How does one get "trained" ears?

[amirm]

They might not need to know about the math per se, but the math was supposed to help them make the relationships between things: cause/effect, change with time, etc. more understandable.

I didn't question math in general. We all go through years and years of that before getting to Calculus. It is that barrier which I spoke of and it comes from personal experience of having hired and managed hundreds of engineers and computer scientists. Nothing about the work we did from VLSI (chip) design to computers and all manner of software required knowledge of calculus. We couldn't hire any of those people on basis of Calculus as 99% of them have forgotten it by the time they graduated.

Worse yet, those who have not forgotten it, don't know what it means in the context of real life! I got an A in differential equations after struggling at first and seeing the others who took the class with me drop out. I promptly forgot all of it until a few years ago when I was taking a University course on sound propagation and realizing that differential equations describe how that occurs. In that one instance I learned all the meaning of it. It had context. It did not at University taught by a Math teacher with no engineering experience.

As I said our educational system is antiquated and flat out broken. The youtube videos today and choice of so many are a far better tool than sitting in a dry lecture even if the topic was useful.

Even if they have forgotten some of the math now from lack of use, if they understood it well before then they will now intuitively look at those relations and have a pretty good idea what changing a variable hear and adjusting a constant there will do to the end result. Lack of in-depth knowledge means only superficial solutions.

Algebra would tell you that. Lack of knowledge is problematic if knowledge is required in your job. As I have been saying Calculus is not required for vast amount of non-research engineering work. That is especially true of computer science. This field relies entirely on intuition without which you can master advanced math all you want but still fail to be a good programmer.

My wife was in a medical field but wanted to switch to computer science. Alas she was not good at math and got stopped dead cold there. Yet she runs circles around me in her attention to detail, creativity, organization and ability to make things. Those are valuable skills in computer science just the same but our educational process demanded knowledge of math beyond algebra and cut her aspirations short.

Anyway we are digressing from the topic of the thread so let's move on.

 

[microstrip]

I guess one just lies on the tracks and waits for the train.

 

[amirm]

Are you suggesting that any golden ear is not up to your ear intellect because you had "training" at Microsoft and that all other listeners are sub par to your vast knowledge?

It sure is what it sounds like and frankly, that's laughable Amir.

Tom

As I explained at the outset, professional audio training is field specific. My (self) training at Microsoft was for hearing small impairments caused by audio compression and signal processing. It was not about any and all things in audio. I had a large team of signal processing experts who developed technologies such as audio and video compression and it was critical that we could validate our designs quickly and reliably to make fast progress and keep up with our competitors. As I explained I was quite presumptuous to think just because I was an audiophiles for decades I would be able to hear these artifacts easily. Yet my hat was handed to me when I tried to compare compressed music to the original and failing miserably at that. I had been through all the things you all say makes you good at hearing distortions yet faced with a real example of massive amounts of distortion, I was deaf as a pot of plant. A file that was less than 1/10 the size of the original seem to sound pretty close to the original.

So I set out on a process to train myself and over time got extreme good it and built up the reputation of having "golden ears" at Microsoft.

Ultimately though anyone can claim to have such skills as you did in your first post here. The question is how do we verify that? Verification is key part of any training. If you train to become a doctor, you have to pass exams that demonstrate you have learned the material. In this thread though we have person after person claiming to have golden ears by self-grading themselves. Yet you chose to question me and not them. I know why you went there but it was not a wise move because I have had to demonstrate my skills time and time again in the above domain.

Here is such an example: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...that-higher-resolution-audio-sounds-different

There are tests after tests that I passed in full double blind manner. Any of you who think playing with equipment has given you the same critical listening abilities should take those tests and see how far you go.

