To me they are virtually inseparable. The music will be the first thing that catches my attention but poor SQ can draw my attention to the wrong place and change the feel of the song or become a distraction to the song. To me SQ is like looking at a panoramic view through a screen or a smudged window, you can see what is on the other side but it lacks clarity and detail and is just not as satisfying as looking through clean clear glass.
I have found it interesting when I have heard some songs that I disliked in the past and after hearing them again with much improved SQ, I have found myself appreciating much more what the artists was doing and in some cases even liking the song.
|
Thank you rvpiano (have you a piano in an rv?!) for this question. It goes to the heart of what we're all about on this site, and in our "hobby."
I've currently had some problems with one of my components (30+ year old speakers that I've long loved), so I've been auditioning alternatives in my home: B&W, Revel, PSB, MartinLogan, Von Schweikert. Because of this, I've recently been focused on SQ; I choose things to listen to because I've particularly enjoyed them for their realism, and want to see if these alternative speakers can do for me what my beloved Teslas have long done. Meanwhile, however, I've found someone who was able to repair the drivers in the Teslas, so I'm A/B comparing the competitors against my first love.
All that said, when I'm satisfied with my system (and, to me, the system is a tool, like a computer: not an end in itself, but a means to an end), I mostly listen to the music. Mostly. Will I choose a Furtwängler performance over something recorded in stereo of the same piece? Rarely, but sometimes (the Brahms First, in Furtwängler's monaural recording from 1952, for instance, is still my favorite, despite many, many subsequent contenders with far better sound). But, unless I have a strongly favorite performance that happens to be poorly recorded, I will almost always choose the better recording, even if I have problems with the interpretation. Such is the case with several recent Mahler recordings; they're superlative aurally, but dubious, even sometimes egregious, as interpretations. Still, I'll likely choose them because, for Mahler, the impact of the sheer sound is a very large part of what makes the music compelling. Maybe that's a disingenuous qualification, however, as I'd say the same for Haydn and Mozart: great recordings, if they're also at least good performances, get the nod.
So, to try to answer the original question directly: as many have already written, it's a combination of the two (which perhaps begs, rather than answers, the original question). Listening at home is not the same thing as being present at a live performance. A live performance is thrilling in a particular way even if the performance is second-rate. At home, one has the delicious dilemma of an embarrassment of riches: so many truly great performances to choose from, so many of which are also superlatively recorded. Because the "realism" of the home experience is largely due to the "realism" of the recording, why not choose one that sounds better?
But I'll admit it: I do sometimes play something not because it has much musical merit, but because it sounds terrific on my system. "Mannheim Steamroller" would be an obvious example. A very musical friend, who dismisses all stereo equipment as "fungible," refuses to consider that band to be "music" at all! But, hey: a jingle composer for commercials Chip Davis may have been, but his recordings are deliberately crafted to show off what a home stereo can do. And that can be very exciting! |
I think it was Frogman who asked what you first go for when you first switch on the machines...a particular piece of music or sound quality? In any case, it's a very good question. As for me, I almost always start off with a yen for sound quality. From then on I just let it happen. Do I want to dig into my scratchy, distorted old 45's? Do I want to cruise Primephonic for an obscure performance of Beethoven's Second Symphony? Or how 'bout that Boston Pops Shaded Dog on the record shelf? |
So here is something... my wife and I sat down to listen to a bit of Norah the other day.... (some of you might get that) anyway, my wife is singing away doing her thing, I’m sitting there noticing a little sibilance here, a pop there... I’m asking her, “did you notice that?” “Do you hear that?” etc. Flat out, she looked at me and said, it’s a record that’s what they are supposed to sound like. Well ding. Sometimes I think we try too hard to find fault, and forget to simply enjoy... |
To paraphrase - it's the sound, stupid.
Anyone can play whatever, try to make Amati or Stradivari.
|
snilf,
First of all I don’t have a piano in my RV. I don’t even have an RV. Those are my initials, and I am (or was) a pianist.
