Neurological evidence indicates we not only learn to listen, but actually tune our inner ear response based on neural feedback from the brain. We literally are able to actively tune our own hearing.
When we listen for a flute for example, this is more than a conscious decision to focus on the flute. This creates neural impulses that actively tune ear cells to better hear the flute.
“Selectively changing what we’re listening to in response to the content.Literally reaching out to listen for things.”
Here’s another good one. Everyone can hear subtle details about five times as good as predicted by modeling. Some of us however can hear 50 times as good. The difference? Years spent learning to listen closely! https://youtu.be/SuSGN8yVrcU?t=1956
Learning to play music really does help improve your listening.
This video is chock full of neurphysiological evidence that by studying, learning and practice you can develop the listening skills to hear things you literally could not hear before. Our hearing evolved millennia before we invented music. We are only just now beginning to scratch at the potential evolution has bestowed on us.
Ah, grain! Hate grain. For as long as I’ve been serious about audio I have pondered the question of whether it is an artifact that is added as you say; or, caused by the absence of information. By absence of information I mean the incompleteness of the sonic picture; akin to looking very closely at a picture in a news paper and being able to see the dots (pixels) on the page. There is empty space between the dots, so the (sonic) images don’t have enough density as they do in real life. I’ve always thought of this as a “soft grain” because one doesn’t necessarily hear harshness. That was one of the main problems with early digital sound for me, and still is to a lesser degree depending on the recording.
In the case of equipment warming up I think it is, in fact, heard as an artifact that gets added to the sound. In this case, to me it sounds like a sonic artifact that one hears as somewhat disconnected from the musical content; on a different plane from that of the music itself. As the gear warms up the glass on the window into the music gets wiped clean more and more, and more of the music is revealed.
Both recordings sound great and highly enjoyable on both the speakers and the headphones, so I’d say this level of refinement is beyond my typical threshold of concern. But it is interesting and a good example for comparison.
Which is why I mention it. The Well is much more liquid, lush, deep and luxurious than FBRC. Not even close. This is all entirely separate and apart from frequency response. If people are distracted and misled by frequency, well that is another one to learn to distinguish!
One way to do that, frequency response will not change as things warm up, while grain definitely will. In order to distinguish the difference it helps to think about the fundamental tone or frequency. Grain is never there in nature but rather is added in the recording/playback chain. As grain goes away the fundamental tone remains. But since grain is as Harley says primarily midrange/treble those regions can seem at first to be toned down a bit. Because in removing grain we are removing something that was added. This is where learning to distinguish between the fundamental that is really there and the grain that is added comes in. Once you learn to do this it becomes clear grain may be evident in that frequency range, but still frequency response and grain are two very different things.
There are also different versions of both these fine recordings. Both FBRC and The Well are available on 33 and 45. In both cases the 45 is easily the more detailed and yet also more natural and smooth. The 33 versions sound great until compared with 45, after which they seem a bit hard.
wondering when somebody might root around in comparing 2 multi track albums with same artist, different studio, root format ( FBRC is….aghast…Sony digital vs ? for The Well.
What i find interesting as a critical listening learning tool is finding the root cause of the “grain” ? is it the +2db increased DR in FBRC vs The Well, and is that a recording studio induced grain or maybe just maybe those +2db push the Raven off the perch. Headroom is sometimes everything, especially at the microphone where tgere ain’t no getting it back.
Lets look at attack and style, The Well is way more about an established artist a bit in repose vs a budding star very hungry to make the vocal mark for her mentor, lover, friend… She hits it.
Jennifer Warnes 'Famous Blue Raincoat" and "The Well" both sounds lucious and liquid on my rig. Know this cuzz I have both serial numbered box sets.
Maybe your system???
