Can you please clarify this process - do you mean you logged on to WBF and read what posters said about it
Just how does one learn to listen?
- Thread starter Bobvin
- Start date
Can you please clarify this process - do you mean you logged on to WBF and read what posters said about it
Bob, as I see it, the last line is the most meaningful line of your analogy of wine tasting to audiophilia. Take whatever criteria you wish (you listed the relevant ones for wine tasting; other listed some excellent ones for listening) and then throw them out the window! In the end, these conclusions are an entirely subjective experience. Thus the method of assessment has little bearing on the conclusion. For example, I'll share with you that I simply don't care for Latour. As you know, it is considered one of the world's great wines and although I've had many great growths going back to the 40's, it's the least favorite of the first growth Bordeaux wines for me. Why? Who the hell knows? I may certainly be in the minority among oenophiles, but do I care? It just doesn't do it for me. It's hardly a perfect analogy, but some audiophiles just don't like horn speakers or planar speakers or, cone speakers, electrostats, etc. They may indeed even use the identical methodology of assessment, yet come to an entirely different conclusions, because it's a subjective experience.
Let's make it even simpler. A few days ago, I heard the Berlin Phil perform Mahler's 7th at KKL Hall in Lucern (a really fine sounding hall). Want to know which speaker system I've heard reproduces that the best? The answer is- none of them. Not even close. Never can and never will be. Any system ("natural sounding" or otherwise) that attempts this is a futile effort from the start. Again, considerations such as those would be subjective assessments, and nothing more. So is there value in "learning how to listen"? Perhaps so, but the correlation to any conclusion one might make as to what sound reproduction system is ultimately most satisfying will still be entirely subjective with as many valid conclusions as there are listeners who express their opinions.
This discussion reminds me of an old adage we often used to tell to our postdocs and research fellows in the lab about methodology and conclusions that goes something like this:
There once was a famous scientist who wanted to study the effects of the jumping capabilities of a frog with a decreased number of limbs.
He put the first frog down and said "jump, frog jump". He measured the distance and wrote down his observation. "Frog with 4 legs jumped 8 feet".
He cut off one leg, put the frog down and said "jump frog, jump!". He measured the distance and wrote down his observation.
"Frog with 3 legs jumped 6 feet".
He cut off another leg, put the frog down and said "jump frog, jump!". He measured the distance and wrote down his observation.
"Frog with 2 legs jumped 3 feet".
He cut off another leg, put the frog down and said "jump frog, jump!". He measured the distance and wrote down his observation.
""Frog with 1 legs jumped 1 foot".
He cut off the last leg, put the frog down and said "jump frog, jump!". He noted the frog didn''t jump at all. He told the frog to jump one more time, even louder, but the frog still didn't move. He wrote:
"Frog with no legs didn't jump at all"
He them wrote his conclusion of the experiment: "Frog with no legs must be deaf".
The methodology of learning how to listen may be perfectly valid, but the conclusions? That's often an entirely different matter!
Last edited:
how does one learn to listen?
the answer has more to do with why you want to listen, than any particular one way to do it. mostly because, as others have noted, we are hard wired to know how to listen. it's part of being a human and part of our life experiences. but regarding music reproduction, our listening can be a tool to help us improve our enjoyment of music. actual listening for enjoyment i believe is best done without much conscious agendas. the more we have any organized expectations, the harder it is to allow the music to sweep us away. so maybe we need to do some unlearning too. yet knowledge about musical things can make the listening richer, but can also get in the way too. so that part is a mixed bag. i'm not trained musically, cannot read musical scores, and don't possess the vocabulary to describe musical moments very well. but i feel great about my ability to listen. i wish i knew more, but i'm fine where i'm at.
if the actual question is how can i best describe my listening? that is whole different question, a valid idea for sure, and training might be required. but actual listening itself is a different thing all together.
i do think it is helpful to be able to learn listening processes that support our music listening goals.
know thyself.
what state of mind is most helpful to be able to 'get into' the musical flow? or get us to the mental space where we are open to hearing the deepest parts of the musical message? there are no wrong ways to listen, yet how does the time we spend listening bring us the maximum satisfaction? are we having fun? what triggers you into the most satisfying sessions. find more of that.
food? drink? chair? time of day? partners in listening?
is it decision time?
