People used sing-along and dance with audio music in 30s~70s. The audio industry and dealers talked about the natural sound always then. The musicality of hi-end audio was excellent then. Into 80s, the audio industry couldn’t complete the natural sound and gave up on the natural sound. I remember that a famous man said "hi-end audio has peaked and no more improvement from now" from early 90s. Since late 80s with Dolby surround sound, the audio industry turn the table to the sound technology and they don’t talk about the music nor musicality.
Say "Hello" repeat with below appear to be a nice video sounds. You’ll hear lots of speaker distortion. Right. Seems to be a nice sound without your "Hello" sound is, in fact, a bad dirty sound. There is no musicality from the sound like that.
The audio industry needs to understand how bad the current fake audio sound is and find real natural reproduction audio music.
Check this natural sound music. Alex/WTA
|
That first acoustic guitar of Yes' "Starship Troopers" is one of the most 3D, "Strings had real body" moments I can think of through a good system. They hover in the air. But that can't be reproduced through a basic or car system.
|
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.
|
This is beginning to sound like a circular argument.
I care about music. And I care about sound, as a path to creating a more connected, more enjoyable listening experience. That’s always been the case, even before I had the knowledge or wherewithal to indulge my passion.
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.
It has been true for some time now that even mediocre gear has reasonably good frequency response. What it takes for gear to stand out today is a more lifelike presentation. Whether we are talking about soundstage dimensions, or placement the of musicians across a stereo image or the realism of a bow on strings or the impact of percussion - these are the things that elevate listening at home. They are not so easily achieved either. Fine frequency response is not enough. You need more of all of these elements, and some I’ve neglected to mention of course, to have a better than average system.
That’s where a focus on sound quality has relevancy and value.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
@mrdecibel I work on and listen to 2500 songs a year, in every style from every country, done by every level of experience in the production team from beginners to experts for over 25 years, and I get paid to enhance the connection between the listener, to enhance what it is that they will enjoy… some of these are Grammy winners many of them are top-tier productions.
I think I know what people listen to and what they listen for and what they might say about it when they actually are thinking or feeling something else, that’s what I do every day at the highest level
From your words it’s clear to me that you are neither skilled or objective or experienced in getting outside of yourself enough to understand how other people listen.
In "truth", if we must, the majority of people listen to and through the vocal melody. When you get beyond that, there is the rhythm which is essential for the popularity of music. It has to have a great groove/beat and everyone listens to the groove, whether they know it or not they feel/experience the Groove and it matters to them in terms of their interest. After the top line and the groove, it is absolutely beyond you or even me with my credentials and experience to project how other people perceive things
Could be any number of qualities in infinite combinations that draws them in
I gave a roadmap for understanding why the conversation that you observe is about the sound and you are certainly welcome to disagree, yet I don’t think you’re as smart as you think you are :)
Audiophile listeners specifically do not compose or create or record or mix or master music, but they do create with the building of their system… It is a form of creativity and the currency of conversation is "sound" yes that’s true
And that fact, as I’ve explained, doesn’t add up to what you are saying. It’s just the thing that you’re observing people talking about
if you are able to peer inside of the soul and mind of other people, you should be in a totally different field, there would be a lot of money to be made :)
|
@brianlucey , I respect your knowledge and appreciate your response, as I agree with almost everything you said. But the truth is for many listeners, the sound is 1st, and the performance is 2ndary. People are specifically interested in spatiality, imaging and musician localization, the abbreviation is sound staging. Where they (the musicians) are located on a stage; how large is the stage; how close can the listener get to the stage. I do question you statement "being good at playing instruments is really not that important". Totally disagree with you. From your position, can you take a mediocre guitar riff and make it better somehow through electronic manipulation? Autotune does this for vocalists. I am excepting that people are enjoying listening to music for all sorts of reasons, and it does not need to coincide with mine. My purpose in enjoying the music I listen to, 1st and foremost, is the performance...the musicianship and the composition. Listening to "Can't You Hear Me Knocking", am I mistaking that the musicianship is not real, and I am listening to studio manipulation to enhance the "playing". Is Mick Taylor not at his best laying down his guitar track. Maybe, because when I saw the Stones live when he was still in the band, his solo work was not quite as good, though still enjoyable. If all of the musicians I enjoy listening to are being manipulated at your end to sound their best, well I am disappointed that I am being fooled. My best, always, MrD.
|
@mrdecibel
When we listen to a recording, we perceived the sound and the performance as a singularity, in the same moment
by the same token, every person who listens to the same recording focuses on one of 100 detailed aspects of the recording, a guitarist hears the guitarist, vocalist hears the vocalist, Mixer hears the mix, etc.
