How does one get "trained" ears?

[RogerD]

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.")

Jkenny,
Your observation about bass and it's ability to muk up the rest of the frequency range is spot on. The difference in overall clarity less congestion and compression can be stunning. I have replaced the coupling caps on my tube dac which helped and switched out transports also. But the absolute difference by any measure has been my heavier grounding scheme. That change was light years above any other change. The bass is stupendous and everything else followed along.

 

[treitz3]

jkeny, I have just gone through a 3 year project in upgrading the crossovers in my Tyler Acoustic main speakers. While this thread is inappropriate to get into detail about my observations, I can say this with zero reservations. Break in when it concerns crossover upgrades is not slight, it's not subtle, it's not like getting a new amplifier. It is simply profound.

This has nothing to do with my ears getting used to the sound. It has everything to do with the changes within the same rig I have not altered over the course of those 3 years. When I first got the units in, the sound was better but off. 3 months later, my subs are somewhat not even being used. They used to be set at 3 to 4 on the volume. Now they barely are set at 1 and the bass frequencies to mis-bass frequencies are better than ever. I feel that I might possibly even turn them down further. The impact of the system can now startle you (kind of like a gun shot would) and where the volume used to be somewhat loud at 11:00, the volume at 9:30 surprises me still every day that I turn it back on. At 11:00, it seems as if my house will come crumbling down and the system seems like it's saying, "give me more", it's so crystal clear.

This is definitely not misclassified as break in.

Keep in mind, this is not your "normal" crossover upgrade though. We took out the crossovers, upgraded the internals of the speakers, footings, bracing, removed completely the crossovers and put them into a separate enclosure that is the size of a large subwoofer for each channel. This is the only way the crossover upgrade would fit and the shelves within the enclosure are isolated as well as the enclosures spiked for further isolation. I will share my experiences with this on another thread but I did want to mention that the misclassification of break in, as you say, may possibly be something that folks haven't experienced yet.

Things that I was previously intimate with show signs of texture, notes and clarity that I have not heard yet on any system including mine. Up until now, that is.

Tom

 

[jkeny]

BTW, although I agree with what I posted in quotes, they weren't my observations, just some observations emailed to me & I felt it illustrated, with some concrete real-world example of how experience is necessary when evaluating a change - it can initially be interpreted as less detail but an attitude of openess & experience, the inner characteristic of the sound can be gleaned.

This isn't about being trained in recognising codec artifacts, it's grounded in a realistic experience of the way we all (or most of us) listen to our playback systems.

 

[stehno]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I knew it would be a controversial post...

Your post shouldn't be controversial in the least. It's just common sense. But alas. Here we all are.

 

[opus112]

Common sense isn't all that common, hence controversy.

 

[stehno]

Common sense isn't all that common, hence controversy.

What you said was just common sense too. What a great day this turned out to be!!!

Ya know, since this thread has been somewhat adulterated, I think it might be a good idea if somebody opened a new thread with the same topic asking a question something like,

"I'm curious how one obtains trained listening skills with regard to reproduced music. Would you please share how you think you developed your listening skills and how long you've been developing this skill?"

Or something like that.

If many participate, I'd venture not only would we read many varied methods but such a thread could well be one of the most educational and edifying threads yet. For all of us.

 

[Diapason]

I'm not sure I want to be a "trained" listener, tbh. As an audiophile with decidedly finite resources, I think I'm better off without being able to discern every failing or weakness of every link in the chain. I've learned enough to know what attributes float my sonic boat, and that's plenty for me. As a friend of mine who lectures in wine appreciation once said, "sometimes when you take these things apart it can be hard to put them back again".

 

[Gregadd]

Or to paraphase,"Do you really want to know what's in a hot dog?"

 

[853guy]

It is not enough to HEAR differences. That is not so hard to do for a lot of gear, even under controlled conditions. It is what you can make out of hearing differences that is important. Can you then relate which difference make the sound closer to live or closer to whatever you claimed goal is? This is where most people have no talent or skill. They get stuck at simply hearing differences and not how to put the jigsaw puzzle together.

As I explained at the outset, professional audio training is field specific…

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.

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...

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.

Hello everyone,

*Deep breath*

While I have no reason to doubt the acuity of members apropos the above mentioned tests cited by Amir, their ability to detect frequency/phase anomalies apropos speaker/room interactions, nor indeed, the capacity for any individual who falls within a range of ’normal’ hearing/intelligence to be able to learn to hear the same sorts of anomalies with the correct training and discipline, personally, I still believe it’s only part of the parcel (and perhaps not even the most significant part).

