[btankey]

Just had a thought that seemed worth sharing/seeing if there's any opinions on the matter... So, as some people have written, there's differences in how people listen to music... i.e. sustained high quality attention vs. pleasure-through-osmosis kind of listening.  This is a fair synopsis, right?  Anyway, I'm curious if the 'magic' we're all seeking is based on experiences of novelty (to some degree...); i.e. our brains literally cancel out ambient noise unless we try to listen to it.  As a very newbie to Head-fi (but already an owner of HE400's, tube amps, and soon-to-be Stax setup) it seems to me that our brains compensate for what they're used to. So that, while there might be 'insane' differences in how we approach novelty (neurologically), once adaptation takes place (via neuroplasticity) there may not be much actual difference between how the brain processes the signal given to it... In other words, what seems remarkable via novelty becomes standard, and equivalent with the ideas of the music.  Of course, one can always say that high quality sustained attention is the modus operandi for audiophiles, but I'm just curious how much that is true?  I'm hesitant to write exactly what led to this weird thought, because it could fall into many pre-established discourses (source..., etc)... Anyway, I've left glaring gaps in my thought process, but am curious if anyone has any opinions on this (if this post even makes sense)?

 

[btankey]

The tricky thing in this problem (if it's legitimate) is that one cannot isolate any variable in search of a correct answer... Although the nirvana reported by many does express transparency as the ultimate aim...
 

 

[eucariote]

I'd say a lot of what people notice is based on contrast effects.  Going from a Grado to Sennheiser, I could not get over the gentle sound of the Senns (with or without attention).  After a few months, going back to the Grados, all I heard was their intense treble.  The first 10 times I heard the LCD-2's they seemed very tame and boring, as nothing really stood out.  One year later, LCD-2s are like a clear window to the world and everything else sounds like they are needlessly distorting something in the name of 'clarity' (too much treble) or 'depth' (too much bass), etc.

 

[btankey]

I agree that contrast may be a major fuel for the obsession, just wondering how much these obsessions literally relate to the music?  Hearing Coltrane a couple days ago via Stax almost made me cry, but I'm wondering if this novelty would dissipate regardless (i.e. my brain would adapt to a SR-009 and BHSE setup, to focus on the ideas/beauty of music, the same as a standard 'good' setup?).  It's a silly question in a lot of ways, and one that has been asked in very different terms (and expressed perhaps by the elegant statement of diminishing returns)... still would be curious of others' thoughts

 

[cheapskateaudio]

Quote:

I agree that contrast may be a major fuel for the obsession, just wondering how much these obsessions literally relate to the music?  Hearing Coltrane a couple days ago via Stax almost made me cry, but I'm wondering if this novelty would dissipate regardless (i.e. my brain would adapt to a SR-009 and BHSE setup, to focus on the ideas/beauty of music, the same as a standard 'good' setup?).  It's a silly question in a lot of ways, and one that has been asked in very different terms (and expressed perhaps by the elegant statement of diminishing returns)... still would be curious of others' thoughts

 
Studies have been done in the past and musical enjoyment is not really related to sound quality. Is that what you're getting at? 

 

[btankey]

Yes, I think that's my real question...
 

 

[Lirpa]

Quote:

 
Studies have been done in the past and musical enjoyment is not really related to sound quality. Is that what you're getting at? 

What studies? I find this hard to believe because I enjoy music a lot more when it's better quality. Seeing classical or jazz live is definitely better than any recording.

 

[eucariote]

Quote:

What studies?

 
Here's one.  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394099002888
 
Perhaps this thread should get moved to the sound science forum..

