How does one get "trained" ears?

[Steve williams]

I've said before and will again IMO Amir is the total antithesis of a music lover. It's about time that we start to identify this boastful supercilious and arrogant behavior as part of a narcissistic personality that thinks he is above us all and can do no wrong. In medical school there were several like this who felt no matter what they were always correct and even took it upon themselves to criticize their professors and others around them. I found that they had no personality as they could never interact with their peers but were only there to criticize everyone around them. These people rarely were able to keep a job because it was always about them. Makes me wonder about the fallout at Microsoft.

This forum is about the love and appreciation of music where everyone interacts with everyone else. It's called learning together from life experiences in this hobby. The only time there is ever arguing on this forum is when Amir decided to tell us that we are all fools and cannot rise to his level because we lack the credentials of being trained to listen to artifacts rather than music All of us enjoy the camaraderie of discussing where we are with our system and with the hobby. I will say again. He is not a music lover but only here to constantly tell us what only he knows. To say he isn't a regular in this forum is bull crap as I can tell you he's on the site over 12 hours each day and as 853guy points out his post count tells us otherwise. He dodges and deflects everything which shows his true colors and uses others as sacrificial lambs in order to make his point.

This thread has proved to me what his real colors are but more than anything it shows everyone who he really is. There is little doubt that everyone finally can see through him. I think I am hearing yells of "the Emoeror has no new clothes"

Frankly I've had enough of it and I sense that everyone else has as well and I can promise it will change. Until such time my advice is to "ignore" him.

 

[DonH50]

Note post count is probably more relevant; I may have my browser open all day but rarely check in. I tend to keep one window open that I bounce around fora a bit, but my trumpet forum window is probably open most of the day whether I am active on it or not, and ditto my personal web email. When in a test cycle it's a flurry of activity followed by waiting for test results and I get bored quickly.

 

[Gregadd]

Well, that is true for a lot of audiophile things, yes? We could all point to things we can hear, or others claim to hear, that they/we cannot and then blame it on any number of factors from power cord to amplifiers to speakers to ear/brain and how we felt that minute. Still probably can't really prove any of it to the other's satisfaction.

I do tend to find I listen differently at different times, depending on what I feel or want that day/hour whatever. Sometimes I get very analytical, but most of the time I just want it to sound good and look past any number of flaws (mine and my system's). I was much more analytical when I was younger; now, I just want to relax and enjoy it. Playing in the orchestra is much more taxing because I have to be very much in time and in tune and yet still want to enjoy the music while I and the others are playing. Getting lost in the music can be a detriment when I miss an entrance, usually dragging my section if not the whole group to a halt...

Maybe it's just me. I have never purported to hear anything that anyone else cannot easily hear also. Indeed it would givee pause if others did not hear what I hear. Whether they care or they can't hear it because science tells them it is impossible is an entirely different matter.
I am going to leave this thread now because has become personal and repetitive.
Maybe I will look at Steve system or pictures the Magic M3 being unpacked.

 

[opus112]

Hi Richard. I must say when I woke up this morning, last thing I thought I would be challenged with was this!

Its a gratifying compliment, thanks Amir. After all one of the last things I'd want people to say about me would be 'he's predictable'.

As a data-driven guy yourself, I am pretty sure you don't mean this and are hoping for an emotional reaction from me.

Seems you misunderstand both me and your own human nature. I'm merely introducing what's established neuroscience - no human being is 'data driven' because brains don't work on data. The book I already mentioned sets that out fairly clearly. So you're arguing against science to claim that I'm 'data driven'. Two wrongs don't make a right!

As for 'hoping for an emotional reaction' - its as erroneous a thought as the notion that either of us is 'data driven'.

For clarity your read of his work is not correct at all.

That's an interesting claim Amir, so let's test it. Here goes.....

He does not say to ignore data and rely on emotion.

Quite right, but the very notion is one of your own, similar to the notion that you and I are 'data driven'. That is, totally erroneous.

<snip unsubstantiated claim>

The computer you are typing on would not exit if it were designed by emotion rather than data.

Fact is this computer I'm typing on was designed neither by emotion nor data, rather by human beings. Duh!

Introducing false dichotomies is a common fallacy in debate Amir. Perhaps train yourself to spot them and weed them out prior to pressing send?

Glad you're quoting from the book itself, because this makes it abundantly clear where you've introduced errors into the 'data'. Let's see....

Starting at the top, we see that he himself is data driven.

False - you are seeing he's data driven. I am seeing he's driven by observations he makes in the course of his research. Think an observation's the same as data do you?

His entire thesis relies on researching patients who have lost the ability to feel emotion. Without that data he would be nowhere.

Data is numbers Amir. Where does he make claims based on numbers in his book? You've cited no numbers in the parts you've included.

Finally, I am familiar with this work because it is at the heart of marketing to consumers.

Based on what you've cited in this post and your interpretation of it, I'd say that's another false claim. By which I'm addressing your alleged 'familiarity' with the work. You've not imbibed a very important result - the fact that humans aren't 'data driven'.

