Brian, you would be surprised at the number of folks I interact with, many admitting to putting the musicianship and the composition 2nd in what he/she listens for, and those, that do not admit to it. I admire your passion, and your work, but I started this thread because of my point. I have my specialty, although not as high on the bar as yours, so if you feel I am not smart, that is your prerogative. But, at my end, you are blind as to what I am experiencing out here in the high end audio world. I have nothing more to say, other than keep up the great work! My best, always, MrD.
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.
- ...
- 60 posts total
Again, I'm not doubting what you're observing, I'm saying you're conclusion as to what that observation means is incorrect audiophile listeners (whoever that group may be ) are building a system based around the "sound" of the system because that is their creative contribution, that is an absolute fact… That fact does not lead me to the conclusion that you have come to. of course you're going to come across people discussing the sound of the system that doesn't mean it's the only thing that matters or it's the primary thing. It's just the primary thing when you're talking with them or when they're out shopping.
|
This is beginning to sound like a circular argument. I also believe we have come along way, baby. What I mean is, we lose sight of the fact that the quality of modern gear in general is pretty good. When a reviewer tells me a certain piece of kit helped him achieve a greater connection to the artist or to his art, well that’s just a high compliment. If it happens to be a tune I’m familiar with, then we have a common reference point. And if I’ve been moved in a similar way by that artist or that tune, then he and I also now have a connection too. And I have come a step closer to a better understanding of their perspective. For me, listening is an escape. When I catch myself focusing on the sound instead of the music, unless it’s because something is wrong, I attempt to refocus on what’s important: the melody, the lyric, the voice, the mood, the energy. You get the idea.
|
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. |
- 60 posts total