Maybe critical listening skills are bad?
In another thread about how to A/B compare speakers for a home I was thinking to myself, maybe the skills a reviewer may use to convey pros and cons of a speaker to readers is a bad skill to use when we evaluate hardware and gear?
I'm not against science, or nuance at all. I was just thinking to myself, do I really want to spend hours A/B testing and scoring a speaker system I want to live with?
I do not actually. I think listening for 2 days to a pair of speakers, and doing the same to another pair I need to focus first on what made me happy. Could I listen to them for hours? Was I drawn to spend more time with music or was I drawn to writing minutiae down?
And how much does precise imaging really do for my enjoyment by the way? I prefer to have a system that seems endless. As if I'm focusing my eyes across a valley than to have palpable lung sounds in my living room.
Anyway, just a thought that maybe we as consumers need to use a different skill set when buying than reviewers do when selling.
+1 @inagroove Although engagement/resonated/satisfying is more important than critical listening, critical listening and engagement are not mutually exclusive. Both critical listening + engagement are used to evaluate components for potential purchase, engagement is what I seek in my everyday use in my audio chain.
|
@phusis I agree with you about different types of speakers needing different types of room acoustic treatments. The apogee duetta 2 speakers I own sound better with little to no room treatments, though I do have them 82" from the wall behind them. My dynamic speakers sound too bright without some room treatments. |
@inagroove I've trended to align with @mahgister that ultimately The Room dictates what will occur within it, and care taken with that in mind and hand will determine if one's expenditures will yield the desired effects.... The fact that I've seemed to always have been doomed to that side trip in the rabbit hole hasn't stopped me from making the attempt to tame the dragon and make it purrr... If not perfection (typ.? no....), at least to 'practical satisfaction'....because Reality Manipulation is a bitch. Having adopted active room eq quite awhile ago, it helps but does not cure that gulf between 'There' and a mere reproduction of 'there'... Long-term dipole and omni sort, I finally bet on 'Ignoring the Room', quite like a variant of HT surround with no screen other than one's audible version of one. (...Yes, there is a screen, but that's beside the point but effected by....but...🤷♂️...) One means is running a pair of calibrated mics to a pair of eq's in parallel and monitor in R/T....tweak to sweet....in the midst. A little extreme, but when running this, that, and assorted junque you wring out of it all what it can achieve and you like.... Works for me....only has to, actually. ;) |
My argument about precise imaging was about how in person listening I don’t get the same imaging illusion. If I close my eyes I can’t place instruments nearly as well as I demand from my stereo. I argue that we seek out imaging that is too precise because we lack the visual information. It’s like Kurosawa adding smoke to a volcano because the film won’t convey heat. Whatever your thoughts are on imagine though, it's just another detail which we may be so critical of we fail to actually enjoy the experience. |
