What are you listening for?

TroyD

So, I'm trying to wrap my head around my current infatuation with the Big Bozaks.......I've spoken a bit about them and what they are and what they aren't.

My choices in loudspeakers over the years have run all over the landscape....I mean, you name it and I've had it and, for the most part, enjoyed them all. Some more than others....but, so far, the BB's have captured my imagination like no speaker since the Quads.

Keeping in mind that no speaker is perfect.....truth be told, if you put a gun to my head and said pick the all around BEST speaker I've had and it's almost a no brainer....the Thiel 3.6's. So, why are they shoved into the spare room and I'm listening to these GINORMOUS things?

Music. Pure and simple.

Short of the Quads, these are the most musically involving speakers I've owned.....and truth be told, these may even be more musically involving. So, the question is, what are we listening for? Sound or music? Cuz they ain't the same thing. For a long time, I got caught up listening to sound. I judged speakers and gear by the sound they made.......but not really the music and there are speakers out there that can't carry a tune.

It's easy to do....get wrapped up in imaging and frequency response and this and that. Wind up listening to audiophile approved LP's, SACD's and so forth....listening for detail and decay and all sorts of things......and there isn't anything wrong with that but it's not the same, really, as listening to music. Can great sound enhance your enjoyment of music? Abso-freakin'-lutely....but it's also not essential. The BB's do not do a lot of things....but they do the sound of music. In spades....to the point that it's really hard to quantify.

So, it's got me to thinking...that in terms of loudspeakers....have we REALLY made all that much progress?

smglbrth

I like your way of thinking. I'm pretty much in the same boat as far as this. I think what it boils down to, for me, is how a speaker plays the music. Don't get me wrong I love detail and the way some speakers really pic apart a recording but that doesn't always mean it's enjoyable, sometimes it's the opposite. It's neat, cool and all but only with certain recordings. Let's face it, a whole lot of the music we, or I, like leaves much to be desired in the way it was done.

As with everything, there is the law of diminishing returns. Everyone is different and some simply chase the absolute best possible detail they can get, and pay a lot for it along the way. For me, in the end it boils down to what does the speaker do with more kinds of music than just the "audiophile" stuff where everything else sounds like crap. I, like you, want a speaker that plays the music but might not be the best for details. One reason I've kept my 8t's when I've had to make choices. There are many things they don't do compared to other Polks I've had but they play music well.

I think as far as "progress" in loudpeakers I tend to think of it the same as firearms (oops). The general function is the same (with the same outcome). As time marches on, however, newer materials are used with different designs which are basically on the same platforms that are over 100 years old. Different ones fit peoples hands/shoulders better, some kick less, some more. Some are pretty darned expensive with exotic woods and pretty extras. Many will say this/that speaker is a totally different design. That would certainly be true to some extent but the end result, as in the beginning, is just the same. As a bullet still exits a barrel, the music still sounds from the speaker...

Emlyn

I see it as every speaker system is limited in some way or another with different trade offs. Every speaker is also capable of being improved. Improvement could be as simple as toeing speakers in properly or putting them in a bigger room to as complex as using computer aided design to create a driver that operates with as little distortion as is desirable. The whole objective for music listeners is to have a speaker system that moves air in a way that pleases the ear in a comfortable listening environment at home. For others it’s having a speaker system that looks awesome but rarely gets used for anything more than awesome background music at cocktail parties. Neither approach is wrong. Just different.

Some improvements are actually bad, such as putting a speaker that's too big in a room that's too small. Sometimes it's better to not go for the bigger must be best approach.

One example of a speaker system conceived decades ago that has benefited from improvements was the original SDA-SRS. Compared to today’s standards if unmodified they are still enjoyable to listen to music on but pretty badly compromised.

tophatjohnny

Just gotta figure out what works for you and not worry who’s chasing what! I never thought I’d get as into as I am and so glad I found what works for me! Sure there are much higher levels I could go but I don’t see changing a thing and thankful for the 2 modest rigs I’ve put together!


Oh and I listened for l clarity in just about all genres as possible with just the right Amt of detail at lower as well as high volumes without losing any of those two things! Sometimes it’s just about the song 🎵

Tony M

! listen for powerful and fast bass, clear midrange and as little sibilance unless it's the singer's voice making it. Also, I want the speakers to disappear.

