Astute observation. If you think about it like a scale, with 0 being melophiles (0 concern for gear), 10 being gearophiles (0 concern for music), and 5 being audiophiles (even split), then you're leaning towards 3, maybe 4 on the scale, because the things you speak of - tone/timbre/emotional connection are really music-related metrics. The closer you get to 10, the more important the gear's technicalities become.
I'd probably place myself at 4.5-5, because I care as much about emotional connection as I do technicalities, but I also lose some emotional connection if the technical quality doesn't hit a certain level (about as much as I do if the tonality is off).
As a water cooler discussion point for a Monday, where do you guys pin yourselves on the scale?
This is a conversation I had a ton with audiophiles in Singapore, and I think it largely depends on how you'd segregate what constitutes a
technical quality vs. a
musical one.
For example, as
@ranfan alluded to,
venues are part of the music, and they'd traditionally tie into the
technical aspects of stage expansion and imaging. He also mentioned that emphasising it too much can take away from the warmth and allure - both
musical or
emotional aspects - of more intimate arrangements. At the same time, though, it can be argued that a huge stage is a crucial musical component for genres like rock. The Jolene I just reviewed is a perfect example, where its massive, arena-like stage is key in selling the
enveloping scope and
atmosphere of a rock concert. So, depending on genre, a huge soundstage wouldn't automatically fall into the technical camp, as it has links to the emotional side as well.
Another would be dynamic range; a quality
so technical, it's most commonly seen as a number on a specs sheet. I believe - perhaps a
smidgeon below tone or timbre - it's actually the 2nd-or-3rd most crucial component to an IEM's
musicality or
emotion. An example would be the Moondrop Starfield I mentioned some time ago. It has a very safe, soft, natural tone, but it's so
dynamically flat, that I get bored within a half-hour of listening to it. No emotional connection was forged, despite it theoretically scoring highly in
tone. So, the missing
emotional component here is actually
technical in nature. Bringing it
all the way back to the U12t, it shares a very similar tone overall to the A6t. But, it's the former's superior
dynamics that enhance the
engagement or
connection I feel to a track like Snarky Puppy's
Go, where I can hear the layers building over each other dramatically towards the climax.
So, it really is the fuzziest Venn diagram in the world.
I think, rather than a dichotomous system where adding to one takes away from the other, I think some sort of system that incorporates priority would be more ideal. Something like Crin's system where tone and technique have their own grades is a bit more apt as well, I reckon. But, as always, it's an interesting thing to ponder on Watercooler Monday.
Yes I agree with that. But there's DD bass and there's DD bass, if you know what I mean? You can get incredibly detailed, fast, naunced and clean DD bass, but it'll cost you. EE EVO is probably the best bass I've heard in any IEM or headphone, though could be a bit much for some, especially if you don't use neutral sources and wide bore tips. EXT is likely highly technical and refined too. Both cost close to or just over $3K. The best DD bass I've heard for ~$1K is IE 900. In fact that's probably touching distance to the $3K IEMs, so you really need to be invested in both the technical excellence and tonal balance of the multi kilobuck IEMs to make sense of that type of purchase.
Like you say later on, you get the best of both worlds with Traillii, and probably the new VE IEMs too. But there's probably only a handful of IEMs that can pull off world class technicalities with a musical tonality, and like I said above, they're going to cost you. Ultimately beyond a certain point (probably around $1K nowadays), what you're really paying huge money for is technical improvements, so if you don't need $3K-level technicalities, your wallet will thank you. It's much easier to find great tonality and musicality for reasonable pricing.
I think many of us (myself included) use the term 'critical listening' as a blanket term for listening exclusively without doing other things at the same time. I often listen to music while working, or walking, or typing on HF like I am now. That's what I call casual listening, and it's probably how I listen more often than not. When I'm in bed or in a recliner and close my eyes to focus only on the music and take in all its nuances and emotion, that's probably better described as focused listening. Critical listening should really only be used to describe listening for flaws/composition/analysis, or when listening to music as an end to a means to assessing the gear.
Depends on whether you like the sub bass rolloff' or more forward/energetic treble. I must admit when I saw that Dark Sky treble spike I winced. If it sounds anything like it looks, alot of music is going to be quite edgy and borderline piercing. But if you're into that sort of thing, all good. I think the IE 900's middle/upper treble emphasis is less fatiguing, and fits in with the overall beautiful tuning of that IEM as a whole.
My IE 900 companion album tonight:
I think I've literally lost the ability to
casual listen.
If I don't have to pay attention to what the IEM's doing, I'm thinking about what the musician's doing, or what decisions the mix engineer had to make, or what decisions led to certain sounds, etc. To me, though, I think that adds to the experience. In film, I've often heard that once you know how a movie's made, the
magic goes away. I actually think it's the complete opposite. When you know how something's made, and you know how difficult the simplest-looking (or, in this case, simplest-sounding) things can be, then you'll automatically have a deeper appreciation for it. Like, if you guys knew how tough it is to get even the most average-sounding mix together...
But, yeah, I'd agree that critical listening is a rather unrealistic scenario. Even when I'm trying to meticulously mix or master a track, I've found it's most effective to just relax and listen to it like you'd listen to any track. Getting too in-your-head will only needlessly exacerbate things and lead you to make changes that weren't necessary in the first place. You can even overcorrect and create a problem that wasn't there to begin with. So, yeah, I liked
focused listening
much better.
I'll also follow your lead and share what I've been listening to for the past couple weeks. I can't wait for their next record next year:
