[dBe]

With the cryo tours in progress we need to discuss the subject of critical listening. 

How many of us have ever really considered how it is that we listen to our systems?  Critical listening involves more than just putting some tunes on, sitting down and hearing the music.  Sure, listening with the brain in park and letting the music just flow over us is something that we all enjoy.  Critical listening is different. It is work and not necessarily fun and relaxing.  It is a skill best learned in the recording studio, but can be done on our own at home.

Critical listening involves listening to other things than just the flow of the music.  When listening critically we must listen to aspects of the recording, not the sum of its' parts.  Different portions of the recording: the low bass; mid bass; upper bass; lower mids; mids; upper mids; lower treble; treble; upper treble - must be analyzed for content.  The spaces between the notes: blackness in the silent portions; reverb tails; attack; release; decay; the harmonic series;  the shimmer of cymbals; the growl of the bass; the bite on the guitar - all of these things need to be analyzed and appraised.  Intonation and phrasing need to be considered.  The integrity of the totality (timbre) of the instruments in the recording - the inherent " rightness" of integration is paramount.

Face it folks, critical listening is hard work.  It can enhance the listening experience or remove the joy from it.  It is up to you to determine what the experience will be.  For me, critical listening is a blessing and a curse.  While I was listening the the Stones today I was appalled at the tuning, or not, of their instruments.  Then again, that is part of what med their sound......

Do not undertake the Tours lightly. This is a chance to hone your listening skills.  A cursory listen may not give you anything.  Critical listening can reveal a different aspect of our obsession.

Enjoy... Or not.

Dave

[saisunil]

well said

[poseidonsvoice]

Moreover, look at Sunil's avatar: listen in the dark, it completely heightens the experience...

Best,

Anand.

[medium jim]

Dave:

I agree, it is a learned thing, critical listening, but is also rewarding.  It is surprising what you can hear when one really focuses.  I too prefer to listen in the dark.

Jim

[dBe]

Sometimes just shutting your eyes and taking a deep breath is all it takes, but I agree:  Listening in the dark - putting that sense to rest - is the best way for me, too.

Dave

[saisunil]

1. So much of it, as Dave you said, is just paying attention - we are all capable (more or less) and get better with practice.
2. Also it is ok to admit if you do not hear the difference. Perhaps the difference does not exist or it is just a matter of knowing what to look for or hear ... doing it with a friend or better still an audiophile buddy can help as each helps uncover a piece of the puzzle.
3. I also tend to agree that it can take away from the momentary musical enjoyment but can add to the adventure and discovery process which can be rewarding by itself.

Cheers

[dBe]

1. So much of it, as Dave you said, is just paying attention - we are all capable (more or less) and get better with practice.
2. Also it is ok to admit if you do not hear the difference. Perhaps the difference does not exist or it is just a matter of knowing what to look for or hear ... doing it with a friend or better still an audiophile buddy can help as each helps uncover a piece of the puzzle.
3. I also tend to agree that it can take away from the momentary musical enjoyment but can add to the adventure and discovery process which can be rewarding by itself.

Cheers

yep.  When it comes down to critical listening it is all about subtlety and (oh, how I hate this word) nuance. 

It is the tiny incremental changes that separate the great systems from the really good ones. The macro changes are what divide the mediocre from the good.

Basically, some of us just can't stop when it comes to refinement.  Me?  Guilty as charged.

Dave

[medium jim]

The key for me is to listen with an open mind, yet free of bias, then to translate it to paper.

Jim

[dflee]

Iv'e found that even enjoyment listening has a form of the
critical side within. Lets face it, no one here has listened to
their entire collection of music between equipment changes
so I find myself hearing things or not remembering a certain
cd having certain qualities previously that hasn't been played
in the present system configuration. An example is Led Zepplin's
first album still surprises me after equipment change in sounds I've not
heard before. All the things Dave stated tend to just present
themselves and I just love to take it in when the music plays.
Of course when I don't hear things I am used to hearing, it
becomes discerning and I wonder what have I done.

Don

[dBe]

I think that listening is an acquired as well as learned ability.  Of course thre is a certain natural ability to focus.  Face it: some people have the attention span of a gnat.  That is not a good thing when it comes to evaluating perceptual differences.  In order to successfully navigate through a critical listening session one must have the ability to truly listen into and through the music down to the noise floor.  We have to have the focus to differentiate the instruments (this includes voice) from the background clutter inherent in every recording and make some kind of sense of it. 

