How does one get "trained" ears?

[microstrip]

Ok, we probably can agree that Morricab's statement of "99% of the systems I have heard convince me that the owner of that system has no clue how to do this and it doesn't matter if he has been an audiophile 2 weeks or 30+ years", is wrong.

His broader point that some are more talented than others is not.

So, we both consider that the two factual audio statements were wrong, and are supposed to agree on a broad meaningless statement?

Surely some designers are more talented than others - do not forget we only buy products from a few, the more talented.

BTW, he wisely summarizes when he says

Of course the real problem is demonstrating this convincingly to the outside world that one has talent in audio listening

It is a problem of many services - you can not demonstrate they have implicitly high quality, you can see it only by the quality of the products they produce. Our metric for the quality of high-end designers is mostly the quality of their products. But this a subject for another thread!

 

[morricab]

Sure, there are many scientists who probably are as talented as the Nobel Prize winners *), but even if that pool were 10 x larger than the actual winners (quite possible) it would not change anything about the fact that, while there may be many most highly talented scientists, there is still a much larger pool of comparatively less talented scientists (I am one of the latter, by the way, even though I think I am still quite good at my job). So it is somewhat besides the point I was making.

I think obfuscating the issue for the sake of "peace and harmony" (oh, we are all good!) diverts us from the naked truth, which Morricab first brought to the forefront in this thread in post #44.

_________

*) and yes, talent does come into it. Nobel Prize winners are talented. Let's not obfuscate the issue, please.

I agree Al. By the way, what kind of science do you preferrentially research? I am an analytical chemist by training and did my Ph.D in environmental analytical chemistry. Did a bunch of engineering as well designing mass spectrometers. Now I do research on understanding the physico/chemical behavior of complex powder mixtures for the pharmaceutical industry. Mixes a chemistry and physics nicely.

 

[morricab]

Wow, this is what I would call an incorrect use of statistics and a misleading argument, leading us away of the main subject. Nobel prizes are limited to one per year, they are a not a free variable, no way related to the number of scientists, and scientists are not forcefully talented, but can be very competent in their job. It seems to me you have not read with care post #44.

Quite a lot are not so competent...same for doctors...lawyers, and of course audiophiles. I liken audiophiles to wine enthusiasts...they love to drink wine and many are good at pretending to know what they are tasting...but its just that, pretense. There are even a goodly number of wine critics that are pretenders as well but good with flowery language. Sounds suspiciously like a fair number of audio "critics".

It has nothing to do with the enjoyment of audio...or wine. You can be clueless and still enjoy listening to music just fine...ask most of the rest of the world. The audiophile has at least a leg up on most of them...as if they care...

If listening to music for enjoyment is the only goal one has in this hobby then I would argue that for most this is prety easily achievable. Howver, if one is smitten by the bug of trying to achieve realism then it requires effort and a talented ear/brain to get going in the right direction.

Amir is right about one thing: If you cannot hear differences relatively easily then it is hard to know what is going on in your system. Where he goes totally wrong is in that he has no plan for what to do with that information.

 

[morricab]

Ok, we probably can agree that Morricab's hyperbolic statement of "99% of the systems I have heard convince me that the owner of that system has no clue how to do this and it doesn't matter if he has been an audiophile 2 weeks or 30+ years", is wrong.

His broader point that some are more talented than others is not.

Ok, maybe 95% ;-).

 

[morricab]

So, we both consider that the two factual audio statements were wrong, and are supposed to agree on a broad meaningless statement?

Surely some designers are more talented than others - do not forget we only buy products from a few, the more talented.

BTW, he wisely summarizes when he says



It is a problem of many services - you can not demonstrate they have implicitly high quality, you can see it only by the quality of the products they produce. Our metric for the quality of high-end designers is mostly the quality of their products. But this a subject for another thread!

What factual statement? You do realize that my 99% was not an actual quantiative assessment, right? What was the other supposed factual statement? I see only one in Al's excerpt?

"Surely some designers are more talented than others - do not forget we only buy products from a few, the more talented."

If you think so...I do not. Just because an person has good engineering chops does not make him a good audio engineer. He might be good at jet engines or something that doesn't require a subjective input but the ability to judge nicely the subjective output has little to do with engineering skills per se.