As a mastering engineer, I spend every day enhancing the sound of recordings which when done correctly also enhances the performance. the arrangement. The emotional impact. The groove. All of it.
Objectively what we’re all looking for is the balance of all things being at a very high-level. So from the moment of inspiration through the arrangement, the recording, the performance, the tracking engineering, the mixing engineering, the mastering engineering… In a perfect world all of it is done at a very high level in service of an artist who is full of authenticity and vulnerability And the capacity to play the instruments in such a way that it supports that artist
Side note ... being good at playing instruments is really not very important, that’s an area where people get derailed, that’s just ego. It’s not actually musically important The goal of music is connection and if you’re a classical player, obviously you have to have a lot of skill to facilitate that connection, but in other styles, you only have to have sufficient technical skill to facilitate the connection… Connection is the real currency of music. The Sound, Pattern and Quality of music is about the intimacy of the artist, connecting people to each other building a community and elevating the energy of everyone involved
Music is subjective, sure, but what makes a Music recording great is actually not so subjective, it can be identified in every style
It’s like when we are auditioning a speaker there are maybe 10 or 12 qualities that we might name that we’re looking for in the speaker design, and generally a speaker will be strong in certain areas and weak in other areas. We might subjectively prefer one combination of strengths and weaknesses over another
yet a really great speaker is equally strong in every area and those strengths are very high up the scale
I disagree with the assertion that Audiophiles are more interested in sound, what’s happening is they are discussing the sound because they’ve already decided on a piece of music or maybe five or 10 pieces of music or songs that they’re using as references ... so that part of the equation they’ve already decided on and then they use those references to audition
discussing the sound at that later point of the process is the inevitable result
Also, some people are just clueless, and they follow trends or view price as quality and they have no idea what they’re doing… There’s a lot of of that as well :)
|
Hello.
Why you don't want to mention the reviewer, nor the specific equipment being reviewed ? So we don't know what we are discussing about ?????
|
The thing I like most about music is that it can express things that we don’t have other ways of expressing. You could talk to me all day about a Beethoven Symphony, for instance, but until I hear it I’ll have no idea what you are talking about. Once I hear it maybe some of what you said will make sense, but it won’t have said what the music itself communicated.
As for individual expression of the performers, I’m not as much in to that. The music seems robust, in terms of who plays it and what instrument quality, what system it is reproduced on. It’s otherwise uncommunicable message can come across through any musician of reasonable skill to hit the right notes on time.
I’m not saying that I’m listening to music right, and other are wrong. There’s nothing better or worse about focusing on the talent of the musician, or the excellence of the system. I take note of exceptional talent, and exceptionally good sounding playback equipment. I think it has worth. But it doesn’t come first for me. Strangely, I can often get more deeply drawn in to a piece while I’m struggling to learn to play it, or listening to someone else trying to learn it. I used to lay on the floor while my sister practiced piano, mesmerized by the development of the piece as she got better and better each time through.
|
I go for the “connection “. Are the musicians speaking (not just playing) with their instruments? With their voice and words?
It’s great to have a high end system, but, for me, it’s all about the MUSIC, not just the sound.
For example, Julie Londons, Cry me a River. Of course, it’s well recorded ( lovely Barney Kessel guitar). But, Julie expresses pain, disappointment, loss, anger, betrayel, treason! And, sweet revenge…all those things girls wanted to tell me. But, couldn’t articulate it like Julie. (That’s why I play it privately in the wee hours).
She almost makes me cry when I feel her pain. Almost.
As an audiophile, whenever I host a listening session for my fellow audiophiles, I always have a box of Kleenex in the room just in case. So, think about all those cry babies before you break out your Jim Nabors collection, mmmannnnn!
|
Being a musician and audiophile and general techie with an electronics background with some visual artistic endeavors...lol...I like ALL aspects of it. But I often wonder about too how some probably really get away from what would seem to be the end to the means...hearing music you love reproduced as realistically as possible.
|
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.
