How far should a casual music listener go in training their ears?

[tengiz]

At first it is clearly useful - hearing flaws helps fix the big issues and makes the system more enjoyable. But once the fundamentals are right, does sharpening the ear further still help, or does it just turn into a distraction?

What prompted this among other things was Erin's video reviews, where he mentions hearing something as subtle as a ~1 dB rise or fall across a wide range. For me, that is a total blind spot - and it raises the question: do I even want to train myself to notice things like that? Once you do, they are hard to unhear.

And there is a thornier side to this. Research shows that individual differences in auditory ability are not only about training or experience - genetics play a role too. Look at the forum: the heavily male skewed participation speaks for itself, it cannot be all social conditioning or pressure. Higher auditory aptitude does not necessarily mean just hearing more flaws. It can also mean the opposite - a better ability to filter out irrelevant artifacts and stay focused on the music itself.

So where is the right finish line for non-pros who mainly listen for pleasure? Is it enough to reach a natural, balanced sound - whatever that means to you - and then stop for a while, until the next wave of technology offers a real reason to move to the latest generation of gear? Sure, for many, the cycle of refinement is part of the hobby too.

But where is the line?

 

[OldHvyMec]

From just the title alone, I'd doubt a casual listener would do anything. There is a reason to be a passive or casual listener. They usually have other things to do or aren't that interested to begin with.

Most people listen to music while they are driving more than anywhere else when time is at a premium.

As people get older and have more disposable time, music happens to be one of those less demanding things we do. Unfortunately, as we age, our ability to discern differences becomes less and less. This isn't an old dog learning a new trick; this is an old dog with a broken hip.

Regards

 

[majingotan]

I don't draw any line. I just enjoy music like an everyday listener would do. Currently enjoying listening, and I don't even care about music files these days and am perfectly fine playing MP3 music since I can't reliably pass a DBT ABX between MP3 and LossLess. I don't even do any DSP or EQ since I primarily listen to headphones that has the tuning that I prefer out of the box. Removing my biases has set me free from the spiral of gear acquisition syndrome since audio gears and headphones/speakers these days are all subjectively great sounding.

For those that design loudspeakers or headphones and is involved in the tuning of the crossovers and measurement verifications, having a trained ear is more important than non-pros. Heck if you work in Pro Audio Live Audio, having trained ears for sound balance check on multiple spots on the concert/church live streaming venues.

 

[Salt]

Training Ears?
They are always on, 24/7/365.
So what?
You mean: training Ears on Hifi?

My personal point of view: if Hi-fi sounds like the rest of all stuff all day comes in, it is percepted " as usual", so it's fine.
If there's some unusual occurrence, let's say FR, or Phase, or other errors: it's not that fine (and disturbs).
Subjective perceptions dominate.

 

[GM3]

But once the fundamentals are right, does sharpening the ear further still help, or does it just turn into a distraction?

Do you prefer to listen to music or listen to gear?

There's an interesting concept of not giving a fuck, briefly; your time and energy are limited, so you have a limited amounts of fucks you can give. So I'm guessing it's up to every individual to weigh the enjoyment they get out of it vs cost...

Myself, in audio, the recording is typically the biggest limiting factor. Enjoyable records with great sound quality are very rare. Most of the music I love doesn't have fantastic sound quality, so it's futile chasing the last %. Garbage in -> Garbage out. And to get the most out of a speaker system, you really need a dedicated treated room and very likely DSP; so if you're going that route you're not going to setup anything using your ears anyhow.

So I'd say just enjoy the music, don't try to find flaws in audio, because it's a case where you lose if you succeed.

It can also mean the opposite - a better ability to filter out irrelevant artifacts and stay focused on the music itself.

??? Nope... For me at least it means I tune out because all the recording flaws and FR aberrations just get on my nerves. IMHO; this is a case where ignorance is bliss. The more proficient you are at hearing flaws, the more you'll hear them and the more they'll bother you.

 

[solderdude]

Casual music listeners should just enjoy the music.
Casual listeners usually don't really care about 'sound quality' either.

Training is for people that want or make a living in this business and want to take it seriously or are interested in various psycho-acoustic effects.

 

[tengiz]

Even for casual listening, it often starts with sound defects you simply can’t ignore. Recognizing, describing, identifying, and fixing them takes some effort.

Years ago I kept having to readjust the left/right balance. Room correction would help for a while, but the problem came back. I assumed it was the room - furniture changes, new seating, things like that.