All the above tests/training methodologies rely on detecting sound-related anomalies, mostly related to changes in frequency. Amplitude and time anomalies are not within its scope.

One of the things I think creates a divergence seen in a thread like this is that we fundamentally do not know how the brain distinguishes between music and sound. We know that is does, and in fact, does not even need sound to be present in order to do so, but the exact criteria, or more specifically, the relationship between those criteria is still yet to be determined.

If then my brain and yours has the capacity to distinguish music from sound - without sound necessarily being present - it makes me wonder whether a primarily frequency-specific methodology for the critique and understanding of how the playback mechanism contributes to our perception of music is sufficient for arriving at any definitive conclusions.

I would say not. In fact, I would venture that a primarily frequency-specific methodology is by definition limited in its scope to fully understand why we as humans have the sort of intense neurobiological responses we do to an art form of which frequency is only one component. As to the OP of this thread, “how does one get ‘trained’ ears?”, I think the question is possibly best unpacked as, “What are the perceptual criteria the brain uses to distinguish music from sound, what is the relationship between those criteria, and how do we train ourselves to better understand those criteria in the context of the relationship they share?”

Currently, it’s difficult for me to accept that the commonly practiced forms of training as mentioned above should be vaunted as the sole defining methodology for understanding the reproduction chain’s effect on our perception of music as a whole, when the available neurobiological research indicates the brain’s process for distinguishing music from sound is far more sophisticated than simply detecting changes in frequency.

For whatever that may be worth...

Lastly, I'd also like to add I much prefer being part of a forum in which combative language/attitudes are absent. On my part, I'll try my best to avoid falling prey to the tendency to think I know everything, because, as many of you probably know from experience, it's our wives who do.

Yours in continual curiosity,

853guy

 

[Rodney Gold]

You can micro analyse all you want , but at the end of it all it comes down to whether the changed/different reproduction elicits more of an emotional response from YOU... if it does, whatever you have done is better..if it disappoints you.. its not better for YOU.
I rued the day my ballet teacher wife explained all the intricacy's and nuances of the various steps etc as prior to that ignorance was bliss..now I see footfaults and all manner of technical artifacts and struggle to get past it.

 

[Diapason]

Or to paraphase,"Do you really want to know what's in a hot dog?"

Beautiful!!

 

[853guy]

I'm not sure I want to be a "trained" listener, tbh. As an audiophile with decidedly finite resources, I think I'm better off without being able to discern every failing or weakness of every link in the chain. I've learned enough to know what attributes float my sonic boat, and that's plenty for me. As a friend of mine who lectures in wine appreciation once said, "sometimes when you take these things apart it can be hard to put them back again".

Or to paraphase,"Do you really want to know what's in a hot dog?"

You can micro analyse all you want , but at the end of it all it comes down to whether the changed/different reproduction elicits more of an emotional response from YOU... if it does, whatever you have done is better..if it disappoints you.. its not better for YOU.
I rued the day my ballet teacher wife explained all the intricacy's and nuances of the various steps etc as prior to that ignorance was bliss..now I see footfaults and all manner of technical artifacts and struggle to get past it.

Hello gents,

Knowledge, like any other entity, carries no implicit moral value neither good nor bad. It’s simply up to us how we use it. True, like anything else, it can be abused, and it’s inevitable some will use it to denigrate, undermine or disempower. But that’s easy to see and with some discipline, relatively easy to ignore.

And yes, greater knowledge carries a responsibility for the one enlightened. You see things in the light that were previously hidden in the dark. It’s then up to us of whether we let it spoil our enjoyment or enhance our appreciation. Knowing the techniques Rothko or Dürer used to make art neither needs to lessen our enjoyment nor our appreciation for their talents - for me it actually elevates both.

I think the value for us in regards to our systems is that within our resources we’re empowered to make more discerning decisions in terms of how we utilise what we already have and/or delay gratification until the time resources are available to achieve our goals.

 

[microstrip]

(...) So, just like the fact that most doctors (or engineers, or lawyers or scientists or whatever) are mediocre at their profession at best...and incompetent in a surprisingly large number of cases, the same is true of the audiophile in building a truly realisitc sounding system regardless of money or experience. Without the insight to understand what does what, the experience and money (exception: The money can BUY the talent) can't get there. I can train a monkey forever to write a poem and the best I will ever get is gobbeldygook on the screen. (...)

