I have never aspired to be a musician, although I am very artistic. I am bad at singing and never enjoyed dabbling at playing an instrument. But I enjoy listening to music tremendously and I always wondered if being a musician would improve my experience as a listener. It seems to me that musicians (good ones) would have a lot more expertise in sound, what is good quality sound, a good system, a high fidelity speaker.... but I have never seen any proof. Am I just imagining it? Are good musicians mediocre listeners? Are they not obsessed with good sound? Any musicians out there to comment? One example I know is the
Cambridge Soundworks Mick Fleetwood Speaker System, which I finally purchased last year, I knew my collection would not be complete without it. It's evidence of great talents crossing paths: a genious speaker designer Henry Kloss, and Mick Fleetwood, one of the greatest drummers of the century (and the previous one). But I don't see musicians weighing in on what are good systems are, how much is it worth spending and what to focus on. It's much more like rich douchebags bragging about the price of their systems on these forums.
@frogman“tonally
bleached out”. Great description that I use often. “Gray”. Can’t stand
that type of sound. Instrumental sounds have a lot of natural color.
I borrowed that off @prof. He has written some excellent posts here and is usually very precise when it comes to describing timbre and tonal colour reproduction.
Even after nearly 40 years of listening to various systems I still think that instrumental colour is one of the most difficult things for any of them to reproduce.
So many of them nowadays just cannot get close. Or even seem to try.
As much as it pains me to have to give Apple any credit I cannot fault the iPad 2 on the grounds of failing to reproduce timbre and instrumental colour.
There's an app on there that features some 60 musical instruments that my kids would sometimes play with.
The tonality would be almost uncanny, and that tiny speaker could certainly put many a full size one to shame.
@mahgister, "They listen sound effects and not music...."
That’s all too easily done. Especially at shows where you go from room to room hoping not to have missed anything of significance.
There just isn’t time to sit and listen for more than 20 minutes or so unless you only want to check out a few of the rooms.
So you sit down take a good look at the ancillary equipment and room size etc and then try to get an idea on whichever musical parameters you are most interested in.
For me if a system sounds tonally ’bleached out’ then I tend to leave at the first musical break. In my experience some very high priced systems, despite excelling in dynamics and bandwidth, have often fallen into that camp.
Anyway it looks like the UK Show may well be on later this year.
Of course it may still depend upon the imaginations of various politicians and their so-called health advisers...
There is nothing like being able to pull out one of the many hundreds of recordings I did as an engineer and listen to the honesty of what I originally heard represented in its natural glory ! No thundering bass, because it doesn’t exist in the real world unless you are talking about a pipe organ. Only an amplified instrument can provide it. No stand-up bass fiddle can push out that much sound without the help of a hefty amp and speaker. It’s a fact. Not to say that the resulting sound isn’t enjoyable, but it’s not natural. Now that every instrument seems to have its own clip-on microphone it is not really the listener’s fault that the natural sound of every instrument has been compromised to a degree of unintelligibility ! Such is state of much music today. Don’t count me in !
Very interesting....
It is the reason why some audiophile unable to control their acoustic crave for subwoofers and dont give a dam about musical timbre...
They listen sound effects and not music....
Someone called my system because i dont connect the only woofer i had a battery radio sound system...