The real culprit turned out to be the right speaker: its mid-upper transducer was slowly losing sensitivity. At first the effect was subtle, just a slight persistent image shift. Over time it grew worse, until pitch changes made the image move in real time.

It was the imbalance inside the speaker itself - between bass/midbass driver and mid/treble transducer - that caused it. And once you hear that, how can you ignore it when it irritates and distracts you?

 

[tengiz]

For me at least it means I tune out because all the recording flaws and FR aberrations just get on my nerves. IMHO; this is a case where ignorance is bliss.

But it’s not just ignorance - you’re actively making yourself tune out, almost at will. Otherwise, as you said, the aberrations would keep irritating you. What I meant is that it takes effort, and maybe more importantly, a certain innate ability to do that.

 

[tengiz]

Unfortunately, as we age, our ability to discern differences becomes less and less. This isn't an old dog learning a new trick; this is an old dog with a broken hip.

…and nothing better to do than warm the bones under the sun with belly full of dog chow? Ain't that a blessing???

Unlike the old actor’s musings about finally getting how to play a seventeen-year-old Romeo once he turned seventy.

 

[MattHooper]

At first it is clearly useful - hearing flaws helps fix the big issues and makes the system more enjoyable. But once the fundamentals are right, does sharpening the ear further still help, or does it just turn into a distraction?

What prompted this among other things was Erin's video reviews, where he mentions hearing something as subtle as a ~1 dB rise or fall across a wide range. For me, that is a total blind spot - and it raises the question: do I even want to train myself to notice things like that? Once you do, they are hard to unhear.

And there is a thornier side to this. Research shows that individual differences in auditory ability are not only about training or experience - genetics play a role too. Look at the forum: the heavily male skewed participation speaks for itself, it cannot be all social conditioning or pressure. Higher auditory aptitude does not necessarily mean just hearing more flaws. It can also mean the opposite - a better ability to filter out irrelevant artifacts and stay focused on the music itself.

So where is the right finish line for non-pros who mainly listen for pleasure? Is it enough to reach a natural, balanced sound - whatever that means to you - and then stop for a while, until the next wave of technology offers a real reason to move to the latest generation of gear? Sure, for many, the cycle of refinement is part of the hobby too.

But where is the line?

I think this is a very fair question because it comes up quite often in the audiophile world that you should “train your hearing” to
“ become a better listener.”

And it’s certainly fair to ask “ to what end?”

Ultimately, I think it’s just going to be up to the individual and what he’s looking to get out of the hobby and also what he/she gets a kick out of.

I find myself fascinated with the difference between real and reproduce sound. And I very often in the presence of life sounds, whether I happen upon a jazz band playing outside acoustically, or somebody playing an acoustic guitar in front of me, or even somebody speaking voice, I’m often closing my eyes and taking stock as to what differentiates this live sound from what I tend to hear from stereo systems. Why does this thing in front of me sound so obviously live in different?

I suppose that’s a form of training my ears, but I don’t think I would pass any test with this training. I just use it to build my own internal models of how real things sound to compare to sound systems. (aside from also having done live versus reproduction comparisons in my home.)

On the other hand, I don’t care to go wild with measurements in my room. I finally get incredibly satisfactory sound, to me, just using the standard “ set up my speakers and listening position and move around until I like the sound.”

If I start measuring more than that, I’ll just end up seeing frequency response aberrations that have never bothered me, and then I would be liable to go possibly chasing them down…. And I’ve seen the rabbit hole that has lead to for many people. Measure, measure, measure…. gotta remove all those wiggles in the likes

(I did do this momentarily for a while when I had subwoofers and room correction for the subwoofers…. and I’m frankly glad I got off that ride fairly quickly.)

And yet, I’ve also spent plenty of time just playing around with some stuff in my system, including acoustics, speaker risers/decouplers. I just happened to find that fun.

Whatever floats your boat….

 

[Elkerton]

Firstly, most people most of the time choose the same speakers under double-blind listening conditions. Those that don't have hearing defects of one sort or another.

1 dB over a wide range, and the operative word here is wide, is audible to almost anyone and would be a concern for anyone choosing a speaker. A high Q is barely noticeable.

GM3 is quite correct is saying recordings are the limiting factor.

Sharpening the ear can be a distraction, or used to determine where one might want to improve the system. That's a big deal to me, while to my daughter and son-in-law, not so much. He enjoys listening to my rig, but they are both satisfied listening to their sound bar at home.

