How much reality do you really need?

rvpiano
to answer your original query- Reality that places Me closest to the live event.

Happy Listening!

As far as live performances, most often, I have no desire to re-create a live performance in my home. My old ears no longer tolerate 85-110db of loud and most of the pop and rock concerts I went to over the years, while engaging and enjoyable, they were loud and great acoustics was seldom their strong point. Most live jazz performances and orchestral, not quite so loud (85-90 db, as apposes to 110+ db) and the added enjoyment of listening to real instruments - strings, horns and percussions; still to loud for me to listen to at that level for several hours every night. I have no desire to spend a night enjoying my favorite music only to have my ears numb for the next three days.

As far as comparing the performance of one’s system at home to the experience of listening to a great live performance in the studio, by and large the studio experience (except for the education) would be a bit of a let down. Most of the work in the studio is mixing, editing, dubbing, recording and re-takes. Quite often, all the performers, instrumentalists and back up vocalists aren’t even in the studio at the same time, performing together, as a group. Rather than a great one take live studio performance, it is most often a consortium and a culmination to create a masterful rendition of how the performers and recording engineers believe the performance should sound. Wether or not the end result sounds exactly as they intended on your system at home is speculative at best. The important thing is that your system makes it sound right to you.

What I enjoy now and appreciate, in my home, is a good recording that imparts the timber, texture, emotion and fullness of a live performance and the ability of my system to present that to me with all those qualities on an imaginary stage beyond my speakers, at a volume my old ears can handle.....Jim

rvpiano, your response had me think up a good one. "When life give's you lemons make martinis"!

The performances jump out of the groves with my new cartridge today. Does it sound real?
No, it will always be an electronic recreation.
Do I care? NO

At +/- 24% THC, about a dollars worth of cannabis in the bowl is all you need these days.  ha ha 

"There is one simple trick to dramatically improving your system for about $1.00 Enjoy a small amount of THC prior to sitting down to listen for an hour or two. Those who do know I speak the truth. Those who haven't....."



I'm in...Now where can I find those 1 dollar THC hits in 2021?

There is one simple trick to dramatically improving your system for about $1.00  Enjoy a small amount of THC prior to sitting down to listen for an hour or two.  Those who do know I speak the truth.  Those who haven't..... 

Mijostyn.

Just for the record,
 I prefer lemon in my martinis.

In any audio show about 1 in 100 listening rooms reproduces music completely realistically.  It is a rare event and most people never hear it.  Many think they do.  Most vendors don't know how to get there strangely enough.  It's better to talk with the engineers if you can.  When you get "there" with your system, you will find all systems that produce realistic sound, sound alike.  You cannot get more real than real.  It is a hoot actually, and one heck of a lot of work. 

I don't think most want the most close to live sound. I think most audiophiles have a preference. How far are you willing to go to achieve this goal? Most tend to push the boundaries further and further and that expands the costs.

Seems that unless you were there to witness and hear the actual recoding being made, reality is largely undefinable. Everyone is aware of the differences in source quality. A lousy production sounds lousy at any price IMO, a better lousy, but lousy nonetheless. 

@larry5729

"How do you know if your system sounds like the sound room where it was recorded or how it sounded live?  I think a sound system alters the sound in order to hear what sounds most pleasing to your ear.  The next step is how much are you willing to spend or how much will your spouse allow you to spend"


I agree but this is not hi-fi orthodoxy!  .

Mijostyn,

Your  historical references  are as irrelevant as your opinion.

rvpiano, why on earth are you so sensitive to a word? It means, functioning badly. It is not meant to be insulting in any way shape or form.
Just a short 75 years ago we were blowing up people with A bombs. Now there's an insult. An insult is an expression or word you hurl at an individual. Then you slap him in the face and challenge him to a dual. We are such cool creatures, anyway. Please, get yourself a gin and tonic, don't forget the lime and chill out. 

Reality. What a concept.

Mijostyn,

I, of course, realize that obsessing over the sound to the detriment of the music is not to be wished for. But DYSFUNCTIONAL???
That word has such pejorative implications, it should not be glibly used. Compulsive, yes.  And many of us are infused with that curse.  It’s almost the nature of the hobby.
But  I find the term dysfunctional way too strong and ultimately insulting.

"Music (i.e. art) is nor reality. It is freedom from reality.".

