[tussinette]

This post is going to be a long one. Just that you know.

Subject: what is an audiophile and how to actively become one?

Introduction: I do not consider myself an audiophile. I am just someone that likes to listen to music, especially on some equipment and not so much on some other equipment.
The easy answer here is to tell me: “Good. What more do you need? You know what you like and you know what you don’t. Bye.”
Fair point. But this easy answer is foremost the lazy answer. You see, I have a lot of defects and one of these is to be French. As any respectful French person, I have been explained how to identify a good wine from a bad one. Later, when I was 18 years old (), I went for oenology courses. There is no way I would be able to appreciate wine as I can today would I not have followed these courses. Later on, I went for a trip to Scotland and learn as much as I could about tasting Single Malt Scotch Whisky.

What has been done with the inside of my mouth twice should be replicable with the inside of my ears! But who can teach me?

Naturally I asked my best friend about it (GOOGLE) and the answer was much less straightforward than I thought.
The answers I found usually contain two elements, none of which satisfy me:
- Listen to music (without guidance this cannot work or at least it did not for me so far)
- Your whole chain needs to be top notch and THEN you will hear the difference
At this point, the next advice could be: pretend to know what you are talking about, it is all in the attitude...

So, I went another way. How are headphones judged? What is the difference between good and bad headphones? How can I learn to hear it?
Frequency response graph… Just kidding
I found an article on a website that was more useful than what I had found so far.
It was about how the reporter for this hi-fi website was evaluated a headphone. I will try to use them to improve my Audiophile skills. These are the categories:

Overall balance
All frequencies in the frequency range should be represented without being accentuated or rolled off. My guess is that this is where personal taste will hit in.
What I take from this in order to improve my skills:
Find a song I am familiar with (because it is likely that I heard it on several systems already so I should “know” the different frequencies), listen to it with a really bad headphone and with my best one and try to see which frequencies are missing and exposed.
- Frequency groups being:
- Low-bass: 10-50 Hertz
- Musical bass: 50-100 Hertz
- Upper-bass: 100-200 Hertz
- Midrange: 200-3000 Hertz
- Treble: 3000-20000 Hertz
I can also use an equalizer on my PC or DAP to exaggerate or attenuate these frequencies individually and listen the effect. There are also some other classification by type of instrument per range and other “effects types” like sibilance, presence, “air”… I can get familiar with these.

Midrange quality -
I think that this is what I am the most sensible to but… I have no fchn’ clue…
So what is said in the whathifi article is that this frequency matters because this is where we should find the vocals. As per the article: clarity, stability and warmth are a concern.
Here I block a bit. What is stability? Stability in the frequencies’ “strength”/balance? If the frequencies must be flat, where does the warmth come from?
Then, there is a mention that there needs to be “support from lower” frequencies or the vocals can sound thin. So, a bit of upper bass boost can give the vocals some thickness. Noted.
How can I train this?
Listen to songs with dominant vocals with different headphones or by modifying EQ.

Bass control
The bass must be tight, agile, articulate.
How can I train this?
Listen to music with complex basslines and focus on the details. Can I really here what happens or just a rumble.

Treble quality
High frequencies should be clear but not make ears bleed.
How can I train this?
Not sure for this. Maybe find music with high pitched horns and focus on the quality. Maybe play with IQ to see when it hurts?
I also heard that some people are more treble sensitive than others so I guess, this is also a question of finding what one likes. If I am not mistaken, it is also easier to listen to music for long period of time when highs are a bit rolled off. Flip side: I guess sharp highs will prevent me from pushing the volume too… high.

Level of detail
The article defines it as how many parts can be heard in a complex orchestration. Is this what is sometimes referred to as separation?
To improve:
Listen to music pieces with a lot going on at the same time and try to hear as many layers as possible. (this I know I love… so let’s love it more!)

Space
Not sure what is meant here as the article speaks about two things:
The ability to judge the size of the “room” where the instruments have been played/recorded
The space between the instruments
How to improve?
Listening to a song from an album and the same song live? Maybe? I am really not sure and any help is welcome!

Rhythm and timing
The article sounds a bit bogus to me at this point, stating that your headphones should be able to play polyrhythm as well as 4/4… Wait, WHAT?!
Maybe the ability to keep up with fast rhythmic or energic pieces?
Skill improvement:
Use good and bad headphones to try to find “pace” issues on fast and busy music (something like Jamiroquai or RHCP maybe…)

Dynamic range
Difference between sound volumes.
Improvement:
Listen to music with large DR, classic for example. Also, try to hear the difference between a heavily compressed MP3 and a Lossless song.

Subtlety
Listening to softly played music?
Improvement?
If I understand correctly, this concerns testing the headphones with calm music or at low level. This is actually pretty interesting as the character of the headphones can indeed change depending how loud they are listened at. Changing the listening volume and noticing the changes in the sound quality (dynamic, EQ…). I think this can be interesting as LOUD often sounds better even when it isn’t.

I had a Pioneer “hifi” system in the 80s and I remember the Loudness function. It boosted the Bass and Treble (mainly the bass) for low level listening.

Last category in the article:
excitement, enthusiasm and drive
Basically, does the music make you want to move.
How to train it?
Like other points, just being conscient of it will go a long way I think. I was always conscient of this. Headphones need to do one of two things for me to use them:
- Make me beat the rhythm
- Make me smile

Please share any thought, advice and resources that could help me learn faster.
What do you thing of the relevance of the categories?
Do you think some of them are useless?
Do you think some have been omitted?

Thanks for your help and maybe collaboration to create a TAO to Audiophilie!

 

[Evshrug]

As someone who is trying to make a YouTube series specifically on training your ears on what to listen for and what specs to look for when selecting gear, I think you took a very logical approach. I will take a slightly different approach, but I did read your whole post

(Nothing wrong with being French, I am French and German descent, if you can forgive me for being an American bully and “Smart Alec!”)

