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
How and What:

1) Hearing live music. As an extension, being trained to play in an ensemble. Are either required? As @whart has written multiple times...no, but the skills can be applied to listening to a home audio system.

2) Listening to a familiar recording across multiple systems, sometimes with the guidance of the system’s owners to be made aware of elements/aspects in a system’s sound. I hate hearing the same recordings over and over, but the fact is the process is extremely helpful when learning to listen to a system, then later when evaluating changes to a system...or evaluating an unfamiliar system.

3) Related to above - listening to tracks on test LPs or CDs: Stereophile, XLO,etc. Why is this helpful in learning how to listen? Each recording on a test disc is provided because it offers an example (or examples) of a particular quality: human voice, piano, venue cues, image depth/width. Liner notes usually explain what to listen for in each. Very, very helpful in the process of learning how to listen.

4) Someone to guide (or teach) during a listening session, preferably in one’s own system so the sound characteristics are familiar. I had a manufacturer once come to my home to demonstrate a component. Toward the end of the demo, he swapped in some footers he liked to use. We also compared to footers I owned. He offered some observations that were quite helpful, and provided a lesson in listening.




This is not a case of they prefer something else. This is not hearing any difference whatsoever. At all. None. Nada. Zip.
I think they were winding you up. There is no other explanation other than the equipment hasn't got the resolving ability or their brains have limited neural connectivity. 
“ I love this topic, OP. Well chosen and set up.“

Quick pass me that airline sick bag....
"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.