I love it when the wall presents the image of where the sound seems to be coming from. [/b]

I've experienced a lot of GREAT imaging and bass coming from the wall the last month or so.

The JBL S412PII's I just sold were doing everything just right being powered by my NAD Receiver the past month or so. No tone adjustments needed but I'm ok with using them when I want something more somewhere.

jeremymarcinko

For a studio album I want to feel like I am in the room where the performance is taking place. For live albums I want feel like I am there. So primarily I am listening to determine whether the sound I am hearing overall is believable. Is the sound balanced and tonally accurate. Whether the instruments sound like real instruments with texture body and decay. Whether or not the vocals sound natural and full. I don’t like an overly clear sound that comes at the expense of body or fullness and I don’t want over done bass that smothers the music either. I should be able to close my eyes and hear a cohesive performance that would sound very close to what I’d imagine being there would be like, but scaled back to 85db or so.

marvda1

I listen for real/natural sounding instruments. Does the human voice sound natural? Realistic speed or pace.
Harder to judge imaging and sound stage as these are dependent on speaker placement, recording, and room.

audioluvr

I grew up in rural Iowa where we had live music in the town square every weekend it seemed and always enjoyed that warm, open stage sound. That's what I'm listening for. Never really liked stadium venues that much as they were generally too loud and distorted.

F1nut

If the tone is right, I'm good.

treitz3

Alright.

The right question has been asked....and by one of the old school guys....you folks need to remember that.

I will now join back in.

Right up until the point to where my brothers are disrespected again. 'Nuff said.

With that said? Troy.....

Good GD question!!! My hat is off to you, sir. BRAVO!!!

Tom

dromunds

Good to see you again, Tom, so to speak 😎

TroyD

Honest question.....how many people actually listen to live music (and I'm not talking arena rock...but live unamplified music)? I'd venture to say, not many. I don't mean that as a criticism at all, but our frame of reference is really, for the most part, prerecorded music.

Because of that, I think that the stated goals of companies like AR and Bozak back in the day are irrelevant. AR used to do the live vs recorded things.....which I think would be superfluous today. Now, gear is more designed to extract sound out of recordings rather than convey the essence of live performance because, who listens to music live?

Again, this is just a thinking out loud kinda thing....I'm certainly not suggesting that gear today is inferior to gear of the Golden Age of Hifi, that's patently untrue. I just think that the design goals have shifted because our frame of reference has shifted.

SeleniumFalcon

"Now, gear is more designed to extract sound out of recordings rather than convey the essence of live performance because, who listens to music live?"

I agree. This would be similar to evaluating a video projector by comparing what it produces to a photograph of a person's face rather than the person themself. I believe I have a fairly good stored memory of what live un-amplified musical instruments sound like to rely on until I can begin venturing to venues once again. There are some super carefully made tape copies that can "recalibrate" a person's hearing judgement capability (UltraAnalog, for example).

audioluvr

I go to small venue live music every chance I get but very few are unamplified. Maybe once a year?

treitz3

dromunds wrote: »

Good to see you again, Tom, so to speak 😎

Thanks, Don. I took a LOT of coercing from many to get me back but alas, here I am.

Back on topic. I listen to many acoustical performances as often as I can. Amplified? I used to often but with what's going on in the world today? Not so much anymore. 95% of that is my system.....but no longer "live", unless it's a smaller, local dive. The reasons, I will not get into. I'm quite sure all of you know why.

I will say this. We are all on this forum for the love of one thing. Music. The thing that escapes me is that everyone seems to want the latest and greatest but they don't talk about the one thing that actually matters.

Two things actually.

One being the thread topic. "What are you listening for?"

The other is actually talking about what it is you are listening too.

Sure, we have a "What are you listening too" thread but no one actually talks about that. They just post a screenshot of what they listen to or what they are listening to at the moment but no real, substantive discussion about the artists. No discussion about what makes them WANT to listen to a particular band, artist, etc..

I don't get that.

This should be THE main discussion on this forum.

Tom

jbreezy5

I listen for differences and consider application…

What I mean is, I have a ridiculous number of systems for one person, and the reason I do is because each piece of equipment/system has its own flavor, or seasoning, affecting the output of sound.

Additionally, certain genres of music seem to do better in certain system contexts. For example, Classical and Blue Grass sound great in a tube-based system with texture, dynamics, detail, and PRAT. Electronic music might sound best in a solid-state system with bass slam, PRAT, and ultimate SPLs. Rock and country may sound great in either of the above contexts for different reasons.

Some people want warmth, others want PRAT, and still others soundstaging/imaging, etc. I’m not as decisive in this regard. In a certain sense I want it all (i.e. the balance/cohesion camp).

I’m a moody listener and the sound I want to hear is often based on that. Even the music I choose to listen to on a given day is based on my mood (e.g. choleric, melancholy, sanguine, phlegmatic).

Perhaps someone could say my listening style is summed up as “chameleon“, or “neurotic”. 😅

SeleniumFalcon

TroyD

jbreezy5 wrote: »

I listen for differences and consider application…

What I mean is, I have a ridiculous number of systems for one person, and the reason I do is because each piece of equipment/system has its own flavor, or seasoning, affecting the output of sound.

Additionally, certain genres of music seem to do better in certain system contexts. For example, Classical and Blue Grass sound great in a tube-based system with texture, dynamics, detail, and PRAT. Electronic music might sound best in a solid-state system with bass slam, PRAT, and ultimate SPLs. Rock and country may sound great in either of the above contexts for different reasons.

Some people want warmth, others want PRAT, and still others soundstaging/imaging, etc. I’m not as decisive in this regard. In a certain sense I want it all (i.e. the balance/cohesion camp).

I’m a moody listener and the sound I want to hear is often based on that. Even the music I choose to listen to on a given day is based on my mood (e.g. choleric, melancholy, sanguine, phlegmatic).

Perhaps someone could say my listening style is summed up as “chameleon“, or “neurotic”. 😅

Listening for sound .....and there isn't anything inherently wrong with that.....I think that this is why classical and jazz (particularly bebop) eludes many audiophiles (it did me for a long time). We get so caught up listening for sound....that we miss the music. The flow, the harmonies and melodies and the statement and reinterpretations of the themes. I think that we often put the cart before the horse in that we start listening for particular sound affectations without really hearing the music......like the man said, listen to music...on the HiFi. In that order.

Just my .02

jbreezy5

TroyD wrote: »

jbreezy5 wrote: »

I listen for differences and consider application…

What I mean is, I have a ridiculous number of systems for one person, and the reason I do is because each piece of equipment/system has its own flavor, or seasoning, affecting the output of sound.

Additionally, certain genres of music seem to do better in certain system contexts. For example, Classical and Blue Grass sound great in a tube-based system with texture, dynamics, detail, and PRAT. Electronic music might sound best in a solid-state system with bass slam, PRAT, and ultimate SPLs. Rock and country may sound great in either of the above contexts for different reasons.

Some people want warmth, others want PRAT, and still others soundstaging/imaging, etc. I’m not as decisive in this regard. In a certain sense I want it all (i.e. the balance/cohesion camp).

I’m a moody listener and the sound I want to hear is often based on that. Even the music I choose to listen to on a given day is based on my mood (e.g. choleric, melancholy, sanguine, phlegmatic).

Perhaps someone could say my listening style is summed up as “chameleon“, or “neurotic”. 😅

Listening for sound .....and there isn't anything inherently wrong with that.....I think that this is why classical and jazz (particularly bebop) eludes many audiophiles (it did me for a long time). We get so caught up listening for sound....that we miss the music. The flow, the harmonies and melodies and the statement and reinterpretations of the themes. I think that we often put the cart before the horse in that we start listening for particular sound affectations without really hearing the music......like the man said, listen to music...on the HiFi. In that order.

Just my .02

I can see how one might conclude that I was describing listening for sound, rather than to the music, based on what I wrote.

I don’t speak French, but maybe you know the word that means “a certain something”, or maybe, “I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it's there”. I listen for that transcendent quality that is perceptively “goldilocks” during playback.