setting up a cartridge? comparing sources or versions of recordings? setting up speakers? at a show? what is our goal? why are are we doing this? last time we did this was it successful?
i know i have very specific processes for each of these situations based on my experience as to what worked for me.
how critical is lots of listening to live music? even particularly live acoustical music? not going there. we spend our whole life listening to live life. we have experience. big subject. strong opinions. knock yourself out with it. it can help. done plenty of it. these days not as much as i'm not into crowds at all.
is what i'm hearing right or wrong? is it real or hifi? how is the tonal balance? do i like it? am i embraced and immersed by the music? am i transported to the event? is the event in my room? do i love the bass?
those questions are ok to think about. but better to be more focused on the music itself, lose that sense of sounds, and maybe imagine what the artist is saying if you can. more right brain than left brain. get into the emotions of where the music came from and where it's headed. other artist's versions or directions?
ideally we have good listening processes that get us and our systems to the music consuming and enjoying place, where we can be focused on the fun part. and btw, it's ok to be a gear head, or a sound fiend, and not just want to lose your self in the music. no rules.
the answer has more to do with why you want to listen, than any particular one way to do it. mostly because, as others have noted, we are hard wired to know how to listen. it's part of being a human and part of our life experiences. but regarding music reproduction, our listening can be a tool to help us improve our enjoyment of music. actual listening for enjoyment i believe is best done without much conscious agendas. the more we have any organized expectations, the harder it is to allow the music to sweep us away. so maybe we need to do some unlearning too. yet knowledge about musical things can make the listening richer, but can also get in the way too. so that part is a mixed bag. i'm not trained musically, cannot read musical scores, and don't possess the vocabulary to describe musical moments very well. but i feel great about my ability to listen. i wish i knew more, but i'm fine where i'm at.
if the actual question is how can i best describe my listening? that is whole different question, a valid idea for sure, and training might be required. but actual listening itself is a different thing all together.
i do think it is helpful to be able to learn listening processes that support our music listening goals.
know thyself.
what state of mind is most helpful to be able to 'get into' the musical flow? or get us to the mental space where we are open to hearing the deepest parts of the musical message? there are no wrong ways to listen, yet how does the time we spend listening bring us the maximum satisfaction? are we having fun? what triggers you into the most satisfying sessions. find more of that.
food? drink? chair? time of day? partners in listening?
is it decision time?
setting up a cartridge? comparing sources or versions of recordings? setting up speakers? at a show? what is our goal? why are are we doing this? last time we did this was it successful?
i know i have very specific processes for each of these situations based on my experience as to what worked for me.
how critical is lots of listening to live music? even particularly live acoustical music? not going there. we spend our whole life listening to live life. we have experience. big subject. strong opinions. knock yourself out with it. it can help. done plenty of it. these days not as much as i'm not into crowds at all.
is what i'm hearing right or wrong? is it real or hifi? how is the tonal balance? do i like it? am i embraced and immersed by the music? am i transported to the event? is the event in my room? do i love the bass?
those questions are ok to think about. but better to be more focused on the music itself, lose that sense of sounds, and maybe imagine what the artist is saying if you can. more right brain than left brain. get into the emotions of where the music came from and where it's headed. other artist's versions or directions?
ideally we have good listening processes that get us and our systems to the music consuming and enjoying place, where we can be focused on the fun part. and btw, it's ok to be a gear head, or a sound fiend, and not just want to lose your self in the music. no rules.
Last edited:
The other thing is more one does try improving his listening process one gets better at it. You meet people and experience things and improve along the way. Just like anything else.
I think that many experiences of listening to live, unamplified instruments in different venues and different situations gradually, layer by layer, build a composite sonic memory of what real instruments sound like. This reference in memory, refined over time, is what one compares to reproduced music, and is how one evaluates the suspension of disbelief of an audio system.
I think people can learn to listen for hi-fi attributes, but to what end? Someone could teach me how to listen to be more sensitive, for example, to driver discontinuity than I am presently.
Philosophically, I already am averse to dissecting reproduced music into discrete audiophile attributes and hi-fi terms. Focusing on discrete audiophile attributes and hi-fi terms leads me away from where I want to be. If I am thinking about aspects and components of the sound, then I am not focusing on, let alone enjoying, the music.