|
Check out the latest YT video of Lachan of Passion for Sound, and his latest topic. Enjoy! Always, MrD
|
@audphile1 +1, very nicely said, but "Keith Don't Go" is also a standout to Nil's musicianship and virtuosity as a guitar player and singer. As I still communicate with many of my customers whom I’ve consulted with and folks I have met since, there IS a change over from listening to the musicianship, to listening to the gear. This has been proven time and time again, from my personal observations. When someone makes a statement that to them a recording is poor, they will not listen to it, especially through there rig, I feel sad, for them. So much "magic" from these musicians. I listen to bootlegs of various artists that are recorded poorly, based on audiophile standards, but damn, the musicianship is GREAT. I understand, really I do, but many moons ago, it was all about the music. It is now, all about the sound (for the greater majority of listeners). I will restrain (at least I will try) from harping on this. Those folks who listen to the music 1st, and those folks who listen to the gear 1st, know who they are. As I have stated, if the enjoyment is there, so be it, and that IS what it’s all about. So, thank you all for participating and interacting with me. My best to everyone. MrD.
|
You need to be able to read between the lines
+1 @audphile1 - reviewer don’t choose average gear to review, they choose good-great performing gear. I paid special attention when a familiar reviewer was unusually surprised at the very positive component performance, commenting why didn’t they review this brand before. After additional research, I purchased it.
|
The job of a reviewer is to review how a particular piece of kit reproduces instruments using their reference recordings. Some reviewers will focus simply on that aspect of music reproduction looking for accuracy and resolution. Others will mention how a familiar recording moved them emotionally. In both cases reading and understanding reviews is a skill. You need to be able to read between the lines. Personal preference will influence the conclusion of a review. That’s what we need to understand.
You don’t need an uber high end, uber expensive system to enjoy music. As a matter of fact ultra resolving systems will more often than not steer the listener towards more analytical listening, getting in a way of enjoying a composition and performance. It’s tough to get out of that mode. You begin to listen to perfectly recorded music only because your system will make a crappy recording sound like crap. I’ve been there, done that. Striking that ultimate balance of resolution and musical enjoyment takes time and effort. That’s what the system building is all about to me. Once you get there that system will allow you to appreciate all aspects of music reproduction starting from what the emotions the musicians are conveying by performing a particular piece to the skills of the recording engineer and their ability yo capture that performance to deliver it in its full glory to the listener.
Ultimately this hobby, to me, is both about the music and the gear. It should never be about gear alone. I want to be able to enjoy listening for all the hyper details that are available on Nils Lofgren’s “Keith Don’t Go” but be able to play Bruno Walter’s Mahler and enjoy it for the performance. Just my $0.02
|
I think reviewers often zero in on individual instruments instead of the entire piece? When an artist(s) puts together I good track the finished product far exceeds the sum of its parts. I have on occasion listened for certain instruments or passages but I'm quite sure that is not how the arrangement was meant to be heard, but each to his own liking.
|
Speaking of Jeff Beck, and later the mention of Rod Stewart, the duo gave meaning to their remake of Curtis Mayfield's "People Get Ready". One word describes it. Amazing. Enjoy ! MrD.
|
What about the engagement between the listener and the musician.
Agree that “engagement” is important, but that’s “personal” engagement. Whether other people’s engagement is important in evaluating gear seems like a bad idea as engagement is highly based on subjective preferences. Even one’s mood can change engagement. A 300b lover might be engaged, while another might not but instead seeking neutrality and fast dynamics.
|
@wolf_garcia "It would be ridiculous to judge any music for sound instead of musicianship". "Do people actually do that?" EXACTLY my point ! Yes wolf, there are many. Too many in fact, which I find sad. However, if they are enjoying their systems, who am I to suggest to them what to listen for. I know what to listen for to satisfy my enjoyment, as everyone does in their own way. ymmv. My best, MrD.
|
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.
|
Number first for me is, I Have to Like the Music. The performance. Then, how it sounds and how my system reproduces it. Yes. I could nit pick the technical issues of my or "the system" and recording. But I have a limit to how much "issues" I will tolerate. If I don't like the Music, I'm not going to purchase it, cue it up, sit and listen to it.
|
Op member Skhong has a thread visiting MikeLavigne and download Mike and his system . Those system have amazing sound and musicality.Both audiophile are very knowledgeable .
|
This is a great question.
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.
Music has the unique power to elicit emotion without thought. Another cool side effect,
However, I am also a gearhead. The art and elegance of high-end equipment is important to me as well. I delight in difficult passages being rendered flawlessly, the glow of the tubes, the engineering. It all thrills me.