I hear the difference on my speakers. Harder to notice it on my headphones which is interesting because they do reveal some things better than the speakers. I think the headphones sound brighter, which masks the difference for me. Both recordings sound great and highly enjoyable on both the speakers and the headphones, so I'd say this level of refinement is beyond my typical threshold of concern. But it is interesting and a good example for comparison. I read Robert Harley's section on audio terms and learned that grain refers to sound in the treble and the midrange, which together runs from about 800 to 10,000 Hz. Robert suggests that room effects often contribute to a grainy impression. Still, he doesn't specify exactly what it is about the sound that creates the graininess, or the excessive lack of texture which would be syrupy. It seems to me that it's primarily a frequency response issue, and perhaps sometimes a distortion issue. That should be very easy to measure if it's coming from the output of a DAC. Maybe not so easy to measure and interpret at the listening position with all the room reflections confusing things.
I used to listen to a radio program by Karl Haas called Adventures in Good Music. Each program had a classical music theme that explored many different aspects of classical music. The show was very entertaining and educational. Adventures in Good Music is no longer with us and Karl probably isn’t either.
Bill McGlaughlin has picked up the baton and hosts a program on public radio called Exploring Music. I’m sure you can find it on your internet radio app and it would probably be a painless way to improve your listening skills and your appreciation of classical music and music in general. I haven’t listened to Exploring Music but my guess is that it would be worth a try.
@tvad …could be that i got lucky…. A friend with a superb system circa 1983 or so…Infinity RS ( model down from IRS ), SOTA, Souther, Dynavector, CJ Premier… also a renowned music teacher in Mid Ohio..treated me to Mahler preconcert lecture / symphony in Cleveland …
Part of the lecture ( i may have inhaled ) focused on the selection of material for the death blows…. Leather over wood with a massive wood mallet ( think sledgehammer )
Yes, I've heard that piece performed by the LA Phil. If I hear it again live, I'll pay attention to the mallet. Definitely a learning to listen moment. I don't recall anything that specific in our pre-concert lectures.
LA Phil's principal tympanist, Joseph Prereira makes his own natural skin tympani heads, and his own mallets...several dozen mallets on his rack every performance. I'm sure the natural skin heads and custom mallets sound different than standard plastic heads and off-the-shelf mallets, but I've never heard a comparison. I also suspect sitting closer than 1st row balcony might be necessary to discern any difference.
@tvad …could be that i got lucky…. A friend with a superb system circa 1983 or so…Infinity RS ( model down from IRS ), SOTA, Souther, Dynavector, CJ Premier… also a renowned music teacher in Mid Ohio..treated me to Mahler preconcert lecture / symphony in Cleveland …
Part of the lecture ( i may have inhaled ) focused on the selection of material for the death blows…. Leather over wood with a massive wood mallet ( think sledgehammer )….
Amazing, near religious event….
Now is the SOTA at that time Infinity servo woofer cabinet capable of slam and nuance ?….. Better listener for sure…
First of all, let’s make it clear that no one is suggesting that one has to be a musician to “learn” how to listen, or what to listen to at a level that allows for reasonably astute discernment of differences in sound, or musical performance. However, the act of listening is, in most ways and innate ability aside, just like any other endeavor. In order to achieve a very high level of ability to discern, never mind the highest level, relying on innate ability, or casual exercise of the listening “muscle” is simply not enough. This applies to both the discernment of sonic issues as well as musical issues; two entirely different things.
There is no issue of claim to superiority or judgment of anyone’s level of ambition to excel at this endeavor. The enjoyment of music and the process by which it is done is a very personal matter; no point in judging. However, it is also true that some listeners feel the need to assume that they understand all there is to understand about music and its performance; or, sound and all of its nuances. While that attitude may stroke one’s ego, it is also very limiting. One of the things that all musicians striving for the very highest level of understanding of all that music is have one thing in common. That is, that there is always so much more to learn, understand and be able to hear. It is literally endless.
**** The question becomes, how does an audiophile who is not a musician, or who has no musical training, study, learn and practice his/her listening skills other than the ideas offered in this thread? ****
We enter this world with a super refined gift of a mechanism that we learn to ascribe words, definitions and understandings of what it is we hear. By the time we're 5 yrs old, some of us are using adult grammar, fully understanding it, for crying out loud.
Having a hobby which involves hearing is simply a plus and how we refine it is innate (you know, born with it). The fact that there's a science to it only validates it.
I've never played French Horn or slept at a Holiday Inn but I've refined my hearing more than the average bear and don't require a PA system to properly ascertain what I hear. Like I said, it's innate, as is the refining process. Some are better at it than others but it's safe to say, most here get it, and they're not musicians.
When we listen for a flute for example, this is more than a conscious decision to focus on the flute. This creates neural impulses that actively tune ear cells to better hear the flute.
I find that claim pretty unbelievable. Do you have a link? Does it work only with the ears, or can I imagine other body parts and make them also perform new feats?
We attend a majority of pre concert lectures. They’re interesting and add great context. I can’t say they have ever made me a better listener in a manner that would translate at home.
@frogman, thank you. I touched on attending live music in my first post, and I'm happy to see you eloquently expand upon that.
Your idea of enrolling in a music appreciation course is something I hadn't considered. I took a music appreciation course in college, and it was tremendous. Great suggestion.
Thank you also for the two book recommendations. I ordered the Copeland volume. My wife and I have been LA Phil subscribers for a decade, and it's never too late to enhance the experience.
As a result of the record/playback process music suffers just as much distortion of one kind or another in the domain of rhythmic expression as it does in the domain of timbre/tonality. Only by attending live performances (preferably acoustic) can a listener fully learn to identify just how far our playback gear distorts the amazing rhythmic and dynamic immediacy and nuance of live music. This way we can identify why some gear sounds more rhythmically alive than others and why some sounds rhythmically dead. Phrasing has everything to do with rhythm and rhythm/timing is were most of the music of a performance is found. When we open our minds up to these possibilities we learn to be more discerning of both musical performance details and the performance of our gear.
Very important remarks....
My own experience about why some gear sounds with a rythmic expression which is sometimes dead is linked to the acoustic control (or the lack of) of the speakers/room... Among the 3 embeddings factors , acoustic is key....
These very subtle dynamics of expression IS music for a musician, and like say frogman , it is where the genius of an interpretation lives...
Like the humor of some musician and frogman put it: " Nobody ever gets fired for having a bad sound".... But music is more than good sound and audiophile experience is more than good gear sound ...
The "musical timbre phenomena" is the sums of tone harmonic body and envelope with this subtle dynamic gesture of the musician lost for the listener when acoustic of his speakers/ room is uncontrolled ....
Then before listening to gear we must know how to listen to music played by a musician, and non amplified one....To sensitize ourself with what is music essence....Music has begun with a body gesture million year ago from a mother to his child....The first musician is perhaps a mother moving his body and/or his tongue in synch with the child body....
«Music before being a sound, or a tone, is a gesture of the body»-Anonymus Smith
«Do you mean listening music and learning to listen is moving my body?»-Groucho Marx in a tango school 🤓
**** The question becomes, how does an audiophile who is not a musician, or who has no musical training, study, learn and practice his/her listening skills other than the ideas offered in this thread? ****
- A great place to start is reading these two books by two of the greatest musicians that have ever lived. There are others, but these do a particularly good job of being accessible to the non-musician.
“What To Listen For In Music” by Aaron Copland
”The Joy Of Music” by Leonard Bernstein
- Take a music appreciation course at the local college.
- On an even more immediate level, accept the fact that the sound of live music (preferably acoustic) is a great and ultimately the only true reference by which to judge how close our components get to true “accuracy” (probably the most misused term in audiophile-speak). Of course, this presumes that the audiophile seeks true accuracy and not just a preferred tonal signature. Additionally, abandon the idea (and this goes to the previously mentioned “message”) that tonal “accuracy” is the only important consideration when judging a component. In audiophile discussions seldom is anything other than tonality (frequency response signature) even discussed. Soundstaging, as fun as it is, has little to do with the music.
As a result of the record/playback process music suffers just as much distortion of one kind or another in the domain of rhythmic expression as it does in the domain of timbre/tonality. Only by attending live performances (preferably acoustic) can a listener fully learn to identify just how far our playback gear distorts the amazing rhythmic and dynamic immediacy and nuance of live music. This way we can identify why some gear sounds more rhythmically alive than others and why some sounds rhythmically dead. Phrasing has everything to do with rhythm and rhythm/timing is were most of the music of a performance is found. When we open our minds up to these possibilities we learn to be more discerning of both musical performance details and the performance of our gear.
The message is that for musicians the most important considerations when judging excellence (or lack of) in a performance are rhythmic accuracy (timing) and pitch (intonation). Without those, good ensemble cohesion is impossible. When that cohesion is absent the musical message is lost.
A nice reinforcement that studying, learning and practice by a musician can improve listening.
The question becomes, how does an audiophile who is not a musician, or who has no musical training, study, learn and practice his/her listening skills other than the ideas offered in this thread?
This video is an incredible wealth of information. Thanks to @millercarbon for sharing it. I now have a newfound appreciation for dithering in the digital recording process! Apart from that, the revelations of how we listen have been fascinating. But quite honestly, I will have to watch this a few more times before I feel I've properly digested the vast amount of information presented.
I can only offer a perspective, but my observations suggests that the greatest portion of professional musicians I know do not tend to research and purchase the best audio components they can afford. Only a select few seem to possess an appreciation for the value of high quality systems. By contrast, the selectivity with which they procure their instruments and then have them customized for their individual tastes tends to far outweigh the attention given to their playback systems. I'm not sure what to infer from this since, as a rule, serious musicians tend to be highly analytical of sound. Perhaps the way in which that analysis is taking place is the difference. Or maybe their sensibilities are just different from the average audiophile. I know I'm flirting with broad generalizations here, so I'll emphasize that this is just an observation that does not presume to offer an explanation of cause.
There is an expression used by orchestral musicians that says: “Nobody ever gets fired for having a bad sound”. Somewhat an exaggeration of sorts to be sure, but with an important underlying message. This is, of course, assuming that the tone is question is not grotesque; highly unlikely in the professional world. That message has been touched upon in some of the posts here; specifically and most accurately by the OP. The message is that for musicians the most important considerations when judging excellence (or lack of) in a performance are rhythmic accuracy (timing) and pitch (intonation). Without those, good ensemble cohesion is impossible. When that cohesion is absent the musical message is lost. Beautiful tone, as great as that is, cannot make up for those deficiencies.
I only mean to warn people of the dangers of excess. It is worth stepping back from your hobby and what you are learning about and asking if being more critical is making you happier or not.
Of course everyone is on a different stage and on a different journey and hair splitting the differences between gear is fun but you should do so consciously instead of by default.
Accordion? I left an accordion in the backseat of my car
with the windows down and the doors unlocked
in a bad part of town. When I got back to my car, there were two accordions in the backseat.
Q: Why are there no accordions on Star Trek? A: Because it's in the future.
According to the latest research the animal with brainwave patterns most closely resembling a human is the hyena. According to science (all genuflect now) light is both a waveform and a particle at the same time. Science is a cult religion and a stupid one at that. And what is all this flap about evolution? Less than 1% have even read the origin of the species, for in the introduction he says that his theory rests entirely upon gradualism which has been in the dust bin for at least 50 years, not to mention what even he calls the problem of the angiosperms. My wish is that you enjoy the music whether played, live or reproduced.
@femoore12 I have a friend who's a jazz trumpeter and another who plays classical piano. Both understand there's something to be experienced with a better system, but they're both so used to listening *through* the aural presentation to the musical meaning, that they don't see why their attention would want to get hung up at that level. Almost like a poetry fanatic who couldn't care less about the font used. This is not how I see it -- I see the musical meaning and the aural presentation as entangled -- but that may be because they hear the musical meaning more acutely than I do (being a novice at that).
@hilde45 At some odds with your very valid point is that there are musicians who often don’t have very good systems or care very much about sound quality in audio systems. That may merely be because they just don’t care about audio quality sound -- which would be weird -- or that they listen in some other way. But the notion that if one is a musician they already know how to listen as an audiophile is contradicted in a lot of cases, and that presents a puzzle.
I agree with your comment. My brother is a classically trained opera singer (since retired) and he never owned any audio systems that would be considered audiophile quality. He systems were always the most basic that were available. He always told me that reproduced music never came close to the real thing. I don’t have the years of stage experience that he had nor the formal training, but I will admit my home system doesn’t replicate the sound that I found myself immersed in while performing on stage. I am not trying to replicate that level of immersion at home (since I think it’s impossible), but I do consider my system successful if I can see the sound.
As tvad mentioned, the brain is very adept at "filling in the gaps".
Now that's something we don't want here.
Perhaps the solution is as simple as closing the eyes so that everything else is shut out and totally focusing on what is being heard. In effect, shutting down all other senses and appreciating the sound.
Interesting. So you say. You and others. And yet many times I have mentioned specific and easy methods to do this and learn. I have yet to see anyone try them. Instead what happens is people change the subject. Kind of like the way I post about a neurological basis for learning to listen for new characteristics and the usual suspects do their level best to talk about anything but.
At some odds with your very valid point is that there are musicians who
often don’t have very good systems or care very much about sound quality
in audio systems. That may merely be because they just don’t care about
audio quality sound -- which would be weird -- or that they listen in
some other way. But the notion that if one is a musician they already
know how to listen as an audiophile is contradicted in a lot of cases,
and that presents a puzzle.
Musicians do indeed listen differently. For myself, having spent more than a decade practicing music this is pretty obvious. Starting from learning piano at about 8 years old (third grade I think) I went to accordion through grade school (parents, not my idea let me assure you!) and then played french horn all through jr high and high school.
Musicians listen primarily for pitch, because nothing sounds worse than being out of tune. Almost anything can sound good, some jazz chords are deliberately jumbled, and you can bend notes all day long, but out of tune pretty much always sounds bad. So musicians develop a keen awareness for pitch. Vibrato brings life and soul, so musicians are also good at dynamics.
Timing, now we start to get into words that mean one thing to us but something completely different to the musician. Sinatra has exquisite timing. Knows just when to start a note, as well as when and how to end it. Timing for audiophiles is completely different. Our systems are not performing Sinatra, the performance is done. We are reproducing it. The timing we hear is completely different. Audiophiles throw these words around all the time. Not having studied music they have no idea how radically different the meaning changes depending on the context.
Stereophile had a series of feature articles about this many years ago, back in the 90's I think it was. The angle was the tired cliche, the same old same old being bandied about here. Never really getting at the heart of it, that making music and reproducing music are quite different skill sets.
Well I remember einstein mentioned in a different thread that the reason his supertweeters were effective, even though they play in an inaudible frequency range, is because humans have ear hairs that are attuned to those frequencies. The story is that those ear hairs were necessary for survival so our primative ancestors could listen and protect themselves against animal and other threats. So while the sounds are inaudible, they are providing innate and natural cues.
I'm guessing that although innate, one cave man taught the others how to listen for those threats with their ear hairs that detect sounds in the inaudible range.
Well, my son was playing in bands at clubs on weekends, drums, banjo, and bass and rythym guitar. Covid pretty much ended that for awhile. He never asked me to "learn" him how to listen, which must be why he doesn’t have an expensive audio rig, just some nice ladies. He is a wine distributor on the weekdays.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