I think all new audiophiles should avoid these three mistakes:


What is an audiophile?
If we take the Greek root “philos” and loosely translate it as “lover of,” it becomes obvious what the word audiophile was originally intended to mean. It’s a nice sentiment that we all can get behind. However, in just a few recent years, Audiophile has also become a derisive remark used by people in Sound Science forums to label “fools” who will emotionally buy anything if they think it will make them happy, meanwhile the people who are here just for fun think an audiophile is someone who takes their gear and their specs so seriously that they miss out on the bigger picture and ironically close their minds against unknowns that they don’t even realize they don’t know (because they think they know everything, like a “Smart Alec”). I’m sure you can see, when it’s laid out like that, both “sides” clearly are both very passionate about audio despite not wanting to self-identify as an audiophile So, I believe if you care about audio enough to research it and enjoy it, I think you are a positive audiophile no matter how much experience you have so far

There are specific things to listen for to evaluate headphones, amps, DACs, and the rest of your signal chain, and various benefits gained by upgrading each. I made an introductory overview video, and I’m working on breaking down each component into their own “deep dive” videos:


Right now, I’m still trying to lay the technical groundwork for understanding all the parts of the system, to “get them done and out of the way,” so to speak. While I’ve had 11 years and some very knowledgeable friends to teach me the science, and exploration is the best teacher, I still think it should all be in service of enjoying music, games, movies, and all audio media. So, I’m trying to coach people through “the hard part” so we can explore in a guided fashion. That said, I will probably interrupt the logical playlist of videos to share my opinions on things, like how to evaluate headphones.


So, how do I evaluate headphones?
It looks like you’ve already looked up how to read frequency response graphs. Phew! That’s a relief! I’ll skip that for now... because regardless of how loud a frequency is in response to another (what FR graphs show), things like timbre and soundstage spaciousness and imaging and “rhythm and timing” can be surprisingly detached from a FR graph.

Timbre is a word easy enough to look up, but it relates to your section about “midrange quality” – really, it applies to all frequencies. A C note on a piano sounds quite different from a C note on a violin, flute, or xylophone! How “real” does an instrument sound to you, is the headphone clear enough to convey the subtle character of an instrument? When a headphone doesn’t add its own character or “color” to all instruments and is able to present each instrument as itself and distinct from another, seasoned reviewers say a headphone has good “transparency.”

That’s not to say transparency is the only path to a good time... sometimes we like a “warm” bass that emphasizes harmonic sounds higher up in frequency, potentially softening the bite of some midrange and treble notes in exchange for a sense of a meatier bass response. A “loose” or “muddy” bass can take this too far, where the bass notes are both masking other details and taking longer to decay than what is in the recording.

That leads us to the common but misleadingly labeled “Pace, Rythmn, and Timing” (PRAT). If a song is recorded in 4/4, the music will still playback with the same timing and rythmn This is not like a vinyl record player with a slow belt, which actually WOULD change the timing (and make all sounds pitch slightly lower and warmer)! I’ve come to use the term “agility” and “responsiveness” to better describe what reviewers are referring to here. To create a sound, a driver membrane must respond to an electromagnetic impulse to move and vibrate at the correct frequency to create the frequency of a note, but mass and inertia come into play. If the inertia makes the driver “slow” to respond and change the frequency of its vibration, or stop altogether, reviewers say the sensation of rythmn and timing is “poor” because the changes are blurred together and less crisp. A headphone with very good impulse response seems very responsive and agile, because the leading and ending edge of each note is very precise and accurate to the recording.

You can see now how the underlying physics of the driver’s magnetic field and mass can contribute to the “agility” or impulse response of a headphone. If you’re curious about the different driver types and how they’re designed, I have finished a video about that too:



You also can probably tell how a frequency response chart would show none of this, as they are created by smoothly playing one synthetic note continuously as it rises in pitch/frequency. Square waves and waterfall plots specifically do show how a headphone driver responds, but like the frequency response graphs they can only give you a slice of the whole experience. After 11 years, I’m still learning, and I don’t yet know a graph that can accurately quantify how you will perceive the soundstage depth and precision of the directional imaging. One of the most frustrating things for me to see in the growth of an audiophile is when they get too stuck on graphs, and “miss the forest for the trees.” They get too stuck on one thing, thinking it explains everything to know about what to expect, when in reality the experience of the whole thing while enjoying music and audio NEVER sounds like its graphs. Never.

So, the BEST way to learn is indeed to try and compare different headphones, listening for timbre, transparency, responsiveness, imaging, and soundstage size. Along the way, expect some surprises, and thank goodness or else the journey would get boring The second best way to research is to read many reviews to get a sense of the collective gestalt and how people generally perceive a headphone. Since reviews and impressions are so useful in building a consensus, I have respect and admiration for anyone who shares their experience and their journey

 

[Evshrug]

I guess sharp highs will prevent me from pushing the volume too… high.

By the way, I believe the dynamic range of volume is more dictated by the recording, though some reviewers say a headphone is more “dynamic” if the bass has more emphasis and still has a lot of presence during quiet passages or quiet playback.

However, the limits of your amplifier’s power and signal to noise ratio (SNR, S:N) also play into this. Sometimes, a less powerful amp or an amp that has a low slew rate will “hit a ceiling” and the playback will be distorted, sounding artificial and just like they hit a limit of volume. A higher quality amp will also help a headphone perform as designed at the extension of its bass and treble ranges, and that’s often one of the first things people notice after going from a laptop headphone output jack to a standalone DAC/amp.

 

[tussinette]

As someone who is trying to make a YouTube series specifically on training your ears on what to listen for and what specs to look for when selecting gear, I think you took a very logical approach. I will take a slightly different approach, but I did read your whole post

(Nothing wrong with being French, I am French and German descent, if you can forgive me for being an American bully and “Smart Alec!”)

I think all new audiophiles should avoid these three mistakes:


What is an audiophile?
If we take the Greek root “philos” and loosely translate it as “lover of,” it becomes obvious what the word audiophile was originally intended to mean. It’s a nice sentiment that we all can get behind. However, in just a few recent years, Audiophile has also become a derisive remark used by people in Sound Science forums to label “fools” who will emotionally buy anything if they think it will make them happy, meanwhile the people who are here just for fun think an audiophile is someone who takes their gear and their specs so seriously that they miss out on the bigger picture and ironically close their minds against unknowns that they don’t even realize they don’t know (because they think they know everything, like a “Smart Alec”). I’m sure you can see, when it’s laid out like that, both “sides” clearly are both very passionate about audio despite not wanting to self-identify as an audiophile So, I believe if you care about audio enough to research it and enjoy it, I think you are a positive audiophile no matter how much experience you have so far

There are specific things to listen for to evaluate headphones, amps, DACs, and the rest of your signal chain, and various benefits gained by upgrading each. I made an introductory overview video, and I’m working on breaking down each component into their own “deep dive” videos:


Right now, I’m still trying to lay the technical groundwork for understanding all the parts of the system, to “get them done and out of the way,” so to speak. While I’ve had 11 years and some very knowledgeable friends to teach me the science, and exploration is the best teacher, I still think it should all be in service of enjoying music, games, movies, and all audio media. So, I’m trying to coach people through “the hard part” so we can explore in a guided fashion. That said, I will probably interrupt the logical playlist of videos to share my opinions on things, like how to evaluate headphones.


