Perceptual Differences Between Sighted and Unsighted Music Listening

[Anton S]

The live performance/video adds a factor compared to just listening with open/closed eyes. You can see the sounds being generated, you can anticipate a cymbal crash, you can see how many people are singing.

For me, I think I would hear more with eyes closed for music I knew, but more with eyes open for music that is new to me. Not that I am going to test it or anything but that's my guess.

In my mind, there is no visual component to pure music. (But I consider neither ballet nor opera to be pure music, because the stage activities are main focal points.)

When I listen at home, I am aware of a distinct difference in the quality of my audition between keeping my eyes open and closing them. I am more acutely aware of things like the inhalations of the woodwind and brass players, in addition to those of vocalists, with my eyes closed. And, when a full band is playing, I can more easily focus on just one particular instrument and follow it. Also, whenever I listen at home, its to artist that I like because I enjoy the way they sound, and since there is no visual component to the content, my eyes are closed most of the time. The situation when I attend a concert is somewhat different. Yes, I went there primarily to hear the artists play, but also to enjoy their stage presence. In this situation, my eyes are open more than half the time, but they are closed when I want to focus on a particular aspect of the sound.

Those of us who are sighted are visual creatures by nature, and as such, our perception is dominated by visual stimuli. The studies that I've read have concluded that visual stimuli can distort our auditory perception to some degree, and my internalization of my personal experience coincides with those findings. Multiple people have reported that they personally either haven't noticed any difference or that they prefer sighted listening for one reason or another. I don't know what to make of that other than to consider that not every subject in the studies responded identically. Anecdotally, I suspect all responses depended to some extent on how much more dominant the respondents' visual perception was over their auditory perception, but I haven't seen any papers that have investigated the possibility.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

When I listen at home, I am aware of a distinct difference in the quality of my audition between keeping my eyes open and closing them. I am more acutely aware of things like the inhalations of the woodwind and brass players, in addition to those of vocalists, with my eyes closed. And, when a full band is playing, I can more easily focus on just one particular instrument and follow it. Also, whenever I listen at home, its to artist that I like because I enjoy the way they sound, and since there is no visual component to the content, my eyes are closed most of the time. The situation when I attend a concert is somewhat different. Yes, I went there primarily to hear the artists play, but also to enjoy their stage presence. In this situation, my eyes are open more than half the time, but they are closed when I want to focus on a particular aspect of the sound.

There is another aspect that affects this process, specifically language. It is very hard to listen to pure sound. In music, we listen to the violin, or the bass. We focus on an instrument, but we NAME that instrument in our minds.... that brings some expectations, which can alter perception. If I hear rustling of "leaves", I might not hear rustling of fabric that happens at the same time.

I wonder if there is an audio version of the Stroop effect?

 

[ahofer]

I often close my eyes at concerts and compare my perceptions to open. The localization of sound decreases somewhat (shocking!), especially in highly reverberant spaces. But the musicians seem to also come a bit closer. Funny, that.

But I like to watch chamber musicians communicate, so for those concerts I'm always opening again.

 

[egellings]

If I listen with open eyes, I notice that the sound seems to be coming just from the speakers, which it does. If I close my eyes, the sensation I get is that the center fills in better and the sound seems to be more panoramic, or evenly spread out before me. I suspect that the eyes are telling the brain that there are two spaced apart sound sources, so there shouldn't be any center sound, since there is no transducer there. With the eyes closed, that message is gone, and the center seems to fill in better.

 

[Anton S]

There is another aspect that affects this process, specifically language. It is very hard [ for some people ] to listen to pure sound. In music, we listen to the violin, or the bass. We focus on an instrument, but we NAME [ VISUALIZE ] that instrument in our minds.... that brings some expectations [ and these recollections ], which can alter perception. If I hear rustling of "leaves", I might not hear rustling of fabric that happens at the same time.

I wonder if there is an audio version of the Stroop effect?

I've changed your statement above with few edits that make it more accurate for me. I do not have any difficulty just listening with no visual stimulus, but I do tend to visualize the instruments I'm hearing to the point of the type of guitar, whether it's been strung with steel or nylon, and whether its being picked or plucked. Conjuring images like that is much easier with my eyes closed than with them open. Not sure the rustle of leaves would mask the rustle of fabric for me, but masking of one auditory event by another wasn't the focus of this thread.