Epistemology 101: the coffee table may be a figment of my imagination, or it may be a bunch of subatomic particles or even electromagnetic waves, but it sure hurts when I knock my shin against it.

rvpiano, listening to the sound is not dysfunctional. It is what we audiophiles do. Can I listen to the sound and enjoy the music at the same time? You bet. Does the sound ever keep me from enjoying the music? Never, unless it is bad music and there is more of that than ever. I have to say that good sound lets me enjoy the music more. What I think is dysfunctional is letting frustration with the sound quality ruin your enjoyment of the music. There have been plenty of times I have been less than happy with the sound of my system but that never stopped me from listening to music. 

What the music sounded like when it was recorded is not the point. It is what it sounds like when it is played back. If you can close your eyes and imagine you at a live event you are in business. That is my definition of the absolute sound. 

Reality? that's live music.

A stereo can get you only so much. If you have a nicely recorded, produced and manufactured live album, you can get a good rendition of it.

The sickness of the audiophile (which unfortunately is me) is the willingness to continue to pay more and more for less and less perceived improvement in SQ. The poorest to the wealthiest audiophiles have the same sickness, just some will pay a lot more, and get a little more.

Anytime I change anything in my system and it sounds better to me, I get a rush. That's the addictive drug of the hobby. Nothing else.

How do you know if your system sounds like the sound room where it was recorded or how it sounded live?  I think a sound system alters the sound in order to hear what sounds most pleasing to your ear.  The next step is how much are you willing to spend or how much will your spouse allow you to spend.

I think it is fun to do things in stages and to improve the sound.  This gives you something to look forward to.  Problem is, the equipment depreciates rapidly.

Many young people have no choice but to start somewhere, but they are at least starting.

What amazes me is to look at real estate listings and not see a single home with a pair of speakers in any room of their house.  For example they might have a $5,000 piece of furniture with a wide screen TV and they are listening to their TV speakers.  I would estimate 70% of viewing a movie is based on sound. People living in a $800,000 house listening to their TV speakers.  Yikes!

Mglik - The "more" I'm referring to has to do with the listener, not the system hardware. If you are a regular concert goer or have attended many in your lifetime, you have a larger knowledge-base at your disposal.
When you say "this sounds real", it carries more weight because you have a clearer idea of what real sounds like.

Mijostyn,

it’s certainly not a matter of getting mad at the music. That wouldn’t be dysfunctional, that would be crazy.
I can’t believe you’re not aware that a common thread of many ongoing Audiogon discussions has concerned the problem of being so obsessed with the sound of one’s system that it gets in the way of actually listening to the music. It’s not a question of fixing your system. It’s the nature of this hobby that we pay so much attention to the sound.
If that’s dysfunctional, then it’s possible a large portion of us are occasionally dysfunctional.

dweller - This is usually the case. I know that each improvement in my system brings more appreciation and enjoyment. The upgrade process seems never ending and many who put more and more into their systems not only experience diminishing returns but find that their "improvement", at times, spoils the sound and the experience.
But, mostly, one never imagines that the SQ can be better until they hear the effect of their upgrade. And, IME, price usually can be paralleled with quality.

 mglik - Isn't appreciation a function of the motivation and experience of the listener? I.e., the more you put into it the more you get out of it?

rvpiano, letting the struggle to achieve the absolute sound or whatever sound you are looking for ruin your enjoyment of music would be IMHO dysfunctional. If you are unhappy with your system, fix it. Don't get mad at the music.
twoleftears, you are exactly right. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. That is a reality no one can change. You and I can argue about the definition of east and west but the reality does not change. How you react to that reality or how that reality affects your life is another topic. 
HiFi systems exist to play back music. How well they function in that regard is a continuum from terrible to wonderful. The problem is defining where your system exists on that continuum. That evaluation is further clouded by the differences in perception between us and our lack of language to quantify what we hear. My experience with the best systems is that everyone that hears them readily agrees that these systems are incredible. I interpret this phenomenon to mean that locked in us is the experience of live music and when we hear it we recognize it right away.
All or enough of the ques are present to convince you you are listening to a live performance. This seems to apply to everyone that has gone to live performances.  

It is really subjective. My brother is perfectly happy listening to his 250 tunes from the speaker in his iPhone 6s. If it makes him happy, that’s all that should matter. Me on the other hand, like to explore new and different equipment and music. For instance, I just added a SVS subwoofer to my HT system. Probably will be buying a second soon.

All the best.