So, how do I evaluate headphones?
It looks like you’ve already looked up how to read frequency response graphs. Phew! That’s a relief! I’ll skip that for now... because regardless of how loud a frequency is in response to another (what FR graphs show), things like timbre and soundstage spaciousness and imaging and “rhythm and timing” can be surprisingly detached from a FR graph.

Timbre is a word easy enough to look up, but it relates to your section about “midrange quality” – really, it applies to all frequencies. A C note on a piano sounds quite different from a C note on a violin, flute, or xylophone! How “real” does an instrument sound to you, is the headphone clear enough to convey the subtle character of an instrument? When a headphone doesn’t add its own character or “color” to all instruments and is able to present each instrument as itself and distinct from another, seasoned reviewers say a headphone has good “transparency.”

That’s not to say transparency is the only path to a good time... sometimes we like a “warm” bass that emphasizes harmonic sounds higher up in frequency, potentially softening the bite of some midrange and treble notes in exchange for a sense of a meatier bass response. A “loose” or “muddy” bass can take this too far, where the bass notes are both masking other details and taking longer to decay than what is in the recording.

That leads us to the common but misleadingly labeled “Pace, Rythmn, and Timing” (PRAT). If a song is recorded in 4/4, the music will still playback with the same timing and rythmn This is not like a vinyl record player with a slow belt, which actually WOULD change the timing (and make all sounds pitch slightly lower and warmer)! I’ve come to use the term “agility” and “responsiveness” to better describe what reviewers are referring to here. To create a sound, a driver membrane must respond to an electromagnetic impulse to move and vibrate at the correct frequency to create the frequency of a note, but mass and inertia come into play. If the inertia makes the driver “slow” to respond and change the frequency of its vibration, or stop altogether, reviewers say the sensation of rythmn and timing is “poor” because the changes are blurred together and less crisp. A headphone with very good impulse response seems very responsive and agile, because the leading and ending edge of each note is very precise and accurate to the recording.

You can see now how the underlying physics of the driver’s magnetic field and mass can contribute to the “agility” or impulse response of a headphone. If you’re curious about the different driver types and how they’re designed, I have finished a video about that too:



You also can probably tell how a frequency response chart would show none of this, as they are created by smoothly playing one synthetic note continuously as it rises in pitch/frequency. Square waves and waterfall plots specifically do show how a headphone driver responds, but like the frequency response graphs they can only give you a slice of the whole experience. After 11 years, I’m still learning, and I don’t yet know a graph that can accurately quantify how you will perceive the soundstage depth and precision of the directional imaging. One of the most frustrating things for me to see in the growth of an audiophile is when they get too stuck on graphs, and “miss the forest for the trees.” They get too stuck on one thing, thinking it explains everything to know about what to expect, when in reality the experience of the whole thing while enjoying music and audio NEVER sounds like its graphs. Never.

So, the BEST way to learn is indeed to try and compare different headphones, listening for timbre, transparency, responsiveness, imaging, and soundstage size. Along the way, expect some surprises, and thank goodness or else the journey would get boring The second best way to research is to read many reviews to get a sense of the collective gestalt and how people generally perceive a headphone. Since reviews and impressions are so useful in building a consensus, I have respect and admiration for anyone who shares their experience and their journey

Subscribed!

 

[tussinette]

By the way, I believe the dynamic range of volume is more dictated by the recording, though some reviewers say a headphone is more “dynamic” if the bass has more emphasis and still has a lot of presence during quiet passages or quiet playback.

However, the limits of your amplifier’s power and signal to noise ratio (SNR, S:N) also play into this. Sometimes, a less powerful amp or an amp that has a low slew rate will “hit a ceiling” and the playback will be distorted, sounding artificial and just like they hit a limit of volume. A higher quality amp will also help a headphone perform as designed at the extension of its bass and treble ranges, and that’s often one of the first things people notice after going from a laptop headphone output jack to a standalone DAC/amp.

Hi Evshrug,

thank you very much for ALL the details. It will take me a few days to go through all these...

Can I ask you a question already however? I have 2 DAC/Amps (on in the phone and one in a portable amp). They have a Digital filter setting:
- short, sharp or slow for one
- normal, slow1 and slow2 for the other device

I understand that this is a difference in how the digital signal is treated when transformed into an Audio signal. But when is which setting suitable?
Also, for the moment, my untrained ears cannot spot any difference. What should I pay attention to when switching from one tho the other? Compression?

Thanks again for your help, and you got yourself a new follower

 

[Roseval]

In case of wine we have oenologists and alcoholics.
In case of audio we have trained listeners and audiophiles.

So training is the answer indeed
You might try https://www.soundgym.co/
A couple more: https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/AudioTools/AudioTest.htm

 

[jimbop54]

I have been a music lover and an equipment lover since my teenage Yyears. I am now in my mid-60’s. I have also been a musician (bass guitar and upright bass) for that entire time. I don’t consider myself an “audiophile” even though other people might label me as such. I would consider myself to be an “audio enthusiast” or an “audio hobbyist”. I enjoy music from both an entertainment viewpoint, but also (as a musician) from an educational viewpoint, and so I listen to music daily.

In both the stereo equipment realm and the musical equipment realm I have been very active in trying many, many pieces of gear in my lifetime. When evaluating gear of any kind, I listen very closely for many of the attributes described in this thread. However, it’s not because I am trying to find the “best” piece of gear, but simply to enjoy the experience of trying lots of different gear, and then settling on something for a period of time, until I can afford to try something else. I don’t have the money to pursue “the best” equipment, and so I dabble in the hobby within my limited budget just for the enjoyment.