It’s this that gets the analysis to turn off and one just absorbs what’s taking place on the recording. It’s hard to attain that with a single system on all music, IME. 🤷🏼

Whether being critical or casual, this hobby is a lot of fun, though. Cheers!

Clipdat

Good posts @jbreezy5!

TroyD

jbreezy5 wrote: »

TroyD wrote: »

jbreezy5 wrote: »

I listen for differences and consider application…

What I mean is, I have a ridiculous number of systems for one person, and the reason I do is because each piece of equipment/system has its own flavor, or seasoning, affecting the output of sound.

Additionally, certain genres of music seem to do better in certain system contexts. For example, Classical and Blue Grass sound great in a tube-based system with texture, dynamics, detail, and PRAT. Electronic music might sound best in a solid-state system with bass slam, PRAT, and ultimate SPLs. Rock and country may sound great in either of the above contexts for different reasons.

Some people want warmth, others want PRAT, and still others soundstaging/imaging, etc. I’m not as decisive in this regard. In a certain sense I want it all (i.e. the balance/cohesion camp).

I’m a moody listener and the sound I want to hear is often based on that. Even the music I choose to listen to on a given day is based on my mood (e.g. choleric, melancholy, sanguine, phlegmatic).

Perhaps someone could say my listening style is summed up as “chameleon“, or “neurotic”. 😅

Listening for sound .....and there isn't anything inherently wrong with that.....I think that this is why classical and jazz (particularly bebop) eludes many audiophiles (it did me for a long time). We get so caught up listening for sound....that we miss the music. The flow, the harmonies and melodies and the statement and reinterpretations of the themes. I think that we often put the cart before the horse in that we start listening for particular sound affectations without really hearing the music......like the man said, listen to music...on the HiFi. In that order.

Just my .02

I can see how one might conclude that I was describing listening for sound, rather than to the music, based on what I wrote.

I don’t speak French, but maybe you know the word that means “a certain something”, or maybe, “I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it's there”. I listen for that transcendent quality that is perceptively “goldilocks” during playback.

It’s this that gets the analysis to turn off and one just absorbs what’s taking place on the recording. It’s hard to attain that with a single system on all music, IME. 🤷🏼

Whether being critical or casual, this hobby is a lot of fun, though. Cheers!

No, I wasn’t suggesting that you were......or at least that wasn’t what my intent was.....that if you don’t fundamentally appreciate the music, none of that other audiophile things are relevant....

daddyjt

I was speaking with Tom the other night, and he mentioned that this thread brought him back to the forum. I find this such a compelling topic that I too find myself returning for this discussion. Tom and I have a PM thread on this forum dating back four years on this very topic. I’m happy enough with my current system that I don’t audition much gear any more - I’m now on the constant hunt for stellar recordings, and what I listen for (initially at least) in a recording comes down to two things, one easy to describe, and the other not so easy to describe.

The first, (and easy to describe) is cymbals. I can’t think of a single recording that’s “wowed” me without distinct, crisp, and clear cymbals. So often, the cymbal sounds all get muddied into a single “blah” sound that is identifiable as a cymbal, but lacks clarity and definition. On the best recordings (Fleetwood Mac Rumors DVDA, Dire Straits Brothers in Arms SACD, Godsmack The Other Side SACD) you can easily distinguish the high-hat, crash and ride cymbals, as well as tambourines, cow bells (Gold Dust Woman) and even the spring on the snare.

The second (and harder to describe) is the aura(?) of a recording - you know it when you hear it - everything just explodes into the room, and it’s just… MAGIC. And before you say your system does that with EVERY recording, stop - that tells me you haven’t experienced what I’m talking about. It’s a fleeting thing, which is what makes it so magical. Private Investigations by Dire Straits SACD (and the xylophone!) has it. Patricia Barber Smash SACD has it. Jennifer Warnes the Hunter SACD has it.

Any way, that’s what I listen for.

SCompRacer

Proudly guilty of both. Without the system I chose, I would not enjoy any music I choose to play as much as I do. Otherwise, just get yourself a Bluetooth speaker and send music to it and enjoy that.

SIHAB

I missed Alan Parsons at my local record shop when he showed up for a talk
one time. One cool dude by all accounts. I would be Tongue tied...