 

[microstrip]

Quite a lot are not so competent...same for doctors...lawyers, and of course audiophiles. I liken audiophiles to wine enthusiasts...they love to drink wine and many are good at pretending to know what they are tasting...but its just that, pretense. There are even a goodly number of wine critics that are pretenders as well but good with flowery language. Sounds suspiciously like a fair number of audio "critics".

It has nothing to do with the enjoyment of audio...or wine. You can be clueless and still enjoy listening to music just fine...ask most of the rest of the world. The audiophile has at least a leg up on most of them...as if they care...

If listening to music for enjoyment is the only goal one has in this hobby then I would argue that for most this is prety easily achievable. Howver, if one is smitten by the bug of trying to achieve realism then it requires effort and a talented ear/brain to get going in the right direction.

Amir is right about one thing: If you cannot hear differences relatively easily then it is hard to know what is going on in your system. Where he goes totally wrong is in that he has no plan for what to do with that information.

You can link audiophiles to anything depending on perception and being subjective, even beauty contests, it will not add any value to this debate.

Again the key is in "achieve realism", the so called Don Quixote effect - to dream the impossible dream. Surely a form of enjoyment. Surely many of us want it. Many people approach it their own way. But how do you measure it? Aren't we simultaneously the builder, the owner , the listener, the jury and the prize winner?

 

[morricab]

Let me add some answers to the original question now:

1. The important thing about training is to start from bottom up. That means whatever distortion you are seeking, you need to hear it in excess and with absolute clarity. Do not start to learn compression artifacts by encoding into AAC at 320 Kbps. Even I can fail such tests. Instead encode something into MP3 at 64 kbps. Do a bunch of comparisons with the original to make sure you can identify what is different.

If you want to hear difference in speaker cable, get a 100 foot spool of cheap speaker cable and test that against your short better one. If that is not enough go to 500 or even 1000 foot. Until you have achieved this step, you cannot proceed to other ones.

In formal listening tests this is called a "control" by the way.

2. After #1, go up one step at a time and see if you can continue to hear the artifacts. If you cannot and the artifacts are reliably there (e.g. in lossy compression) then go back to the beginning again. Cycle back and forth until you can climb the ladder reliably.

3. As I explained to Greg, you must guarantee that the only thing you are using to evaluate these impairments by ear and ear alone. You cannot allow any other senses to intervene or you are fooling yourself to put it bluntly. If you don't believe in this then don't bother going this path.

4. When you go through #1 try a lot of different stimulus (i.e. music). Some are more revealing than others. For speaker and room for example, research shows that content that is full spectrum brings lower threshold of detection. Reason is simple: if there is a frequency response anomaly -- which there always is in this situation -- the content needs to "hit it" or you won't hear the impairment. See this article I wrote for a deeper dive on perceptual aspects of hearing small differences: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audibility-of-small-distortions.67/

And for selection of tracks that are more revealing based on research see this thread: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...sic-tracks-for-speaker-and-room-eq-testing.6/. If you are looking for music that "moves you," you are in the wrong thread. Again, that is not the task at hand. The task at hand is to hone your hearing. You want to enjoy your music, leave this thread and go do that.

5. Knowledge of the domain can be super useful. It will let you triangulate what you are hearing versus what is supposed to be happening. I think it was Rob who said DIY speaker building helped him hearing artifacts there. As with blind testing, if you are against engineering and science of audio, please don't bother going down this path. The foundation of training listeners is based on what we want to test for. If you don't believe in that, then the value is very limited here. In the Ethan ADC/DAC loop I used this knowledge to zoom into critical segments that were revealing.

6. Domain specific training gets rid of a lot of homework here. Seek those out. They don't always exist and many are proprietary but some are not. For compression artifacts for example search for "MPEG codec killers."

I think that is it for now. I will probably write a longer article on this one day.

Do you have any idea what type of distortion is added to these signals? The research is pretty clear that the type of distortion will affect the audibility. If it was pure 2nd harmonic you would be hard pressed to hear below 1%. If it is mainly 9th harmonic (assuming it is in the audible range) it will be audible possibly below 0.1%. You see my point, that test, without context is not testing for anything other than that test itself and not the abiltiy to hear complex distortion differences in different products.