I think of this like driving fast- I love it! It's even more fun in a Ferrari.
|
OP my early years on this hobby , I normally listen to rock. Drums and lead guitars attract my hearing and good sound.Once my friend brought country music cd and played it to my system? He said my system sound good but it’s not musical.I did not know what he meant? He invited to listen to his system.Still I did not get it.It took 3 yrs after I knew what he was talking about. That 3 yrs I listen with different music.Later on I met onother guy who introduced me to jazz and classical.Here with so much experience, I was able to accomplish both good sound and musicality as well.Yes it can be done .
|
I have been to many a live gig that sucked because the musicianship just wasn't there and/or the sound setup sucked. Every time we interact with music we are interacting with those two conditions. It doesn't matter whether we are in a hall or in our living room.
|
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.
|
You are talking about two separate issues. I can listen to Maria Caras sing on terrible old recordings and still be brought to tears. The artistry of the musician will shine through terrible sound.
Sound quality is a different issue. Saying violins sound like violins is a tautology. It means absolutely nothing. What I am looking for in sound quality is, with a good recording, the feeling that I am in front of a real instrument or orchestra/band. That takes the right amplitude response for the volume, the capability to image 3 dimensional objects in space with blackness between and powerful bass response below 100 Hz. The Dave Holland Quintet albums are a great example of recordings that can fool you into thinking you are in front of the band on a good system. I have seen the band three times at the Regatta Bar in Boston's Charles Hotel. Those recordings image that band perfectly.
The three octaves below 100 Hz are incredibly important to the visceral sensation of live music. In a residential setting 20 to 40 Hz has to be EQed up at least 6 dB with a low Q to approach the kind of power you get in a live setting.
|
I'm not interested in reproducing a live gig in my home; I'm interested in getting the best I can (with what I can afford) from what the producer put on the recording. The same live performance can sound completely different depending on the listening/recording vantage point.
|
_dalek_ wrote:
'So much is written about recreating the experience of having the music performers standing in front of you in your listening room."
Yes, but I think it's important to distinguish between "illusion" and "reality." It would take a system of exceptional power and resolution to truly recreate a live (or studio) performance. But even a modest system should give you "the whole picture" as much as possible. I've heard modest systems that can do that. I particularly recall a pair of Nestorovich speakers in a well-tuned room that did a very good job of projecting the performers in real space, though certainly not with real-world dynamics.
|
I still use early Rod Stewart and Van Morrison recordings to judge my system changes for this very reason…those records convey both a high quality of sonic representation, AND a joy of musical spontaneity that engages and excites me. “Cut Across Shorty” with its driving drums and 12 string, “Domino” with its Stax/Volt vibe and rhythmic drive, for example. I also need to play “Kucano Oro” from MA Recordings ‘Old Country’ for its ultra-audiophile recording of Howard Levy, Mark Nauseff, and Miroslav Tadic performing unbelievable musical feats. All these groups can be enjoyed at “loud enough” but not actual live music levels in one’s living room.
|
Wow, this a true thinkpiece. Of course the musicianship is important, along with the musician's emotion traveling through the instrument, recorded excellently with precision gear and reproduced by your Hi-Fi. Everything is important.
|
So much is written about recreating the experience of having the music performers standing in front of you in your listening room. Perhaps this is possible for un-amplified voice and stringed instruments, but from my experiences in rock bands, this would be deafening. Not just amplified music... having a horn section in front of you in an enclosed space could exceed the threshold of pain. I always played with ear plugs in order to protect my ears. An audio rig that faithfully reproduces a live band in an enclosed space should be able to have enough bass slam to turn your chest cavity into a passive radiator.
|
I have spent many years conducting research to understand how people perceive products of various kinds. The aim of this research has been to provide designers and engineers with feedback regarding how particular product features influence consumers' perception.
Differences in source material may well be factors in the perception of audio system quality. The way to resolve that is with a standardized set of source material that spans the range of potentially relevant audio system qualities. Whether you personally like the source music (or any other acoustic material) is not the issue. Professional taste testers face the same issue. However, they are trained to focus on the physical qualities of products rather than their own personal likes or dislikes. Musicianship might be an important quality of audio reproduction, but, if so, it can simply be included as a factor in the standardized sample of source material. In fact, a formal study to test this would be interesting to do.
|
I very much judge a system by how well you get a sense of the performer as a three-dimensional person, as well as how realistically the actual recording is conveyed. Whether it's Horowitz in Carnegie Hall, Coleman Hawkins standing at a ribbon mic in 1958 or Charles Munch coaxing a response from the Boston Symphony, I'm certainly more interested in hearing the character of the performers and the sense of their physical presense. What's the point otherwise? I mean, what's a stereo for if not to take you to places and hear people you otherwise never could?