I spent my childhood fascinated by music, played piano, trumpet and euphonium through school, studied at a major music conservatory, joined one of the top military bands in Washington, D.C., learned trombone and all of the recorder family, left the service to join a ballet orchestra for several years and then spent the last 25 years of my playing career in a major symphony orchestra before another 25 years working as a recording engineer. Throughout most of this, from about 1956 forward, I was immersed in music and was there when the term "audiophile" was coined. The first time I heard a really good audio system was when I was in music conservatory ---- and it made a deep impression. I did my almost obligatory passage through Dynaco amps & preamps, Bogen-Lenco turntables, Bozak speakers, Tandberg reel-to-reel recorders, McIntosh tube amps and preamps and never stopped looking for something a little bit better---- adjusted to my income. I have heard systems owned by musician friends of mine that were truly abysmal, but they rationalized that they heard what they needed to hear and their musical ear filled in the missing ingredients. I understood their rationale perfectly, but still pursued that extra special experience that a truly fine system can deliver. I'm pretty much still in that mode, but retirement, and the change in yearly income has affected my enthusiasm for improving my system. Some of the components that I acquired along my journey are still in use in what I consider to be the best system I've ever owned. I love a good "tweak" as much as the next guy, and I still experiment with simple things like turntable isolation and different cables, but with declining hearing I still hear everything that gives me pleasure ---- and THAT gives me pleasure ! Mega-systems with ground shaking bass and ear-shredding treble are not a part of any of the musical world I traveled in and are, to my ear, simply gross exaggerations of what is found in the sound of natural musical instruments. Sure, it is possible to amplify sounds to a degree that can shatter glass, but in my book, that ain't music. To those who seek out such --- more power to you ! That is why they are called audiophiles, not musi-philes. There is nothing like being able to pull out one of the many hundreds of recordings I did as an engineer and listen to the honesty of what I originally heard represented in its natural glory ! No thundering bass, because it doesn't exist in the real world unless you are talking about a pipe organ. Only an amplified instrument can provide it. No stand-up bass fiddle can push out that much sound without the help of a hefty amp and speaker. It's a fact. Not to say that the resulting sound isn't enjoyable, but it's not natural. Now that every instrument seems to have its own clip-on microphone it is not really the listener's fault that the natural sound of every instrument has been compromised to a degree of unintelligibility ! Such is state of much music today. Don't count me in !
There is more than one way to appreciate music. There is somewhat different cognitive equipment developed through the process of becoming a composer, arranger or performer.
A high level audio engineer also has specialized cognitive equipment. Among the audio engineers I've worked with there are skills specific to live sound that are distinct from studio tracking, mixing or mastering. Audiophile listeners also have specialized cognitive equipment. They're all good, but there is a tendency for people to underestimate skills they do not possess.
A classical pianist can listen to a performance of Vladimir Horrowitz on a mediocre stereo and really enjoy it. They know in minute detail what a really good concert grand piano, tuned and voiced by a world class technician, sounds like.They also have the score stored (and can see it), along with a bunch of other information on harmony, articulation, balance, phrasing, dynamics, fingering etc. They also know that even a single change of fingering can shift the feel of a phrase. They may have also played that particular piece thousands, or even tens of thousands, of times. (Daniel Beremboim, admits that in his practicing he spends more than 90% of his time practicing nuances that less than one percent of his concert audience can even hear.) In a similar way a high level jazz pianist will have listened to the music they consider formative with an intensity that verges on vengeance. They'll put the recording on a slow-downer, slow it down to 20%, then save it in a file, then slow down that file to 20%. From there they will filter out all the other frequencies they aren't interested in and focus on and transcribe the finest, quietest nuances that you cannot possibly hear in the native unaltered recording (because they get covered up by the ensemble). They'll internalize that until it becomes fundamental to the way they practice.
Turns out human brains can use little bits of cognitive equipment
from a wide array of skill sets to modify perception. In the case of
music, a listener's brain can zoom in or even clean up the signal so that what they hear is better than the original.
Please don't get caught up in the equivalence of chest pounding routines. Your kids could distinguish between songs in major and minor keys before the age of two. That's cool. But don't let it blind you to all the other nuances in the music you're listening to.
I've have met and /or have been friends with many musicians over the years. Folks from Indie bands such as, Ditch Croaker , Wall of Voodoo and Fountains of Wayne to Phil Lesh of the Dead and Phillip Glass. My oldest niece used to baby sit for Tony Visconti, you get the idea.
Few of them had anything remarkable at home in the way of playback...
I think when you "Make Music" you don't really spend that much time or money on re-producing music. That said, Brian Eno told me that "Non musicians are great listeners" So ,for people like me, I spend money on gear that will give me goose bumps because I can't play anything that will give me goose bumps.