But let's for a second assume that it is relevant in a broader sense and that you can now detect these differences. So what? Without an analysis and application of that knowledge it is just data points, nothing more. You are like a highly sensitive detector...like my mass spectrometer is for molecules. I can't detect those molecules in a complex mixture, just like many audiophiles cannot detect small distortion differences that you apparently can. However, what I do with that data and how I interpret it is more important to my work than the detection itself. Psychoacoustic studies would indicate that humans have a preferred distortion pattern in the absence of a truly linear system for playback. So detecting distortions is fine...I would encourage people to get better at it, but connecting that with what will make a system sound more realistic is a skill of analysis and not just detection.

 

[NorthStar]

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.

Fantastic idea. ...Or we can talk about it right here.

Here's a question to the most pro experts on music affiliation and affinity between the room's acoustical properties, the decors inside, the weather outside (viewed through the ceiling's glass widow...skylight), the listener's emotional and intellectual stance @ the time, the chair or couch he's/she's sitting in, ... brief all the surrounding environment in and out while the music is playing full verve.
It is as vast an apprentissage and perpetual exploration/discovery as the number of hours and people living in space and in time on our planet, and who listen to music, musical sounds, man/woman created and natural wildlife.

Our music taste vary accordingly with our musical evolution. Between Rock and Classical the ocean contains more droplets of water than the number of stars in the galaxy.
To fine tune is to be in touch with the inners and outers of not only the room but also the freedom of our own physical body of emotions...I think.
Because, for me, one of the greatest satisfactions in life is the emotional vibration I harvest from feeling the sounds of music dancing in my soul.
There is no comparison, there is only time/space in the now. And it can happen anywhere or everywhere @ anytime or all the time.

If I was a book, I would like to be a book of life. :b

 

[853guy]

The test proved things way beyond its borders. You are absolutely right that Ethan's music in that test was terrible. No alignment with anything "live" either. Yet it provided highly purposeful for finding the differences between those clips. You and I demonstrated critical listening ability to hear those differences while not enjoying the music one bit. Enjoyable music may have actually hurt our results if it were not as revealing of what was impaired there.

Thanks for running the test by the way.

Hi Amir,

I think you and I must have gone to different universities. I certainly never saw you at mine, but that may have been because I was usually in record stores buying more music or in music stores buying more cymbals.

Nevertheless, the thing I did learn in Psyc 101 is that the test proves nothing beyond the fact that the test itself contains variables of which a difference can be discerned by the subject relative to a particular level of confidence. That is all. But that neither eliminates the potential for the ABX mechanism to be faulty, for the subject/examiner to have mis-labled/altered the files, or simply that due to sheer luck the subject guessed correctly despite not being able to discern any difference whatsoever. Achieving the result I did neither means I have greater or lesser hearing ability than any one else here - it simply means that on this particular test, and on this particular day, my results indicate there is a statistical likelihood I was reliably able to detect a difference to within a certain level of confidence. For what it’s worth, it doesn’t even give insight into how you or I discerned those differences, or whether the process we used for discerning them would carry over to other tests for differences specifically designed for amplitude or time. And it certainly doesn’t prove that we’re able to discern differences despite enjoying/not enjoying the music. That’s well beyond its remit and would necessitate a different design methodology altogether - that’s simply an assumption on your part.

In short, it has severely limited utility value. And its utility value apropos being able to discern which one of the fourteen second violins has its A string tuned ever-so-slightly sharp, who in the brass section is late during the entry for the third movement, or who in the French horns is overpowering the rest of the brass during the coda is not even worth attempting to speculate on, despite the likelihood that any conductor worth their moniker could do so even if they were to fail Ethan’s ABX test over and over again.

Please understand, I am not questioning the ability of individuals to hear minute differences with (or without) domain specific training under blind conditions. I’m questioning the relevance of such tests outside the remit of the test itself. The danger with any test in which “passing” is limited to a tiny fraction of those who attempt it is to create a belief for the superiority of the test as a defining arbiter of the skills of those who pass the test relative to the rest of the population who have never taken it. To do so is not just to be ignorant of the limits of the test itself, but to fall prey to an attitude of arrogance clouding further discourse and research.