Your post shouldn't be controversial in the least. It's just common sense. But alas. Here we all are.

Common sense isn't all that common, hence controversy.

IMHO, considering that a controversial argument is just common sense and people who have other views lack common sense only weakens the argument.

Although the original post is now forgotten (#44) I can not agree with a post grounded on such words.

Sorry to say, but this kind of arguments only weakens the high-end audiophile position. The high-end should be strong for its respect for diversity and respect for preference, those are just the views of people with extreme positions. Fortunately all WBF members and readers are part of the minor group of competent people.

For the record, I have listened to many excellent systems in homes of friends or acquaintances. Probably not all of them match my preferences, but good and enjoyable systems. But yes, most shops and audio shows have poor sound quality.

 

[microstrip]

Hello gents,

Knowledge, like any other entity, carries no implicit moral value neither good nor bad. It’s simply up to us how we use it. True, like anything else, it can be abused, and it’s inevitable some will use it to denigrate, undermine or disempower. But that’s easy to see and with some discipline, relatively easy to ignore.

And yes, greater knowledge carries a responsibility for the one enlightened. You see things in the light that were previously hidden in the dark. It’s then up to us of whether we let it spoil our enjoyment or enhance our appreciation. Knowing the techniques Rothko or Dürer used to make art neither needs to lessen our enjoyment nor our appreciation for their talents - for me it actually elevates both.

I think the value for us in regards to our systems is that within our resources we’re empowered to make more discerning decisions in terms of how we utilise what we already have and/or delay gratification until the time resources are available to achieve our goals.

The main problem is that knowledge is an infinitum entity, and we can only grasp a limited quantity of it. In order to be really useful, you have to get a balanced amount of it. A trained listener for high-end purposes will need developing capabilities in several areas of sound reproduction and be able to integrate them critically.

We can learn a lot from the interviews of audio designers - most of the time they explain how they listen and what are their priorities.
I have no problem to accept that our preferences are influenced by what we have read along decades.

 

[microstrip]

You can micro analyse all you want , but at the end of it all it comes down to whether the changed/different reproduction elicits more of an emotional response from YOU... if it does, whatever you have done is better..if it disappoints you.. its not better for YOU.
I rued the day my ballet teacher wife explained all the intricacy's and nuances of the various steps etc as prior to that ignorance was bliss..now I see footfaults and all manner of technical artifacts and struggle to get past it.

Your post triggered my comment on trained listening - perhaps you should now complement you knowledge of ballet technique with other related subjects, such as choreography, in order to reach the same level of expertise in the appreciation of the other aspects.

 

[amirm]

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.

Hi Greg. I generally agree with you but not in this instance .

In this thread we are discussing what it means to become a trained listener. Mike interjected saying formal training is not necessary and that years of being an audiophile is sufficient. It is *core* to the whole training endeavor to use a 100% reliable feedback loop as to whether the assignments and ultimately the training itself has worked. You can't practice Law in US without passing the Bar exam. Same is true here.

Take a simple example of me renaming a .wav file to .mp3 and then asking you which one sounds better: the .wav or .mp3. I think vast majority of people here would immediately look down upon the .mp3 as being compressed and would vote it down. They would even "hear" it sounding worse even though as I just indicated the files are identical. Using our other senses corrupted the experiment and training.

Now imagine if I gave the same test blind. You would hear them both, get confused which is which and vote randomly which using statistics we can then tell that you were unable to identify them as being different. That feedback would then tell you that the files were the same even though during the trial you may have thought there were difference. Immediately you get a sense of what it means to hear the same thing but have the impression of it sounding different.

Take a situation where there were audible differences and two other listeners could hear them blind but you cannot. That immediately tells you that you are not there in your journey of hearing artifacts that are clearly and audibly there. If I ran the same test sighted, all three of you could say they sound different corrupting the training.