It’s no different than my interests in food, or coffee, or activities. I sample many different kinds of coffee. I’m not trying to find the “best” coffee and then only drink that coffee - I just enjoy the experience of having tasted many different coffees. I have preferences for certain kinds of coffee, but I don’t criticize other coffee for not being good enough.

To ask “How do I become be an audiophile?” seems like an odd question.

 

[tussinette]

I have been a music lover and an equipment lover since my teenage Yyears. I am now in my mid-60’s. I have also been a musician (bass guitar and upright bass) for that entire time. I don’t consider myself an “audiophile” even though other people might label me as such. I would consider myself to be an “audio enthusiast” or an “audio hobbyist”. I enjoy music from both an entertainment viewpoint, but also (as a musician) from an educational viewpoint, and so I listen to music daily.

In both the stereo equipment realm and the musical equipment realm I have been very active in trying many, many pieces of gear in my lifetime. When evaluating gear of any kind, I listen very closely for many of the attributes described in this thread. However, it’s not because I am trying to find the “best” piece of gear, but simply to enjoy the experience of trying lots of different gear, and then settling on something for a period of time, until I can afford to try something else. I don’t have the money to pursue “the best” equipment, and so I dabble in the hobby within my limited budget just for the enjoyment.

It’s no different than my interests in food, or coffee, or activities. I sample many different kinds of coffee. I’m not trying to find the “best” coffee and then only drink that coffee - I just enjoy the experience of having tasted many different coffees. I have preferences for certain kinds of coffee, but I don’t criticize other coffee for not being good enough.

To ask “How do I become be an audiophile?” seems like an odd question.

Hi Jimbop54,

It is indeed a strange question. I guess, a better formulation would have been:
What are efficient ways to develop my ears so that I can fully appreciate good equipment?

Some people can just enjoy things for what they are. I am not so fortunate and I always try to learn more, faster. Sometimes it is good. Sometimes it is bad. In this case, I am not sure yet.

I play the piano and guitar. I play a guitar and I know immediately if I love the feel, if I love the sound. But for some reason, I struggle much more with headphones. There are more nuances. More subtleties. There are some headphones I like, some I hate but I cannot hear much nuances. This is what I would like to lear.

For example: these days I am using 3 headphones:
1MORE Triple Driver Over ear (it is an over ear for me... yes, I have small ears... at least I am lucky with that I guess), Sony MDR-7506 and Austrian Audio hi-x55. So less than 100USD for the Sony, 245USD for the 1More (even if I paid less) and 350USD for the Austrian Audio.
For the moment I do not appreciate them much as the main difference I hear is the bass level (my favorite is actually the Sony...). What I want is to learn to appreciate them fully for what they are. As you said, like having a different type of coffee but being able to really enjoy it.

I received very interesting answers so far and I have the feeling that the journey is going to be an interesting one...

Cheers! and thanks for having taken the time to share your experience.

 

[Evshrug]

They have a Digital filter setting:
- short, sharp or slow for one
- normal, slow1 and slow2 for the other device

Oh boy, you are going DEEP down the rabbit hole, right away!
In short, it’s very difficult to hear the differences

Longer answer: this has to do with the filtering and aliasing used to convert the “steps” of a digitally sampled sine wave into a more analog curve, and also the pre ringing and post ringing from an impulse. I’ve read that the normal/short filter will have a more natural decay, while the slow/sharp options will have a more abrupt initial impulse “hit” (if you think about drum hits) and more ringing in the decay.

I could talk more about it, but essentially the difference is happening at 20 kHz - 22 kHz frequencies, which are beyond the limit of most adult humans’ hearing range. Like... there are raging debates from academics, and maybe children and teens can slightly hear a difference with CD quality audio, but with high-res audio this ringing is pushed up into like 40 kHz - 44 kHz ranges, and frankly most of us wouldn’t be able to hear a difference under the best (worst?) of conditions.

 

[tussinette]

Oh boy, you are going DEEP down the rabbit hole, right away!
In short, it’s very difficult to hear the differences

Longer answer: this has to do with the filtering and aliasing used to convert the “steps” of a digitally sampled sine wave into a more analog curve, and also the pre ringing and post ringing from an impulse. I’ve read that the normal/short filter will have a more natural decay, while the slow/sharp options will have a more abrupt initial impulse “hit” (if you think about drum hits) and more ringing in the decay.

I could talk more about it, but essentially the difference is happening at 20 kHz - 22 kHz frequencies, which are beyond the limit of most adult humans’ hearing range. Like... there are raging debates from academics, and maybe children and teens can slightly hear a difference with CD quality audio, but with high-res audio this ringing is pushed up into like 40 kHz - 44 kHz ranges, and frankly most of us wouldn’t be able to hear a difference under the best (worst?) of conditions.

Lol. I could hear up to slightly higher than 15 kHz last time it has been measured... maybe if my dog wants to borough the headphones it could have an impact. Give me a sec, I will ask him... Oreo! Oreo! Ok, visibly he doesn't give a d...

Thanks for your kind help. I am still getting used to my new headphones. The main benefit to the "rabbit hole" thing is for me to discover new artists. I don't know why but every time I get new headphones I start to dig in new music styles. Tonight I digged deep in Japanese Jazz from the 70s

Sorry, I don't want to bother you with my life. BIG thanks for your kind help. Really appreciated.

Merci beaucoup Monsieur Evshrug et à la prochaine!
Vielen Dank und bis zum nächsten Mal. (I speak German too btw because I am born in Strasbourg, just at the German border)

 

[Evshrug]

Jusqu'à la prochaine fois !
I never studied German, but sometimes if I relax and just listen, it makes sense. I can’t speak it, though I think it would come in handy for me

 

[ProtegeManiac]

Subject: what is an audiophile and how to actively become one?

Well what kind of audiophile do you want to be?

Because on one hand there's a guy who loves music and wants to make the most out of playback of what we loves listening to.

On the other hand there are dudes who don't listen to music with their playback systems, and instead listen to their playback systems using music.

It's one thing to do the latter as a matter of selecting equipment, quite another to just be doing that most of the time instead of having settled on a system and just listening to that as much as possible and only familiarizing oneself with other equipment, and quite another to perpetually obsess over the equipment.