As another example Sean Olive post the program Harman uses for training their acoustic listeners. It has ratings from 1 to N on how good you are in hearing and identifying what part of frequency response has changed on real music. When I first took the test I could only get to level 2 or 3. I then practices with the tool some and as it happens, I attended a meeting at Harman with a bunch of high-end dealers and Sean put us through the same tests. As with me initially, all the dealers quit after level 2 or 3. I kept up with Sean to level 6 or 7. He though, sailed way passed me without even trying. I think he said to be a trained listener you have to get to level 11 or so (and pass hearing tests). Since taking that training/test my acuity for hearing room acoustics and speaker response anomalies has sharply improved. Still not great I am sure but that bit of training provided far more value than years and years of playing with audio equipment dating back to 1960s.

What can you point to like this Tom? Is there any verifiable experience in your audiophile life like this? Do you have some super human abilities that all of those dealers and myself don't have where you can learn what is wrong with the sound of your speakers and room without any training?

You don't of course and I am sure you would be scared purple of being put to any blind tests where you have to prove your boastful abilities solely by using your ears. Saying you use your ears but be afraid of being tested is what is laughable.

 

[microstrip]

We have known cases of specific training for a specific purpose in the high-end - for example the Sumiko method of speaker positioning or the Wilson Audio set-up Procedure (WASP for short). In these sessions the participants are thought about the method and practice using a known reference recording -a Rob Wasserman song featuring Jennifer Warnes called “Duets” and David Wilson "Ragtime Razzmatazz2". Using this knowledge they are able to position specific speakers faster and with higher reliability than inexperienced people. But IMHO they do not become better listeners in general just because they master this technique.

 

[amirm]

no, it's not. this is art, not science or engineering. reproduced musical correctness is subjective. it's what you happen to like. not some objective thing. i don't ask pro audio guys what the best sounding high end audio gear is. they have mostly not paid any attention to it or view it with disdain. they don't get it, like you don't get it.

i don't know an audiophile/music lover who would fall under your 'trained' category. why? because it is not useful or relevant to do that training. if they have happened to have done it, they rose above it or factored it downward in their minds eye of judgment.

Well, you know me as a trained listener so you are wrong right there.

Sad truth is that you are generally right that folks like you shun knowledge of audio and engineering/science that went into it. Why? Because it invalidates much of what they say on forums and boastful claims of superiority of their systems because they did X, Y and Z. It is the characteristic of being a human male and wanting no process as to show them to make mistakes.

Also disappointing is that despite all the boastfulness, every time folks like you are put under the test where you could only use your ear -- and nothing but the ear -- you can't hear the things you say you hear otherwise. Here is an example as you well know where you could not tell the difference between your MIT Opus cables and monster cable: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...41184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html

"And to cut to the chase, Mike could not identify the Monster from the Opus MM with any accuracy (nor the reverse, which also would have been a positive result if he had been consistently wrong) using our testing methodology. We stopped the test a little less than halfway through, I think we got through 8 A/Bs before we gave up."

This was in your room, and in your system Mike. All the art and music appreciate did not save you. Contrast that with the link I provided to Tom in passing the same type of blind test with 100% certainty in the fields I am trained in. This is why we use trained listeners in the industry. They provide reliable and repeatable data. What you do, not so much.

What surprises me is that you all in real life don't practice the same. I am sure if I came to your dealership to buy a car you would tell me about the engineering that goes into Honda cars. You wouldn't just stick to subjectivism. And I am confident you would not hire a mechanic without giving him sold tests/interview questions that would prove he knows how to fix cars. Yet you come here and say the equipment that produces sound is about art??? Let me know the name of the artists that created your amplifiers and speakers. Love to know what they lack in appreciating music which you have.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Well, you know me as a trained listener so you are wrong right there.

Sad truth is that you are generally right that folks like you shun knowledge of audio and engineering/science that went into it. Why? Because it invalidates much of what they say on forums and boastful claims of superiority of their systems because they did X, Y and Z. It is the characteristic of being a human male and wanting no process as to show them to make mistakes.

Also disappointing is that despite all the boastfulness, every time folks like you are put under the test where you could only use your ear -- and nothing but the ear -- you can't hear the things you say you hear otherwise. Here is an example as you well know where you could not tell the difference between your MIT Opus cables and monster cable: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...41184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html

"And to cut to the chase, Mike could not identify the Monster from the Opus MM with any accuracy (nor the reverse, which also would have been a positive result if he had been consistently wrong) using our testing methodology. We stopped the test a little less than halfway through, I think we got through 8 A/Bs before we gave up."

