[Whitigir]

Lol, I understand what you meant, but my statement was meant to go together with my earlier post here as well

Based on experiences, Human body, they adapt, and evolve, just like a martial artists vs a regular guy, or a gymnast vs a normal being. Once you are trained over and over in something, your body will adapt, and so does your brain and everything else. Even though such things as talents and gifted do exists, any human can train to an extend to surpass untrained people, and in the same instance, training and category, the one with gifts and talents would stand out more. It applies in every thing

Having talents and not training for it = wasted

Training for it but have no talents = just barely surpass regular folk, we call it skills

Each human being is uniquely gifted in someway, but the instances to acknowledge, expose oneself to one own talents or to seek for it is extremely rare. Beside, there are personal interests, and that is why the talented people such as Lebron are the very few, who happened to have talent in baseball, then grown up in a country with the sport culture, exposed himself to it, and loving it, to result in an extreme talented player - very very rare

 

[castleofargh]

 

[Speedskater]

Yesterday I wrote:
Listening to what?
a] the music.
b] how the musicians play the music
c] the recording technique
d] the playback sound system
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Learning each could take years, so I hope you have a lot of free time.

a] the music.
There are countless books on countless different areas of music. There are many classes at libraries and adult education sites.
Public libraries are a good starting point.

b] how the musicians play the music
I don't have a clue. Maybe a music teacher, band director or orchestra conductor could help.

c] the recording technique
Again many books are available.

d] the playback sound system
Now this is the one that can waste a lot of time.
Stay away from hi-fi magazine and blogs.
Instead go to experts like:

Siegfried Linkwitz @ http://www.linkwitzlab.com/
In his Basics & Resources areas.

David Griesinger @ http://www.davidgriesinger.com/

Flyd Toole's book
"Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms"

 

[MacedonianHero]

Can critical listening be taught and refined ? Opinions

Depends what you mean by critical listening to audio or one's wife? The latter is so much more difficult.

 

[Cerastes]

... it's a state of mind.

 

[Stars700]

You can certainly appreciate music better by having a basic understanding of how music is constructed and the story of the musicians who made it. I've also found that listening to more and varied types of music increases a listener's frame of reference and makes them understand music better.

well put

 

[Wyville]

Can critical listening be taught and refined ? Opinions

Of course. The human body, the brain included, is very plastic and like modelling clay. Through practice and experience you can learn things and critical listening is not anything different. The more you do something, the more brain cells will become involved in that particular something. It is essentially based on recognition. Learn how to play the violin and if after that you listen to IEMs or headphones you will find it easier to sense whether or not a violin is reproduced accurately. Listen to many different IEMs or headphones and you will develop a much better sense of how sound signatures work and you will more readily pick up subtle differences.

I find that people often underestimate what the human body (brain included) is capable of in terms of adaptation and learning.

 

[bigshot]

Should we not trust equipment reviewers who don't play musical instruments?

 

[Wyville]

Should we not trust equipment reviewers who don't play musical instruments?

It was just an example of how experience can be gained, just like the example of listening to a large selection of IEMs and headphones, in order to help improve the skill. It is not a prerequisite, but it will invariably train the brain and thus improve the ability of an individual to listen critically.

 

[bigshot]

Do you have to be able to play a violin to be able to recognize the natural sound of a violin? It seems to me that playing a musical instrument might give you a particular insight into musical structure and performance technique, but I don't see how it helps you recognize if your stereo sounds good or not. If you're going to study something, you'd probably do better studying the fundamentals of how digital sound reproduction and human hearing work. At least then you might have some sort of idea how to address problems and figure out solutions to them. Once you've got all that worked out, then you can sit down and focus on the music. Listening to music is its own reward.

Lately I've been speaker shopping and I'm amazed at the poor quality of online reviews. They all cut and paste boilerplate technical info off the manufacturer's tear sheet. The only information they add themselves is a general flowery description of what music and movies they played on the equipment and how the sound made them feel. Here's an example from HiDef Digest...

Now the hardest part of any speaker review. How do I, in words, describe the tonal qualities of a speaker system? I think it's all about detail and fidelity. What did you hear that you've never heard before? And are these new details positive, or negative?