Introduction: I do not consider myself an audiophile. I am just someone that likes to listen to music, especially on some equipment and not so much on some other equipment.
The easy answer here is to tell me: “Good. What more do you need? You know what you like and you know what you don’t. Bye.”
Fair point. But this easy answer is foremost the lazy answer. You see, I have a lot of defects and one of these is to be French. As any respectful French person, I have been explained how to identify a good wine from a bad one. Later, when I was 18 years old (), I went for oenology courses. There is no way I would be able to appreciate wine as I can today would I not have followed these courses. Later on, I went for a trip to Scotland and learn as much as I could about tasting Single Malt Scotch Whisky.

What has been done with the inside of my mouth twice should be replicable with the inside of my ears! But who can teach me?

Naturally I asked my best friend about it (GOOGLE) and the answer was much less straightforward than I thought.
The answers I found usually contain two elements, none of which satisfy me:
- Listen to music (without guidance this cannot work or at least it did not for me so far)
- Your whole chain needs to be top notch and THEN you will hear the difference
At this point, the next advice could be: pretend to know what you are talking about, it is all in the attitude...

It'll all go back to that though but instead of a wine course or a trip to Scotland the question is what does live music sound like to you.

And even then it won't be a straightforward answer. Have you listened to jazz at a jazz club, or an orchestra or opera, or even just a string quartet on the street or while you're enjoying hors d'oeuvres or? Nice, there's a reference for you should shoot for at home, if smaller (in the case of the orchestra). But what if you listen to amplified music in less than ideal conditions like a stadium? At that point there's the question of how you can attribute spatial information in the recording vs a live acoustic jazz performance to amplifiers that aren't arrayed exactly where each element is. A guitarist or hell even a vocalist in an acoustic jazz band can move around and his/her voice will still come from the same speaker, unlike say proper studio recording of The Phantom of the Opera where you can hear the lead voices moving towards each other in the center of the soundstage just as they do on stage.

Being French isn't a curse here - look up brick and mortar stores and try to listen to what a system built around something like a Focal Grande Utopia sounds like. Or look around for a car with a Focal sticker, maybe the owner might let you sit in the driver's seat and listen while parked if you buy him some moules mariniere (damnit I'm hungry now), assuming he had it installed properly, and enjoy how there's a sense of space between the voice out in front and the percussion behind that.

Basically, like how Kira Yamato and Rau Le Creuset couldn't comprehend each other because "you (Rau) don't know anything else!...People only know what they experienced!" (this is the English subtitle, this exchange in the last episode of Gundam SEED might be a little different in the dubs), you have to experience it, and not something you can read about and just know it. It's like how I can't describe how properly (ie not under or over) aged miso or using a lot of dried anchovies makes for a lot of umami in ramen or how I can find expensive Japanese shoyu or even decent Korean ganjang vs cheap Philippine soy sauce in a blind test (dark soy sauce in the Phl isn't even as complex nor the same salty punch as light soy sauce in Japan) where I only use my nose and my tongue and can approximate how much I need to make an anchovy-enriched sauce to go with a very clear chicken and anchovy stock is something I built up over the years cooking with soy sauce and eating ramen and other noodle soups. I can share my notes on it but in the end whoever is reading it has to indulge in the same obsessive activities, and even then that's no guarantee they'll understand why I prefer either a very clear chicken-y dried anchovy+smoked skipjack-enhanced broth simmered over 24hrs or a creamy pork and dried anchovy+smoked skipjack-enhanced broth that was emulsifying fat and collagen in a violent rolling boil for 12hrs and how I want the miso or soy sauce in there (that even then I'd even blend between salty light soy sauce and deep, complex aged soy sauce) served still steaming over, say, a Chinese master stock (beef) where the diner just adds lukewarm soy sauce to at the table. Or what cold cuts or tartare+noodle dish+meat or fish or sandwich I'd pair with what beer.

If none of that makes sense to you, that's exactly the point. Think of how you'd explain wine to somebody that doesn't really care beyond "not sour, and as long as it's the right kind for stewing beef or chicken" or why you need at least a decent rum to sub for calvados in tarte Tatin (speaking of which, I have quarter of one left, excuse me). Or how do you explain to somebody without functional taste buds much less know what "emulsify" means as to why butter from Brittany is better than margarine that they think is the same as butter.

So, I went another way. How are headphones judged? What is the difference between good and bad headphones? How can I learn to hear it?
Frequency response graph… Just kidding

The response measurements will give you an idea of what sort of compromises were made with that headphone. It's kind of like looking at spec sheets and lab tests on car where one has a lot of power but pulls a 0.92g doing doughnuts (ie the arc isn't consistent) and is slow on slalom tests, telling you the handling kind of sucks; one car pulls 0.99g and is very quick on the slalom, its 0-100kph time is quick but then falters at 90kph to 150kph acceleration tests even if you downshift, telling you they got the handling right by having a small engine so as not to screw with the weight balance of the chassis; and then the third car pulls 1.01g and is just as quick on the slalom and is fastest when accelerating, and you can tell this car requires you to be the sort of guy that spends weekends at Monaco to buy it, or it's from some barn in the UK so you can afford it but the interior is all carbon fibre and grippy fabric and a 6pt harness (look up the Ultima GTR) and just sucks for driving as a commuter. And yet, in the end, your driving them around town and the track will be what makes you decide which one to get based on what you need or how confident you felt in that Lotus Evora or that old NSX that, hey, to hell with how low one is or how old the other is (never mind that their engines aren't exactly individually signed like a V12 from Warwickshire or Maranello) or you just love how you can change the vector on that old 911 by lightly lifting your right foot (and love the idea that one mistake and you're tumbling down that cliff)..

I mean I can tell you that miso fermented in, and chemically brewed soy sauce or soy sauce brewed in a hot climate, are nothing to how the Japanese do it the same way that shrimp paste and the by product, fish sauce, are better done in a warm, humid climate like SEAsia (or hell, garum in Italy or Worcestershire in kinda rainy with warm summer England), but you still have to taste that yourself.

And with headphones, well, you have to at least listen to the headphones. And better yet listen to some Focal Stella Utopias, Sonus Faber Stradivari Homage, or Duevel Bella Lunas, then judge headphones based on what kind of comes close but be mindful of how you can't override physics ie you won't feel the bass on your whole body with headphones sitting just outside your ears.

