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 14  

post #196 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by milezone View Post
 

I wouldn't be an audiophile if I didn't love music. There is a double edged sword at play which is, that the more analytical I am, the less I enjoy the music -- in the way that I did when I was a child. I think analysis, judgement, critical faculties diminish our ability to empathize . Music is best (and perhaps only) enjoyed from an empathetic state of mind -- analysis has been, in my experience, a false attempt to justify enjoyment through 'logical understanding'. For a while I was a critical listener. I'm content with my system to the point of not really caring about the audiophile aspect of things anymore. And with all the knowledge I've accumulated on the subject over the years, I think I'm at a point where, were my system to burn to the ground I wouldn't make efforts to recreate it. I'd be perfectly satisfied with some quality single driver IEMs, electrostatic headphones or some studio monitors of some sort. 

 

Other ramblings, this hobby definitely furthered my understanding of quality versus crap. For example, my discovery of electrostatic transducers (and understanding how they work) I quickly isolated the important factors at play and I was able to come up with a cost effective solution for great music reproduction.

 

Concerning music itself, for me this hobby has reinforced the fact that music is noise. I think given this reinforcement, I've been able to better find good, interesting, and challenging music, rather than following trends and suggestions. Similar to this, I think the biggest issue I've seen is that lots of people with nice rigs only play "good" recordings to accompany their "good" setups. Diana Krall is the personification of this situation. I can't name a single song by her but I'm certain in my very limited experience of her oeuvre, that it's utter crap -- relative to other, more thorough musical efforts.

 

Going a full circle, being a judgmental snob is generally something I'm pretty against though I'm not sweating labeling Diana Krall's music garbage in this instance. My moral is don't be critical. The more empathetic you can be with everything, the happier you'll be with everything.

 

It's like food. Tastes change. You can go to a fine restaurant and not like a a well prepared meal, even though others might.

And you might find you don't find much enjoyment in the mass marketed big chains serving salty tasteless slop.

Audio is like that. At some point as you listen with more attention to detail. Suddenly the stuff you used to  tap your foot to

doesn't sound all that great. And you go look for something with more to it. Not a jazz fan? Not a classical fan? not a problem.

Just keep listening. Yes, a lot of Krall's music falls into an odd lot. I can only really listen to "the girl in the other room."

And a lot of popular music I listened to over the years no longer cuts it. And some other stuff pops out, and you wonder why

you never noticed it before. Good music comes from inspired artists, not from a bunch of guys who need 12 songs to fill out an album.

BTW, I still sneak out to Taco Bell for a smothered burrito now and then. So much better than McDonald's..

post #197 of 345

It seems the OP's question is a bit of a bottleneck in that it separates this forum into one of two camps: the gear lovers and the music lovers.

 

There are times when I get home and I don't want to listen to the gear, but fade off into the music. I have many albums that provide that for me. There are other times when I want to listen to the gear a little bit more and so I choose albums that aren't on my quintessential list, but are recorded well enough to pear into the gear that we devote so much time and money to. Then there are times, when we know our gear well enough, that we choose a particular headphone or amplifier or source because it happens to do particularly well with a certain album or genre. Then we fade away into the music but are using the gear as an accelerant to flame out our interest. The magic of it all is that we can appreciate both our gear and our music, and can pick which of those interests to peer into on any given day. 

post #198 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericfarrell85 View Post
 

It seems the OP's question is a bit of a bottleneck in that it separates this forum into one of two camps: the gear lovers and the music lovers.

I would rather say "sound lovers" than "gear lovers." Because loving beautiful or exciting sound is a normal part of loving music, whether at an all-acoustic concert, sound-reinforced concert, or on a home stereo. You might consider that orchestration looks more at the "sound" dimension of music (and less at pitches and rhythms, although those are certainly involved).

 

Actually gear can be particularly good with pace/rhythm/timing which means you can be loving the rhythm on your system. Again, I would say it's "rhythm" I'm loving and not "gear."

post #199 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpeng View Post
 

I would rather say "sound lovers" than "gear lovers." Because loving beautiful or exciting sound is a normal part of loving music, whether at an all-acoustic concert, sound-reinforced concert, or on a home stereo. You might consider that orchestration looks more at the "sound" dimension of music (and less at pitches and rhythms, although those are certainly involved).

 

Actually gear can be particularly good with pace/rhythm/timing which means you can be loving the rhythm on your system. Again, I would say it's "rhythm" I'm loving and not "gear."

The answer is NO. I buy expensive hi-end gear just for my health. I thought I was in a Polk Forum but I am not.

post #200 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurochin View Post
 

Attend enough A/V shows/meets .....  Between measurebators talking about cables and base stands (so I need to buy a thousand dollar resonance eliminating traffic cone to prevent "slight smearing", yeah sure), test playlists that feature the same gregorian chanting or geezer-jazz from 400 B.C or an acoustic banjo dullsville by some guy named Paco, and the occasional knob closing his eyes with his arms folded pretending to be "transported" in order for his fellow knobs to get a good photo ..... you'd swear that the majority were just providing free speech for the deaf.


Haha I'm with you..

 

If I hear Diana Krall or some unintelligible weird jazz one more time on these shows I'm not sure I will fall asleep or go Michael Douglas in Falling Down. It will probably depend on my mood.