I prefer to evaluate components and audio systems according to how easily and quickly they allow my body and my mind to relax, to wipe my mind clear of forensic audiophile sonic attribute analysis and hi-fi terms, to connect me in a passionate way to, and to make me laugh or cry in reaction to, the music I love. This is why, when reporting listening impressions comparing two components, I sometimes refer to myself as a "single issue voter": the component which enables greater emotional engagement wins every time.
I think people can learn to listen for hi-fi attributes, but to what end? Someone could teach me how to listen to be more sensitive, for example, to driver discontinuity than I am presently.
Philosophically, I already am averse to dissecting reproduced music into discrete audiophile attributes and hi-fi terms. Focusing on discrete audiophile attributes and hi-fi terms leads me away from where I want to be. If I am thinking about aspects and components of the sound, then I am not focusing on, let alone enjoying, the music.
I prefer to evaluate components and audio systems according to how easily and quickly they allow my body and my mind to relax, to wipe my mind clear of forensic audiophile sonic attribute analysis and hi-fi terms, to connect me in a passionate way to, and to make me laugh or cry in reaction to, the music I love. This is why, when reporting listening impressions comparing two components, I sometimes refer to myself as a "single issue voter": the component which enables greater emotional engagement wins every time.
Last edited:
Having accepted, that no electronics can sound like the live acoustic music concert, I see music reproduction as its own kind of art. Art for the ear.
It is always an interpretation of the real thing.
It needs a lot of listening expertise to the best systems of all times of audio history to judge about music reproduction. Not many people have this, because its not that easy to listen to, say, something from the 1930's, when audio began with big cinema systems. Its not cheap and it becomes more and more expensive to have listening experience on older components with high quality, because they become more rare and more expensive. But those older systems had their audible qualities, some of them have been lost today and made space for real wideband audio systems. So if one only knows the actual audio scene and how their products sound, they know nearly nothing. This is the truth, to judge, one has to know some things about this approx 100 year old kind of audible art of music reproduction.
Often I wonder, when pro- audio critics write about the sound of a component and how good it is, I know from DIY and listening experience, it couldn't be the truth. Because neither the parts inside nor the circuit of the electronics made this possible. When contemplating about the 1980's and the magazine "The absolute sound", I remember how I sucked every line of those listening audits from the paper right into my mind and tried to recreate this absolute sound in my brain, just from the text being wrote about it. Later, I realized that those people did not knew the whole story of audio, most of them never had heard any single ended 300B amp from WE. They never had auditioned a WE sound system, they just knew their big Infinity reference system and their new tube or transistor equipment, that was the audio heaven.. But its not, I think today. Its just one half of the medal to audition those newly designed big systems, and even todays small systems lack some qualities, long forgotten in audio history.
So a full and complete audio critic should know the history of gear of the complete audio history including the new gears and latest evolutions.
And if he had build up this reputation to judge about high $$$$ gear, he has to be true to it in absolute terms. Most often, this isn't the case in reviews. The critics write good recommendations about low level quality in sound, because no magazine can earn money from just be radical and produce negative comments on gear.
Lets put this side of the story away. Lets assume an audio gear critic, who knows his stuff. To what criteria he has to listen and to judge?
He (or she) should judge every component in absolute terms and in relative terms (comparing them to other gear, nearly the same expense).
In absolute terms, he must compare with the best in audio gear he has heard. How can he judge, when not heard so many different gears from different ages? He simply cant do judge in absolute terms, and his absolute judgement is worth nothing, because de doesn't know the whole story of audio. He only can make judgements in relative terms, but whats that worth? Its even worth nothing, because its just his personal audio experience background, and that could be very limited.
I will make an example. I'm a tube audio guy. If one judges, in absolute terms, about the actual tube audio gears, but never have auditioned the best studio gear of the golden age of tube audio, what's his judgement worth? Nothing. And that happens every time, in audio forums, in magazines, everywhere. People want advice from other people who have a very limited experience. So, in their world, one audio component sounds great, but thats only relative. Its worth nothing, only own experience in life is worth something.
And even if one expert has heard some of this great gear, which is out of production since decades, will he tell in his magezine? Of course, never. Because he would have to be dead serious and may have to tell his readers, that any tube gear he has auditioned since some years couldn't have that good performance as the component XY from yesteryears.