Ok, as a professional musician, recording artist and college music professor (jazz saxophone and I’m also a symphony clarinetist) I’ll chime in. My system is always evolving but atm it consists of:
my start in the hobby came in my junior year of music school at U of Miami. I started going in some of the Sound Advice stores that were still around in Florida in the 90’s and ventured into the more expensive rooms where I found B&W, Krell, Conrad Johnson and Apogee. I was immediately smitten, most notably with the combo of CJ and Apogee speakers. I remember bringing in some Keith Jarrett to play on that system and my tiny brain 🧠 was blown. From there I started to save some of my gig money to buy my first good system from Sound Advice which was Kef Ref 102/2 and all Adcom Separates. Served me well for many years. i have found that a lot of musician friends have only heard high quality playback in a studio, at least until I invite them over and then usually they are hooked. I’ve converted a number of jazz and classical musicians into audiophiles lol. There are exceptions of course. I think one would be music professors who usually have more resources and time for this hobby, and some of the more successful musicians in my field. When John Faddis came to be a guest artist at our music school a few years ago, he came over my house for a listening session as he wanted to hear my Tektons. He has some older top end B&W speakers and he also talked about Ron Carter’s system which is relatively high end but Faddis didn’t love the sound of it. I also have a few other accomplished musician friends who are audiophiles. I think once the audio bug bites us, sometimes we get pretty deep into it as we really value the realistic timbre of live instruments.
Great topic. i've always wondered just the same thing. i've listened to some great songs/scores that were recorded / engineered poorly and came to the conclusion that the artist just doesn't care or only listens to music through his phone - like 99 percent of the world does. I've also listened to some mediocre tunes that sound wonderful and it makes me think the artist is an audiophile and really cares about using talented musicians, engineers and production.
This discussion has gone down a few roads; as a (working! still!!) professional musician [AFM local member, orchestral musician, free lance, handful of recordings and commercial stuff, aka-the studio isn't unfamiliar] I'm also an audiophile with a dedicated music room hosting JRDG electronics, VPI TT, Maggie 3.7i and Tannoy Monitor Gold's. It's true: musicians (and I'll lump them all together: rock, jazz, classical) don't universally have great-to-fantastic playback systems. I do; I know musicans that do. However if you look at the percentage of fine playback systems present in (lets use the orchestra I play in, or one like it as an example) the percentage probably is similar to "the general public that likes music" and how many of them have decent playback rigs. I think the comments above regarding musicians and what we listen for, and 'content vs fidelity' is spot on - so I won't bother to write any more on it. Well said. I will add a critique: musicians NEED to listen more and I"m continutally amazed at how many don't listen either to the classic recordings or keep up with what's new. I'll go one step farther-if it's listening through some speaker on their cell phone or cruddy earbuds they are not getting 100% out of the exercise. I find my professional colleagues, especially more experienced ones, stop listening and exploring at some point. I can tell the ones that haven't - and they are better off for it! In music school we all take ear training (that's how to identify chords, intervals, what is in tune, a healthy dose of sight singing too); there are plenty of classes which encourage listening to recordings, but it needs to be taught (and isn't usually) how to listen for content, performance AND fidelity. We spend hours and $$$$ trying to get the best sound possible from our instruments of choice, live, yet for many of us the "recording" is what remains as testament to what we did. In the last CD which I was part of, I was fascinated by the custom-modded Neumann tube mics (in a Decca-tree arrangement). The recording engineer/producer had some wonderful stories about that rig. Likewise the final product was great. I think I was the only person to take an interest in the tube-drivers and mics, but most members appreciated the sound quality of the final product (further still, a few never listened to it! That's another story, and not at all uncommon.) I could write on-and-on why musicians don't listen (but should) but I gotta go practice. :) seriously. I do. I don't get to turn my rig on near as much as I'd like during the symphony season. Even when I do have a little time, sometimes my ears are just fatigued. 2020 allowed a bit more time.
I'm a musician. I prefer stereo systems that are true to the source in both my studio and listening rooms. With that criteria, active ATCs are a no brainer, with pro monitors in the studio and consumer towers in the main listening room.
From around the are of 8 to well into my 30's I had worked with and around entertainers/musicians. I can not remember a single one that put any effort into a decent sound system. On numerous occasions after a long studio session we would transfer a stereo copy onto one format or another then head to my house, where I would play the tunes for the band, so that could hear what it sounded like in a "real" home environment. Most of them, (if they actually had any hearing left) would just look at each other and query "did it sound good?" I've had many well known artists over for a listen and very few exceptions cared about that aspect. Generally after a few sessions like that, normally they would just let me cut a safety copy, of bring some of my gear to a gig and run a board recording. Over the years, I was able to amass a sizeable collection of "one of a kind" recordings. They trusted me enough not to "bootleg" anything I was allowed to take home.