 

[Anton S]

If I listen with open eyes, I notice that the sound seems to be coming just from the speakers, which it does. If I close my eyes, the sensation I get is that the center fills in better and the sound seems to be more panoramic, or evenly spread out before me. I suspect that the eyes are telling the brain that there are two spaced apart sound sources, so there shouldn't be any center sound, since there is no transducer there. With the eyes closed, that message is gone, and the center seems to fill in better.

I run a gizmo in my audio chain that does a pretty good job of addressing that "hole in the middle" problem, at least to my satisfaction.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I've changed your statement above with few edits that make it more accurate for me. I do not have any difficulty just listening with no visual stimulus, but I do tend to visualize the instruments I'm hearing to the point of the type of guitar, whether it's been strung with steel or nylon, and whether its being picked or plucked. Conjuring images like that is much easier with my eyes closed than with them open. Not sure the rustle of leaves would mask the rustle of fabric for me, but masking of one auditory event by another wasn't the focus of this thread.

I don't think you took my point, which I could have made better... always true for me. So let me clarify my intent.

You are thinking about string material as you listen. You are listening to the strings, that's the context for what you hear. You are analyzing the string sound... as string sound... nylon or steel.

Tell me how you listen to sound without putting categories of meaning on what you hear, labels of instrument or materials. Can you listen to the sound of strings without thinking of them as strings?

As an example, suppose someone had never heard whale songs, and did not know whales sang. Then they were asked to listen to "this recording, not going to tell you what it is, just tell me what you hear." In that situation, without preconceptions or labels or reference, I can see how a person would hear "pure sounds".

Would that be different than someone hearing "whale songs" for the first time? I think so.

 

[Anton S]

...Tell me how you listen to sound without putting categories of meaning on what you hear, labels of instrument or materials. Can you listen to the sound of strings without thinking of them as strings?

 

[Anton S]

For me it's the process of forming a mental image of what I'm hearing. Categories and labels don't enter into it.

 

[Anton S]

As an example, suppose someone had never heard whale songs, and did not know whales sang. Then they were asked to listen to "this recording, not going to tell you what it is, just tell me what you hear." In that situation, without preconceptions or labels or reference, I can see how a person would hear "pure sounds".

Would that be different than someone hearing "whale songs" for the first time? I think so.

When I hear sounds in music that I've never before heard, I'm unable to form mental images of them. It's that simple.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

For me it's the process of forming a mental image of what I'm hearing. Categories and labels don't enter into it.

It's the mental image that pulls me out of pure listening to sound.

I learned to draw realistically, which involved some exercises to learn to go from eyes to drawing without screwing things up with "labels". As soon as I thought about a "hand", things would get cartoon like. But if I did not use any labels, hours would go by without me noticing, and things would look good. I would not think about drawing anything, I would just draw.

Can I just "listen"? For music I can get there briefly, very briefly. A few seconds. It's easier if I am drowsy. But a thought of an "instrument" changes that. I'm not sure how to train myself to avoid labels when listening to music produced by instruments. Because I know what instruments sound like and how they are played, and that matters to the sound that is produced.

I don't mind that, in fact I have sought it. Fidelity, transparency, sound stage, imaging.

That said, there are people who don't have an internal dialogue. I can see how those people would experience music in a very different way, without words getting applied to the sounds.

 

[Anton S]

It's the mental image that pulls me out of pure listening to sound.

I learned to draw realistically, which involved some exercises to learn to go from eyes to drawing without screwing things up with "labels". As soon as I thought about a "hand", things would get cartoon like. But if I did not use any labels, hours would go by without me noticing, and things would look good. I would not think about drawing anything, I would just draw.

Can I just "listen"? For music I can get there briefly, very briefly. A few seconds. It's easier if I am drowsy. But a thought of an "instrument" changes that. I'm not sure how to train myself to avoid labels when listening to music produced by instruments. Because I know what instruments sound like and how they are played, and that matters to the sound that is produced.

I don't mind that, in fact I have sought it. Fidelity, transparency, sound stage, imaging.

That said, there are people who don't have an internal dialogue. I can see how those people would experience music in a very different way, without words getting applied to the sounds.