Do we really want to listen to the same boring crap over and over when auditioning gear because it's convenient or is this some form of masochism for audiophiles? If we don't speak out about the dreadful music choices nothing will change. Maybe I'm in the minority here and all the people at shows are loving this music... Maybe it's just a matter of time before I'm audiophile drone nr 746374...:p

 

I suspect that exhibitors are scared schiitless alienating anyone and make them leave the room and therefore go for the the A4 ABC safe choice that most people don't really like but can accept. They need some positive encouragement. And if you are a exhibitor, don't refuse anyone from playing their own music. I will never buy gear I can't audition with real music.

The audiophile community seem to be in desperate need of new blood in many ways.


Edited by Sweden - 11/14/13 at 3:03am
post #201 of 345
hope they do. it's a big investment in time and money to discover you can't stand music. wink.gif
post #202 of 345

So why is this thread in high end rather than sound science?

post #203 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm View Post
 

So why is this thread in high end rather than sound science?

 

Because it's in the high end most audiophiles gather. Don't see why sound science would be appropriate.

I would have like to seen it under music but you will find very few audiophiles in that section of head-fi ;)

post #204 of 345

Because a bunch of guys are going to spend the whole thread wining about audiophiles.

That makes it sound science. :beyersmile:

I don't care who listens to what or with what. I buy what makes the music sound good.

If someone goes over the top, whatever. Clothing, sports, cars, biking.all involve a lot

of the same stuff. Some things matter and you pay $$$ for it. Sometimes they just

buy something because they can. If you let it bother you, stay out of the high end forum.

Most audiophiles like music AND gear.

If you don't like the Dallas cowboys, don't go to their website and read the messages.

They still think they have a chance to win the superbowl.

Pointless to swim against the tide here in Dallas. It makes them happy. If it doesn't make you happy,

move on to what does.

post #205 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktm View Post

So why is this thread in high end rather than sound science?

because the sound science guys would rather just argue about psychology.
post #206 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post


because the sound science guys would rather just argue about psychology.

 

Oh, I'll take the bait.

Certain intervals of specific frequencies aren't harmonious because they are inherently so, they only appear pleasing to us because of how our brain is wired up. Ergo psychology.

Most westerners have been singularly accustomed to the equal temperament system of tuning in a chromatic scale, as we've been accustomed to counting in base ten. Music played in just intonation, and counting in base 12 can be made to seem just as natural through familiarization, i.e. psychology.

Also see how music can elicit emotions, that is being psychologically manipulative.

 

I'd rather say that music is little else than psychology.


Edited by limpidglitch - 11/17/13 at 7:28am
post #207 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 

 

Oh, I'll take the bait.

Certain intervals of specific frequencies aren't harmonious because they are inherently so, they only appear pleasing to us because of how our brain is wired up. Ergo psychology.

Most westerners have been singularly accustomed to the equal temperament system of tuning in a chromatic scale, as we've been accustomed to counting in base ten. Music played in just intonation, and counting in base 12 can be made to seem just as natural through familiarization, i.e. psychology.

Also see how music can elicit emotions, that is being psychologically manipulative.

 

I'd rather say that music is little else than psychology.


You can kind of split the processing of the nervous system into different areas. There is psychology or emotion, which is a higher, more abstract level. Then there is the way the ear and aural cortex organize and process patterns in the sound.

 

In an analogous way you can find different aspects of music. There is the "sound" aspect, focused more on timbres and how orchestration affects the perception of timbre. Then there is pitch and harmony. There is rhythm. Then there is the emotion or feeling-state evoked by the music (the highest-level).

 

I like the sound of Schoenberg, but I'm a bit turned off by the feeling-state evoked by his music.

post #208 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 

 

Oh, I'll take the bait.

Certain intervals of specific frequencies aren't harmonious because they are inherently so, they only appear pleasing to us because of how our brain is wired up. Ergo psychology.

Most westerners have been singularly accustomed to the equal temperament system of tuning in a chromatic scale, as we've been accustomed to counting in base ten. Music played in just intonation, and counting in base 12 can be made to seem just as natural through familiarization, i.e. psychology.

Also see how music can elicit emotions, that is being psychologically manipulative.

 

I'd rather say that music is little else than psychology.

 

ummmm.........I wasn't really trying to bait anyone.

BTW, as a practical matter, playing music is also very much about technique.

post #209 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post
 

 

ummmm.........I wasn't really trying to bait anyone.

BTW, as a practical matter, playing music is also very much about technique.

 

You succeeded none-the-less :)
Listening to music can also be related to technique. I'ts a lot more fun listening to twelve tone music if you have some idea what the composer is trying to do.
I was mostly trying to point out that it's we who are the mystery boxes on this occasion, not the music. As such the distinction between good and bad music makes little sense to me, but the distinction between good and bad listener even more so. (with some exceptions, I'm sure)

So the question becomes: Are audiophiles bad listeners?


Edited by limpidglitch - 11/17/13 at 11:35pm
post #210 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by limpidglitch View Post
 

 

You succeeded none-the-less :)
Listening to music can also be related to technique. I'ts a lot more fun listening to twelve tone music if you have some idea what the composer is trying to do.
I was mostly trying to point out that it's we who are the mystery boxes on this occasion, not the music. As such the distinction between good and bad music makes little sense to me, but the distinction between good and bad listener even more so. (with some exceptions, I'm sure)

So the question becomes: Are audiophiles bad listeners?

 

Q.  Are we not Men?

A.  We are Devo!

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?