Great recordings are few and far between these days.  Profit has supersceded the craft of recording.  So many of today's recordings are over processed and nasty.  Especially the pop medium.  Since the mid 70's music has been beaten to death through over production and blurry effects.  The CD chosen for the Cryo CD Tour is a good example.  Truly great recordings like Miles Davis " Kind of Blue" really did state the art.  It is so easy to hear into and through the recording. 

Critical listening is hard work.  It can take the fun out of our hobby/obsession.  On the other hand, learning to listen well and being able to use these skills can enhance the enjoyment of our musical experience.  We just have to know when to have fun, when to be in evaluation mode and when to do what.  A good glass of whatever can assist in this decision, sometimes.

Easy, huh?

Dave

[dflee]

If it were easy, everybody would be an expert, I am (in my own home with
no one other than my wife to tell me how wrong I really am). Places like
AC would have no traffic or we would all be bickering with each other as
to who is right. I enjoy input be it good or bad concerning listening habits.
I think we all listen differently and hear differently and that is what makes
this hobby so enjoyable to me. It's kinda like enjoying a movie that the
critics trashed and thinking to yourself, they just don't get it.

Don

ps: I'm so poor, I can't even pay attention.

[S Clark]

...Critical listening is hard work.  It can take the fun out of our hobby/obsession.  On the other hand, learning to listen well and being able to use these skills can enhance the enjoyment of our musical experience.  We just have to know when to have fun, when to be in evaluation mode and when to do what.  A good glass of whatever can assist in this decision, sometimes...
Dave

I'd like to add that although golden ears are great tools for evaluation, they aren't the key.  Deadfish and I may have the worst hearing at AC, but I've done several competitive speaker evaluations, using a rubrik designed by Danny R.  Over the years Danny, Gary Dodd, and myself have judged probably 50-70 sets of amateur speakers, hours on end of listening to the same cuts over and over.  Usually in a group of about 8 sets of speakers, we would nearly always have the same top three chosen (not always the same order), and usually for the same reasons.  Learning to listen for specific things is a learned skill, most of which is solidly in the 60-5000 Hz range. 

[medium jim]

Each person is going to have a different set of goals when "Critically" listening.  Yes it takes patience and focus to do critical listening.  One cannot have the same expectations or work ethics nor can one tell someone how to listen or what to listen for, this would lead to confirmation bias of some sort. 

Jim

[JerryM]

One cannot have the same expectations or work ethics nor can one tell someone how to listen or what to listen for, this would lead to confirmation bias of some sort. 

Jim

In my experience, that is not true.

I have had an audio system of some sort since I was eight years old. I have listened to more live music than I can recall. Assimilating the two is literally child's play.

However, I have had past jobs wherein critical listening was a key factor in "work ethics". One cannot operate a burger patty machine if one cannot discern the proper sound of same. One cannot operate a four color offset printer if one cannot discern the proper sound. One cannot be an auto mechanic if one cannot discern the proper sound(s). It goes on and on, and very much involves 'work ethic' and 'how to listen'. People can be trained or, summarily, learn; and confirmation bias has as much to do with the work ethic equation as it does with music. 

As does this fine audio hobby, and our experiences within it. 

JMHO,

Jerry

[medium jim]

In my experience, that is not true.

I have had an audio system of some sort since I was eight years old. I have listened to more live music than I can recall. Assimilating the two is literally child's play.

However, I have had past jobs wherein critical listening was a key factor in "work ethics". One cannot operate a burger patty machine if one cannot discern the proper sound of same. One cannot operate a four color offset printer if one cannot discern the proper sound. One cannot be an auto mechanic if one cannot discern the proper sound(s). It goes on and on, and very much involves 'work ethic' and 'how to listen'. People can be trained or, summarily, learn; and confirmation bias has as much to do with the work ethic equation as it does with music. 

As does this fine audio hobby, and our experiences within it. 

JMHO,

Jerry

Very interesting, what does it have to do with my complete post?  You disagree that people will have different goals when they critically listen?  I will have different criteria each time I listen to something.  The expectation or work ethic of one may or will not be the same from audiophile to audiophile.  Work ethics don't alway merit results...just because one works really hard at listening isn't a guarantee of anything.  Then there are those who don't have to work hard at it, and are very adept at what they are hearing...

Yes, I take it very serious, but I also have fun at it too otherwise it does become work. 

Jim

[rollo]

   Critical listening involves a method for evaluation. I believe all to often we listen to long. and our brain cannot recall all. Playing a 30 second clip over and over again makes it easier to discern differences.
   Using "A" to "B" to "A" comparisons is a must as well. Another issue is when a component is changed. Was it powered whilst sitting ? All must be equal but the component for true evaluation.
    For bass I use a mono recording of disco with a heavy bass line. Then a Ray Brown solo. Concentrate on one thing say the bow work, is it the same when the change is made ?
     Heck you can train yourself to beat any blind test.  We have proved this several times at our club meetings. Lets say A SS amp and tubed amp are being compared. Using a recording with cymbals makes it easier to tell the difference. Or violin or piano. Just really concentrate on one specific piece.
     



charles









   

[kevin360]

Very interesting, what does it have to do with my complete post?

Jerry's comment did address your complete post (as I read them). One component of his statement is that we commonly rely on critical listening – every single one of us. Going back in time, that will be a consistent feature – as it is for most animals. Discernment of sounds is a life or death matter, ergo it is built into the organism – we are 'designed' for it. Humans, by virtue of our radical cultural evolution, have pressed that capacity into a broad spectrum of learned talents.

We are a musical species. In one form or another, it is ubiquitous. Largely, differences in critical listening ability derive from differences of exposure – to the act as well as to the cultural memes.

Another point Jerry made is that critical listening does not happen by brunt of force. In fact, I would argue that critical listening by brunt of force is the best mechanism for introducing confirmation bias. Listening should be a relaxed activity – as passive as possible. We are a creative species. That applies to our experience of what we sense – it is a creative process. The more one dissects by intellect, the stronger the influence of one's knowledge. This is at the heart of the brain's marvelous efficiency. It is the essence of efficient decision making. It is at the core of 'unreasoned' feeling – without our awareness. This fact has equal power to enable us to know what's wrong under the hood of our car as it does to abet our imagination in A/B audio comparisons.

My point in the forgoing paragraph is that critical listening has much to do with learning, but when its exercise is 'work', it is circumspect. Learning makes it second nature, like hitting a golf ball. Take dissectional thought to the golf course and watch your game go to hell. So I suspect it is for critical listening. Once one knows 'where' to listen, it just happens. Perhaps, another analogy would be with seeing the 'hidden' form in those hidden image stereograms - once one sees the sailboat, it's practically impossible not to see it. What do you tell your friend who is standing there 'trying' to see it? Relax.

I hope I didn't miss the crux of Jerry's comments too badly.

[dBe]

I think you are all correct.

How's that for diplomacy?   

Here is where I see the common thread - we all listen for different reasons at different times.  Personally I have different listening modes.  I listen for: enjoyment; learning parts of a song (guitar guys are like that); listening to intonation; learning lyrics; finding peaks and valleys in overall response; dynamic contrasts; the list is long.  Each aspect involves a different learned skill with the exception of enjoyment.  That is where I put my critical brain on hold and kick in the pleasure center.

Point in fact - I was listening to old Stones recordings yesterday.  I could hear all of the clams and intonation breaks, but then I put my critical brain on the shelf and realized once again that those are all part of the Stones personna.  They were raw, wrong and great all at the same time.  This is the conundrum of musical styles.  Having all of this happen in a symphonic rendering of Peer Gynt would sound like Spike Jone's take on classical.  It works for the Stones.

What Scott said is also true.  Acuity and discernment are not necessarily tied.  As I age I find myself losing the HF response, but my mind is making up for it in other ways.  I can still play "name that anomoly" as well as ever.  It is just less painful with bad recordings now.

Personal bias is what it is.  We all have them and we all are influenced by them.  Learning to divorce oneself from bias is part of what "critical listening" is about.  Like I said - it can be hard work.

Dave

[medium jim]

Dave:

Funny thing, I just listened to two DSD remastered Rolling Stones CD's, Let it Bleed and Get Yer Ya Ya's Out.  They were both horrible for too many reasons to discuss here.  The soundstage was flat, the vocals were distant and the instrument placement was too left and right.  There was no real note attack and decay.  The only thing that was decent was Charlie's drums.

Very disappointing, I actually thought something was off with my system.

Jim

[dBe]

Dave:

Funny thing, I just listened to two DSD remastered Rolling Stones CD's, Let it Bleed and Get Yer Ya Ya's Out.  They were both horrible for too many reasons to discuss here.  The soundstage was flat, the vocals were distant and the instrument placement was too left and right.  There was no real note attack and decay.  The only thing that was decent was Charlie's drums.

Very disappointing, I actually thought something was off with my system.

Jim

Jim,

Yeah, I know.  "Remastered" doesn't necessarily mean it is better.  One of the things that we have to remember is that the original master tapes are toast by now.  To remaster from a master or safety master from those days means baking the tape and making ONE pass to get the sound off of it.  Now, if it was remastered from a digital master copy... anyone can screw up that job.  Who did the Remastering?

Dave