This was in your room, and in your system Mike. Contrast that with the link I provided to Tom in passing the same type of blind test with 100% certainty in the fields I am trained in. This is why we use trained listeners in the industry. They provide reliable and repeatable data. What you do, not so much.

What surprises me is that you all in real life don't practice the same. I am sure if I came to your dealership to buy a car you would tell me about the engineering that goes into Honda cars. You wouldn't just stick to subjectivism. And I am confident you would not hire a mechanic without giving him sold tests/interview questions that would prove he knows how to fix cars. Yet you come here and say the equipment that produces sound is about art??? Let me know the name of the artists that created your amplifiers and speakers. Love to know what they lack in appreciating music which you have.

you are no listener as I view that meaning, Amir. and you are no audiophile. I guess I have to admit knowing you....I was naïve enough to allow you into my home a few weeks ago.

and your only reason you would reference this decade old event (again) is you are aware that I was previously offended by it. but nothing you write matters to me anymore......I am an easy target for an anti-audiophile, fire away.

 

[bonzo75]

Well, you know me as a trained listener so you are wrong right there.

Sad truth is that you are generally right that folks like you shun knowledge of audio and engineering/science that went into it. Why? Because it invalidates much of what they say on forums and boastful claims of superiority of their systems because they did X, Y and Z. It is the characteristic of being a human male and wanting no process as to show them to make mistakes.

Also disappointing is that despite all the boastfulness, every time folks like you are put under the test where you could only use your ear -- and nothing but the ear -- you can't hear the things you say you hear otherwise. Here is an example as you well know where you could not tell the difference between your MIT Opus cables and monster cable: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ul...41184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html

"And to cut to the chase, Mike could not identify the Monster from the Opus MM with any accuracy (nor the reverse, which also would have been a positive result if he had been consistently wrong) using our testing methodology. We stopped the test a little less than halfway through, I think we got through 8 A/Bs before we gave up."

This was in your room, and in your system Mike. All the art and music appreciate did not save you. Contrast that with the link I provided to Tom in passing the same type of blind test with 100% certainty in the fields I am trained in. This is why we use trained listeners in the industry. They provide reliable and repeatable data. What you do, not so much.

What surprises me is that you all in real life don't practice the same. I am sure if I came to your dealership to buy a car you would tell me about the engineering that goes into Honda cars. You wouldn't just stick to subjectivism. And I am confident you would not hire a mechanic without giving him sold tests/interview questions that would prove he knows how to fix cars. Yet you come here and say the equipment that produces sound is about art??? Let me know the name of the artists that created your amplifiers and speakers. Love to know what they lack in appreciating music which you have.

Mike doesn't boast, those who have heard his systems do. In fact he is the first to admit he is not necessarily the best listener, his friends point out stuff and what he is good at is finding out how to get the required improvement to.compete his sound.

 

[bonzo75]

I guess one just lies on the tracks and waits for the train.

Lol

 

[Steve williams]

Bonzo

You're dead on. Mike does not boast. In fact reading everything here the only person I find boastful is Amir. And frankly none of us could care less as he goes unnoticed.

 

[Gregadd]

I sense an argument brewing that has permeated this forum from its inception. It is destined to turn nasty and personal. There is nothing really that has not been said regarding A/B DBT. Never the sides shall meet. And maybe that's a positive thing. Debate is healthy. Developing an audio product is part art, part science.
The point is Mike is not an engineer and has no obligation to prove anything to anyone. He hears what he hears.

 

[Steve williams]

I sense an argument brewing that has permeated this forum from its inception. It is destined to turn nasty and personal. There is nothing really that has not been said regarding A/B DBT. Never the sides shall meet. And maybe that's a positive thing. Debate is healthy. Developing an audio product is part art, part science.
The point is Mike is not an engineer and has no obligation to prove anything to anyone. He hears what he hears.