Sometimes in forums, one can read such statements. Someone got the chance to compare a piece of out of production equipment and wonders how good this sounds. Yes, thats possible. There are some units out there which will never be able to replicate, just because the electrochemical in parts has changed so rapidly and completely . One has to accept, that the sound of a Western Electric 300B from 1954 will not come again, even when there is company that still produces them.They try since 25 years and aren't able untill today, even with the complete (?) old tooling machinery. Different audio chemistry, some ingredients will never come back again. And tube sound, like amp sound, is chemistry mostly. People forget that. A three inch thick aluminum frontplate doesn't create sound on its own. LOL
So experience and a very sensitive, trained ear for acoustic phenomenas is needed to become an audio connaisseur. And then as much listening experience to different audio components and audio systems as possible. And listening to live acoustic music. And understanding that they never will become the same.
My brain checks many different aspects of sound and do compare with the best from my listening experience when auditioning a system.
That goes very quick and is being done nearly automatic, I would not say from the subconscious mind, but it goes in this direction.
And then I begin concentrating and doing a schemata like a landscape, and begin to judge the different aspects of sound.
First the tonality of the sound. Then its frequency range from top to bottom. Then its ability to sound light as a feather, to vibrate, to have this transparency, that only the very best (tube) audio systems can achieve (sorry, just my limited experience, I never heard this with SS gear what tubes can do for the sound). The sound can be profound and light, transparent at the same time. Like a good wine has different notes from the igredients or the acre it has been grown on). The low frequencies can be domesticated (I love this, the very short dog leash) or free, without a good damping. Unfortunately, most systems try to come to the short leash side, but fail tragically.
So what most systems are not good in with todays high end:
-They fail to sound as transparent as the best tube audio was and still is able to perform
-They fail in reproducing the real sound colors. Mostly that happens in the middle of the freq. range. Most systems sound like an outwashed picture here, some go in the direction of a black and white picture. No real tone colors in the middle of the frequency left. Thats tragic. But even with multi thousand $$$$ systems today thats the case. And some systems celebrate this, because to have eliminated the middle frequency makes way for a very transparent sound. Thats modern, many listeners will like it and buy this product.
-Most systems fail on the short leash for low frequencies (domesticated woofers). Tragic. Woofers still often sound like bubble gum trying to push the lowest frequencies out of small enclosure (mostly sealed) using long throw woofers. So much for the dynamic capabilities of modern systems, when the old, stiff and leightweight paper cone of a short throw woofer in a big reflex enclosure is waiting since ten miliseconds on its starting position after a short, dynamic attack has been shouted out of the box with a hundred dB efficiency.
-Most systems fail in creating the real vibrant tones that are attributed with acoustic string instruments. Try to play a simple single instrument on them, they will fail to reproduce the tone colors of a Steinway and they will fail tragicly to reproduce the tone colors and wood vibrants of a Maestro Violin. I will bet, most listeners will not be able to make the decision on a Giuseppe del Gesù Guarneri and a Stradivari. They sound different, but the audio systems are wrong in tone, almost all are just too bad in sound quality. Of course, nobody will show this in demonstrations, because they know they will fail. Thats why they show different pieces of music, mostly show pieces.
I just will say this, because in absolute terms, we don't have won the battle for natural and real sounding audio reproduction. We are still fighting and should focus more on the things todays audio systems aren't capable of reproducing. Its still a long way to go.
It is always an interpretation of the real thing.
It needs a lot of listening expertise to the best systems of all times of audio history to judge about music reproduction. Not many people have this, because its not that easy to listen to, say, something from the 1930's, when audio began with big cinema systems. Its not cheap and it becomes more and more expensive to have listening experience on older components with high quality, because they become more rare and more expensive. But those older systems had their audible qualities, some of them have been lost today and made space for real wideband audio systems. So if one only knows the actual audio scene and how their products sound, they know nearly nothing. This is the truth, to judge, one has to know some things about this approx 100 year old kind of audible art of music reproduction.
Often I wonder, when pro- audio critics write about the sound of a component and how good it is, I know from DIY and listening experience, it couldn't be the truth. Because neither the parts inside nor the circuit of the electronics made this possible. When contemplating about the 1980's and the magazine "The absolute sound", I remember how I sucked every line of those listening audits from the paper right into my mind and tried to recreate this absolute sound in my brain, just from the text being wrote about it. Later, I realized that those people did not knew the whole story of audio, most of them never had heard any single ended 300B amp from WE. They never had auditioned a WE sound system, they just knew their big Infinity reference system and their new tube or transistor equipment, that was the audio heaven.. But its not, I think today. Its just one half of the medal to audition those newly designed big systems, and even todays small systems lack some qualities, long forgotten in audio history.
