Learning to Listen: Neurological Evidence

Ah, grain! Hate grain. For as long as I’ve been serious about audio I have pondered the question of whether it is an artifact that is added as you say; or, caused by the absence of information. By absence of information I mean the incompleteness of the sonic picture; akin to looking very closely at a picture in a news paper and being able to see the dots (pixels) on the page. There is empty space between the dots, so the (sonic) images don’t have enough density as they do in real life. I’ve always thought of this as a “soft grain” because one doesn’t necessarily hear harshness. That was one of the main problems with early digital sound for me, and still is to a lesser degree depending on the recording.

In the case of equipment warming up I think it is, in fact, heard as an artifact that gets added to the sound. In this case, to me it sounds like a sonic artifact that one hears as somewhat disconnected from the musical content; on a different plane from that of the music itself. As the gear warms up the glass on the window into the music gets wiped clean more and more, and more of the music is revealed.

Interesting topic.

**** You nailed it nonoise. Phew, finally… ****

First of all, let’s make it clear that no one is suggesting that one has to be a musician to “learn” how to listen, or what to listen to at a level that allows for reasonably astute discernment of differences in sound, or musical performance. However, the act of listening is, in most ways and innate ability aside, just like any other endeavor. In order to achieve a very high level of ability to discern, never mind the highest level, relying on innate ability, or casual exercise of the listening “muscle” is simply not enough. This applies to both the discernment of sonic issues as well as musical issues; two entirely different things.

There is no issue of claim to superiority or judgment of anyone’s level of ambition to excel at this endeavor. The enjoyment of music and the process by which it is done is a very personal matter; no point in judging. However, it is also true that some listeners feel the need to assume that they understand all there is to understand about music and its performance; or, sound and all of its nuances. While that attitude may stroke one’s ego, it is also very limiting. One of the things that all musicians striving for the very highest level of understanding of all that music is have one thing in common. That is, that there is always so much more to learn, understand and be able to hear.  It is literally endless.  

**** The question becomes, how does an audiophile who is not a musician, or who has no musical training, study, learn and practice his/her listening skills other than the ideas offered in this thread? ****

- A great place to start is reading these two books by two of the greatest musicians that have ever lived. There are others, but these do a particularly good job of being accessible to the non-musician.

“What To Listen For In Music” by Aaron Copland

”The Joy Of Music” by Leonard Bernstein

- Take a music appreciation course at the local college.

- On an even more immediate level, accept the fact that the sound of live music (preferably acoustic) is a great and ultimately the only true reference by which to judge how close our components get to true “accuracy” (probably the most misused term in audiophile-speak). Of course, this presumes that the audiophile seeks true accuracy and not just a preferred tonal signature. Additionally, abandon the idea (and this goes to the previously mentioned “message”) that tonal “accuracy” is the only important consideration when judging a component. In audiophile discussions seldom is anything other than tonality (frequency response signature) even discussed.  Soundstaging, as fun as it is, has little to do with the music. 

As a result of the record/playback process music suffers just as much distortion of one kind or another in the domain of rhythmic expression as it does in the domain of timbre/tonality. Only by attending live performances (preferably acoustic) can a listener fully learn to identify just how far our playback gear distorts the amazing rhythmic and dynamic immediacy and nuance of live music. This way we can identify why some gear sounds more rhythmically alive than others and why some sounds rhythmically dead. Phrasing has everything to do with rhythm and rhythm/timing is were most of the music of a performance is found. When we open our minds up to these possibilities we learn to be more discerning of both musical performance details and the performance of our gear.

There is an expression used by orchestral musicians that says: “Nobody ever gets fired for having a bad sound”.  Somewhat an exaggeration of sorts to be sure, but with an important underlying message. This is, of course, assuming that the tone is question is not grotesque; highly unlikely in the professional world. That message has been touched upon in some of the posts here; specifically and most accurately by the OP. The message is that for musicians the most important considerations when judging excellence (or lack of) in a performance are rhythmic accuracy (timing) and pitch (intonation). Without those, good ensemble cohesion is impossible. When that cohesion is absent the musical message is lost. Beautiful tone, as great as that is, cannot make up for those deficiencies.