What Do You Listen For?

You made a good point in other threads where you urged people to take time when doing A/B comparisons. It can take some extended listening time to get a full impression of what’s going on.

I think so, we can hear dramatic differences switching back and forth with one song playing, We will always pick what sounds better in that instant, but that was one song and the mood we're in and not much time given. Taking time over days and weeks, moods, different music we can pick certain things out that might be more enjoyable over the long haul.
 
I think so, we can hear dramatic differences switching back and forth with one song playing, We will always pick what sounds better in that instant, but that was one song and the mood we're in and not much time given. Taking time over days and weeks, moods, different music we can pick certain things out that might be more enjoyable over the long haul.

I agree with this totally. A/B testing is good in some ways but going back and forth, straining your ears to hear any differences and trying to make up your mind RIGHT NOW as to which one you prefer is not how I listen in real life.
I'd much rather have a week or two with a new component in the system before making any judgement. What sounds good right this second may not end up being what I want to live with for the next few years.
 
As far as ABX goes, there's nothing useful imo. But being presented with something different to what I'm used to may very well be. Going sideways isn't useful either but a stark contrast/improvement in transient performance or bottom end control is telling. If that's the case, you can probably expect better imaging and resolution as well.
However to answer the op, I would say firstly you need a reference to make an educated opinion. That reference is just that, your experience. It takes experience to establish your own understanding of the descriptors used in defining sq. Being told what to listen for without having something to compare to is not helpful. As I mentioned in another thread, I had a stunning wake up call when after shrugging in wonder about what the big deal is, the salesman directed me to "listen to the cymbals", "listen to the snare", listen to the bass definition. I had brought back a NAD receiver I was not pleased with and they gave me full return credit for something else. The something else being that stark contrast. If it wasn't, I would have simply traded for something different, but likely not better. I'm not interested in changes I have to agonize over to recognize. That's just useless. You may need a mentor, but if it's not sideways you'll hear it during an audition, good or bad.
 
Fill. After listening to my favorite albums numerous of times, I know the songs quite well. Now I listen for the overdubs, guitars, keyboard notes, etc.
 
I find it difficult to listen 'critically' anywhere, but less so at home. When at home, I play whatever has been in rotation lately - whatever I've listened to recently - for awhile when evaluating something new. With everything but digital sources, I listen for new things on familiar recordings. When I hear such, I'm confident that I'm listening to an upgrade, not merely a sideways move. It's a very simple criterion, and has served me well, up to a point. Competent digital sources compete at that point readily, IME. Beyond that point, my criteria is how long I am able to listen comfortably, without fatigue, and how often I am actually listening.
 
At times I listen for the slight scratchiness of fingers sliding down the fret board of a guitar while cords are changing.
 
Most already mentioned, but I would like to add articulation. The separation of the individual instruments not congesting together as things become "busy", or with an increase in volume.

Or the individual strands of the metal brush on the ride, the knuckles as they rap the edge of the tom just before the fingers hit the skins, the tautness of that skin as it reverberates.
 
Last edited:
The multiple layers within a piece. I try to identify each instrument each voice and their contributions to the number. Buena Vista Social Club (Chan Chan) is always a favorite of mine. Not excluding Ricky Lee Jones and many others to name a couple. In solo numbers where a single instrument such as a violin or Chello for example are the main focus of the piece, I listen to how the instrument tells the story. Theme to Godfather or Shindlers List Theme are two that do this very well.

Heres a short Piece from Shindlers list for those who've not seen it. The lady playing the English Horn is Davida Scheffers. She won a contest to play in the orchestra living a dream. Short story is that she suffers from a painful neuromuscular condition that derailed her career, and she thought she would never get to play in a professional orchestra again. The 18 year old in the audience was her daughter. It's of particular note that regardless if the piece she performed or her performance moved her, it's more then likely both played a key roll.

 
As far as ABX goes, there's nothing useful imo. But being presented with something different to what I'm used to may very well be. Going sideways isn't useful either but a stark contrast/improvement in transient performance or bottom end control is telling. If that's the case, you can probably expect better imaging and resolution as well.
However to answer the op, I would say firstly you need a reference to make an educated opinion. That reference is just that, your experience. It takes experience to establish your own understanding of the descriptors used in defining sq. Being told what to listen for without having something to compare to is not helpful. As I mentioned in another thread, I had a stunning wake up call when after shrugging in wonder about what the big deal is, the salesman directed me to "listen to the cymbals", "listen to the snare", listen to the bass definition. I had brought back a NAD receiver I was not pleased with and they gave me full return credit for something else. The something else being that stark contrast. If it wasn't, I would have simply traded for something different, but likely not better. I'm not interested in changes I have to agonize over to recognize. That's just useless. You may need a mentor, but if it's not sideways you'll hear it during an audition, good or bad.


