Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Do audiophiles "like" music?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do audiophiles "like" music? - Page 11  

post #151 of 345
Quote:
I wholeheartedly understand, why young people often don't get classical. It is the age in part. But the most important point is the absence of quality of their equipment. 

 

I don't agree ... I think young people just don't have connection to older music. It is difficult to say why. And I am certain that is not equipment ...  one argument to support this is that young people do have good equipment. Think of it ... my samsung phone with its free earbuds plays  MP3 much better than my old sony walkman with average copied cassette. And you get this free with the phone + there are good quality MP3s on every web corner. For my walkman ... I had to save for quite some time - it was luxury.

 

I needed 30 years to find connection to classical music. And for a while ... in my late teens I had my fathers equipment based on ESS ATM1 speakers. Heck, I think these are better than my Spendors :)

 

 

 

Quote:
 A 500$ Stereo will not help to make you experience the quality of this music

 

Again I don't agree ... of course I am talking from my experience which is different. I have some really nice times with my 15$ mono cassette player in my studio ... back when I was younger. "Sound quality" and to "be there" arguments are usually excuse to spend money on equipment. I am not saying there are no differences in sound reproduction. But audio business is just that ... business. And it is getting more and more bizarre. The point where it becomes a waste of money is pretty low .. in my opinion. For 500$ you should easy find good quality system (second hand) which will let you experience any music out there.

But you will never be at woodstock again. Not for 500$ not for 500000$.


Edited by torta - 10/8/13 at 8:20am
post #152 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mironathetin View Post
 

A 500$ Stereo will not help to make you experience the quality of this music. I wholeheartedly understand, why young people often don't get classical. It is the age in part. But the most important point is the absence of quality of their equipment.

 

That is utter and complete tosh.

If you don't appreciate a piece of music on a set of PortaPros, you don't appreciate the music, period.

 

If it isn't even listenable to you unless you've spent a few thousands on equipment, you're not really listening to the music, you're listening to the sounds the performers are producing.

post #153 of 345

I think he had a good point though. It's a bit like watching an action movie without sounds. 

 

If you can't hear the stage and "be there" with the music, you're missing a lot from the full experience.

post #154 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by XVampireX View Post

I still don't think you make any sense with noise = music.
It's just not right.

So far I've proven you wrong.

Like we said before, so if that is music, then farting is also music, how about car noise, or any noise, it's also music. I mean seriously, lets all just yell, and call it music.
Oh and then call us musicians, yea!

SERIOUSLY?!

Also lol fart music
post #155 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headzone View Post
 

I think he had a good point though. It's a bit like watching an action movie without sounds. 

 

If you can't hear the stage and "be there" with the music, you're missing a lot from the full experience.

 

No, it's like watching a movie on your laptop, versus a home theatre.

You miss some of the "effects", but a good movie should still be able to carry through.

post #156 of 345
When I was a kid I used to listen to a lot of lo-fi punk/metal stuff. I always said that "Great songs overcome bad production"

I think it can also be said that "Great songs overcome bad REproduction"

IMO it's not about the gear. It's really the content that we connect with. If you have a song/record/band that you love, then you can listen to it on ANY playback equipment and still feel that connection.

IMO having better equipment is simply for the idea of building a system that "gets out of the way of the music", so the only thing left to shine through is the emotional impact...not a muffled blob of mush that must be "deciphered" to remove the music from the noise/distortion.

Jusy my opinion.
post #157 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by painted klown View Post

When I was a kid I used to listen to a lot of lo-fi punk/metal stuff. I always said that "Great songs overcome bad production"

I think it can also be said that "Great songs overcome bad REproduction"

IMO it's not about the gear. It's really the content that we connect with. If you have a song/record/band that you love, then you can listen to it on ANY playback equipment and still feel that connection.

IMO having better equipment is simply for the idea of building a system that "gets out of the way of the music", so the only thing left to shine through is the emotional impact...not a muffled blob of mush that must be "deciphered" to remove the music from the noise/distortion.

Jusy my opinion.

 

That is exactly what I'm trying to get at.
Your stereotypical audiophile (I'm sure there are exceptions) have no problem connecting with the performance and the production, but the content not so much.
And the content is the main thing, the rest is just trimmings.

post #158 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headzone View Post
 

I think he had a good point though. It's a bit like watching an action movie without sounds. 

 

If you can't hear the stage and "be there" with the music, you're missing a lot from the full experience.

Exactly!

Certainly the music must be good. But if that is the case, good equipment can enhance the experience dramatically. Everybody can compare that with different masters. If you listen to a good recording, you think it sounds great. Until someone produces a really good remaster. It is astonishing, how many layers of muddyness can be removed this way and how much more real the music feels then.

 

And when you think, this is it, you buy the latest MFSL SACD and the experience enhances again. Then go back to your original recording and try to understand, why you were ever able to enjoy it. You will still be able to "connect to the music", but really diving into it gets better the closer it sounds like real life.

 

The same happens with quality equipment. And to calm down torta and limpidglitch, quality does indeed not linearly scale with price. But, as torta has written so well, its a business, which means you get what you pay for. Sometimes you don't get it, although you pay. Operakid gave some amusing examples for this case. But it can be avoided by using ones ears.


Edited by mironathetin - 10/9/13 at 2:27am
post #159 of 345
It is hard to argue about experiences and expectations ... no point really. Equipment never played much role in level of my enjoyment. At least not beyond the fact that I needed some kind of machine to play music.  
I do acknowledge there are perceivable differences in sound reproduction, but after all the trouble you can get through - it just stays merely the reproduction ... it is not real - it is an illusion. 
Sure one can strive to archive "being there" moments, but there is not much point in that. He just cant do it. He is not there ... he is in his room with a few expensive machines wink.gif. He will inevitably fail and will be unhappy ... until he buys another "better" box. 
One can recreate (up to a point) spaciousness and scale for big orchestras ... but for me live performance is much more than that. One cannot recreate sense of space (architecture), one cannot recreate sense of being connected with performer along with other people on musical event. 
I think collective energy/feedback is most important part of live music. That is why I really don't care a doodle about "being there". Actually I prefer not to have Cincinnati Pops in my room ... it is to small. Ok, I wouldn't mind Norah Jones to come visit me.
But as said ... it is completely subjective. I am audiophile in a relapse ... I just try to be realistic about this hobby. Sometimes I treat it like illness wink.gif
Edited by torta - 10/9/13 at 4:13am
post #160 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mironathetin View Post
 

Exactly!

Certainly the music must be good. But if that is the case, good equipment can enhance the experience dramatically. Everybody can compare that with different masters. If you listen to a good recording, you think it sounds great. Until someone produces a really good remaster. It is astonishing, how many layers of muddyness can be removed this way and how much more real the music feels then.

 

And when you think, this is it, you buy the latest MFSL SACD and the experience enhances again. Then go back to your original recording and try to understand, why you were ever able to enjoy it. You will still be able to "connect to the music", but really diving into it gets better the closer it sounds like real life.

 

The same happens with quality equipment. And to calm down torta and limpidglitch, quality does indeed not linearly scale with price. But, as torta has written so well, its a business, which means you get what you pay for. Sometimes you don't get it, although you pay. Operakid gave some amusing examples for this case. But it can be avoided by using ones ears.

 

I don't disagree, but as I said, it must be cosidered as frills. You have a good thing and make it better, up to a point.

As Torta notes, this holy grail of a "being there" experience is a pie in the sky.

 

What really gets my blood boiling, however, is when someone finds it opportune to claim that some consumer device is insufficient for musical enjoyment.

That's elitism, pure and simple, and I fukcing hate that.

post #161 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 

What really gets my blood boiling, however, is when someone finds it opportune to claim that some consumer device is insufficient for musical enjoyment.

That's elitism, pure and simple, and I fukcing hate that.

I didn't write that. Maybe the red cape rose quicker in front of your eyes than it took to finish reading my post. I was talking mostly about music that is old and its recording quality is not up to todays standards. For the Gieseking example: you would even have trouble hearing the bombs falling in the background, unless you have a really good reproduction. 

 

But if you don't like elitism, this might be the wrong place for you.

It is elitism to buy 1000$ headphones and add 2000$ amps, like many here do. It is more elitism to replace the 1000$ headphones every few months. It is also elitism to spend more thousands for players while the guy who sleeps in your backyard does not know, what he's going to have for dinner (if he's going to have dinner). If you don't have a guy in your backyard (Norway?) then replace him with kids in africa. It can also be seen as elitism to have a good education, while others have not. I don't call this elitism, I call it responsibility.

 

As for this audiophile thing: it is luxury, no question. We are made to find out what's better. Part of that is naming and discussing what is less good. But instead of calling it elitism, I call this experimenting and talking about it. Feel free to have a different opinion, but post it in a polite way, please.