 

[853guy]

You have read about the 10,000 hour rule? It takes at least 10,000 hours focusing on an endeavor to really get good at it. Now, how many of our audiophile brothers/sisters have put in that time investment really, critically listening? Many probably have...however, I have found that how that time was really spent is critical to reaching a true level of expertise in something. Just putting in the time is not enough...the talent is understanding what needs to be done to get to the next level, doing it and benefitting from the new insights that are unlocked from reaching that new level.

Hi morricab,

Just wanted to revisit this quickly, because as entertaining as I’ve found Gladwell’s books (and quite honestly, self-derivative), I think it’s worth stating that I think there's a degree of misinformation around this.

Firstly, there’s no “rule”. It’s just a catchy pop-psychology hook Gladwell excels at peddling.

Secondly, it’s been debunked by this 2014 study conducted by Macnamara, Hambrick and Oswald in which they discovered deliberate practice accounts for only a 12% difference across domains, and more interestingly varies greatly depending on which domain is practiced. In classical music, it was 21% difference, in sports, 18%, but in education and professions, fell to only a 4% and 1% difference respectively.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614535810

What’s more, Frans Johnansson’s book “The Click Moment” argues that predictors for success where deliberate practice makes a difference are most relevant in domains containing structure that’s very stable and where the rules never change, i.e., tennis, chess, and classical music. However, in domains in which innovation/trends see rules written and rewritten constantly, the difference falls away into statistical insignificance.

As you say, putting in the time is only one variable - how that time is spent matters as much if not more depending on the domain. Gladwell happily uses the Beatles as one of the benefactors of the 10,000 hour “rule” but downplays their race, their musical peers, the fact that they were part of a cultural shift in tastes and preferences related to socio-cultural norms (that they spoke English was a massive part of them being able to break into both the UK and US markets which were undergoing cultural upheaval), their management structure and the influence of George Martin. We’re they “talented”? Yes. Did they play a lot of gigs between 1960 and 1963? Yes. Was their success simply down to their talent and the amount of practice they did? No way.

Sure, there are many scientists who probably are as talented as the Nobel Prize winners *), but even if that pool were 10 x larger than the actual winners (quite possible) it would not change anything about the fact that, while there may be many most highly talented scientists, there is still a much larger pool of comparatively less talented scientists (I am one of the latter, by the way, even though I think I am still quite good at my job). So it is somewhat besides the point I was making.

I think obfuscating the issue for the sake of "peace and harmony" (oh, we are all good!) diverts us from the naked truth, which Morricab first brought to the forefront in this thread in post #44.

*) and yes, talent does come into it. Nobel Prize winners are talented. Let's not obfuscate the issue, please.

Hi Al M,

I’m not trying to obfuscate the issue. I’m trying to put forward an argument that without understanding how “talent” is perceived within a specific domain (as above), it’s very easy to make assumptions that lead to gross generalisations. Are Nobel winners "talented"? Of course. But that's not the same as saying those nominated for a Nobel prize who do not win are "less" talented (nor for that matter, that scientists never nominated are "not" talented). It's a "prize" decided on by a voting jury.

I've read morricab's post #44 but domain specificity means exactly that. To equate dissimilar domains with one another relative to performance of the "best" or "most talented" would be an egregious error.

 

[opus112]

I am a data driven guy.

You are mistaken Amir. There are no 'data driven guys', merely guys who claim they're data driven.

Have you read any Antonio Damasio? I suggest you digest his book 'Descartes' Error'. In claiming you're 'data driven' you're arguing against established neuroscience.

 

[Gregadd]

We should address the 800 lb gorilla in the room. If Sean Olive is correct and trained listeners and untrained reach the same result why bother? Of course Sean recognized that audiophiles would claim trained listeners had merely been indoctrinated to reach the desired result. Moreover the average customer need could not hear.

 

[DaveC]

You are mistaken Amir. There are no 'data driven guys', merely guys who claim they're data driven.

Have you read any Antonio Damasio? I suggest you digest his book 'Descartes' Error'. In claiming you're 'data driven' you're arguing against established neuroscience.