 

[p a t r i c k]

Quote:

Just had a thought that seemed worth sharing/seeing if there's any opinions on the matter... So, as some people have written, there's differences in how people listen to music... i.e. sustained high quality attention vs. pleasure-through-osmosis kind of listening.  This is a fair synopsis, right?  Anyway, I'm curious if the 'magic' we're all seeking is based on experiences of novelty (to some degree...); i.e. our brains literally cancel out ambient noise unless we try to listen to it.  As a very newbie to Head-fi (but already an owner of HE400's, tube amps, and soon-to-be Stax setup) it seems to me that our brains compensate for what they're used to. So that, while there might be 'insane' differences in how we approach novelty (neurologically), once adaptation takes place (via neuroplasticity) there may not be much actual difference between how the brain processes the signal given to it... In other words, what seems remarkable via novelty becomes standard, and equivalent with the ideas of the music.  Of course, one can always say that high quality sustained attention is the modus operandi for audiophiles, but I'm just curious how much that is true?  I'm hesitant to write exactly what led to this weird thought, because it could fall into many pre-established discourses (source..., etc)... Anyway, I've left glaring gaps in my thought process, but am curious if anyone has any opinions on this (if this post even makes sense)?

 
I think you have raised some excellent issues.
 
A few years ago I developed a great interest in how we perceive audio and music.
 
I think that many of the experiences people report from their audio systems are in fact a product of their mental state.
 
To give you one example. You will see that many Hi Fi types like to upgrade equipment frequently, often spending a lot of money on slightly better versions of things they already have, like headphones, or amplifiers.
 
People install the upgrade and for a period of time they start listening to their music more attentively, looking for the influence of the upgrade. They hear this and that, reporting perhaps that the bass is more refined, or the treble is smoother, but what they are really reporting on is their changed mental state and not the influence of the upgrade. The upgrade has led them to this increased attention, and now they are reporting on the results of listening with increased attention.
 
Increased attention can only be sustained for a while, and after some time they return to the former attention levels. They want to experience things again during that time of increased attention but they wrongly believe that was the product of the actual upgrade instead of simply being increased attention. So to get the same effect again, they buy another upgrade. Once again the attention is increased and they are reporting all kinds of new things they are seeing in their music. And so the cycle continues...

 

[btankey]

I am just trying to figure out the match between music and quality... some ideas can (only) be expressed via great recordings or live, but nevertheless I'm curious how the ideas of music (sorry if I'm being redundant) relate to quality reproduction?  Of course, anyone reading this will have experienced the contrast between normal and great quality sounds; and great sounds DO communicate many new ideas/music, just wondering how people think about this negotiation?  At some point our brains need to make a choice between detail (context) and content (music), and it's a much more subtle question than perhaps can be answered, unless the premise is fundamentally flawed.... I would just like to hear stories about how hi-fi fundamentally transforms music, which could go in many directions...
 

 

[btankey]

Ah, thank you for your answer Patrick, a very sound explanation, it seems to me

 

[cheapskateaudio]

Quote:

What studies? I find this hard to believe because I enjoy music a lot more when it's better quality. Seeing classical or jazz live is definitely better than any recording.

 
Did people enjoy music less in the 70's and 80's? 

 
The key thing to realize is that we identify sound as objects (words, people, animals, etc), and that essentially 99% of our use of sound is for communication. Music is a form of communication, the notes bear a meaning just like the intonations of conversation might. As long as the clarity is there for the notes and objects (words, instruments) to be identified music can be understood and enjoyed. And it honestly doesn't take much clarity for that to happen either.
 
Some of my favorite recordings are Pablo Casals playing the cello in the 1920's and 1930's, the music is perfectly recognizable, and enjoyable.

 

[p a t r i c k]

I am interested in the question which has been raised, which might be rephrased as:
 
Do we need high quality music reproduction to enjoy music, to get what we want out of it?
 
Well I say no, we do not
 
I will tell you about a friend in Ireland who like me loves to listens to the music of Dmitri Shostakovich. My friend in Ireland is unemployed, he spent a chunk of his life in jail and finds it difficult to find work. He listens to music with a transistor radio, quite a big one actually, the kind you use in the kitchen. He does not buy CDs or anything like that, he just listens to BBC Radio 3 all day long just like me.
 
I have been to concerts of Shostakovich with my friend and we both talk about what we have heard after the concert. He is every bit as turned on by the music as me. He understands all the subtleties and nuances just as well as me, and probably better. For my friend Shostakovich has been a great aid to his life just as much as me and maybe more.
 
So with my very much better audio system, and my CDs of Shostakovich, I am not in any way better off than my friend.