We (marketing) want to sway consumers using their emotions instead of letting them use logic which may cause them to buy a different product.

But customers have never bought on logic Amir, its always a decision based on emotion. Always has been, always will be.

Apple is incredibly good about this. They put a lot of money in the box that their product comes in. No one uses the box after they buy the product so at first it seems like wasted expense. But research shows that you emotionally capture the user with this good "out of box experience" (OOBE), and from then on, they are likely to be less critical. It is what brand advertising is about, etc.

Thereby you support my point, thank you. Logic dictates that the box is useless, logic says don't waste money on it. However emotion trumps logic and customers continue to purchase Apple.

 

[treitz3]

OK, frequently commented on is golden ears, or trained ears. But I've never seen notice of any class on how one might develop 'trained' ears. I know there is a thread of what music to use for evaluating components, speakers, etc... perhaps a reviewer or two (or more) can describe not only what music, but what specifically about a recording they use as a benchmark. For example "the cello on recording x comes in just after the horns in the first movement, and was located just left of center during recording... there is a 'something specific' that sounds like X when that cello comes in—which some speakers/amps/cartridges reproduce as X and others as Y. Listen carefully for that and you will find there is nuance that is actually identifiable on different components."

Educate me...

Hi Bobvin. There is no course or education class that I know of. This comes from many, many years of listening to and evaluating many different systems configured in many different ways. After a while, you know what the subtle differences are between SET, SS tube, power changes, IC's SC's, different types of speaker types and what they can and can not do. On all of these systems and system types, one usually carries a handful of specific albums or test songs that they become intimately familiar with so over time, they are able to detect subtle nuances, texture, roll off, shimmer, brightness and all of the the other ways to explain the differences of what a reproductive system can offer....or what they are deficient at.

Many times, this "trained ear" will observe live, acoustic performances, orchestras, solos, choruses as well as concerts from differing genres of music. Taking these experiences and comparing them to what these various reproductive efforts can offer. Over time and with given experience, one develops a trained ear and a select few develop their skills so weel that they are commonly referred too as a "golden ear". Whether or not a golden ear is something that one wants to achieve is up to the beholder. Sometimes getting what you wish for is not all it's cracked up to be because often times they can listen more to the gear and reproductive effort and not the connection and pure enjoyment of the music itself. Of course, they are always exceptions to this.

I hope this helps you in understanding your query.

Tom

I have a question for those who have been following this thread intimately. My question is this;

What are the faults of my answer to Bobvin's inquiry and to point, what would you have said differently to address said question given the long list of debates and answers thus far?

Tom

 

[DaveC]

The reason I posted my above post is that you have been asked many times what is the relevance of your "training" & you have avoided answering the question.

Here's what this Ultmusicsnob guy says which relates to this & to "training" - note: he has already determined from his long term listening that he "preferred" the high-res audio files rather than the downsampled versions but he had no particular detail about why, it was just a nebulous preference.
So the "training" that he mentions here is the practise needed in order to "pass" the ABX "test" - it has no bearing on what he heard & preferred over long term listening.

"It took me a **lot** of training. I listened for a dozen wrong things before I settled on the aspects below.

I try to visualize the point source of every single instrument in the mix--that's why I picked a complex mix for this trial. I pinpoint precisely where each instrument is, and especially its distance from the listener. Problem is, both versions already have *some* spatial depth and placement, it's only a matter of deciding which one is deeper, and more precise. I've tried making determinations off of a particular part, like a guitar vamp or hi-hat pattern, but can't get above about 2/3 correct that way.
The better approach is just to ask myself which version is easier to precisely visualize, as a holistic judgment of all the pieces together. Equally effective, or rather equally contributing to the choice, is asking which version holistically gives me a sense of a physically larger soundstage, especially in the dimension extending directly away from me--thus the idea of listening to reverb characteristics.​

I believe this gives far more interesting points to discuss than the claim "I passed an ABX test, can you?"

I have come to the same conclusion, soundstage is a great indicator of overall system performance, and a good soundstage is created by having the best resolution possible so the spatial cues are more apparent and don't get truncated. It's what forms that immersive 3-D soundstage we were talking about.

 

[opus112]

I have come to the same conclusion, soundstage is a great indicator of overall system performance, and a good soundstage is created by having the best resolution possible so the spatial cues are more apparent and don't get truncated. It's what forms that immersive 3-D soundstage we were talking about.

+1. In my way of thinking, there's no such thing as a soundstage too deep. But there was a guy who posted on CA who rejected an AMR DAC because he felt its soundstage was too deep, deeper than he got on his vinyl.

 

[jkeny]

Yes, DaveC & Opus
And yet we see lots of self proclaimed "data driven" types claiming that soundstage depth doesn't exist!!
Says a lot about their actual listening capabilities - being "data driven" & not having any data for soundstage depth, they automatically reject what their perception should be telling them is obvious!!