Case in point. I just finally got my recently acquired Futterman OTL4 up and running. This thing is incredibly dynamic. I have as yet not heard bottom end control like this. Very articulate yet tuneful. But the really amazing thing about this amp is that it's right on par with my Acoustat Monitor 3. Amazing because what struck me with the Acoustats was the sheer speed of the ESL panels. Mind you they're driven with their own direct drive servo charge OTL mono amps. But I'm driving the Futterman with my HT Advents!, the only speakers I have on hand with at least 8ohm impedance. OTLs don't like low impedance loads. So I'm on the hunt for a pair of Zero transformers which will bring up the impedance of my other pair of Acoustat 'Model' 3 with which I can then compare the Futterman with the servo charge amps. It will be interesting. Definitely not sideways
 
I listen for realism, like a live show. Good systems have Soundstage depth and reveal the physical location of the musicians within a 3D space. Really good sound is when you hear notes decay while new notes are being played.

It all starts with the recording. Sometimes I can tell if the drumstick has wood or plastic tips, especially when the drummer is hitting the bell portion of his cymbals. Sometimes I can tell if the guitar is plucked by fingers or a pick.

Imaging and stereophonic effects are created by the producer and mixing engineers. Often this goes beyond what you hear live.
 
having been a lower brass player thats what I listen for first, but as my better half was prof. reed player I learned real fast what reeds should sound like. I sat next to and near Double reed players when playing in Symphonies and orchestra so I am familiar with them, too. Sang in choirs being surrounded by pipe organ pipes is a real experience. And for years I attended movies every weekend where a mighty Wurlitzer played for the early and late afternoon intermissions. Being a recording engineer and college student gave me an in-site into the sounds of all acoustical instruments, too. Really and truly a large Harp, harpsichord and piano can define a system very very quickly. Especially a Steinway. There are certain harmonics a Steinway creates that no other piano type equals.
 
The sound of the letter S in vocal music is a good pointer to the naturality of the high frequency reproduction.
 
The sound of the letter S in vocal music is a good pointer to the naturality of the high frequency reproduction.

Actually that's a very good observation. However, if I'm listing to something on the bright side, over use of the words with S's in them can sometimes distract me and as I recall on a couple of occasions, it kinda irritated me. (This was only in a couple of instances mind you). That said, I was also irritated after a while listening to Diana Krall on her Wildflower album and hearing her tongue making sloshing sounds (for lack of a better choice of words). Brings to mind Eva Cassidy's nails clicking between the strings on her Acoustic Guitar ever so lightly I believe it was her Album Acoustic iir. Not nails against the strings, but nails clicking on the wood.
 
Well pronounced consonants are descriptive of transient performance, the toughest to produce cleanly ime being j, v, z, and s. Double consonants being ch, sh. I would not want an amp that does not perform well in this regard as a given minimum. Anything less is simply inferior. Sibilance should be confined to source material and not part of the discussion about the performance of the gear. It belongs in the landfill along with all that NFB wars crap from the 70's when incidentally the opposite performing gear also appeared ushering in truly high end gear still competitive with current offerings.
 
Ultimately the system is there to listen to and enjoy music and that is what happens most of the time.

If I am tweaking something, then I will put on specific records or CDs as 'test recordings' in order to evaluate the changes.
Being an active system there is a lot of possible variations that I can do. I will sometimes do the whole setup thing with a mic and evaluation software if I have made a major change to the system. I keep record files of measured frequency response so that I can compare various setups on the system.
If I change tweeters for example, it's not just a case of varying the tweeter level to suit it's efficiency value, I might also need to change crossover frequencies to better suit transducer response. I like to give myself a good baseline to start from.
The final setup evaluation is always by listening.
 
I like to be able to hear a female singer take a breath and for male voice, I listen to Johnny Hartman’s rich tones. Cymbals are another sound I listen for and in jazz, I love the brushes on the drums. In classical music, I listen to Scheherazade.
 
an unfettered dynamic range is a real plus. clarity all across the spectrum. the top should reveal subtle details of cymbals. the lows should be gut-wrenchingly solid all the way down. the portrayal of a decent soundstage with the pinpoint localization. many people think this is unnatural but it is what the conductor hears because the mics are usually placed over his head.

also, when a sudden impulsive sound hits, it should quiet down immediately in line with its natural decay, and yes, the decay tail should be fully reproduced.

the clarity thing has to do with distortion, the less of that, the clearer the sound.
 
Back
Top Bottom