I agree. Have you ever come to the conclusion that the common denominator here involves the same person over and over again?

 

[treitz3]

*sigh* Fluff yourself up all you want Amir, but it would behoove you to drop the "Holier than Thou" stance that you present when it comes to listening, observing and demeaning anyone who has not gone through your supposed "self testing" and "golden ears" status at Microsoft.

Ultimately though anyone can claim to have such skills as you did in your first post here. The question is how do we verify that?

Not once have I ever claimed to have any skills. Not on my first post, not on this post and on no posts in between. I don't know where you dream up these outright lies. Don't believe me? I don't frankly care. It's all documented. The first post listed my observations on the different types of listeners I had observed over the years. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to verify it, refer to my first post linked below;

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...nd-of-listener-would-you-classify-yourself-as

So to answer your question, there is nothing to verify.

In this thread though we have person after person claiming to have golden ears by self-grading themselves. Yet you chose to question me and not them.

Incorrect. I don't recall one person on this thread claiming to be a "golden ear". I choose not to question you, what I did choose to do is point out that it seems that your stance is that many or most of us on this forum do not have a trained ear that is developed as good as yours due to your training. Here's the actual post.

Are you suggesting that any golden ear is not up to your ear intellect because you had "training" at Microsoft and that all other listeners are sub par to your vast knowledge?

It sure is what it sounds like and frankly, that's laughable Amir.

It appears as if my assumption of your suggestion is correct. We are all sub-par to your vast listening abilities because we haven't had the training you have claimed to have had. I'll say again, that's laughable. I'm not insulted because I think that your stance is unfounded and pure and unadulterated hogwash.

What can you point to like this Tom? Is there any verifiable experience in your audiophile life like this? Do you have some super human abilities that all of those dealers and myself don't have where you can learn what is wrong with the sound of your speakers and room without any training?

*sigh* Once again, I have claimed zero super human abilities. None. Not even once.

Now, there are verifiable experiences in my audiophile journey and there are room fulls of witnesses connected with these experiences. These I have mentioned before on this and other forums but I choose not to get into this with you. If you want to know what and to what extent, feel free to research. I have nothing to prove to you or anybody else. All I'd like to say is that I trust my ears and my experiences have confirmed that my ears have never lied to me yet. Whether or not you trust my ears is of no concern of mine.

You don't of course and I am sure you would be scared purple of being put to any blind tests where you have to prove your boastful abilities solely by using your ears. Saying you use your ears but be afraid of being tested is what is laughable.

Once again, you are incorrect. I do have experiences and not only was I not scared then, I'm not scared now, nor will I ever be. If you recall, I actually accepted a challenge on this forum. It was the challenger that kept backing out, changing the rules and changing the tests. I'm still game and always will be. Now that I have relayed this, what is laughable again?

Please note that this was a rhetorical question.

Tom

 

[Folsom]

You are assuming that scientists WANT to rule the world. The desire to want to control and dominate humanity is not necessarily intelligence...but it could be psychopathy. The willingness to do anything and everything to have power has not a lot to do with intelligence...however, if that person is also intelligent then look out! Plenty of scientific and engineering people have gotten very wealthy though...it is a technological world afterall.

No, I don't. You missed the the jist.

I would also speculate that most members here feel the same

When I'm working on a piece of gear and listen to the same tracks over and over and over, I take a break when I'm done changing resistors or whatever. It does not encourage you to listen a lot more, so I suspect you're correct.

Bonzo

You're dead on. Mike does not boast. In fact reading everything here the only person I find boastful is Amir. And frankly none of us could care less as he goes unnoticed.

I'm not sure I think Amir is a big boaster, but I am finding Amir to be rude. What happened to him and MikeL hearing one thing, but describing it differently? In this situation I think it might be a similar answer. Mike knows there is engineering that goes into audio equipment, but he views the very talented guys as artists more than engineers. In other words they've achieved something higher than just basic engineering. It's not that they've transcended engineering and can subjectively assemble parts without knowing any engineering, that's just bafflingly stupid to assert. In contrast we've all heard lots of "well engineered" items that aren't worth ever listening to again, so why wouldn't someone - such as MikeL - be searching for a higher title for the people making the good stuff?

