Why audiophiles are different (explained with color)

**** There is some large differences in intelligence, ****

Obviously.

Interesting; and interesting comments.

Some are simply not wired to be particularly discerning; generally, in some cases and specifically in others. One comes across this in relation to different areas of life and not only as concerns sound. As the OP points out this is not a put down, and why is it surprising to anyone that this should be the case? It is possible to develop the ability, but first one has to be open to the reality and the possibility.

Related to the subject of perception and discernment of nuance, one aspect of sound which seldom receives enough attention is rhythmic nuance in music. Spatial and frequency response information is often discussed in detail and there is plenty of reasonably adequate language used to describe these; even if as has been pointed out, some turn indignant at its use. Timbre, which along with rhythm/dynamic nuance are the most foundational aspects of the sound of music, receives some attention; although still not with the kind of detail that it deserves given its importance. However, for some reason rhythm (dynamic nuance) receives scant consideration and has the least developed vocabulary used to describe the very fine details of its musical expression. The somewhat commonly used “PRAT” does not do justice nearly well enough to the details of rhythmic nuance in a musical performance which are every bit as numerous and varied as those describing issues of frequency response and sound staging.

rixthetrick, of course it refers to how it’s portrayed in playback systems. Style of music is not the issue; nor is dancing, although I suspect that a good dancer reacts to what I refer to.

Some pieces of gear simply do a much better job of portraying rhythm than others do, and they do this in different ways. I will leave the possible technical reasons to others, but some gear sounds much more rhythmically alive while, at the other extreme, some sounds practically rhythmically dead by comparison. Some do well at higher volume settings, but not so well at low volume settings. There is gear with every level of competence in between in this aspect of music. This is all a generalization.

I’ve experienced gear that sounds very alive through the midrange, but is sluggish in the bass range; even when the bass reproduction is pretty good tonally (not overblown).  I’ve also experienced gear/systems that portray, for instance, the crescendo that a well recorded orchestral string section makes in a segmented (for lack of a better word) way as opposed to a seamless and gradual incremental crescendo from very soft to very loud. Lesser gear might get the low volume content and the high volume peaks just fine, but not what happens in between. In a Jazz quintet, for instance, there might be a beautiful interplay between the piano players left hand and the bass player that while heard volume wise does not give the listener the sense that the piano player and bass player are “locked in” and listening very intently to each other while the saxophone solos. Some gear does let you hear this and some doesn’t do it as well. IMO, this can all be attributed to how well gear portrays micro-dynamics in music.
Hope this clarifies.

Great music, mahgister.   Brilliant spontaneous creativity and wonderful Haydn.  Thanks!

Could we please just ignore this fool?  

“If you have to ask what Jazz is, you’ll never know” - Louis Armstrong

There is truth in some of what has been written in recent posts about the subjective nature of perception and the difficulty in describing those perceptions to others in a meaningful way. Not impossible to do so TO SOME DEGREE, especially if a well chosen (as much as possible) descriptive vocabulary is developed based on agreed upon perceptions. Example: at its most basic, it would not be difficult for there to be agreement when there is an increase in overall volume, or bass, for instance. Obviously things get much more subtle and complicated that. Still, it would be a good start to build on. I have done precisely this with inexperienced listeners with success.

However, all this points to something that I feel audiophiles have unfortunately gotten away from and which used to be one of the foundational ideas of this hobby: the use of the live unamplified (acoustic) music reference. First, and to point out the obvious, this is not an argument against the idea of wanting a type of sound from our systems that pleases us without regard to a live music, or any other reference. Anyone is obviously free to enjoy their music with whatever type of sound that he wants. Moreover, if a listener has no interest in music genres that are acoustic/unamplified in nature then this is probably all moot. This  is, however, an argument against the idea that it is NOT possible nor valid, to use the live acoustic music reference. It most certainly is.  The detractors should remember that for some listeners THAT IS the most pleasing sound and that this is not just an exercise in some sort of “academic” pursuit.

There seems to be a knee jerk reaction to dismiss this idea by citing the subjective nature of perception. The problem with that argument is that one’s subjectivity carries over to whatever the source of the sound is at any moment. In other words, if for example, a certain spectral balance, or aspect thereof, is heard a certain way when attending a live performance of unamplified music due to any idiosyncrasies in our personal physiological hearing “mechanism”, it will be perceived the same way when listening to a recording. A valid comparison can thus be made. Clearly, there are many variables present when listening to live unamplified music; different halls, seating position, different reproduction equipment, etc. However, there is so much more information, particularly in the areas of timbral and rhythmic nuance in the sound of live unamplified instruments/music that enough of it survives the recording process and our imperfect reproduction equipment to still be able to make a valid comparison between what is heard live and what is heard from our sound system. Substantial familiarity with the sound of live is of course necessary; something which may be impossible or unappealing for some to pursue. Add electronic amplification to the mix (😉) and it makes it much more difficult, if not impossible.

Harry Pearson was right.