So a full and complete audio critic should know the history of gear of the complete audio history including the new gears and latest evolutions.
And if he had build up this reputation to judge about high $$$$ gear, he has to be true to it in absolute terms. Most often, this isn't the case in reviews. The critics write good recommendations about low level quality in sound, because no magazine can earn money from just be radical and produce negative comments on gear.
Lets put this side of the story away. Lets assume an audio gear critic, who knows his stuff. To what criteria he has to listen and to judge?
He (or she) should judge every component in absolute terms and in relative terms (comparing them to other gear, nearly the same expense).
In absolute terms, he must compare with the best in audio gear he has heard. How can he judge, when not heard so many different gears from different ages? He simply cant do judge in absolute terms, and his absolute judgement is worth nothing, because de doesn't know the whole story of audio. He only can make judgements in relative terms, but whats that worth? Its even worth nothing, because its just his personal audio experience background, and that could be very limited.
I will make an example. I'm a tube audio guy. If one judges, in absolute terms, about the actual tube audio gears, but never have auditioned the best studio gear of the golden age of tube audio, what's his judgement worth? Nothing. And that happens every time, in audio forums, in magazines, everywhere. People want advice from other people who have a very limited experience. So, in their world, one audio component sounds great, but thats only relative. Its worth nothing, only own experience in life is worth something.
And even if one expert has heard some of this great gear, which is out of production since decades, will he tell in his magezine? Of course, never. Because he would have to be dead serious and may have to tell his readers, that any tube gear he has auditioned since some years couldn't have that good performance as the component XY from yesteryears.
Sometimes in forums, one can read such statements. Someone got the chance to compare a piece of out of production equipment and wonders how good this sounds. Yes, thats possible. There are some units out there which will never be able to replicate, just because the electrochemical in parts has changed so rapidly and completely . One has to accept, that the sound of a Western Electric 300B from 1954 will not come again, even when there is company that still produces them.They try since 25 years and aren't able untill today, even with the complete (?) old tooling machinery. Different audio chemistry, some ingredients will never come back again. And tube sound, like amp sound, is chemistry mostly. People forget that. A three inch thick aluminum frontplate doesn't create sound on its own. LOL
So experience and a very sensitive, trained ear for acoustic phenomenas is needed to become an audio connaisseur. And then as much listening experience to different audio components and audio systems as possible. And listening to live acoustic music. And understanding that they never will become the same.
My brain checks many different aspects of sound and do compare with the best from my listening experience when auditioning a system.
That goes very quick and is being done nearly automatic, I would not say from the subconscious mind, but it goes in this direction.
And then I begin concentrating and doing a schemata like a landscape, and begin to judge the different aspects of sound.
First the tonality of the sound. Then its frequency range from top to bottom. Then its ability to sound light as a feather, to vibrate, to have this transparency, that only the very best (tube) audio systems can achieve (sorry, just my limited experience, I never heard this with SS gear what tubes can do for the sound). The sound can be profound and light, transparent at the same time. Like a good wine has different notes from the igredients or the acre it has been grown on). The low frequencies can be domesticated (I love this, the very short dog leash) or free, without a good damping. Unfortunately, most systems try to come to the short leash side, but fail tragically.
So what most systems are not good in with todays high end:
-They fail to sound as transparent as the best tube audio was and still is able to perform
-They fail in reproducing the real sound colors. Mostly that happens in the middle of the freq. range. Most systems sound like an outwashed picture here, some go in the direction of a black and white picture. No real tone colors in the middle of the frequency left. Thats tragic. But even with multi thousand $$$$ systems today thats the case. And some systems celebrate this, because to have eliminated the middle frequency makes way for a very transparent sound. Thats modern, many listeners will like it and buy this product.
-Most systems fail on the short leash for low frequencies (domesticated woofers). Tragic. Woofers still often sound like bubble gum trying to push the lowest frequencies out of small enclosure (mostly sealed) using long throw woofers. So much for the dynamic capabilities of modern systems, when the old, stiff and leightweight paper cone of a short throw woofer in a big reflex enclosure is waiting since ten miliseconds on its starting position after a short, dynamic attack has been shouted out of the box with a hundred dB efficiency.