For me, I listen the nightmarish voices calling out to Mad Max in the opening of 'Fury Road', the guttural roars of the Kaiju in 'Pacific Rim', the accuracy of the bullets in 'John Wick', the chilling house moans of 'Crimson Peak', and the sheer scope of the climactic battle scenes in 'Game of Thrones: Season 5'. In all of these examples, and more, the R Series reveals every single layer of every single sound effect, evoking clarity and precision at any volume.

All those links are connected to Amazon affiliate links so you can buy the blu-rays the reviewer owns. I'm not sure if he is reviewing speakers or movies here. He sure isn't succeeding at describing any tonal qualities.

The problem is that people seem to feel that as long as information is sort of relevant and can be dressed up with pretty non-specific word poetry, it's worth mentioning. I think that is an epidemic in audio reviews in particular, and I see audiophiles in internet forums imitating it. There are ways of speaking that are information rich and precise. Those take research and knowledge. Just passively listening to music doesn't teach you anything except how to passively listen to music.

If you want to train your ears, train your brain to think and analyze and filter out irrelevant information and lilly gilding. Ears don't learn. Brains do.

 

[Wyville]

Do you have to be able to play a violin to be able to recognize the natural sound of a violin?

Let me rephrase that question to more clearly explain what I was indicating. Does it help to be able to play a violin in order to recognise the natural sound of a violin? Yes, it does help. Is it the only way? Not at all. Why does it help? Because when learning how to play the violin the person's attention is focused on specific aspects again and again in order to master a certain technique until it sounds right. That trains the brain to more easily pick up those aspects in a recording. If the music is not reproduced accurately, then it will be easier to pick up on those inaccuracies.

It seems to me that playing a musical instrument might give you a particular insight into musical structure and performance technique, but I don't see how it helps you recognize if your stereo sounds good or not.

Learning to play an instrument is an exercise in mastering techniques (etc), but those techniques are prerequisite to producing music that sounds right (play the right notes at the right time). At the end of the day it is all about playing music. I can't see a better way to learn how music sounds than to make it.

If you're going to study something, you'd probably do better studying the fundamentals of how digital sound reproduction and human hearing work. At least then you might have some sort of idea how to address problems and figure out solutions to them. Once you've got all that worked out, then you can sit down and focus on the music. Listening to music is its own reward.

This might well be a great way to start if your aim is to unravel all the technical aspects of IEMs, headphones or speakers. I can certainly see how some people would find that very interesting and would look for that kind of information in reviews.

Lately I've been speaker shopping and I'm amazed at the poor quality of online reviews. They all cut and paste boilerplate technical info off the manufacturer's tear sheet. The only information they add themselves is a general flowery description of what music and movies they played on the equipment and how the sound made them feel. Here's an example from HiDef Digest...

All those links are connected to Amazon affiliate links so you can buy the blu-rays the reviewer owns. I'm not sure if he is reviewing speakers or movies here. He sure isn't succeeding at describing any tonal qualities.

The problem is that people seem to feel that as long as information is sort of relevant and can be dressed up with pretty non-specific word poetry, it's worth mentioning. I think that is an epidemic in audio reviews in particular, and I see audiophiles in internet forums imitating it. There are ways of speaking that are information rich and precise. Those take research and knowledge. Just passively listening to music doesn't teach you anything except how to passively listen to music.

Sure, but many reviewers are just people who enjoy a hobby and who want to share their excitement for a product they bought. Doing informative reviews requires a lot of time and effort (and money), and not many people are willing to invest so much. That is why some reviewers get so many products sent to them for review. They are a rare breed.

If you want to train your ears, train your brain to think and analyze and filter out irrelevant information and lilly gilding. Ears don't learn. Brains do.

I think I understand what you mean here and I guess that is true for when you are an audiophile with a strong interest in the technical aspects of the hobby. For me personally, I am in this hobby because of a love of music and I want to be able to listen critically to that music. That is why I naturally gravitate towards examples like learning how to play the violin, because that trains the brain. Mastering an instrument is one (of many) ways to develop experience with music. The examples you use appear to be more about developing experience with gear, which is simply a different approach.

 

[pinnahertz]

Of course. The human body, the brain included, is very plastic and like modelling clay. Through practice and experience you can learn things and critical listening is not anything different. The more you do something, the more brain cells will become involved in that particular something. It is essentially based on recognition. Learn how to play the violin and if after that you listen to IEMs or headphones you will find it easier to sense whether or not a violin is reproduced accurately. Listen to many different IEMs or headphones and you will develop a much better sense of how sound signatures work and you will more readily pick up subtle differences.

