mr g, you make a lot of statements but you provide no evidence for them. just because you are a composer, that doesn't excuse you from being prepared to backup your position. |
the soul is in the listener not the music.
the listener is the most important variable, more so than the music or the equipment. |
there is bad analog and bad digital.
my experience at the last 12 CES shows and several stereophile shows as well as numerous visits to audio buddies tells me that most stereo systems sound lousy.
after listening to live music, i don't want to listen to recorded music for a while.
the closest thing to "soul" was listening to 4 original quads with a quad amp and analog.
the second closest was listening to 4 original quad speakers with a low powered tube amp with a decent cd player.
the point is that with original quads, it's hard not to have soul, even with digital.
one other point, get some mellow sounding cables with digital and there is a better chance of having "soul" |
mr g, what evidence do you have that there is soul in a composition ? it is an opinion based upon your experience of listening to music. it is not knowledge.
let's not get too presumptious.
let's not get too carried away with an opinion. it is based purely on experience which does not yeild knowledge.
it may be an "educated" opinion, an "expert" opinion, but as an opinion it is neither true nor false. tha truth or falsity of an opinion cannot be ascertained.
a soul may be a part of ahuman being, spiritually speaking, but music having a soul, i think not--but thats just an opinion. |
there is no emotion in a machine. an emotion is a reaction from a human being. music conveys the emotion, but the reciver expresses it or feels it.
it is not the function of a "machine" to convey emotion.
sound quality is not necessary to experience an emotion.
a simple medium, such as a table radio will suffice, as will a personal stereo which can be purchased from a mass merchandiser.
as poor sounding as a recording may be, it is still possible to receive that which music is communicating. while you may not like the sound, the message can be communicated in spite of the sound. |
the question is:
does the ability of music to commuincate depend upon sound quality ?
i say no. if one accepts that premise, the medium is irrelevant.
sound quality has varied over time, based upon the available technology. 80 years ago, people were enjoying music. today, people are enjoying music. people experienced the message of the music 80 years ago, as they do today.
do people enjoy bach, beethoven or brahms more today, because of sound quality of stereo systems than they did 80 years ago , listening to "phonographs" ? i think not.
there is no evidence that enjoyment of music is highly correlated to sound quality. in fact there were two studies published in stereophile, authored by markus sauer, which indicated that the satisfaction accruing from listening to music was not highly correlated with sound quality.
so, it seems that the issue of digital vs analog vs a live performance is one of sound quality, not "soul". |
when you use the word "quality" to judge books, wine, food and art, the word much be defined so that one can recognize what quality is. quality is subjective. if i like it, it is good quality, if i don't quality is not good. thus, it is possible that an arbitrary definition of quality will not produce a relationship between it and enjoyment.
back to music... if you listen to a favorite "tune" on a table radio or other "inferior" medium, do you say "i can't get into the song because the sound is bad " ?
i would hope not. if you like the music, you like it, in spite of the sound. you can give reasons for liking it, regardless of the sound. note, sound "quality" is not absolute. it is subjective.
let's consider movies . a highly reviewed movie may not be enjoyable . a so called "quality" movie may or may not be enjoyed by many people.
there is no existing demonstration of a high correlation between enjoyment and any definition of quality. |
hi mr g:
a wise man know that he knows not. he who says he knows when he knows not is a fool.
how did knowledge get into this ?
you make an excellent point about talking about music and sound.
you can enjoy the music without enjoying the sound, and you can enjoy the sound withjout enjoying the music. thank you for your profundity.
my point is that "soul" resides in the music, as a form of communication not in the "sound". |
gentlemen:
what does sound have to do with soul ? have you ever heard a musician play in a poor acoustical environment where the sound was poor ? yet, one might say "he plays with soul".
i am afraid one may be looking for sould in the wrong places. if there are complaints about sound quality of recordings, that has nothing to do with soul.
sound quality and soul are two different issues,. at best soul inheres in a performance by a human being. sound quality has nothing to do with it. in fact a great sounding cd may not have much going for it as to performance. one could possibly say that such a performance lacks sould, while it sounds great.
this discussion belongs in the music section. it has nothing to do with digital or analog. the medium is not the issue. |