-Most systems fail in creating the real vibrant tones that are attributed with acoustic string instruments. Try to play a simple single instrument on them, they will fail to reproduce the tone colors of a Steinway and they will fail tragicly to reproduce the tone colors and wood vibrants of a Maestro Violin. I will bet, most listeners will not be able to make the decision on a Giuseppe del Gesù Guarneri and a Stradivari. They sound different, but the audio systems are wrong in tone, almost all are just too bad in sound quality. Of course, nobody will show this in demonstrations, because they know they will fail. Thats why they show different pieces of music, mostly show pieces.
I just will say this, because in absolute terms, we don't have won the battle for natural and real sounding audio reproduction. We are still fighting and should focus more on the things todays audio systems aren't capable of reproducing. Its still a long way to go.
Last edited:
No. I read many other foruns, sites and books, some in french and some good brasilian ones in portuguese. Do you know that properly used advanced google is a great research tool?
The point was that after taking the "course" many people become too sensitive to common faults that otherwise would be unnoticed, such as vinyl induced distortions and artifacts
, and start choosing their music just for a few technical qualities.A simple (but not universal ) recipe:
1) be born intelligent (the one step no one has much control over currently). All the experience in the world won’t help much if you don’t have this.
2) have a great curiosity in how things work and develop observation skills
3) either learn to play yourself or (my preferred way) get a prodigy girlfriend where you can hear the real thing at a high level daily….to practice observation
4) go to concerts frequently in addition to point 3… again to hone observation skills
5) Learn and understand what makes recordings different from live…maybe even make some of your own recordings using point 3 above.
6) Think about what you hear live and the best of what you have heard reproduced and how and why they are different. Where are the gaps. Find others who are interested in this and discuss.
7) Repeat step 6 with frequent new data from live and reproduced music to continue refinement of listening ability.
1) be born intelligent (the one step no one has much control over currently). All the experience in the world won’t help much if you don’t have this.
2) have a great curiosity in how things work and develop observation skills
3) either learn to play yourself or (my preferred way) get a prodigy girlfriend where you can hear the real thing at a high level daily….to practice observation
4) go to concerts frequently in addition to point 3… again to hone observation skills
5) Learn and understand what makes recordings different from live…maybe even make some of your own recordings using point 3 above.
6) Think about what you hear live and the best of what you have heard reproduced and how and why they are different. Where are the gaps. Find others who are interested in this and discuss.
7) Repeat step 6 with frequent new data from live and reproduced music to continue refinement of listening ability.
How do you learn to listen?
As far as I am concerned, the passion for "good listening" has always been accompanied by the curiosity to understand the problems concerning the recordings since they are half the sky without which the "miracle" of high fidelity has no possibility of complete. This has nothing to do with the dangerous drift that would have the purpose of bringing me to listen to the system and not the Music but only with the need to understand the complexity of the processes of a recording and the intrinsic limits of the media themselves, elements without the which one cannot understand what makes an engraving great and what doesn't. To better understand what I mean, let's take vinyl as an example: most of those we listen to have a frequency set at 50 Hz, in this regard there are very interesting articles whose authors are James Lock, "chief recording engineer" of Decca, Jack Pfeiffer , the man who created the Living Stereo catalog and a conspicuous nucleus of engineers such as the late Tim de Pavaracini, of the Chesky reissues, John Newton, that of all the SACDs of the RCA Living Stereo, Michael Hobson and Bernie Grundman, the whose studio has remastered 95% of Classic Records reissues and the list goes on. Now if a double bass goes down to about 32 Herz we must deduce that the much loved analog source would never be able to reproduce the classic pizzicato of a double bass, let alone the lower notes of an organ. In reality this means that the vinyl for its calibration cannot make you hear what is not there but this does not mean that a hi-fi system cannot reproduce credible bass but only that the best LPs are characterized by an intrinsic limitation. and that the attempt to correctly reproduce low frequencies is a challenge that is not without meaning as long as it is pursued with the right awareness.