I believe that you and I gravitate toward different types of cognition, but that's okay. This cognitive difference used to be referred to as "left-brained" thinking vs. "right-brained." Those terms have fallen out of fashion, and recent research indicates that "left-brained" and "right-brained" cognitive functions may be less localized than previously thought. Nevertheless, there is still be some validity in differentiating among the various types of cognition. I know that I am naturally drawn to what used to be called right-brained activities, as most left-handed people are. I can perform well at verbal, logical, analytical, and verbal tasks, but do find them more fatiguing than artistic, creative, and imaginative endeavors.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I believe that you and I gravitate toward different types of cognition, but that's okay. This cognitive difference used to be referred to as "left-brained" thinking vs. "right-brained." Those terms have fallen out of fashion, and recent research indicates that "left-brained" and "right-brained" cognitive functions may be less localized than previously thought. Nevertheless, there is still be some validity in differentiating among the various types of cognition. I know that I am naturally drawn to what used to be called right-brained activities, as most left-handed people are. I can perform well at verbal, logical, analytical, and verbal tasks, but do find them more fatiguing than artistic, creative, and imaginative endeavors.

Agreed, pretty clearly on the cognition types.

I am very left brained in those terms, though I have managed to go right brain for a few things. I think I can add one thing to this discussion.

When I was drawing, I would dip into left brain to pick a 2b versus a 4b pencil (had to to read the pencil), but then get right back into right brain. That's the part that I have difficulty with for music, getting back on the right. I would be a terrible jazz musician.

For you, I would say thinking "steel or nylon string" has to involve left brain in some way given words and some analysis, but you jump back quickly to right.

I do plan to experiment, perhaps a better right brain term would be "play", with this and music this summer, when I have time. So thanks for the discussion, and for giving me another way to play with music. I would love to be able to have another mode of listening in my quiver. If I can do it with visual information, I know it is possible for me.

 

[Anton S]

For you, I would say thinking "steel or nylon string" has to involve left brain in some way given words and some analysis, but you jump back quickly to right.

When I hear the string, My mind conjures up an image of it, not a category type. I just see it. However, I would agree that the process of zooming in on a specific instrument or voice to bring it into clear focus likely does involve some left-brain (analytical) activity, but that is transitory and ceases once I'm locked onto that particular sound.

I am unable to form images of instruments with which I am unfamiliar, but a couple YouTube videos can easily establish those. Occasionally, I may forget the name of a particular novel instrument that I rarely hear. Yet, its image persists. That's how visual I am.

 

[Galliardist]

The post here, from a rather awkward discussion about timbre, contains a description of and a link to a relevant video. It is long - but it contains much useful information about perception, some of which may frame this conversation well.

I'll reference and thank our poster, @chervokas

What is timbre and can we measure it?

I’m starting to get the hang of it. The underlying components like frequency, harmonic structure, SPL are all measurable. However the brain constructs timbre from the underlying components. How each brain constructs timbre can differ. This brain constructed “timbre” is not measurable. There...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[RayDunzl]

When doing nothing but listening...

I tend to settle into the couch, eyes close...

An imaginary scene of the musicians occurs in my imagination, well supported by the system...

Sometimes enter a state of trance...

And may not notice when the music ends, for a bit, because parts of it are still playing in my mind.

It's been a while, being occupied with other things.

 

[Anton S]

@Galliardist

Great video! I was able to shorten the playback time considerably, because it was still easy to digest at a 1.5 playback speed.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

I do plan to experiment, perhaps a better right brain term would be "play", with this and music...

Well, that went well and quickly.

Normally I would say I "follow" the music, but after some thought on this issue I decided to try to let the music "carry me along". So I put on something I can't really follow (Giant Steps) and....

Yeah, no, but yeah.

Yeah, I started to feel my brain switching gears a bit which I can feel given past experience... no it did not get me where I wanted to be... but yeah....

Turns out that if I let my face go full Joe Cocker (not suitable for public spaces), I start to feel more, and I stop thinking about the music analytically. More face, more emotional processing (hot cognition), and less cold cognition.

So that's the method for me. It will take some practice to get into that as a steady mode of music consumption though. And I doubt I will ever be able to maintain that state of mind when lyrics are involved. But I have a method and I know the feeling I am after, so that's the hard part done.

So many thanks, again, for inspiring me to try this!

 

[ozzy9832001]

When doing nothing but listening...

I tend to settle into the couch, eyes close...

An imaginary scene of the musicians occurs in my imagination, well supported by the system...

Sometimes enter a state of trance...

And may not notice when the music ends, for a bit, because parts of it are still playing in my mind.

It's been a while, being occupied with other things.

This is me right here.

Listening with eyes closed is a much better experience.

 

[EJ3]

If I close my eyes for more than a few minutes, I am most likely going to sleep (it may take me an hour to get there with the back ground noise) but...

My wife hates music without singing. I find music with singing hard to fall asleep to'
In general, my wife doesn't care for music at all, so usually falling asleep is easy: low noise level, close my eyes.