2. misc-audio
  3. 168974-121242

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
orgillian197
119 posts
 
What are we seeking?
The short answer is musical truth.
Do the instruments sound like they are supposed to? If classical, do the string quartets or orchestras or solo pianos sound like what you've heard live? If acoustic jazz, again, do the double bass, saxophones, trumpets, pianos, drums, etc all sound real?
With rock and electronic music the comparisons are a bit harder but still you can dial in the correct sounds within reason.
After all, music is the reason for all of these boxes and cables, isn't it? So if it's not musical, something's wrong.
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon OP
12,531 posts
 
Actually what we are seeking is an answer to how people learn to hear new things. Read the OP for a clear example. Then give us one of your own. Please.
whart's avatar
whart
3,037 posts
 
Miller- did you think Mike Lavigne's system bettered yours? Forget the money for a minute. Just in terms of overall impressions. Be honest....
Post removed 
hilde45's avatar
hilde45
4,974 posts
 
I love this topic, OP. Well chosen and set up.

Here are a couple questions I'm especially interested in hearing your take on. These are earnest questions.

1. When you initially were trying to hear more, what was the reason? What motivated you to develop your listening acumen?

2. As you were initially listening around to try to hear more, you say you only heard differences between "receivers." But you were listening to different kinds of speakers -- did the big differences between speakers contribute to your eventual "aha" moment? (I'm wondering because sometimes there are multiple things at work in effectuating a change, and only later, in retrospect, do I realize the subordinate factors at work).

3. Around the time you developed your initial, stable checklist of audiophile terms to listen for, how did that affect your ability to listen for pleasure? Were you simply in critical listening mode all the time? Did you already possess an "off switch" for the critical way of listening or was that something you figured out later?

4. In the case of the seasoned audiophiles who couldn't hear a difference in what sounded to you like impressive gear, did you find out what in particular *they* listen for -- and could you hear it? Or was there no difference in that case for you?
More to discover