I agree with your choice, btw, of the Furtwangler Brahms 1st, especially in the Pristine.com pressing. Your point about Mahler is also very well taken: It is so much about the sound. Which speaks to the question so many have addressed here. I think I (we) get in trouble when I turn the set on looking for sonic wonders.
Again, as so many have said, if the initial motivation is the song or piece of music, the result is much happier.
|
always both happening at the same time, they are simultaneous, inseparable acts
i take in the whole sound of the music, the flow, and if there is something specific about the presentation that calls out a particular strength or issue, then i will switch to some ’test tracks’ to confirm or understand better
listening to the music this way, the characteristics of how a system or component inserted affects the presentation will become self evident after some time immersed |
Interesting question, isn't it?
Ties into a recent search for a replacement cartridge for my system. Got down to a few makes/models with some described as having an ability to make older recordings 'sound good', while others that are very neutral and to a point approaching an almost sterility in the reproduction or closer to that as close to what is 'there' as possible.
Reminds me of a friend I had in the 80's who would invite people over to his house and play them back marching band music. Not just some brief listen . . . . long periods of intense but 'very' realistic marching band music. He became a bit of aficionado on it, even knew the stories of many top notch bands in North America, but many of us cut back on those visits to his uber-$$$ system regardless of how well things would sound. |
Conversely, in college there was a band we all liked live. The songwriter was creative, the musicians impeccable, the energy always stimulating. Album comes out flat. Just doesn't sound good. 30 years later took a date to see them. She says,"why aren't these guys big name, best band I've heard in ages"
Guess I'm saying SQ does it for me, particularly if I'm going to just sit there and focus on the music. Why in the world would we listen to music that doesn't sound good?
|
Has someone already used the old adage that audiophile buy music to listen to their gear?
When it is work, almost always it is about SQ, which is probably why when it is pleasure it is pretty much all about the music, unless I perceive their is something wrong with my system, and then that must be addressed until nirvana is reached again.
Having listening to a ton of live music, and music as it is being recorded, though, it has become for me more and more about the performance, and less about "perfection" though I do appreciate a good recording. I have only purchased audiophile media of any sort when I already liked the music, never just for the sake of the SQ. That gets boring really really quick.
|
I don’t need my good system just to listen to music. I have many ways to do that. But my good system is always the most enjoyable. You guessed why....the sound quality! It’s the only one that sounds like live music and not just recordings to me. |
Just one final word on this subject from me.
As so many have pointed out, simply put, music IS sound.
The ear is titillated from wonderful and varied sounds. But it’s also so much more than that. The psyche and soul somehow get involved in the combination of notes put together by great composers’ minds and performers. This is the aspect we must not forget about.
|
rv piano -- I might be the only one here who thinks this way but, for me, I don't primarily listen to Mahler because his stuff has the potential of being an audio spectacular. Instead, I listen to Mahler for the tunes, the emotions and the worlds he creates. For me, more than any other composer, Mahler conjures up universes that I find myself living inside of. Universes that I can reach out and touch. I remember putting on a Mahler LP for a makeout session with a girlfriend. It was sometime in the 1970's. She'd never heard of Mahler and, of course, had never heard his music. She said the same thing. Yeah, I really liked that girl... |
edcyn,
I’m 1000% in agreement with you.
As Mahler himself said, his symphonies are “worlds” in themselves.
Mahler can move me like almost no one.
It’s just that he, sensually, creates worlds of his own as well. |
My current setup gives me 100 percent music choice for what I want to listen to. |
No time or interest for listening to low quality recordings. Alright, maybe some Ziggy Stardust once in a while.... |
After suffering the slings and arrows of relatives’ braying about how I’m just "listening to the equipment" I began to catalogue all of the things that I listen to besides the music and equipment: noise; vinyl quality; vocal quality and timbre; acoustic instrument resonance even to the extent of trying to identify the piano by its sound; sound of the hall; effectiveness of the mic setup; conductor’s control and interpretation; my room’s acoustics; there must be many more. If all of the above perform optimally you’ve got some "SOUND" to evaluate, whether it’s music or equipment. You could run it through an old NAD integrated with a pair of almost any modern speakers or phones and you’ve got excellent sound!