 

[tengiz]

Firstly, most people most of the time choose the same speakers under double-blind listening conditions. Those that don't have hearing defects of one sort or another.

1 dB over a wide range, and the operative word here is wide, is audible to almost anyone and would be a concern for anyone choosing a speaker. A high Q is barely noticeable.

So, the 1 dB difference over a wide range (like an octave or two - that was the case in the example I used) - when you say it is audible for most people, do you mean under double blind conditions? If so then I have no questions.

However, the ability to hear and correctly identify a difference like this when simply listening to a familiar recording on a new speaker system - without relying on the short term memory advantage that double blind trials provide - seems almost superhuman to me.

Sharpening the ear can be a distraction, or used to determine where one might want to improve the system. That's a big deal to me, while to my daughter and son-in-law, not so much. He enjoys listening to my rig, but they are both satisfied listening to their sound bar at home.

Right, let me clarify - assume the same system, two presets with minor variations in the EQ curve. I know that I might hear a difference like the 1dB over an octave when I switch the presets. If I just listened to one preset or another without switching between them? No chance.

But between a proper stereo setup vs a soundbar? Always.

 

[tengiz]

I find myself fascinated with the difference between real and reproduce sound. And I very often in the presence of life sounds, whether I happen upon a jazz band playing outside acoustically, or somebody playing an acoustic guitar in front of me, or even somebody speaking voice, I’m often closing my eyes and taking stock as to what differentiates this live sound from what I tend to hear from stereo systems. Why does this thing in front of me sound so obviously live in different?

I suppose that’s a form of training my ears, but I don’t think I would pass any test with this training. I just use it to build my own internal models of how real things sound to compare to sound systems. (aside from also having done live versus reproduction comparisons in my home.)

On the other hand, I don’t care to go wild with measurements in my room. I finally get incredibly satisfactory sound, to me, just using the standard “ set up my speakers and listening position and move around until I like the sound.”

If I start measuring more than that, I’ll just end up seeing frequency response aberrations that have never bothered me, and then I would be liable to go possibly chasing them down…. And I’ve seen the rabbit hole that has lead to for many people. Measure, measure, measure…. gotta remove all those wiggles in the likes

(I did do this momentarily for a while when I had subwoofers and room correction for the subwoofers…. and I’m frankly glad I got off that ride fairly quickly.)

And yet, I’ve also spent plenty of time just playing around with some stuff in my system, including acoustics, speaker risers/decouplers. I just happened to find that fun.

My experience generally aligns with what you have said above, including the relief after being done with chores like subwoofer integration

 

[EERecordist]

At first it is clearly useful - hearing flaws helps fix the big issues and makes the system more enjoyable. But once the fundamentals are right, does sharpening the ear further still help, or does it just turn into a distraction?

What prompted this among other things was Erin's video reviews, where he mentions hearing something as subtle as a ~1 dB rise or fall across a wide range. For me, that is a total blind spot - and it raises the question: do I even want to train myself to notice things like that? Once you do, they are hard to unhear.

And there is a thornier side to this. Research shows that individual differences in auditory ability are not only about training or experience - genetics play a role too. Look at the forum: the heavily male skewed participation speaks for itself, it cannot be all social conditioning or pressure. Higher auditory aptitude does not necessarily mean just hearing more flaws. It can also mean the opposite - a better ability to filter out irrelevant artifacts and stay focused on the music itself.

So where is the right finish line for non-pros who mainly listen for pleasure? Is it enough to reach a natural, balanced sound - whatever that means to you - and then stop for a while, until the next wave of technology offers a real reason to move to the latest generation of gear? Sure, for many, the cycle of refinement is part of the hobby too.

But where is the line?

I often suggest people interested in sound reproduction we measure and discuss on ASR listen to as much live music as possible.

Many people play an instrument, so that is a way. There are opportunities to see concerts, and rehearsals can sometimes be free. Many performing arts presenters need ushers. Many places have youth bands and symphonies to hear free. Have musician friends and sit in with them. If there is a music school nearby that is golden. If it is purely acoustic music, try to find listening settings where you are not hearing through a microphone and speakers. If one of more instruments are electric, minimize performer-selected electrical systems in your chain, maybe it is an electric guitar with its pickup and on-stage amp-speaker.

Seek out better halls, and outdoor locations to listen.

To me that is ear training.

Then when listening through your system, compare in your mind live to reproduction.

I was extremely fortunate to work in the recording department of a music school. I could walk from the hall or scoring studio to hear live and direct, into a professionally designed control room to listen through the microphones, board, and calibrated playback system, after recording, and then finally the produced out master. There are many differences.

Instruments vary, and performers devote their careers to selecting a specific instrument. If you have a chance, listen around the instrument. The sound of acoustic instruments is going to vary in the nearfield geometry. In bowed instruments, the bow will vary, and every reed instrument player will have stories of good and bad reeds. The temperature and humidiy around the instrument and in the concert hall effects many details of the sound. For outdoor concerts, most musicians bring their lesser backup instrument.

Beyond ear training, if you have musician friends, they will have favorite performances of a specific piece. Ask them why they like one over another and start to hear those kind of differences.

 

[kemmler3D]

do I even want to train myself to notice things like that? Once you do, they are hard to unhear.

IMO... exactly. I used to have sharper critical listening skills of this kind. I didn't have formal training but I did get to the point where I could more or less pick out a dB or two the way Erin does. But I haven't used them for work in a long time. I don't really miss it.

Most of what you get out of it is hearing flaws. "200hz is too hot, makes voices too thick sounding"... things like that. The upside is you get more excited when you hear really good performance... when you listen for flaws and don't hear any. Eureka! Or you hear something really unique about the performance of gear. Your ability to hear something really special is also improved.

But at the end of the day, listening for flaws in gear is sort of a dismal way to go about enjoying music. It's satisfying when it's part of your job and you have an endless flow of gear to evaluate and form opinions about. You get to feel smart and capable by exercising your skills.

When you just have your home system day-in, day-out, it's the sonic equivalent of noticing a dead pixel in your TV and never being able to ignore it again.

Or, you go to your friend's house, they excitedly show off their system, and you have to decide whether to tell them all the problems you noticed, or just say "wow, sounds awesome!" You end up feeling dirty either way.

A double-edged sword for sure. It's also a good way to give yourself a bad case of upgradeitis.

The flip side as mentioned earlier is, it's much easier to set up and diagnose a system yourself. But if you train your ears, also train yourself in acceptance.

 

[Elkerton]

Kemmler is right about focusing too much on the equipment. That said, our ears are actually very fine at being able to discern differences in the long term, and a broad 1 dB deviation will be audible under every day conditions regardless of whether one switches back and forth with another eq setting. Again in the long term, whether one setting is bothersome or not depends on all sorts of criteria, which is why one tries to choose transducers that are as neutral as possible.

 

[Phorize]

I try to avoid listening critically, but make an effort to listen to the music mindfully when the situation allows, which in my house is not that often unless I hide at the bottom of the garden!

 

[tengiz]

I often suggest people interested in sound reproduction we measure and. discuss on ASR listen to as much live music as possible.

Many people play an instrument, so that is a way. There are opportunities to see concerts, and rehearsals can sometimes be free. Many performing arts presenters need ushers. Many places have youth bands and symphonies to hear free. Have musician friends and sit in with them. If there is a music school nearby that is golden. If it is purely acoustic music, try to find listening settings where you are not hearing through a microphone and speakers. If one of more instruments are electric, minimize performer-selected electrical systems in your chain, maybe it is an electric guitar with its pickup and on-stage amp-speaker.

Seek out better halls, and outdoor locations to listen.

To me that is ear training.

Then when listening through your system, compare in your mind live to reproduction.

I was extremely fortunate to work in the recording department of a music school. I could walk from the hall or scoring studio to hear live and direct, into a professionally designed control room to listen through the microphones, board, and calibrated playback system, after recording, and then finally the produced out master. There are many differences.

Instruments vary, and performers devote their careers to selecting a specific instrument. If you have a chance, listen around the instrument. The sound of acoustic instruments is going to vary in the nearfield geometry. In bowed instruments, the bow will vary, and every reed instrument player will have stories of good and bad reeds. The temperature and humidiy around the instrument and in the concert hall effects many details of the sound. For outdoor concerts, most musicians bring their lesser backup instrument.

Beyond ear training, if you have musician friends, they will have favorite performances of a specific piece. Ask them why they like one over another and start to hear those kind of differences.

I appreciate the detailed post.