Edited by mironathetin - 10/9/13 at 5:11am
post #162 of 345
Quote:
It is elitism to buy 1000$ headphones and add 2000$ amps, like many here do. It is more elitism to replace the 1000$ headphones every few months. It is also elitism to spend more thousands for players while the guy who sleeps in your backyard does not know, what he's going to have for dinner (if he's going to have dinner).

I completly agree with that. That is why I sometimes call myself audioholic smily_headphones1.gif But it is just one of my vices, and not the biggest.
I also think is fine to have a bit more heated disccusion now and then.
post #163 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mironathetin View Post
 

I didn't write that. Maybe the red cape rose quicker in front of your eyes than it took to finish reading my post. I was talking mostly about music that is old and its recording quality is not up to todays standards. For the Gieseking example: you would even have trouble hearing the bombs falling in the background, unless you have a really good reproduction. 

 

But if you don't like elitism, this might be the wrong place for you.

It is elitism to buy 1000$ headphones and add 2000$ amps, like many here do. It is more elitism to replace the 1000$ headphones every few months. It is also elitism to spend more thousands for players while the guy who sleeps in your backyard does not know, what he's going to have for dinner (if he's going to have dinner). If you don't have a guy in your backyard (Norway?) then replace him with kids in africa. It can also be seen as elitism to have a good education, while others have not. I don't call this elitism, I call it responsibility.

 

As for this audiophile thing: it is luxury, no question. We are made to find out what's better. Part of that is naming and discussing what is less good. But instead of calling it elitism, I call this experimenting and talking about it. Feel free to have a different opinion, but post it in a polite way, please.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mironathetin View Post
 

A 500$ Stereo will not help to make you experience the quality of this music. I wholeheartedly understand, why young people often don't get classical. It is the age in part. But the most important point is the absence of quality of their equipment.

 

How can I not take this to mean that a $500 stereo is insufficient to "experience the quality of music", or to "get classical"?

 

You seem to operate with an odd definition of the word elitism.

It is perfectly possible to own expensive things, without being a schmuck.

post #164 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 

 

That is utter and complete tosh.

If you don't appreciate a piece of music on a set of PortaPros, you don't appreciate the music, period.

 

If it isn't even listenable to you unless you've spent a few thousands on equipment, you're not really listening to the music, you're listening to the sounds the performers are producing.

 

I think the distinction between sound and music is one perspective, but there are other perspectives on music. Remember that musicians work on the beauty of their sound among other things.

 

I am aware that some people see things your way. I'm just arguing it's only one of several valid perspectives. Here's my perspective:

 

I love music so much that I want it to sound good. I love listening to the music all the more when it sounds very beautiful.

 

The composer's art of orchestration is often about making neat sounds.

 

Musicians value instruments that sound beautiful and won't tolerate mediocre instruments. Does that mean they "don't appreciate music"?  Often the meaning of their music is contained within the specific details of their sound. Alter the sound and you change the meaning of the music.

 

I realize that some people feel there is this thing called "music" that is equally perceivable and more or less equally enjoyable at any level of quality reproduction.  I don't see it that way. And I don't think that means I appreciate music less. It's my way of loving music so much.

post #165 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 

 

 

How can I not take this to mean that a $500 stereo is insufficient to "experience the quality of music", or to "get classical"?

 

Oh that you refer to.

 

What catches me in classical music is manifold. In large orchestras it is the power of the sound. In small groups like quartetts, I especially like the richness of the overtones of unamplified instruments. Consider for example a viola da gamba. Or how really deep a Contrabass can go. The same with voices. There it is a richness in the modulation that a great singer can produce. This is why it is an experience to get the ear closer to Maria Callas singing. All that adds to the music and makes the difference between a great live concert and a reproduction. For example I have never heard a piano reproduced in a perfect way, not even with high(-er) end equipment.

 

When I write, that I understand that it takes a while to appreciate classical, because kids usually have bad reproduction equipment, then I am talking about these missing bits (ever tried to hear a contrabass with iPod buds?). Of course you get the melody, but that limits your view more or less to the hit-singles. The richness and the beauty of the sound is cut off by cheap equipment, at least that is my experience. It is even cut-off by high-end stuff, but less so.

 

If I read between the lines of pbengs post, I think he aims into the same direction.

Most people that I know who enjoy classical, have been taken to live concerts by their parents when they were young. They started with the complete picture. These are the ones who tend to have the best sounding equipment among the people I know. There must be something about it and that is certainly not elitism.


Edited by mironathetin - 10/10/13 at 1:46am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Do audiophiles "like" music?