In other words, a major disconnect between 'existing data' & our perception

 

[treitz3]

Shall we go into "height" when it comes into reproductive abilities?

I'm kidding.....oh, dear Lawd I'm kidding. Don't want to go there again.

Tom

 

[the sound of Tao]

I have a question for those who have been following this thread intimately. My question is this;

What are the faults of my answer to Bobvin's inquiry and to point, what would you have said differently to address said question given the long list of debates and answers thus far?

Tom

Tom, I'd suggest that you covered the reality of the circumstances perfectly. There is no accredited specific training that anyone can name. So to that end (at some level) we are all largely self trained.

Given just how unique we are in perceptions especially in listening and as lovers of varying music, with differing systems and specific preferences and in greatly differing rooms that as part of the journey we do ultimately need to grow and become empowered to become more conscious and feel comfortable about making our own calls on what we hear and what we value. It is wise to move into the pursuit from the ground up and limit costly error. No amount of training will make up for the experience and right of passage. You can tell someone what something is but until they have experienced it in a range of circumstances it will just be an idea rather than an understanding. That is praxis, understanding born of life experience.

To pour it into Bobvin's terms you just can't taste and quickly analyse, you've got to go on and drink the whole bottle, get blindingly drunk, wake up with a fantastic hangover and decide that it was a great experience and that you'll go back and drink that one again.

Even if you have covered the OP completely it would have done nothing to change the course of the thread. Show me an audiophile without an opinion and I'll show you an audiophile who isn't interested in this kind of debate anyway... they are probably just happily listening to some music instead.

 

[RogerD]

After reading this thread....I need a drink...way to much like work....it should be fun But I can see most enjoy this type of thread

 

[Folsom]

When someone calls me stupid I usually just ignore them.
It seems to me when someone makes a decision without gathering and analyzing the requisite data that assures an erroneous conclusion. Or to use your colorful term,"stupid".

I'm certainly not calling you stupid Greg. Application of scientific methods and the ethics of use has been something that took my interest years ago.

Basically all the data exists that you use to design, to engineer, by definition. If DBT's as most people describe them for audio, were all you used, you'd be best off flipping a coin or finding something else to do since it would take most of you life to do anything. There's simply no way to implement the grand scale of testing for every last part of an audio appliance, nor is there reason to since we have plenty of information.

One of the biggest issues here is the difference between science and engineering. Audio manufacturers are engineers. They may do small, questionable, "science" occasionally, but it's not the goal. Pure science only collects data impartially, so when someone says, "made scientifically" it's like saying your child was made anthropologically. It's a buzzword.

 

[treitz3]

Here are two questions for the masses on the forum;

Do you listen to data or the music and all of its intricacies and the reproductive effort thereof? How does this relate to becoming a trained, educated, experienced or otherwise a golden ear, if you will?

Tom

 

[the sound of Tao]

Here are two questions for the masses on the forum;

Do you listen to data or the music and all of its intricacies and the reproductive effort thereof?

Tom

Uhhmmm, data makes no sense Tom. I tried hooking directly into my USB but it was all 1s and zeros... gave me the jitters.

 

[treitz3]

Hehehe. I hear ya'. There might be others that think otherwise. I look forward to hearing from them as well to provide a good debate for the forum.

Absolutes are not welcome but other viewpoints are. This is how we learn.

Last time I heard a system, I heard no data.

Tom

 

[DonH50]

Maybe it's just me. I have never purported to hear anything that anyone else cannot easily hear also. Indeed it would givee pause if others did not hear what I hear. Whether they care or they can't hear it because science tells them it is impossible is an entirely different matter.
I am going to leave this thread now because has become personal and repetitive.
Maybe I will look at Steve system or pictures the Magic M3 being unpacked.

Hmmm... I did not take your comment personally, I thought it very apropos, and apologize if you felt my response was personal.

Truth be told, I have no business being here, so shall bow out gracefully. Or something like that.

 

[JackD201]

Here are two questions for the masses on the forum;

Do you listen to data or the music and all of its intricacies and the reproductive effort thereof? How does this relate to becoming a trained, educated, experienced or otherwise a golden ear, if you will?

Tom

IMO Data is extremely important but being able to correlate the data is what is essential. The question now becomes, what are we correlating the data to? What is the objective of the entire exercise?

 

[marty]

Put another way, a person with 20-15 vision does not necessarily make them a better person to make judgments about how well made an Oriental carpet is, even if they can see the details. Meanwhile, a person with 40 years experience and so-so eyesight can take one look (squinting) and make an excellent call on the quality and make of the carpet...because he know WHAT TO LOOK FOR.

Agreed. But still, getting your eyes tested is important as the following testimonial demonstrates.

 

[JackD201]

Agreed. But still, getting your eyes tested is important as the following testimonial suggests.

I used to have 20-15 vision. Boy could I read the greens those days.

 

[NorthStar]

Wow, 12000 Hz I'm screwed!