Overall balance
All frequencies in the frequency range should be represented without being accentuated or rolled off. My guess is that this is where personal taste will hit in.

Another way of looking at it is "what compromises can you live with."

What I take from this in order to improve my skills:
Find a song I am familiar with (because it is likely that I heard it on several systems already so I should “know” the different frequencies), listen to it with a really bad headphone and with my best one and try to see which frequencies are missing and exposed.
- Frequency groups being:
- Low-bass: 10-50 Hertz
- Musical bass: 50-100 Hertz
- Upper-bass: 100-200 Hertz
- Midrange: 200-3000 Hertz
- Treble: 3000-20000 Hertz
I can also use an equalizer on my PC or DAP to exaggerate or attenuate these frequencies individually and listen the effect. There are also some other classification by type of instrument per range and other “effects types” like sibilance, presence, “air”… I can get familiar with these.

Just note that amp damping factor, driver qualities, and how these factor into driver distortion when boosting frequencies will at some point not be the same as when a driver naturally has a boost in those frequencies getting boosted.

Think of it like maybe you could still get 600hp out of a 2.5L I4, but then you'd deal with turbo lag unlike a 6.5L V12 with 700hp.

Midrange quality -
I think that this is what I am the most sensible to but… I have no fchn’ clue…

Social psych and evolutionary theory says there's the possibility that once the stimuli is past the ear drums the brain has a tendency to focus on the midrage ie voices.

That allows the species to somehow kind of coordinate during say lots of noise in the other frequencies, like a volcano, or to hear Antigonus Monopthalmus yelling, "PREPARE TO REPEL CHARIOTS!!!" We might take this for granted today because conditions change and so does technology. For example to compensate for Gauls screaming the whole time, Lvcivs Vorenvs uses a whistle to tell the men at the front to step aside and for everyone else to step forward, onward to really loud AF sirens to get people out of the way or to man the batteries. Sadly the future version of "ils nes passeront pas!" will not even be audio but just appear as text on mil spec Google Glass (hell, Gundam's "go go go I'll deal with the (BBM-01) Minerva" or "DIVE DIVE DIVE" on a monitor on a circa 2004 show is outdated in many ways...their laptops still look like old Acer Aspire 47xx with 4:3 screens LOL).

Anyways, back to audio...look at how ambient noise also affects bass frequencies primarily. Like how, barring the siren example at the other end of the spectrum ie idiots with subwoofers that you can hear from the other side of the ghetto, noise will always drown out bass. Using headphones next to a computer without BeQuiet or Noctua? No bass, even if you're not expecting to feel the bass on your body. Using open headphones instead of IEMs? No bass, even if you put a powerful amp on it. Driving? LOL unless you have an MTX Jackhammer or you drive an Aston Martin on Yokohama AVS dB, good luck with the beat.

So what is said in the whathifi article is that this frequency matters because this is where we should find the vocals. As per the article: clarity, stability and warmth are a concern.
Here I block a bit. What is stability? Stability in the frequencies’ “strength”/balance? If the frequencies must be flat, where does the warmth come from?

That goes back to how you need to listen to more headphones the same way I can't just describe soy sauce and miso getting mixed with fat, collagen, and protein and make it clear enough to someone that barely or does not even eat those. Or describing to a child why Imperial Stout goes with certain food but others do better with a fruitier stout or lighter Pilsner, if not a lightly acidic pale ale. It's partly subjective too - some people would prefer to cut through the fat, I tend to pile one onto the other and have something like with a lighter drink, while having a formidable drink to hold up to a prime rib or smoked brisket/short ribs.

Then, there is a mention that there needs to be “support from lower” frequencies or the vocals can sound thin. So, a bit of upper bass boost can give the vocals some thickness. Noted.

Not the upper bass, the lower midrange.

How can I train this?
Listen to songs with dominant vocals with different headphones or by modifying EQ.

And speakers too. Like how the vocals even on some female vocalists, for example Jane Monheit, sound slightly warmer on a Focal Stella Utopia while Tarja Turunen and Simone Simmons can have the high frequencies so smooth and extended they sound like it's not a recording anymore, if the basis for what sounds like a recording are relatively run of the mill systems compared to these.

Bass control
The bass must be tight, agile, articulate.
How can I train this?
Listen to music with complex basslines and focus on the details. Can I really here what happens or just a rumble.

One example: Kamelot has very fast but weak bass lines that on a lesser system will either sound like a continuous mudslide or barely audible. A good system will have these in there and you can hear individual notes. Ditto Sevendust's Licking Cream, but maybe start here since the bass is already recorded a bit louder.

Jane Monheit's recording of Taking a Chance on Love has something similar where the bass lines are either going "THWWWWWOOOOMTHWUUMTHWUUMTHWWWWWUUWWWUUUUUMM" instead of "dududududu, dwuu, dwuu, dwuuwuuum."

Treble quality
High frequencies should be clear but not make ears bleed.
How can I train this?
Not sure for this. Maybe find music with high pitched horns and focus on the quality. Maybe play with IQ to see when it hurts?

Cymbals unless deliberately hit hard like in rock/metal or jazz at some kind of climax have to sound like "pfzzzzzTT!" and not "PFFZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTT!!!" to the point that they'd hurt...

I also heard that some people are more treble sensitive than others so I guess, this is also a question of finding what one likes. If I am not mistaken, it is also easier to listen to music for long period of time when highs are a bit rolled off. Flip side: I guess sharp highs will prevent me from pushing the volume too… high.

...but then high frequency hearing loss due to age as well as hyperacusis are both a thing.

Ideally though the treble still shouldn't hurt when cranked up without sounding like the system has sinusitis.

Level of detail
The article defines it as how many parts can be heard in a complex orchestration. Is this what is sometimes referred to as separation?
To improve:
Listen to music pieces with a lot going on at the same time and try to hear as many layers as possible. (this I know I love… so let’s love it more!)

Space
Not sure what is meant here as the article speaks about two things:
The ability to judge the size of the “room” where the instruments have been played/recorded
The space between the instruments
How to improve?
Listening to a song from an album and the same song live? Maybe? I am really not sure and any help is welcome!

Separation and detail are different.

Detail pertains to just being able to hear notes from each instrument.

