no worries.
"audiophiles listen to their equipment"
That quote is misattributed to Alan Parsons, as I understand. Anyway saying there's a problem with wanting good sound is like saying an instrument designer, aiming for beautiful sound, could not possibly be a music lover and is only interested in the sound of the instruments. I.e. the sound is inseparable from the music. For me the beauty of the sound, good microdynamics, and so on, are the "doors" to the meaning of the music.
- ...
- 74 posts total
I'm both an audiophile and an amateur musician. I've studied harmony and counterpoint and I do a little piano improvisation in classical styles. I only have a digital piano at home, so when I'm improvising, I'm focusing on the notes and chords and a rough sense of the rhythm. If I listen to a recording of Glenn Gould performing the C# minor fugue from the Well Tempered Clavier Book 1, even on an iPod with earbuds I can tell the notes he's playing and his rubato, so I can enjoy it to some extent. What does my main headphone system give me? All the qualities beyond notes and rhythms! For example, beauty of timbre. And especially microdynamics. In classical performance by the best players, there's a sophisticated use of small dynamic changes. So much more of the performance comes through in a system with dynamic resolution. It's worth sitting for a while and doing nothing but listening. Why do musicians care less about home audio quality? I think it's because they are so connected in body and mind to musical patterns that they can sense them and feel moved by them even in poor reproduction. They invest their money in their instrument. I've noticed when driving home from an L.A. Philharmonic concert, listening to classical KUSC on the poor quality car system, I am transported back to the beautiful sound I just heard in the concert. If I hear horns on the radio, I think of how beautiful and powerful the live horn sound is. I used to be a brass player, so this is easier for me than if I had had no exposure to live sound. Now just imagine being exposure to live orchestral sound every day. I'm sure that simple systems will sound very evocative to you. |
An interesting question. Is this much different than going to a concert of Mahler? What are you hearing or listening for? Mahler? The CSO, NY Phil? The particular conductor leading the orchestra in performance- or recording? I suggest we are all striving to get as “close to the music” (whatever that means) in all our critical listening- live or recorded. As a classically trained musician, sometimes “listening to the singer/pianist/orchestra/conductor” has its place in my enjoyment (or not!) of a performance/recording. I think we have it within ourselves to determine “what we are listening for” both in person and on recording. Each session may differ. Sometimes I want to hear “x’s” Mahler 4, whether orchestral, conductor or singer. Sometimes the piece itself. Sometimes- I admit I just want to find which Verdi Requiem recording has the best “b_lls to the wall” Dies Irae. Each approach to listening has its place and purpose in our audio enjoyment. After checking out the opening go to 09.00 for the brass choir. |
There is audiophiles focusing on gear upgrades without end because they can afford it... They ignore acoustics controls...( at best they buy panels) There is non audiophiles who pay the least for the gear and claimed their system beat audiophiles one, they mock audiophiles... But they also ignore acoustics controls...( they read gear specs thats all )
But there exist audio wise people who learn how to set a system right and learn acoustics basics...They listen to the system/room... They are neither subjectivist nor objectivist... They know....
|
- 74 posts total