I feel comfortable in understanding how live "analog" music sounds. I have listened since childhood, thanks to my musical family, friends, and formal musical education, and I have kept at it without long breaks. At venues I know well, I even choose seats depending on the program and the performers for the best listening experience. And even if the sound is vastly different in different seats because of the physics of the space, it is all still "real" and "valid".

I am also comfortable with physical acoustics and electrical engineering, since that is my professional background.

Where I fall short is that even if I notice something sounds off, I cannot always put it into proper technical language or connect it directly to measurements. I have picked up a lot over decades in the hobby, but I am clearly not at a pro level.

The reverse is also true. If you show me graphs of two moderately different responses, most of the time I cannot predict how they would sound in practice in my own listening room with the equipment I know well.

So my question is, how far should we take ear training in order to close that gap?

 

[MAB]

What type of training?

Listening for artifacts in lossy CODECs? That is somewhat trainable, down to the content used for evaluation. I don't think that type of training would be of much use in enjoyment, but it is my hunch. The hunch is based on the famous study by Sean Olive.

AES Journal Forum » Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study

The AES Forum is where our members get to interact with each other in between conferences and section meetings.

secure.aes.org

"Listening tests on four different loudspeakers were conducted over the course of 18 months using 36 different groups of listeners. The groups included 256 untrained listeners whose occupations fell into one of four categories: audio retailer, marketing and sales, professional audio reviewer, and college student. The loudspeaker preferences and performance of these listeners were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F statistic FL, were found among the different categories of listeners. The trained listeners were the most discriminating and reliable listeners, with mean FL values 3-27 times higher than the other four listener categories. Performance differences aside, loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent across all categories of listeners, providing evidence that the preferences of trained listeners can be safely extrapolated to a larger population. The highest rated loudspeakers had the flattest measured frequency response maintained uniformly off axis. Effects and interactions between training, programs, and loudspeakers are discussed."

His conclusion that a untrained and trained listeners prefer the same thing, might be a result of everybody enjoying things equally. But I extrapolate quite a bit.

If listening for cause and effect in our rooms, for sure 'training' helps. I think of it as informed experience.

For example, most people's rooms have rattles. Some people also have odd rattles in their speakers. Some are quite audible and irritating. It is incredibly hard to determine a rattling room-vent vs. an internal wire that is making contact with a woofer, to give two specific examples that are often indistinguishable without 'training'. Training would involve learning that some amount of experimentation helps isolate the noise. Segment room from loudspeaker for example. If it's a room-vent, likely the trainee would end up using a sweep of a bass driver to isolate location. Same for the speaker, although it might be easier to just open it up after determining the sound is coming from the speaker. After gaining experience it becomes easier to quickly and confidently do these, so I do consider this an acquired skill. I think this example is part of fixing the 'big issues', but can dog people for ages since rattles can be difficult to diagnose, as evidenced by the many 'help me with a strange sound' threads across various forums, rattles are just one example of a difficult to diagnose problem.

Maybe more to your question, I notice an increasingly large number of members don't seem to be able to relate measurements with in-room sound of a speaker. For sure this is an area where training (aka experience) is incredibly helpful. Amir, Erin, and a host of useful measurements of speakers are now available. We can measure our rooms and speakers now with inexpensive and easy to use microphones. Free analytical software tools abound. A community of practice finally exists. I consider understanding speaker measurements that the largest area of training one could do. What does a speaker with large port resonances actually sound like? How does room placement actually affect the sound? What actually is my preferred in-room response? What sucks more, my room or my speakers? This type of training helps immensely.

 

[Digital_Thor]

After years of DIY, measuring, testing and experimenting. I have kinda found peace with just sitting down and enjoying music.
It's as if I slowly accepted that my measurements were good enough, and I finally seemed to understand how to use and adjust a DSP with resect to filters, room-EQ and multiple subwoofers.
Also, I found that others that went further, did not seem to get better sound - just different. So maybe I was getting close to the best I could do at home?
Actually, I think I will never truly be fully done, it is a lifelong hobby, and that's absolutely ok with me
Definitely I experience that others do not hear what I hear, and they also both think that I did not have the best system, or that it is really good - maybe better then theirs.

Nevertheless, if people do not have a basic desire to fiddle, be curious or even feel they have the knowledge or time - then they won't hear anything more or less.... sometime because they simply have other priorities and wouldn't get to the point, where they would find out, if they actually had better or worse hearing abilities than others.
So the Harman study was quite interesting, because it was only a matter of whether they like the sound or not - removing all the other senses - only hearing.