Separation is how clearly separate they are instead of melding into each other. And taken vis a vis spatial reproduction you should be able to hear them coming from distinct spots on the soundstage, and in terms of something relatively easy to pick out, how unrelated instruments (ie don't start trying to pick out each piece of the brass section) have enough space like how far back the drums are from the vocals.

Going back to the Focal vs Sonus Faber example: the former has the vocals farther away from you (the Utopia line anyway; the lower tiers would do the opposite, ditto B&W nad Dynaudio, to varying degrees given the same room and enough time to play with toe in) but the depth is there as the drums are farther back, while the latter tends to push the vocals forward from the drums that it won't push farther back. Basically in terms of actual depth in terms of the distance between vocals and drums, not much difference, but the difference in presentation lies in whether they do more to push the drums back or push the vocals forward instead.

That said, h eadphones while not having the room influence the spatial reproduction have one problem: you hear each driver with only one ear. Some recordings are mixed where the sound is distributed across both channels to simulate both ears hearing both speakers though and will sound like scaled down speakers. One feature on DSPs and DACs or some amps is Crossfeed, which tries to mitigate this problem by applying a filter above which the sound will be filtered across both channels. People hate it because it makes the soundstage narrower, but if you think about it in terms of proportional position instead of just plain width without depth, why would the cymbals be at the far ends of the soundstage far away from drummer.

Rhythm and timing
The article sounds a bit bogus to me at this point, stating that your headphones should be able to play polyrhythm as well as 4/4… Wait, WHAT?!
Maybe the ability to keep up with fast rhythmic or energic pieces?
Skill improvement:
Use good and bad headphones to try to find “pace” issues on fast and busy music (something like Jamiroquai or RHCP maybe…)

Don't think of 4/4 changing. It's more like how excessive extension on notes like when the bass is boosted so each note that stands for the beat doesn't gradually fade out it sounds like playing the music at 0.75X on a bad system even though the runtime is the same; by contrast you play the same song on your headphone that stands for 1.0X then play it on, say, a Grado RS-1i or any good system (for example a K702 and a Meier amp) and it sounds like it might be 1.05X speed.

Feist's One Evening can sound like it's noticeably slower on some systems for example.

Think of it like the difference between an outright boring car, a Merc S55 AMG, and a Lotus Evora when you wring it side to side.

Dynamic range
Difference between sound volumes.
Improvement:
Listen to music with large DR, classic for example. Also, try to hear the difference between a heavily compressed MP3 and a Lossless song.

This is more noticeable when comparing the same album in normal mastering vs the "remastered" edition that was done to compete in the Loudness Wars.

Subtlety
Listening to softly played music?
Improvement?
If I understand correctly, this concerns testing the headphones with calm music or at low level. This is actually pretty interesting as the character of the headphones can indeed change depending how loud they are listened at. Changing the listening volume and noticing the changes in the sound quality (dynamic, EQ…). I think this can be interesting as LOUD often sounds better even when it isn’t.

I had a Pioneer “hifi” system in the 80s and I remember the Loudness function. It boosted the Bass and Treble (mainly the bass) for low level listening.

Psychologically the brain interprets louder as better, very generally.

It's when distortion really kicks in before pain (or in the case of speakers, angry neighbours) that the limit gets breached.

At the same time not all distortion sounds bad. Take some tube amps for example. Some amps may distort in ways that can be subjectively pleasing so people take it to that point...that or they're trying to over come ambient noise or weak bass response to hear the bass. Or any combination of these.

Last category in the article:
excitement, enthusiasm and drive
Basically, does the music make you want to move.
How to train it?
Like other points, just being conscient of it will go a long way I think. I was always conscient of this. Headphones need to do one of two things for me to use them:
- Make me beat the rhythm
- Make me smile

This is like the rhythm and timing section above.

As much as the beat tends to be on the lower freqs, there's a point where there's too much or the drivers are distorting that the notes meld into each other you lose the beat instead of each note fading out gradually so the succeeding note is more audible.

The more a system makes One Evening seem like it's playing faster the more you tend to like the "drive" and how it makes you tap your feet along with the beat.

 

[Evshrug]

@ProtegeManiac I am agog.

It may be intimidating to read your whole post due to the sheer length, but my post was pretty long too, and I kind of love how much effort you put into it. This is why I love the audio community, especially on Head-Fi: I’ve found an unusually high concentration of patient, welcoming people. We don’t owe tussinette anything, and yet we did our best to be helpful and share our love for good audio (and how to get there).

You even touched on Spacial Audio! If you don’t mind a little amicable debate, I would further say that detail, separation, and spacial audio are different factors. Detail is about resolving minute events, such as putting on a more detailed headphone and realizing there is a reverb effect, or someone shuffling their feet in the audience. Separation is helped by detail, but is specifically how well you can pick out the backing vocals from the lead singer, and how rapid musical passages can keep each piece distinct without souping them together (technical term, haha). You can have a headphone (or speaker, perhaps especially a speaker) that has a lot of leading edge detail but notes kind of flow into eachother. Finally, spacial audio, which I agree is the part of soundstage that helps you identify where an instrument is placed on the stage relative to the listening position (microphones).

I usually see reviewers label this trait as imaging, but recording studios are beginning to adopt the term “Spacial audio” to refer to using binaural, head-shaped microphones, and tech manufacturers are using it to refer to DSPs with the ability to take surround sound and process it, both in the effort to create a 3D audio headphone mix that is more true to how our two ears perceive the directionality of audio in real space. Some recent examples of this in product marketing are Sony’s “Tempest 3D” audio engine for the PlayStation 5, and Apple with their Headtracking in the AirPod Pro and Max.

Mine took probably two hours or longer to type (I’m a slow writer, and the videos take me even longer, but I make those for everyone), but it seemed a good way to spend the morning when I had awoken before sunrise, and I didn’t realize how long it was taking until I was almost done . It’s nice to think it might have made Tussinette’s day. How long did it take you to type that up? That probably would have taken me double the time! I’m sure he will be floored by your effort

 

[ProtegeManiac]

You even touched on Spacial Audio! If you don’t mind a little amicable debate, I would further say that detail, separation, and spacial audio are different factors. Detail is about resolving minute events, such as putting on a more detailed headphone and realizing there is a reverb effect, or someone shuffling their feet in the audience. Separation is helped by detail, but is specifically how well you can pick out the backing vocals from the lead singer, and how rapid musical passages can keep each piece distinct without souping them together (technical term, haha). You can have a headphone (or speaker, perhaps especially a speaker) that has a lot of leading edge detail but notes kind of flow into eachother. Finally, spacial audio, which I agree is the part of soundstage that helps you identify where an instrument is placed on the stage relative to the listening position (microphones)

That's basically what I said. I didn't say they're the same thing, I used examples to differentiate them, first detail from separation then later what the broader term "spatial audio" is beyond separation.