Here, in my opinion, knowing the weight and influence of certain variables at play, we end up having a more correct vision of what are the classic paradigms that are normally associated with the concept of listening: dynamic range, the most wide frequency range, maximum resolution detail, the most natural balance, are empty characteristics if attributed without knowing how much of what we hear, it would be better to say we perceive, is actually present in the recording.This in fact is my way of "listening", a dynamic approach because if on the one hand there is a love for sounds, this is intimately linked to the concept of reproduction: a reproduction that approaches asymptotically to live music, a process within which this approximation evolves and is continually refined as the concepts and methodologies used evolve.
As far as I am concerned, the passion for "good listening" has always been accompanied by the curiosity to understand the problems concerning the recordings since they are half the sky without which the "miracle" of high fidelity has no possibility of complete. This has nothing to do with the dangerous drift that would have the purpose of bringing me to listen to the system and not the Music but only with the need to understand the complexity of the processes of a recording and the intrinsic limits of the media themselves, elements without the which one cannot understand what makes an engraving great and what doesn't. To better understand what I mean, let's take vinyl as an example: most of those we listen to have a frequency set at 50 Hz, in this regard there are very interesting articles whose authors are James Lock, "chief recording engineer" of Decca, Jack Pfeiffer , the man who created the Living Stereo catalog and a conspicuous nucleus of engineers such as the late Tim de Pavaracini, of the Chesky reissues, John Newton, that of all the SACDs of the RCA Living Stereo, Michael Hobson and Bernie Grundman, the whose studio has remastered 95% of Classic Records reissues and the list goes on. Now if a double bass goes down to about 32 Herz we must deduce that the much loved analog source would never be able to reproduce the classic pizzicato of a double bass, let alone the lower notes of an organ. In reality this means that the vinyl for its calibration cannot make you hear what is not there but this does not mean that a hi-fi system cannot reproduce credible bass but only that the best LPs are characterized by an intrinsic limitation. and that the attempt to correctly reproduce low frequencies is a challenge that is not without meaning as long as it is pursued with the right awareness.
Here, in my opinion, knowing the weight and influence of certain variables at play, we end up having a more correct vision of what are the classic paradigms that are normally associated with the concept of listening: dynamic range, the most wide frequency range, maximum resolution detail, the most natural balance, are empty characteristics if attributed without knowing how much of what we hear, it would be better to say we perceive, is actually present in the recording.This in fact is my way of "listening", a dynamic approach because if on the one hand there is a love for sounds, this is intimately linked to the concept of reproduction: a reproduction that approaches asymptotically to live music, a process within which this approximation evolves and is continually refined as the concepts and methodologies used evolve.
The paragraph is a marvelous invention. It invites the writer to organize his thoughts in coherent sections that give the poor reader at least a fighting chance at comprehension.
perhaps the secret to life as well.
One interesting observation is how one listens to live music and whether one has a different listening "pattern" when home. I prefer being pulled into the music, having the gear disappear and just listening to the musical story unfolding.
When I'm in analytical mode it is usually during break-in when the music doesn't sound natural. Then I'm focused on the sound more than the music (which is why I dislike breaking in new gear/cables).
I've gone through periods long after break-in when my ear is learning to identify what can be a very pleasing presentation (e.g., a nicely rounded bass that lacks realistic definition) but ultimately proves to be unlike live music/instruments. Once my ear picks up on that, I feel compelled to seek out the cause and find a way to restore a more live sound.
So, perhaps the advice about how to get to Carnegie Hall is the same as for how to be a good listener: practice, practice, practice. By simply enjoying music both live and at home.
This to me is one the best topics in long time
it shows how diverse we are in just observations
so who is correct here ? I wound think all are but I do have a few who I agree more with
Tima for one and I’ll bet he is shocked on my thoughts mixed in with who cares lol
marty is to me correct next no system gets close but he has a world class system I think gets you there anyway
Im sure the entire process of replaying music in its self is futile but we still enjoy making it better
years back I had a flute
a acoustic guitar
and a sax
whole non were anything like real on my setup I still learned from it
timbre I think is thee most important facet in learning to listen
now at a large unamped even I’m not so sure even this is learned correctly as the distance I think effects the timbre
as for playing an instrument it’s also double sided
does a piano or guitar sound the same to us as it does to the performer ?
it shows how diverse we are in just observations
so who is correct here ? I wound think all are but I do have a few who I agree more with
Tima for one and I’ll bet he is shocked on my thoughts mixed in with who cares lol
marty is to me correct next no system gets close but he has a world class system I think gets you there anyway
Im sure the entire process of replaying music in its self is futile but we still enjoy making it better
years back I had a flute
a acoustic guitar
and a sax
whole non were anything like real on my setup I still learned from it
timbre I think is thee most important facet in learning to listen
now at a large unamped even I’m not so sure even this is learned correctly as the distance I think effects the timbre
as for playing an instrument it’s also double sided
does a piano or guitar sound the same to us as it does to the performer ?
