So, a reviewer just said something I need to talk about.


I will not mention the reviewer, nor the specific equipment being reviewed, but this statement was made, talking about sax and strings: "the strings had real body, and it sounded like real strings being played". The tonality of the instruments was what he/she was talking about. I get this. The tone, the spatiality of the instruments, the stage that was presented. All well and good. What about the engagement between the listener and the musician. I have stated so many times here, ad nauseam, that the most important aspect of music listening, for me (and not enough with other listeners) is the "playing of the instruments". The artistry of the musician behind those strings. I just don’t get it. When I listen to Jeff Beck (RIP), using him as an example, what I am attracted to, FIRST & FOREMOST, is his PLAYING. Reviewers talk about "sound". Most people here talk about "sound". I spend more time now on other sites, that speak about the music playing and, the compositions. For whatever reasons, I seem to be realizing, that A’gon members, as so many reviewers, talk about sound. They very rarely mention MY most important aspect of listening. The musicianship and the compositions. Another rant from me. What are your thoughts on this? How do you listen? What do you listen for/to? What does your system convey to you? I know I am out of line again, but........My best to everyone. Always, MrD.

mrdecibel

Showing 4 responses by immatthewj


You don’t need an uber high end, uber expensive system to enjoy music.

No, @audphile1  , you don't.  But it is altogether possible that the more you spend the more you want out of it, and if you own a system that cost less than some of the power cords you referenced on a recent previous thread, you may have different priorities and different expectations.

What about the engagement between the listener and the musician.

If I am not actually there at the live event, it is the quality of the recording and the quality of the system that the recording played back on, that dictate the level of my engagement with the musician(s). Everyone should be entitled to listen for, and enjoy, whatever it is that floats their boat, but if I play a good revealing recording of a performance in which the artist had a few warts going on, and my system is lays that bare, for me, that is a win.

If I play a poor recording of music I like by an artist I like, I’d probably rather not be listening to it on a revealing system.

For me the brilliance of the musician is why I listen- His music, execution, cleverness of the delivery- all these are the "hooks" that pull me in.

I'd go along with that . . . and I think that maybe most people would.  But if the recording does not capture all of that and the system doesn't play that back.from the recording, all of that is lost.  

I care about music. And I care about sound, as a path to creating a more connected, more enjoyable listening experience.

I totally agree with that, @woofman74 . However, in the past I was never a big fan of jazz or classical, and over the last few years I came around to gaining an appreciation of jazz due to owning better audio gear, and more recently I am gaining an appreciation for classical. This is also due to owning better gear than I used to own.

(I am all digital) and I am trying out/breaking in a pair of speakers and also breaking in some new power cords (all at the same time, unfortunately) and I started out a six hour session earlier today with Sheffield’s The Moscow Sessions and I found myself really enjoying the sound of the instruments. Then I put on (I guess it would be jazz) The Rippingtons (and I have actually listened to this CD quite a few times by now) but what always strikes me is, "There is a lot going on in front of me.)

During this speaker audition/break in, I am playing a lot of stuff I barely played before. So I put on "No Nukes." This is music I actually probably used to like a lot (and probably still appreciate) but disc one sounded horrible. I was out of the room doing other stuff for most of disc two, but it sounded better that way (out of the room). Then I put on disc one of a CD of The Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame (I think it was from the inductions?) done in the mid or late ’90s, and it was neat music that I liked that wasn’t mastered too bad.  (Actually, I feel it was mastered pretty good, and I was getting into it.)

But that seemingly pointless story was to say that poor source quality ruins my enjoyment of music that I used to really enjoy. And good source quality makes me appreciate stuff that used to leave me pretty cold.