Also MikeL doesn't sell speakers so why would you take the same approach as with Hondas? Why take a hobby to a level where you're exercising instead of relaxing, if you don't want to?

You know, I think Amir post some good stuff here and there, the problem is it's buried in some sort of pseudo 'you're an underling of mine at M$ and I need to grille you' issue, or it's combative with lots of language tactics that are deceptive and annoying. I don't understand why it's so hard for Amir to be friendly in more of his posts, while keeping content. It's almost like some contest is going on that not everyone's aware of...

 

[andromedaaudio]

If hearing is an advanced ability, the one having " the certificate" should at least reveal his test gear.
Any scientist would agree

 

[treitz3]

 

[Gregadd]

I agree. Have you ever come to the conclusion that the common denominator here involves the same person over and over again?

Steve,many feign nuetrality but openly advocate a methodology that supports their philosophy.
For most of us reproduction of real music in real space. The opposition comes up with qualification why science does not produce that result. The most popular of which is the collective audiophile delusion.

 

[the sound of Tao]

It would be great if there was a certified course in listening perception completely specific to this pursuit. It would be very cool to undertake something that gives us a deeper more whole understanding of all the facets of what is involved in what we do here.

Avoiding any self inflation it would be fair to say that the whole being an audiophile thingy seems to involve a lot of people who probably are as a guide, very focussed and smart. Certainly they (that is to say, we) seem to be very intensively directed to understand what is underlying this passion and how it can be a bit at times like a very long long long illusive journey for some holy grail and at other times a bit more like a lost diversion plot from a Don Quixote adventure.

There is some pretty high order thinking going on for all of us in trying to understand how perception plays out and how it is dependent on a drive that seems at first simple, clear and attainable, ie buy some stereo gear to play music better. Oh what a magnificent trap!

Because what we don't suspect at all is that merely by starting this journey we change ourselves. What we can perceive at the start is just the start. We do train ourselves and the degree to which that is more conscious and the speed of our change may vary but the complex interactions going deep within are certainly remapping and refining your perceptual process, vitalising new connections and firing up neural plasticity. This is not a linear adventure, utterly curious and responsive for most of us to the two essential ingredients, music and sound. No matter that our bent takes us (at times) crazily into both weird and wonderful science and at times to the furthest ends of the electro mechanical spectrum of technology as well as it leading us to connecting through art... to understanding our culture and mankind's deepest emotional bond right back to the source... music.

More formalised and shared training for all that! Bring it on.

 

[Joe Whip]

Morricab

I enjoy reading your comments.......especially this one



However having said this I cannot help but reflect on bear's post as for me and why I am in this hobby, it is a statement with which I can identify......




I would also speculate that most members here feel the same

I get that completely Steve. A few years ago, I used to do Blu-ray movie reviews. After a couple of years I stopped, as it got to be a PITA. I would rather watch Films for the entertainment value. Feel the same way about listening to music.

 

[NorthStar]

Joe, you were reviewing Blu-ray movies? ...Any link? :b
That also means you were reviewing the soundtracks too.

 

[jkeny]

Let's get some real experience of listening from users - I have many - here's just one & it illustrates how one needs to take time in evaluation of what one is hearing & not initially jump to conclusions. All of this is down to experience & having been exposed to various playback systems or swaps of devices in ones playback system
"The DAC improves the bass still more. Music has a more solid and clearly articulated foundation that had been missing.

This had the curious result of making music sound less detailed and vivid at first, but the it became clear that there is more detail top to bottom. The difference is that the sound I’m used to hearing is embedded in additional layers of detailed sound. The effect is particularly pronounced on these pieces that I know so well, that I think I know how they are supposed to sound. My ears and expectations will have to adjust accordingly. (I suspect this is much of what is misclassified as “break in.")