I listen for tone, timbre and anything that catches the ear when critical listening.
Distractions are noise, hum, distortion, sibilance.

Performance other times. I like all kinds of music, so it depends on what the "artist"
is going for.

I don't think any of this is earth shaking.

OP: those old Bozak woofers are something aren't they!

SIHAB

F1nut wrote: »

If the tone is right, I'm good.

You can't mean that.

treitz3

If you heard his system? You would know exactly what he means. Tone is a very important factor in the playback.

With some systems, tone is only a pipe dream. They have way too much "other" things they need to work on before they even begin to realize what tone is.

Tom

treitz3

Mark, good to see you back on here. A stellar recording can make a musical selection that you don't even prefer sound absolutely wonderful. You can't say the same thing about a crappy recording and a great song....at least not on a high fidelity system. Save those recordings for traveling down the highway, next to an 18 wheeler with the windows rolled down.

Regarding the meme with Alan Parson's - Apparently he hasn't met the right audiophiles because with some that I know? That could not be any further from the truth. Now, "in general"? I would have to agree with him.

With that said, some audiophiles don't even care about the sound....they care more for the brand of their gear. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a 100K plus system (sometimes 10X that cost) that you could not pay me to listen too. But that audiophile is so proud of that system which has no synergy, no feel, no heartbeat, no toe tapping, no warmth and no soul. Just noise that emanates from a left and a right speaker. I believe this is the "audiophile" that Alan is referring too.

I can tell you right now that I don't listen for brands. I don't listen for prestige and I don't listen to systems like the aforementioned. They are boring and not at all what this hobby is really about (to me).

Tom

smglbrth

I'll revisit this for a bit. After reflecting on this more I've come to some of the same conclusion. With my new speakers I've come to more appreciate the differences in music I've had for, seemingly, ever. My wife and I had this conversation the other day. She still prefers the 8t's overall but knows it's my "thing" and as long as I'm happy, so be it. It's interesting to note the differences, as stated above, after all these years. This is what my wife "doesn't" like. I find it intriguing, and somewhat disappointing. When you can hear the differences in the studio album between the recordings of the different songs (you can tell there was a difference in the actual recording), along with the minute details of each, you know you've achieved a very different musical experience. Although my wife finds these intricacies phenomenal at times, and realizes the impact it does have overall, she doesn't listen to music for this reason. I told her if someone wants everything to sound the same then one should get a Bose CD/radio and be done with it. We had a good laugh at that.

Many don't realize that listening at a low to moderate volume is really where the test of a system shines, or doesn't. Not when you chase yourself out of a room! Some music made, to put it simply, has way too much going on and gets itself in the way...

treitz3

But for really high quality recordings do you really want the "forgiveness" (I.e., when there's nothing to forgive)? I know that with our hobby, you can't always explain performance on paper. Still, in engineering, it's a constant balancing act. In order to gain a desirable result in one area, you often will accept a less than desirable result in another area.

So if you have a digital system that is super hi-fidelity, it may make a poorly engineered record sound really really bad and the converse for a really good recording.

All of that being said, if I can start enjoying digital like I do vinyl by the "forgiveness" or rounding of the edges, I will probably be pleased with the end result. Please don't point and laugh if I'm not articulating my thoughts in a clear manner.

The above quote was presented to me and the poster shall remain anonymous because it was in a private message. With that said....

What are your thoughts on this? I thought this was spot on.

Tom

TennMan

Tony M wrote: »

...Also, I want the speakers to disappear.

I love it when the wall presents the image of where the sound seems to be coming from....

That is a great description of what I spent years looking for in a pair of speakers. I want to feel like I'm listening to the music instead of listening to the speakers. My SDA 2Bs come as close to that as any speaker I've owned so far. I'm sure there are speakers that could do that even better but I no longer feel like I need to keep searching for them. I'm pretty satisfied with what I have.

xschop

"Many don't realize that listening at a low to moderate volume is really where the test of a system shines, or doesn't. Not when you chase yourself out of a room! Some music made, to put it simply, has way too much going on and gets itself in the way..."

Ditto....I enjoy listening to music, not trying to bear through it because my eardrums have had too much spl.