And I welcome any reviewer of musical reproduction equipment who takes the same POV. If a reviewer says something like, "With speaker X you get a clear sense of Horowitz's nervousness after ten years away from the concert platform," I'm interested! ;-)
|
It’s cool you’re into technique, but it’s worth noting that even many extremely accomplished musicians don’t feel they’ve arrived until they get beyond technique into the realm of pure expression.
|
Most audio magazines include music reviews as well as equipment reviews. I always read the music reviews first and in those reviews they never talk about the equipment used, so why should the equipment reviewers mention musicianship?
|
Audiophile definition per Merriam-Webster:
A person who is enthusiastic about high fidelity sound reproduction.
|
@painter24 @mahler123 @hilde45 +1
Other than the equipment reviewer describing why he/she chose particular tracks to evaluate the equipment I have no idea why there would be an expectation of a further deep discussion of the composition and the musicianship in the article. Music reviews cover those.
Also, some of the comments are digressing to why one owns equipment versus the Op's concern about equipment reviews not focusing on musicianship and music composition
|
Live music in the room with you, instant active creative energy in collaboration is what it's all about. That's the magic, that's the thing - that's the clear spot.
That's what one part of what we're trying to reproduce at home, there is more but there ain't nothing like the real thing baby..
|
Interesting perspectives and responses…
To be honest about it, I think (for me) It was about the Music when I was Young… It is Now more about the gear….hmmm.
|
Michael Hedges’ “Aerial Boundaries,”
Jeff Beck “For We’ve Ended As Lovers,”
El Ten Eleven “Thinking Loudly” and/or “Fanshawe”
King Crimson’s “I Talk to the Wind,”
Nora Jones “Come Away with Me.”
All on vinyl, all original pressings, are just a few songs I use every time I “audition” a new piece of audio gear for just those elements you mentioned.
I’ve listened to each probably hundreds of times. I’m NOT a musician - I did take drumming lessons for a few years from a 92 year old Jazz drummer though - but I can appreciate the compositions, the complexity, the PLAYING details, how the instruments are used, how they “move me.”
No, it’s not “classical music” - As much as I enjoyed Mozart, Bach (JS as well as PDQ), many other Baroque-period composers growing up, the audio mileau I’m more familiar with is rock-jazz and I’m not a music snob. I mean, Mozart and his contemporaries didn’t leave any LP’s or HS audio tapes around to compare and every player since imparts their own flavor upon those compositions.
I like audio gear to NOT sound like anything, just as neutral as possible, within my budgetary means.
|
+1 @hilde45
Who reads an audio magazine to learn about whether a performer sounds like they are emotionally involved, or whether the music makes one want to dance, or whatever. I read music magazines for that. I read audio magazines to get an idea of how the components involved reproduce the sound frequencies produced by the performers.
|
You should just go listen to live music more. Audio equipment to really generate something close to that is over 100 grand to get close to the composition and all the nuances. Gear matters more to make the not only the right sound of 1 element but to reproduce the live recording takes BIG MONEY.
|
It would be ridiculous to judge any music by sound instead of musicianship. Do people actually do that? When looking at a great painting are some simply noticing a bunch of paint colors secondary to the art quality? Hmmm...Jeff Beck kills me playing any guitar from any period...Strats, Telecasters, Les Pauls...all sounding different but clearly it’s his playing that matters. Great sounding crappy music is still crappy music, well played great music is always great. You could arguably judge a system’s tonal qualities for review purposes with beer guzzler belches you were familiar with, but I’d prefer the Danish String Quartet or Julian Lage, and both are well recorded. Win win.
|
Regardless of what any reviewer says (or anyone else, for that matter), fact is, the world of high end audio is and always will be all about subjectivity when it comes to the reproduction of sound. I just concentrate my own audio system, in the comfort of my own home, and how it musically and emotionally connects with me. Nothing else really matters. Happy listening.
|
I may be missing the OP's point, forgive me if so but, if I want to explore or discuss music for music's sake, I read music publications and online resources; if I want to explore the potential of a hifi component with a view to that component relaying the music I love, to me, in a manner I happen to prefer, I'd read HiFi publications or forums such as this.
I don't expect HiFi review publications/reviewers to wax lyrical about an artists virtuosity, or the profundity of their lyrics; I need them to relay to me how the equipment they're reviewing works and how it conveys music
On the flip side, when exploring for new music or reading music publications and reviews, I don't really need or want them to give me a review of their hifi system, only the artist and the music they are reviewing.
But that's just me 🤔😊
|
@hilde45 +1
@ghdprentice +!
Audio reviewers aren't discussing the production of sound, they're discussing the reproduction of sound.
|