I find that people often underestimate what the human body (brain included) is capable of in terms of adaptation and learning.

The perspective of the violin sound that a player hears, remembers, responds to and adapts to is unique to that of someone playing the instrument. It doesn't occur in recordings at all. For example, a strong portion of the sound a violin player hears is heard via bone conduction. Recordings aren't made that way, and will never match the sound a player hears, and that would be true of most if not all instruments. Recognition of the quality of recorded sound is something completely different.

 

[Wyville]

The perspective of the violin sound that a player hears, remembers, responds to and adapts to is unique to that of someone playing the instrument. It doesn't occur in recordings at all. For example, a strong portion of the sound a violin player hears is heard via bone conduction. Recordings aren't made that way, and will never match the sound a player hears, and that would be true of most if not all instruments. Recognition of the quality of recorded sound is something completely different.

Sure, but that is not how I mean it. What I mean is that (for instance) a professional musician will be far better at rating the quality of how a piece of music is reproduced than the same person without that experience. The question was whether or not it is possible to learn how to listen critically and my answer is that it indeed is possible. Learning to play an instrument is one way of many to gain experience, to train the brain, in hearing and understanding music.

Again, it is just an example of how we can train our brain to allocate more brain cells to the act of listening to music, but there are many other ways.

 

[pinnahertz]

Sure, but that is not how I mean it. What I mean is that (for instance) a professional musician will be far better at rating the quality of how a piece of music is reproduced than the same person without that experience. The question was whether or not it is possible to learn how to listen critically and my answer is that it indeed is possible. Learning to play an instrument is one way of many to gain experience, to train the brain, in hearing and understanding music.

Again, it is just an example of how we can train our brain to allocate more brain cells to the act of listening to music, but there are many other ways.

I agree that it is possible to learn how music is to sound, but I disagree that playing an instrument is a good way to do it. When you learn to play an instrument you concentrate first on making a sound that is tolerable (actually a difficult task at first for most instruments), then getting it on pitch, getting the start/stop of the note right, and properly transitioning from note to note. All your concentration is on technique and accuracy of playing. The sound quality you get is not within your control. A school level ensemble exhibits that well, each instrument, though the same type, sounds differently, and it has only partially to do with the player.

But the quality of the sound as a beginner depends on technique and the instrument itself. Then, if technique progresses, the quality of the sound you make is still strongly the result if the instrument having its own character plus the fact that the thing is right in front of your face, a perspective never found in recordings. What you hear from your own playing will never match what you hear from a reproduced recording even a little.

In all my years of clarinet playing I never once hear me make my instrument sound like my recordings of Benny Goodman, not in any aspect. And my favorite Goodman record was old, mono, and a terrible example of sound quality. My ability to judge sound quality came from hearing high quality sound systems and live music as a member of an audience, and realizing the differences between them.

 

[Wyville]

I agree that it is possible to learn how music is to sound, but I disagree that playing an instrument is a good way to do it. When you learn to play an instrument you concentrate first on making a sound that is tolerable (actually a difficult task at first for most instruments), then getting it on pitch, getting the start/stop of the note right, and properly transitioning from note to note. All your concentration is on technique and accuracy of playing. The sound quality you get is not within your control. A school level ensemble exhibits that well, each instrument, though the same type, sounds differently, and it has only partially to do with the player.

But the quality of the sound as a beginner depends on technique and the instrument itself. Then, if technique progresses, the quality of the sound you make is still strongly the result if the instrument having its own character plus the fact that the thing is right in front of your face, a perspective never found in recordings. What you hear from your own playing will never match what you hear from a reproduced recording even a little.

In all my years of clarinet playing I never once hear me make my instrument sound like my recordings of Benny Goodman, not in any aspect. And my favorite Goodman record was old, mono, and a terrible example of sound quality. My ability to judge sound quality came from hearing high quality sound systems and live music as a member of an audience, and realizing the differences between them.

Okay, I understand what you mean. I guess perhaps it is my background that slightly warps my view here. Learning to play an instrument, for me, would involve attentively listening to others and picking up on nuances in their techniques, etc. I would study every aspect of that instrument. When I do something I immerse myself in it, which is probably not how most people do things. In that sense learning to play the instrument becomes a catalyst to exposing yourself to that instrument being played. I guess that is why, for me, it would be a great way to train the brain to listen more critically.

From your perspective I can agree to what you say.