritual way. That, in my opinion, is what I would call the Holy Grail. 

My current system has all of the above ... in spades.

Frank
I'm sure it does Frank, because I know a lot of what you have going on. But that is a good example. The stuff you are using is the same stuff they can't hear!
Post removed 
Tone and timbre...
Past that the quality of the recording has as much ado as the quality of the design in the circuits you choose. Over analizing anything music related defeats the purpose of listening to music. Your describing listening to equipment.
No one hears the same, or listens for the same pleasure cues ,in fact as individuals our hearing changes daily from chemical stresses and agitations and well being. Three seasoned audiophiles say meh... you say yay...why assume its them and not you thats not " hearing" it...in what they are "hearing" at the time... maybe it's you thats missing something bigger than the individualistic focus... maybe...