I find much more to appreciate on a good system, though, and will try to keep a good system as long as I can hear, which may not be all that much longer.
mahgister puts it well and as an extension of philbarone’s succinct comment, “musicians listen to the content of the music before the sound of it”:
I believe that I acknowledged that well chosen (!) high end gear can make performance values (content) more obvious, but that it wasn’t absolutely necessary to appreciate the musical message and that the need for this varied depending on the listener and his priorities. I also said that none of this is a judgment of how anyone chooses to or is able to enjoy the listening experience; it’s a personal call. This is what I wrote:
**** Of course, well chosen (!!!) high end equipment makes those performance values more obvious, but the “necessity” for this has to be weighed against a given listener’s ability to hear and appreciate them if a general comment about the necessity can be made. ****
Yes, as you suggested the content of the music is obviously communicated via sound. However, a distinction (conscious or not) can be made between certain aspects of the overall sound. Some of these are musical content and some are not. The aspects of the sound that I find are sometimes the focal point for some listeners have little or nothing to do with the musical content. These things can be subjectively positive or negative depending on the listener and are what I described as the “ear candy” aspects of high end audio (the sound):
Sound staging and its effects (realistic or not), hyper detail and air-less separation of instruments, exaggerated high end passing off as “accuracy”, overblown bass, bass that is too dry, overly thick midrange passing off as “warmth” or “musicality”. These and other aspects of sound have nothing to do with musical content. Sometimes, depending on the listener, focusing on these can distract from the musical content:
A flute blending beautifully with a muted trumpet in a perfect unison line, a seamless crescendo by a string section, “is the bass player too relaxed for the drummer’s back beat?”, “did the piano player add the flatted 9th to that dominant chord?”, a singer’s expressivity, “is the bass player staying away from the piano player’s left hand?”, the guitar player bending the pitch (to use your example). These and many other musical considerations are things that remain obvious even when sitting away from the sweet spot and are what are referred to in the comment “musicians listen to musical content before the sound of it”.
In my experience crappy equipment does a much better job of destroying sound than it does destroying musical content.
Were there a way to compare a thousand Classical Musicians to a thousand rock players perhaps 20 rockers would compare and perhaps 5 in the upper area .
Perhaps you can clarify the point you’re making. Music is sound. What you are describing as performance values (Articulation, pitch manipulation, tempo, instrument usage, and dynamic choices) are sound, often very subtle uses of sound. In my experience, subtleties in music are heard better on a quality music system and are hidden by noise or are just not reproduced on a crappy system.
So I guess I’m not clear on how music (performance values) can be separated from sound and how a better sounding system doesn’t reproduce performance values better than a crappy system
Music survive sound....
It is a spiritual event before being a sound event....
I apologize, i cannot resist to answer...
A badly recording of Furtwangler Bruckner symphonies may exceed in value most new interpretation and one of the greatest musical events in my life anyway was on bad recordings...
Car often sounds better as that much glass is heaven to a 4 amp .I often hear more instrument separation from a system that cost Volvo100$ tops than the 25K$ in my house.
Musicians listen primarily for performance values (the music) and not just the sound of the music.
Perhaps you can clarify the point you’re making. Music is sound. What you are describing as performance values (Articulation, pitch manipulation, tempo, instrument usage, and dynamic choices) are sound, often very subtle uses of sound. In my experience, subtleties in music are heard better on a quality music system and are hidden by noise or are just not reproduced on a crappy system.
So I guess I’m not clear on how music (performance values) can be separated from sound and how a better sounding system doesn’t reproduce performance values better than a crappy system
Frankly, there is no equivalency between performance of electronics and live musicianship. It’s not terribly productive to attempt to find equivalency. It has a similar disconnect as trying to ask a painter to weigh in on video production. Having an opinion is great. Having competency is an entirely different thing - both ways.
Several Maggie owners among the Classical musicians that I know, johnto.
I can’t speak to anyone else’s experience with Classical or Jazz musicians and their audio systems, but as I said previously, I know many who have systems that are far better than “crap”. Now, it is true that many musicians don’t have a lot of discretionary income, but many successful working musicians manage to afford decent sound. Of course, one man’s good audio may be someone else’s crap.
I agree with phasemonger. I think there is sometimes a tendency to equate the “sound” of music with music itself. Musicians listen primarily for performance values (the music) and not just the sound of the music. I disagree with the comments made suggesting that high end equipment is absolutely necessary for the appreciation of performance values. It may be for some listeners, but not for all. Of course, we’ll chosen (!!!) high end equipment makes those performance values more obvious, but the “necessity” for this has to be weighed against a given listener’s ability to hear and appreciate them if a general comment about the necessity can be made.