|
After suffering the slings and arrows of relatives’ braying about how I’m just "listening to the equipment" I began to catalogue all of the things that I listen to besides the music and equipment: noise; vinyl quality; vocal quality and timbre; acoustic instrument resonance even to the extent of trying to identify the piano by its sound; sound of the hall; effectiveness of the mic setup; conductor’s control and interpretation; my room’s acoustics; there must be many more. If all of the above perform optimally you’ve got some "SOUND" to evaluate, whether it’s music or equipment. You could run it through an old NAD integrated with a pair of almost any modern speakers or phones and you’ve got excellent sound!
Report this
Wise man speaking... I concur with you..... |
Many moons ago I listened to music on a cheaper stereo. And enjoyed it. My financial circumstances improved causing me to go down the rabbit hole searching for perfect sound. Spent years listening to SQ. Upgraded everything from fuses to room with acoustic treatment and stopped when SQ finally became reasonably good. Now I listen to music BUT hardly. Having listened for hours every day for years to tune SQ I find my music boring. Tried streaming new stuff but the thrill Is gone . But I have a great system should require
|
I select the type of music and then the artist/group l like listening to. I try to rotate equally among all of the records I have of the artist, but there are a few that get skipped over or artists with only 1 or 2 albums that never seem to hit the table. It’s nice to play something I haven’t listened to for years that I enjoy and remember why I bought it. It’s disappointing to pull one of those out that sound terrible & remember why I never play it. Luckily there are only a handful of those.
if I am looking for a little treat, I’ll put on a UHQR of the group I’ve selected. I don’t keep them sequentially within the main record groupings they fit in. They are also my reference point when I change something in my system. I know I am a little (or a lot) OCD about my records being organized perfectly. Think about the guy from the movie Diner. My wife has never touched a record. One time I thought a record was missing (Changesonebowie) that I don’t play much and it drove me nuts. Somehow it got embedded into another record which is hard to do if you use outer jacket sleeves, but it happened. A couple weeks went by looking for it and I was unnerved the whole time.
I never put on a record just because I want to hear something that sounds good. It’s a den, not a stereo store demo room. If I don’t like the music, I will not buy it just to see how good my system can sound. |
Same orchestra playing same composition. Different conductors. In one case the performance is spectacular and in another so so. What is going on ? Same sounds and combination of notes and silence, even the same musicians. Conductor is our hi fi, without the conductor it's nothing, just outlines. |
inna,
Good point about different conductors. I have several versions of the Beethoven symphonies, some seem to be faster (though the track times are not), some seem more "dynamic" than others, etc.
When I was visiting dealer after dealer, auditioning speakers, it really bugged me when I'd bring in a stack of CDs for my audition and the dealer insisted on demoing with music I would never listen to, but that made the speakers shine. I'd deliberately include a few older CDs, back in the day when the mastering equipment was not the best, to make sure I'd be able to listen for extended periods of time; I could not make it thru the first track of the original "Born to Run" CD, as the "highly resolving" system being demonstrated brought out all the rough edges in a way that was not at all pleasing. |
@ejr1953 ,
I could not make it thru the first track of the original "Born to Run" CD, as the "highly resolving" system being demonstrated brought out all the rough edges in a way that was not at all pleasing.
The story behind the recording is pretty epic. A killing amount of rerecording resulted in an album with a sound that Springsteen hated.
According to his biography he initially felt crushed at the outcome. Time proved his concerns unfounded but no one will ever claim it’s a sonic masterpiece.
Various attempts at remastering over the years have made it a little more presentable. My 1993 gold cd disc version sounds acceptable and the 2014 Bob Ludwig 30th anniversary is about as good as it possibly will ever get. |
Good question!
I personally distinguish two separate joys when listening to a recording. I may enjoy just the sound, sound quality, how different instruments are recorded and reproduced, and of course I mainly enjoy the music I am listening to. If the music I like is well recorded then I enjoy double, in fact the dependence is not linear perhaps even it is exponential. Lately I find myself that often I tend not to listen to music that I like but which is not well recorded. At the same time, for such recordings, I try to choose appropriate equipment or even listen to that recording in my car where the imperfections become less notable. Then you just enjoy the music and "forget" about sound quality.
I admit that too much dependence on sound quality is not good - a "weakness" that we acquire with good audio gear. At the same time, good audio equipment makes possible to appreciate fully the music you like. |
My first thought was to dismiss the premise behind the question, but on reflection it is a valid query. I listen primarily to Classical. There are many classic pre stereo performances in my collection and I do listen to them. Restoration techniques are excellent—some of these recordings are nearing the century mark and, such as the Rachmaninov/Stokowski Second Piano Concerto that sounds amazingly vivid-yet even when enjoying it I feel a little niggling unease that I am missing something sonically. Now, most of the Classical repertoire has been recorded so redundantly that one can find many recordings that do not require music and sonic compromise on the part of the listener. I learned Beethoven’s Ninth from my parents 78s of Toscanini and the NBC SO, but now I have to be in a special mood for that one, even though it has been restored to a much higher degree to what I heard back in the day |
I get a weekly Audiogon Discussion email and occasionally look at the topics. I used to be a regular on Audio Asylum years ago. Specifically, vinyl asylum.
There’s good advice to be had on some of these forums but imo reading them too much can result in the audiophile neurosis that people talk about. I think that was happening to me. Listening to my gear and not the music.
One piece of advice I took from a poster was this:
If you want to enjoy your system and music, then stay off the forums!
I’ve pretty much adhered to that advice. I have limited time to ’really’ listen to my music on my main system so I don’t want to waste it by posting and reading on the forums.
As I said, I still check those emails I get to see if there’s a topic that interests me and if I have a question that pertains to my system or a future purchase. Too many knowledgeable folks out there who have plenty of experience to not squeeze them for some of it.
I did get a kick out of the Schumann Generator discussion. 😁
I actually may be interested in one but more so for my sleep issues than my system. But, I would try it there as well. WTH?
|
@nicktheknife,
"There’s good advice to be had on some of these forums but imo reading them too much can result in the audiophile neurosis that people talk about. I think that was happening to me. Listening to my gear and not the music.One piece of advice I took from a poster was this:If you want to enjoy your system and music, then stay off the forums!"
I'm beginning to suspect you're right.
Maybe carelesslyreading too much about our passion isn't actually a good thing!?
The best thing for me is to get together with friends and just listen to new music with conversation centering around that but not exclusively limited to just that.
For some of us this past year has been an incredibly slow and the social aspect has been much missed. Yet I've also spoken to some people who say they've enjoyed it!
Although audio remains seductive, I have tried to restrict my urge for better sound quality to primarily seeking out the best masterings of favourite albums. This in itself can be a complicated busines due to the whims of the recording industry and what they think will sell.
I also try to pay increasingly less regard to what reviewers may say though I do have a few favourite YouTube channels - audioholics, cheapaudioman, parlogram auctions and stereo review X to name a few.
These guys all seem to tell it like it is and unlike many magazines with their over the top reviews, don't seem to trigger my own personal audiophile neurosis.
Please, not that. Never again! |
No matter what anyone says, the lure of sound for sound’s sake is huge in this hobby. It’s almost a definition of it.
However, for most of us, I believe the greatest pleasure in the world is to be happy at how much the music we’re enjoying also has good sound, not the other way around. |
The pursuit of perfection sometimes spoils excellent... |
I agree with tomcy6. I listen for the music that I'm in the mood for, but I have to admit that that is partially influenced by the quality of the recording, but not always. |
Then let the excellent be spoiled ! |
The two are totally separable.
I only listen for the SQ (and a select number of albums) when I am in the process of updating something (maybe a month or two every 4/5 years - especially now with the lockdown).
I don't care for SQ if I listen to Bob Dylan, the Clash or Coltrane. The car system will do just fine. Music which in most cases is of much much much inferior SQ to stuff that is produced today. |