We don't have to speak in theory here. We have practical proof right here, right now. Ethan post a set of audio files where he washed the same file through A to D and D to A conversion on a cheap sound card a dozen times or so. He then post the files and asked people if they can show they can tell the difference. I did: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Loopback-files&p=279103&viewfull=1#post279103

"foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/18 06:40:07

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_original.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_pass1.wav

06:40:07 : Test started.
06:41:03 : 01/01 50.0%
06:41:16 : 02/02 25.0%
06:41:24 : 03/03 12.5%
06:41:33 : 04/04 6.3%
06:41:53 : 05/05 3.1%
06:42:02 : 06/06 1.6%
06:42:22 : 07/07 0.8%
06:42:34 : 08/08 0.4%
06:42:43 : 09/09 0.2%
06:42:56 : 10/10 0.1%
06:43:08 : 11/11 0.0%
06:43:16 : Test finished."

Vast majority of people cannot. Now, our standard excuse for not taking blind tests is that they stress us, they are artificial, etc. as to explain how they are not able to find such differences. Let's say all of that is true. The fact that my training allowed me to hear those differences blind shows that formal training has that incredible power. It is able to get past our normal excuses and allow us to use our ears and only our ears to hear differences that are there.

Note that I have no formal training in hearing loops through ADC and DAC. What I used however was general techniques that run across all such training. And far, far improve acuity than normal people. Not because I was born with it but because I spent months and years training myself.

In this regard if Mike is going to post here and say that his method is superior to formal training, the blind test is an excellent way to cut through the ego boosting and see where the truth is. He took a blind test and failed. He could not tell his expensive cable from monster when all he could hear is the sound and nothing else. It reasons then that he can benefit from formal training because a test being blind is no barrier to people who are trained.

 

[amirm]

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.

You are mistaken Mike. I don't ever post on forums from position of emotion. We are discussing an inanimate topic: audio equipment. At no time do I react emotionally to it, nor do I post things out of spite. As I explained to Greg just now, blind testing is core to training to be a good listener. It just is. To that end if you say your scheme is superior to mine, then your blind testing -- which I had nothing to do with -- is part of the proof point of which opinion is correct. What else do you want us to use? See who can shout or insult the other person louder?

I am a data driven guy. Should I have been in your shoes then, it would have completely changed my outlook on this hobby. I would have sat back and re-examined my beliefs. How was it that the difference between those cables were so clear in your mind that you participated in that challenge yet did not remotely get there in practice when all you could use to decide was your ears. There was nothing but positive vibes in that thread even though you "failed" the test because people recognized that it was an important discovery for you.

Fast forward to now and you say it is an insult for anyone to mention it? No, it is not an insult. It is a reminder of real data that you generated and should have had a different outcome than who you are now. As a minimum it should take the impetus away from jumping in a thread about training to say that training is subservient to your method.

When I was at your home you gave me pretty good hazing. I did not take any of it personally. It was fun even though I was the subject of it. Please remember that as you judge these words for who I am. And who you are. There is a not a lot you gain from getting old. But that better be one of them.

 

[microstrip]

(...) And yes, greater knowledge carries a responsibility for the one enlightened. You see things in the light that were previously hidden in the dark. It’s then up to us of whether we let it spoil our enjoyment or enhance our appreciation. Knowing the techniques Rothko or Dürer used to make art neither needs to lessen our enjoyment nor our appreciation for their talents - for me it actually elevates both.(...)

Good point. Although you can look closer to get the painting technique, if you are making an appreciation of a Monet's painting you should place yourself at the proper distance and know about impressionists.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Your post triggered my comment on trained listening - perhaps you should now complement you knowledge of ballet technique with other related subjects, such as choreography, in order to reach the same level of expertise in the appreciation of the other aspects.

I reached a good compromise with my wife , I only go to the good orchestral type performances and never ever attend the school productions with 6 year old heffalumps dressed as sea horses , tomatoes or bunnys shuffling round the stage accompanied by the school pa system ... she agreed to take her own car and come watch me drag race but leave me to bench race in the pub on my own after

 

[Al M.]

IMHO, considering that a controversial argument is just common sense and people who have other views lack common sense only weakens the argument.

Although the original post is now forgotten (#44) I can not agree with a post grounded on such words.

On the contrary, I agree with the post and the replies you cited. Why should we deny something obvious about human nature? Not everyone has the same talent. I also had to learn to hear some things others were more readily able to perceive.

Sorry to say, but this kind of arguments only weakens the high-end audiophile position.

Why? How does the truth weaken it? Or is the high end about fooling ourselves? In some ways, it seems to be. That is why it's so important to be discerning and to not always run after the latest and allegedly greatest. Keeps you sane.