Please don’t misunderstand, I love my high end audio toys. However, while I enjoy reveling in the huge soundstage and extended frequency response of my main audio rig, there is seldom a time when I feel I missed the musical message of the performance listening to the same recording over my car’s radio. I think it’s possible to become too dependent on the ear candy aspect of high end audio. How many times have we read a comment by an audio reviewer (!) to the effect that component X or Z finally made it possible to tell that the instrument playing on a particular recording was an English Horn and not an oboe? The difference between those two sounds is obvious even on a “crappy radio”.
Personally, I feel a worthy goal should be to always strive to be a better listener of the music as much as of the sound of it.
Put another way, there’s every bit of music to hear and experience from a crappy radio vs. a great sound system. Articulation, pitch manipulation, tempo, instrument usage, and dynamic choices come through pretty well even on a static-ey AM station.
I think that one would need a really good sounding stereo to hear these things. I have listened to many crappy AM radios and I'm pretty sure I couldn't hear someone slightly bending a note or adding just a touch of vibrato no matter how beautifully it was done by the artist on one. Articulation and dynamics? These don't exist on crummy systems.
Most musicians don't listen to stereos for enjoyment. For them listening to music means playing or listening to others play. What they want out of a stereo is very different from what audiophiles want, and there's nothing wrong with that. But as long as I am a non-musician music lover, I will listen to a great stereo over a crummy AM radio any day, and I will hear much more of the music through that great stereo. To hear more of the music is why I upgrade my stereo. The better it gets the more of what the musicians are doing
I hear
.
I was a rock and roll drummer in high school and college (many, many years ago) and realized that being a musician wasn't a "highly compensated" career.
Back then, people used to ask: "how do you get a drummer off your porch? pay him for the pizza".
I used to be the only CA dealer for ATC. They are a professional tool used by many musicians, studios and concert halls. But the only Audio company I know that has rave endorsements from many of the world’s foremost musician/audiophiles using them in their homes is TetraSpeakers (.com). Herbie Hancock, Winton Marsalis, Ron Carter, Dave Holland, Benny Golson, etc. Keith Richards took a pair on tour. Herbie has 6 pair. I own 3 pair and will never own an other line. The musicians love them because they uniquely sound “real”. 2009 hit Tetra hard but they are making a comeback with a new top line model-the 606 V2.
Why would I care what a musician wants for a system? Typically, I've not been overly impressed with the rigs that musicians have put together. Half of the ones I've seen, they are dropping the bottom frequencies under 40Hz, as if this is no problem. I'm going to let someone like that direct a system build? NO, thank you! :)
Nothing personal, phasemonger, but your comment, "Put another way, there’s every bit of music to hear and experience from a crappy radio vs. a great sound system. Articulation, pitch manipulation, tempo, instrument usage, and dynamic choices come through pretty well even on a static-ey AM station. Agreed you lose a huge amount of timbre and sound fidelity, but you don’t lose much if anything of the musical performance characteristics," is a good example.
I strongly disagree with the assessment that there is every bit as much articulation as with a more capable system. I also find "instrument usage" to be nebulous; perhaps it refers to complex passages in which many are playing simultaneously, in which case there is NO comparison between a poor radio/system and a formidable system. One clearly hears the performance better, and imo, in a much more impactful way, with a high end rig. Just because one may be able to get emotionally into the music in no way means it's a great listen, i.e. worth listening to by someone who wants superior, quality listening. It's not terribly exciting to hear distortion of a low end rig slaughtering the performance, especially since it does not have to be that way.
Yes, when you have cheap audio you lose "sound fidelity", which IS the quality of the music. Crappy or heavenly performance is one thing. Sound quality is entirely another. Anyone can excuse away mediocrity, for any number of reasons. I chose not to have mediocrity in the sound I am hearing. :)
@gano, "One told me that his mind probably fills in the missing information"
Cheap but so practical!
Does this mean that we audiophiles who are refusing to employ our imaginations are lazy compared to musicians?
@dekay , Thanks for posting the Lou Reed links. I can imagine that John Cale would use similar tactics with the use of the volume dial to determine amp/speaker credibility.
@mcslipp , Yes, ATC do seem to be the goto brand for professionals and musicians.
Sometime ago on Steve Guttenberg’s “Audiophiliac” vlog he had a prominent guest audiologist who catered to a clientele that were in the music industry, musicians, engineers, masters, etc. for custom IEM’s. She had some interesting observations to share. She said audiological testing results indicate that musicians hearing was more likely to be compromised than non musicians. That the test results can usually indicate what instruments the musician tested played. And that classical musicians hearing tended to be the more compromised than other genres (she postulated that that might be due to the additional increased practice time of classical musicians). I don’t play, but know many musicians and have attended many rehearsals and performances. Some music professionals asked for my help in buying audio systems. Usually they buy good value oriented budget high end systems that can play back the particular instrument they play especially well, violinist choose differently than trombonist. I have the feeling that musicians tend to be more interesting in the construct of the music and how they can fit into it, than in the pure sonics of it. What they hear on the bandstand is very different than what the audience hears in their seats.
By no means a professional musician but I get the job done. I have lots of musician friends and I don’t think any of them have even an off the shelf Best Buy’s system and I’m not talking about the Magnolia section.
Most of my musician friends either have something fairly old or just use their smart phone with cheap Bluetooth inears. They know of Spotify but no idea of Tidal or Qobuz. They flat out think I’m nuts for the audio system I have.
Not sure there’s any correlation between being an audiophile or a musician but I think it does give me and edge over many non musician audiophiles I have meet over the years to know how or what to listen for or what may be more accurate.
I also believe being an audiophile who appreciates higher end equipment has pushed me to buy the best drums and equipment I can afford and appreciate as well. Owned my share of drums and what I have today to my ears sound the best, which again my musician friends probably think I’m nuts there too
I will say all my musician friends love and prefer vintage gear and when it comes to their instruments they strive for great sound. They can definitely wrap up a lot of money and have just as much passion in their hobby as well.
Audiophiles believe SOUND is the gateway to perceiving and enjoying music,whereas musicians focus on, as you listed: "...articulation, pitch manipulation, tempo, instrument usage, and dynamic choices" etc.
As you say, they're "very different things" but perhaps only those who both play and enjoy hi-fi can truly grasp this distinction.
I've become inured to the criticism that seems to inevitably come from being an audiophile. What can I say? I just love sitting in the sweet spot, reveling in wonderful imaging & tone, hearing musicians coming alive for my ears, sparking my emotions and engaging my intellect.
I accept the mantra that the simplest answer tends to be the best one.
Anyone who makes a living playing and listening to live music will always have a much lesser experience when listening to any recorded sound.
Secondly, musicians will always put money into their instruments before anything else. Rightfully so.
Now that said the best sounding home system I ever heard was in a retired musician's home. And when he plays his grand piano his hifi system becomes a distant memory.
You can tell by the sound quality of the music they release that most musicians could care less about sound quality. I wish someone could convince them that great sound quality is worth the effort.
I have a few friends that are successful, commercially as well as Musically, Classical Musicians. Their systems are all crap. One told me that his mind probably fills in the missing information
Even if musician listen attentively " musical interpretation " and filter out "sound"; even if audiophile filter out "musical interpretation and listen attentively the "sound";
There is a common basic ground: the playing dynamic of a pitch timbre acoustical instrument, which is at the same time music and sound....Or a particular singing voice...
I studied music for undergrad and I’m a classically trained musician (violin, piano). I played classical for years but mostly play world music and some pop/rock these days with electric violin and keyboard.
I agree with philbarone: Myself and the musicians I know are trained to listen to what’s going on in the actual music, and sort of filter out and ignore the sound quality of the recording. Great audio reproduction is interesting, but it’s so different from live music that it’s really its own thing. Some musicians care about that thing, but in my experience, most don’t.
Put another way, there’s every bit of music to hear and experience from a crappy radio vs. a great sound system. Articulation, pitch manipulation, tempo, instrument usage, and dynamic choices come through pretty well even on a static-ey AM station. Agreed you lose a huge amount of timbre and sound fidelity, but you don’t lose much if anything of the musical performance characteristics. Thus Victrolas and early radio were very lo-fi but still wonderful. If I really want to hear the timbre of an instrument or the subtleties of blend and hall characteristics, I want to hear it live.
I personally love both - the music itself, and the fascinating, dense depth of sound great audio systems can produce. But I think they’re very different things that don’t have to go together for people to enjoy one or the other.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
