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

Showing 8 responses by millercarbon

Thank you danager, appreciate the help. Unfortunately until people learn manners I am going to have to close the discussion. Maybe more will learn and put pressure on these people to move along. three easy seems to be trying, and we can always hope for the others. Thanks again.
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?




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.
Lots of talk about all the same stuff as usual. For a bunch who acts so sure they get it the absence of anyone talking about how they learned to recognize new and unfamiliar sound characteristics is passing strange.

The last thread was closed when it went far off topic. Please try and stay on topic. You say you get it. Pony up.

How do you learn to recognize new characteristics?

Tell ya what. Let’s pretend there are none. Let’s pretend you are the all seeing all hearing guru. Okay. Were you always thus? Right out of the womb, was it? Or was there a learning process? If so, what was it?
These are all things people are familiar with. The question is how do you learn to recognize and hear characteristics you are UN familiar with?
I'm sure it does Frank, because I know a lot of what you have going on. But that is a good example. The stuff you are using is the same stuff they can't hear!