It is certainly more intimate for the performer who, in a sense, is one with his instrument.
Excellent post. Exposure. Exposure. Exposure. You sound very familiar to a few of my friends who has tremendous exposure to both old and new gears...recording too. Getting exposure to those very old gems are difficult. Actually not so difficult but need efforts and the "know who" is important. Also, you cannot make much money, consistent money from something no longer produced today. So most talk in forum and audio review is all about newest technology newest gear that being commercialized now. You seem to have a great depth of exposure in older treasures. Hope you can give us more data point on this end in the future. It will be a great contribution to the forum.
Kind regards,
Tang
There is no substitute for experience.
Live music
Expose yourself to live music whenever you can (unamplified and amplified). I take the music approach to listening. Others might say expose yourself to as much equipment as possible.
Good recordings
Good music is essential
Find music you love that is well recorded. This should include a healthy dose of audiophile recordings. They help you realize what is possible.
Building your skill
Concepts such as PRATT, dynamics, imaging, low noise floor, etc., can be explored
Seating position
I don't sit with my head locked in a vise. You can find your own special sweet pot. You can even find the best time of day to listen. When is your power grid quietest?
You will learn what sonic omissions and or commissions bother you the most. Also, you can determine what floats your boat. There is no substitute for good bass.
It truly is a never ending process. In the beginning you will see an exponential rise in your ability. Then the curve will level off. I still discover things i never heard in familiar recordings.
Maybe one day you will be one of those who can spot problems when you walk in the room.
Don't forget to enjoy the music.
Live music
Expose yourself to live music whenever you can (unamplified and amplified). I take the music approach to listening. Others might say expose yourself to as much equipment as possible.
Good recordings
Good music is essential
Find music you love that is well recorded. This should include a healthy dose of audiophile recordings. They help you realize what is possible.
Building your skill
Concepts such as PRATT, dynamics, imaging, low noise floor, etc., can be explored
Seating position
I don't sit with my head locked in a vise. You can find your own special sweet pot. You can even find the best time of day to listen. When is your power grid quietest?
You will learn what sonic omissions and or commissions bother you the most. Also, you can determine what floats your boat. There is no substitute for good bass.
It truly is a never ending process. In the beginning you will see an exponential rise in your ability. Then the curve will level off. I still discover things i never heard in familiar recordings.
Maybe one day you will be one of those who can spot problems when you walk in the room.
Don't forget to enjoy the music.
I don't think that there is a different listening pattern I think there is a different SONIC pattern. Tonal balance, decay and especially micro and macro dynamics are different live (I am referring to unamplified music...amplified YMMV). That pattern is imprinted in your brain such that you will rarely, if ever, mistake reproduced sound for live sound...even fully amplified through a PA system.
You need to ask, why do you want to learn to listen???? To me, there are 2 reasons.
Its your job. Your in the recording business or sales, or equipment manufacturer or something as such.
Or, you have a hobby of purchasing audio equipment and you want a better understanding of what your buying.
The average Joe probably should never go down the hole of thinking about the source or playback equipment.
I was in a ferry line a few weeks ago. I could hear other people having a day. I heard them talk a little about music and a, have you heard this. Then someone played a song on the car radio and they were all laughing and singing along. That is probably the essence of why the artist wrote the piece in the first place.
Its your job. Your in the recording business or sales, or equipment manufacturer or something as such.
Or, you have a hobby of purchasing audio equipment and you want a better understanding of what your buying.
The average Joe probably should never go down the hole of thinking about the source or playback equipment.
I was in a ferry line a few weeks ago. I could hear other people having a day. I heard them talk a little about music and a, have you heard this. Then someone played a song on the car radio and they were all laughing and singing along. That is probably the essence of why the artist wrote the piece in the first place.
Last edited:
