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 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.
clarity
details I hadn’t heard before
bass that blends
a natural sound
ways to improve 






whart-
Miller- did you think Mike Lavigne’s system bettered yours? Forget the money for a minute. Just in terms of overall impressions. Be honest....

Off topic. But a good question. To quote Mike Lavigne himself talking about mine, "It does some things better than mine."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now, unless we get some comments actually on topic the discussion will soon be closed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here. Let me get the ball rolling.

The very question whart raises is at the heart of the original topic. There’s things Mike, and myself, and everyone else, use to evaluate and decide for themselves what is "better".

My position is that among those many qualities might be things they are not even aware of. Just like I was unaware of any difference between CD players. Even though there is a difference, it took a lot of time and effort to learn to hear it. Just like the guys in the example above can’t hear any difference- even though it is there, they just haven’t yet learned to recognize it. Just like my Moab cabinet resonance bothers Rick so much he thinks there is nothing more important for me to fix, while I cannot hear it at all and Mike Lavigne himself listened and put his hand on it (and wasn’t that fun?!;) and found them impressively inert.

The examples are not the point. This is not a discussion about my system, my speakers, my anything. Just examples.

So different people clearly are attuned to different aspects of sound. That is not the question. More and more repetition of the same old same old is not the point of discussion. The topic is how do you go about learning to hear some new aspect of sound that you are UNfamiliar with?

It could be anything. Maybe you discovered things do change as they burn in. Or warm up. Or go late into the night. Maybe it was directionality. Anything you never heard before and then discovered learned to recognize it. How did that happen?