What is it I'm failing to grasp?


I come across statements here and elsewhere by guys who say 1) their systems come very close to duplicating the experience of hearing live music and 2) that they can listen for hours and hours due to the "effortless" presentation.  

I don't understand how these two claims add up. In tandem, they are profoundly inconsistent with my experiences of listening to live music. 

If I think about concerts I consider the best I've witnessed (Oregon, Solas, Richard Thompson, SRV, Dave Holland Quintet, '77 G. Dead, David Murray, Paul Winter Consort), I would not have wanted any of those performances to have extended much beyond their actual duration.

It's like eating-- no matter how wonderfully prepared the food, I can only eat so much-- a point of satiation is reached and I find this to be true (for me) when it comes to music listening as well. Ditto for sex, looking at visual art, reading poetry or playing guitar. All of these activities require energy and while they may feel "effortless" in the moment, I eventually reach a point where I must withdraw from aesthetic simulation.

Furthermore, the live music I've heard is not always "smoothly" undemanding. I love Winifred Horan's classically influenced Celtic fiddling but the tone she gets is not uniformly sweet; the melodies do not always resemble lullabies. The violin can sound quite strident at times. Oregon can be very melodious but also,(at least in their younger days) quite chaotic and atonal. These are examples on the mellower side of my listening spectrum and I can't listen to them for more than a couple hours, either live or at home. 

Bottom line: I don't find listening to live music "effortless" so I don't understand how a system that renders this activity "effortless" can also be said to be accurate.   

What is it that I'm failing to grasp, here?  


 

stuartk

Showing 2 responses by whart

Most live concerts of the popular variety--not classical-- are way too loud for me. I wear ear protection (cheap Etymotics are way better than the give-away foam plugs). And that can sound fatiguing. 

I remember hearing Etta James at Carnegie Hall a while ago-- Susan Tedeschi  opened, and though we had excellent seats, the sound was a blur-- she overplayed the room. Etta's band gets on and it's bliss.

I listen to a lot of so-called spiritual or soul jazz, mainly from the '70s. Much of it is decently recorded even if the pressings were made at the nadir of vinyl quality. I can get a very compelling performance at home but it will not scale to the level of King Crimson in my room- I did that comparison listening to Live in Toronto 2016 the morning after I heard them live in a 2,000 seat hall. Even with multiple woofers, I could not get the power of the bass, nor the sheer amplitude of the show at home. But, like the OP, I don't necessarily listen at crazy high db. Typically a little over 80db on peaks, "C" weighted. And it sounded very much like what I heard live. 

Is it the same as "live"? Nah. But it can be compelling, sound like real instruments particularly when the arrangements are spare. (I have thousands of classical records that I rarely listen to anymore, but keep anyway).

I remember one of the first systems I heard that could reproduce a full sized double bass-- it was a pair of those huge Duntechs from the '80s owned by a compadre who was a listening buddy. We shared many great listening sessions. At the time, I was still listening to my old Quads, which required me to ignore a few shortcomings to get the midrange. To me, that's where it has to be right-- if it isn't transparent, grainless and dimensional, the rest is irrelevant. But, that also takes us into the quality of the recordings- and my preference is for simpler, less "produced" stuff. 

I think if you listen to any system long enough, you will hear the "man behind the curtain." It is at best an illusion. 

And, though I don't think my system is fatiguing, I don't have the stamina I once did for all day listening sessions. Those used to be common when I was much younger. 

 I think making music is actually even more engaging, though I don't really have the chops I did when I was a kid. In NY, we would occasionally have visitors who were professionals, and they'd do their thing, informally. That was great fun and in some ways, much more engaging than hi-fi. 

Interesting question. Sorry I did not have time to make this shorter. 

The Strata-East copy of Winter in America from GSH and Brain Jackson is stunning.

It’s now expensive only b/c it is on the Strata-East label and possibly the most accessible and best known album in the their catalog. (The Bottle, which is a little later, if I remember right, is the UK equivalent of the same record, and at one time was cheep). Cool, chime-y Rhodes sound. Gil Scott’s vocals/spoken word. Bad-ass sound. And only scratches the surface of the S-E catalog. But well loved here. I can immerse myself in this stuff. And that’s only the beginning insofar as spiritual/soul jazz is concerned.....

Aside from sucky acoustics, and bad sound live, some "live" albums benefit from the energy the band picks up from the audience that is reflected in their playing. I'll take that over a more pristine studio record because of the performance.