I usually see reviewers label this trait as imaging, but recording studios are beginning to adopt the term “Spacial audio” to refer to using binaural, head-shaped microphones, and tech manufacturers are using it to refer to DSPs with the ability to take surround sound and process it, both in the effort to create a 3D audio headphone mix that is more true to how our two ears perceive the directionality of audio in real space. Some recent examples of this in product marketing are Sony’s “Tempest 3D” audio engine for the PlayStation 5, and Apple with their Headtracking in the AirPod Pro and Max.

Depends on what it is you're tackling.

If it's HT and video games with DSP then it's "spatial audio," but for 2ch audio it's still "imaging." This isn't about older stereo press being boneheaded, but that there is a difference.

Spatial audio is more of a surround thing that is highly dependeng on DSP to simulate space ie the environment around the listener, the oldest form of which is the venue simulation on HT receivers and soundcards.

Imaging has more to do with how a 2ch playback system recreates audio where DSP use tends to be just

1. Crossfeed for headphone guys

2. DSP on cars which, while that car may use 5channels or more of amplification, still works off a 2ch signal. The multiple amplification channels has to do with what they need the DSP to do (and not so much about power) in order to simulate a room in a car cabin. This is not the same as adding reverb and cross filtering sound to simulate how far a sound source should be, but it simulates a room where the listener is sitting dead center between the speakers, something that isn't possible outside of owning something like a Maclaren F1 (adding a stereo to which seems dumb, since BMW already installed a 12pc orchestra behind the driver) or an ///////ALPINE show car that they gutted so it has the same audio ergonomics as a Maclaren F1. What a car's DSP does is split the signal using crossovers before the amplifiers (more like selecting a cut off on an HT receiver than the passive crossover on home speakers), which then allows for the DSP to introduce customized time delays to each speaker driver to synchronize the arrival of the output on all speakers at the driver's ears.

Basically the driver's side tweeter gets the most time delay, followed by the driver side midwoofer, then the passenger side tweeter, then the passenger side midwoofer, this way the sound from all of them arrive at the driver's head at the same time that the output from the subwoofer does (this assumes conventional A-pillar/sail panel mount tweeters, door mount midwoofers, and a subwoofer in the rear luggage area). It's not adding any reverb to make it feel like that cabin is bigger than it is, just lays out the sound along the dashboard with everything on the same height along the Y-axis while proportionately vocals need to be dead center along the X-axis on the dash with everything else proportionately positioned. The subwoofer doesn't sound like it's in the front because of reverb etc, it's just that you no longer have them out of sync with the upper bass frequencies of each note being heard first and then the lower freq rumble a couple microseconds later. Some systems just have the luck of having sound coming from the external side of the windshield and that can get you extra points in IASCA or EMMA, but again it's not really tweaking the environment, just compensating for not having a Maclaren F1 or a custom ///////ALPINE show car.

None of that adds or simulates any sound, they just delay the signal leaving the DSP chip and applying crossovers; or tweaking the gain out of the processor on each pair of drivers or each driver. I run -4dB on my Vifa tweeters since their sensitivity is still very high vs the already high sensitivity Focal midwoofers and the low sensitivity subwoofer, with a +2 bias to the passenger side so the driver side output isn't too "in my face" but not making a bowed out soundstage towards the passenger side.

In short despite the DSP chip it's less like an HT receiver and more like how pro monitors have separate gain knobs on the tweeter and midwoofer amps, they just don't have the time delay DSP since they assume you could sit in the middle (although like how car audio drivers are installed at a certain toe-in and up- or downward angles mounting options are available for pro monitors to do the same).

Mine took probably two hours or longer to type (I’m a slow writer, and the videos take me even longer, but I make those for everyone), but it seemed a good way to spend the morning when I had awoken before sunrise, and I didn’t realize how long it was taking until I was almost done . It’s nice to think it might have made Tussinette’s day. How long did it take you to type that up? That probably would have taken me double the time! I’m sure he will be floored by your effort

Took me over two Total War:Shogun II (on the new 93 regions map) sessions with my brother. I'm reading or typing while he takes his turn.

 

[tussinette]

@ProtegeManiac : Thank you so much for having taken the time to give me such a detailed answer. What Evshrug said is so on true. I have a few passions in life and therefore I am part of several communities. I do not know why but the Hi-fi enthusiasts community is by far the kindest and the most respectful I have seen. It is quite remarkable.

To come back to your comment and my topic, what helped me alot is when you gave me examples of songs and what it illustrates. This really reminded me of my oenology courses. Without this guidance, improvement is of course possible but much difficult and much slower. This is exactly what vibrates with me. I need my nose to be put in it and told what smell is there, in order for me to understand and then, after some training I can sniff it from miles. Like finding fruity notes in white wine for example (I am really good at this... at least until I try a glass or two too much... I always found that spitting the wine out was an unacceptable waste... anyway...).

Btw, I do love ramen . I loved it from the very first time I had it. Then a friend that lived a few years in Japan told me that the ramen in the restaurant where I was going regularly was not "real" ramen. He took me to a much more expensive restaurant. I had a ramen there... and hated it. All tastes were SOOO STROOONG. It was salty and brutal. But I started to go there at least once a week for some time and developed a taste for this violence. But without the guidance of my friend, I would just have gone back to what I knew. Sometimes the best things need a bit of work to be appreciated. And I want to thank you both in helping me on the path.

I am working on two things:
- training my ear to be able to appreciate quality
- being aware of my tastes

Like for ramen, I know my taste can change in time. So far, I have noticed that I love a certain degree of bass (more than flat for sure) and details (or micro details as it is sometimes referred as) like the sound of the keys of a sax or the "lips" sound of a singer. Yes, bass and details.

Just by curiosity, I often read about flat frequency response vs Audiophile frequency response. How would you define the difference?