Absolutely. I was tempted to post on that impossibility and all the ways Amir actually is biased but who's got the time for that?

 

[DaveC]

We should address the 800 lb gorilla in the room. If Sean Olive is correct and trained listeners and untrained reach the same result why bother? Of course Sean recognized that audiophiles would claim trained listeners had merely been indoctrinated to reach the desired result. Moreover the average customer need could not hear.

Good point, unless the person is designing a system from scratch, as in building the speakers and electronics, it's more an exercise in figuring out which speaker suits your tastes and your room and going from there. This traditionally was the job of the dealer but times have changed and not everyone has dealers for the gear they are interested in nearby. And sales isn't what it used to be either, not every store has expert help on staff. Further, there's lots of high value direct-sale companies which can't offer the same kind of service a good dealer can, so you're left with people figuring it out themselves.


As far as talent in the high end industry, it's getting better. An example... I remember when RMAF first started there was a shocking amount of incompetence in terms of pretty much every aspect of system design and setup. It was embarrassing... Over the years things have gotten much better, some designers improved and are currently making a much better product then they used to, and even the competent guys back then have better products now, just not as huge of a leap.

 

[stehno]

....

As far as talent in the high end industry, it's getting better. An example... I remember when RMAF first started there was a shocking amount of incompetence in terms of pretty much every aspect of system design and setup. It was embarrassing... Over the years things have gotten much better, some designers improved and are currently making a much better product then they used to, and even the competent guys back then have better products now, just not as huge of a leap.

Really? You mean the designers exhibiting in hotel rooms in Denver were unable to utilize their experiences from exhibiting in hotel rooms at other shows in other cities? For pretty much every aspect of system design and setup? And as a result of their poor performance in a Denver hotel room they learned from that and are now making much better products?

Embarrassing indeed. But for whom?

 

[BlueFox]

I'm surprised some entrepreneur hasn't developed a course(s) in how to train your ears to be an audiophile. The subject has infinite variations, such as the difference between amps, cables, DACs, preamps, recordings, etc. Actually, this might be something I can do when I retire. The potential is there for a nice revenue stream.

 

[Folsom]

We should address the 800 lb gorilla in the room. If Sean Olive is correct and trained listeners and untrained reach the same result why bother? Of course Sean recognized that audiophiles would claim trained listeners had merely been indoctrinated to reach the desired result. Moreover the average customer need could not hear.

Well when people are looking for advise on gear they can't plop into their system then it makes pretty food sense they'll want someone that is a better listener. The problem with the average pedestrian being used is that they don't care, so even if they score as well, it also means nothing. The trained listener would likely care enough to recommend something.

But I also, as noted earlier, believe there's ways to improve testing and differentiate people more.

 

[NorthStar]

You are mistaken Amir. There are no 'data driven guys', merely guys who claim they're data driven.

Have you read any Antonio Damasio? I suggest you digest his book 'Descartes' Error'. In claiming you're 'data driven' you're arguing against established neuroscience.

Amir, Richard might have a valid point here.
_____

I have no emotions, I was born a robot. ...No way, I am a very sensitive beast, and I cry when I feel reciprocity.
Everyone is important, or nobody would be here, on this planet.

I wish I was a trained human, trained by the human masters. Short of that I enjoy listening to music, with untrained ears.
I'm happy with the music I like, because it matters...happiness. That, is real music science. ...In my book of life.
The rest, is all important too. Every road leads to Rome, the city of human souls and hearts.

I went to French schools, I remember learning and reading about this character living in Rome: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponce_Pilate
He was a robot.

 

[Gregadd]

Listen,plenty of dealers and manufacturers have tried to educate me. Thier ultimate goal was to sell me a product that cured a problem they identified.
If you seek to be that guy who can walk into a room and identify distortions you can do that. I just don't think it will enhance your overall listening expereince. Remember the phrase,"...can't see the forest for the trees."

 

[Folsom]

I hear LOTS of problems in most systems, but I doubt they are distortion (voltage) per se. There's hardly any high distortion devices out there.

The trouble I find going from component to component is the "solutions" aren't necessarily all that gratifying (if they do anything), and half the time are worse.