JD

@mijostyn   Your post presupposes that reality exists autonomously, independent of everyone's apprehension of it. I'll leave that one to @hilde45 to resolve.

Since the listener is part of an interactive system with the music-recording-reproduction circuit, it's all real. 

As for independent reality existing, how would we know? ;-) 

noun

1. 1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

A definition of Art.
”appreciated primarily for their beauty and emotional power”
Does this not define the enjoyment of our electronic recreation of music? Reality is not at issue. Appreciation is.

@mijostyn  Your post presupposes that reality exists autonomously, independent of everyone's apprehension of it.  I'll leave that one to @hilde45 to resolve.

But in the case of recorded music, we're talking about three discrete realities: the music that was made and recorded; the recording (tape, digital file, whatever); and the actualization of the recording in the home environment.  How can the reality be the same for everyone?

All I'm looking for is an emotional connection to the music and to understand where the composer/artist/performer etc. wants to take me and/or what they want me to feel or think about.

And it doesn't take a ne plus ultra system to do that.  In fact, most of the ultra high end systems I've heard had me concentrating more on the sound of the system than the music being played.  Maybe that would change over time and familiarity, but I'll never know because I'm unwilling to spend the kind of money it would take to get to that point.

At this point, my system does what I want.  I'm going to be changing a few things in the near future that will hopefully increase my enjoyment of my music collection.

Mijostyn,

Dysfunctional — “A failure to function in an expected or complete manner. Usually refers to a disorder in a bodily organ (e.g. erectile dysfunction), a mental disorder, or the improper behavior of a social group.”

Is this what you mean?

But my question is how much does that search distract from or even destroy your enjoyment of the music?

I would say it used to somewhat but since I've been reading more about the problem I know it's never possible to recreate the sound of a live performance or even a studio mix in your home all you can do is try to recreate what's on the recorded media to sound as good to yourself as possible whether LP, CD, Tape or file. 

rvpiano, that would be sad indeed. Dysfunctional maybe.

@jjss49, The reality is the same for everyone. It is how they interpret it that differs. An absolute sound system will do exactly the same thing for a well recorded Bruce Springsteen concert as for a well recorded symphony, make it believable. The best systems do not discriminate. In spite of imperfections in the process at multiple levels a system can still be put together that with your eyes closed will make you feel as if you are at a live performance and such a system will convince everyone listening to it of exactly the same illusion. 

How you listen is important.  There are times I sit back and listen for the beauty and significance of the music, and the beautiful sounds of my stereo.
  But there are times I IMAGINE I’m in a hall; then I listen for the artifacts of reality — sound staging and such.  Then, I can convince myself my set is accurately producing my experience in an auditorium.

To the poster who deleted the post that suggested that I have “disdain for the subject” and asked “why I need to announce it”. No worries, I can handle incorrect, not to mention silly assumptions and questions; and I’m glad that you saw the error in your ways 😊. I’ll try and answer anyway.

“Disdain”?! Hardly. I may be more frugal with my audio dollars than my means might allow, but I’m as much an audiophile as anyone 😱. However, I try to not let my interest in sound be a distraction from my (greater) interest in the music, as the OP suggests in his most recent post. If it bothers you that I “announce” this, then just ignore me; but, I thought that forums were a place to “announce” opinions.

Cheers.

The better the sound, the closer one gets to the music. It is, after all, all about the music.

Frank

10:46am”… being an audiophile is all about the sound. It really has little to do with the music,”
I suppose for some that is true.  But for others, chasing the goal of sound perfection gets in the way of the music.

as we can see in our world today, reality is reality, but each person's belief of what is reality can be different, dreadfully, woefully different - musically for example, a person who goes to live springsteen performances at the meadowlands has a totally different take on reality of music than a season ticket holder to the boston symphony...

so asking 'how much reality one needs out of their hifi' is a lost cause, an exercise in futility

furthermore, recordings are made with substantial imperfections and losses, and then the reproduction of the recordings incur further losses... some good systems can sometimes add some 'enhancements' to deliver a more pleasing illusion to the listener in the course of reproduction (e.g. vacuum tube distortion), such is the subjectivity in this pursuit in working with biomechanics of our hearing and our tastes

so one can say audiophiles are about 'the sound'... that wouldn't be totally wrong... but smart and seasoned audiophiles are about the sound in service of delivering beautiful, engaging musical experiences... 

...short of that, we are playing games with semantics, not having a discussion of the substance of the pursuit

rvpiano, excellent question...

I'll turn the question on its head:  How much reality do you want to escape from?  Seems to me we are all in the "Disneyland" business of escapism.  If you're not then you're listening to the equipment (reality) rather than being in an altered state of mind.  Being carried away into the ether has always been my goal.  Floating.

Regards,
barts 

rvpiano, being an audiophile is all about the sound. It really has little to do with the music. Loving and appreciating music is another endeavor entirely. An audiophile is concerned about the technicalities of sound reproduction. A music lover loves music. It is actually very unusual for a human to not like music. Our life's experience is all about rhythm.  

One more thing. I can understand the negativity. There were many times out of frustration I could have thrown a turntable out the window. It seemed that without spending serious money, which the vast majority of us do not have, you could never approach the ideal. The first system I heard that approached the "absolute sound" was back in 1979 and I think the person put it together by accident more than by design. I have been chasing that level of performance since. You buy a new piece of equipment hoping that it will get you there or at least closer and 80% of the time it does not or even takes you backwards. I can count the pieces of equipment that really made a big improvement on one hand. 
Also, you do not need absolute hearing to appreciate the "absolute sound." There is a lot more to it than just frequencies over 10 kHz. They really do not matter all that much. People with aging ears do not have to worry nor can they use it as an excuse. 

Some very, very eloquent posts here on the relationship of reality to the listening experience. But my question is how much does that search distract from or even destroy your enjoyment of the music?

NONE!!

@rettrussell Loved that passage. Thanks for sharing it. Have you read Boorstin's short little gem, "Making experience repeatable"? It's about what happened to our appreciation of music when it was no longer a live event, connected to a time, place, social occasion.

@fuzztone  Your disdain for the topic needs to be announced, why?

There is a structure. It is just very hard to define and might differ according to circumstance (the room). When you hear it you will know it. But, until you have you are a ship out on the ocean without a compass. There is only one degree of defectiveness or another. Thus the endless search for some of us. The fellow realworldaudio is quoting obviously is not there yet. There is no such thing as too much definition. There is only the definition that is there in the recording, no more and no less. Anything else is one form of distortion or another. There is no perfect but, a stereo system can be put together that with your eyes closed will convince you that you are at a live performance with the right recording of which there are many.

@realworldaudio 

I find that _most_ current ultra-high end gear focuses too much on the enhanced resolution aspect, creating an illusionary sonic envelope that feels very much real, but also quite a bit different from the original source. It traps you in the superficiality, and shuts down the imagination, which is the exact opposite of what a live performance does.
So, by getting even higher resolution we might be getting further away from the music itself.... yet, much closer to an imaginary perfected sensory experience. A great and fun endeavor, but ultimately a form of escapism: adoring the shape of sound while shunning the message of the music.

+1000 on this. Brilliant post and I couldn't agree more. So astute and eloquent. Thank you!

@terry9 

Hiide, that's a good point about definition, but I don't agree. Sometimes a good definition only arises in the context of a discussion or a legacy of agreement.

I actually agree with you. I was not meaning to insist on a definition first, but on one which might help in the context of this discussion. Just thought the word "reality" was too unconstrained and we needed some structure. Even sandlot baseball (or pickup basketball, etc.) needs rules to get going.

Everyone’s "reality" is different, as is everyone’s system, room, recordings etc...so in essence it is not achievable. One may think he has reality, while another may think it sounds like crap. There are way too many variables at hand, not to mention we all hear differently. What is important is that "you" are happy in your "own" reality. 

In many cases a realistic volume level is not all that loud. I take my sound pressure meter to some venues.(some you can't take it in with you.) At the Regatta Bar in Cambridge, Ma I get between 85 and 95 dB. At those volumes my ears never ring. These are relatively easy levels to achieve in a home system with the exception of low bass. A speaker will have it's frequency response tested at 1 meter, say it does 20Hz to 20kHz +- 3 dB. what that means in reality in a room at 4 meters is 50Hz to 20kHz if you are lucky. The entire bottom octave is missing and it is that octave that give you the visceral sensations you get at a live venue. So, some systems regardless of the volume are never going to give you the "I am there" vibe. This is just one reason subwoofers are so important even if they open another can of worms. It takes at least two 15" woofers or four 12" woofers to properly load a room at 20 Hz minimum. You can add bass with smaller subwoofers but you won't make it down to 20 Hz effectively enough to get to 95 dB.