2. misc-audio
  3. 1011277325

What are we listening to...for...with?

As a long time audio enthusiast and former professional musician (double reeds) I'm interested in hearing opinions on a couple of related observations.

First obbo: A few years ago I had the privilege of visiting with the principal conductor of one of the major US symphonies--one of the biggest of the biggies. I was doubly blessed that among the guests was the music director of another orchestra in the same league. Between them, these guys probably account for a hundred or more recordings. I found my host relaxing by listening to his home equipment--an Aiwa all-in-one-box system that sounded to me like a miniature car crusher hard at work. When I questioned him, his offhand reply was, "Oh, I know what it is supposed to sound like." I pressed further: "So then are you listening for performance practice or interpretation or what?" "Nah," he replied, "I'm just enjoying the music." At which point the other internationally famous conductor chimed in to say that his home system was 30 year old HH Scott....

Second obbo: A few nights ago, I went to a friend's for an evening of listening. His system is primarily Krell electronics and a pair of Vienna Mahlers. Among other things, we heard the Slatkin/St. Louis/Telarc recording of the Vaughn Williams Fantasia on a Theme of Tallis, Barber Adagio for Strings, etc. Conversation ranged over several topics including Telarc engineering, "Krell sound," cables (what else?), and the suitability of the Mahlers for orchestral music. Finally I said, "Isn't anybody bothered by the crappy playing and conducting on this disc?" Blank looks all around. Finally, one friend, an oratorio singer, ventured, "Well, the strings WERE a bit out of tune on the Barber." Out of tune? They sounded like cats screwing on a tin roof! Slatkin failed to totally realize Grainger's luscious harmonies on the Tune from County Derry, and the playing throughout was tentative, almost hesitant.

My question for you folks: Are these observations two sides of a common coin? Do some of us listen only to the sound and others only to the music? Are these common phenomena? What's going on?
bishopwill
blkadr
731 posts
 
People just love music. Listen to a Beatles tune over an old transister radio. Even if the signal goes in and out your brain fills in the gaps. My daughter says she cant hear any difference between my stereo and her little Walmart thing. My wife says "I could never go back". They both listen to music and not sound. I listen to the sound sometimes, when comparing stuff. Its fun, but its really so I can enjoy the music more. If I didnt love the music I would find some other interest to obsess over.
cornfedboy
1,645 posts
 
bishopwill: nice thread. no matter why we first get involved in this hobby, eventually i think all who commit enough time to it come to appreciate the "quality" of sound, tho few may ever gain the experience of symphonic musicians and conductors that might allow us to appreciate, at least to the degree they do, the "quality" of the music we choose to play through our audio equipment. this has been brought to my recent attention when our "primary" public radio station split into two stations, one on fm playing classical music 24/7, and the other on am broadcasting news and other talking heads programming all day, every day. before this disastrous division, my car radio and home tuner were dialed almost exclusively to the single public radio fm band, where i could enjoy both music and the news programs i cherished on my morning and evening commutes. now, i am utterly deprived of "all things considered" and its morning cousin because i can not physically (or is it mentally) stand the sound of am radio. it really does hurt my ears. -cfb
bishopwill OP
369 posts
 
Well, cfb, I'm not at the point of having to give up All Things Considered but I stopped listening to car radio music a while back.

Awdeeofyle frames the real question, of course: what is our motivation? What motivates a person to have, as I and many others do, two (or more!) complete systems with different purposes. I have one for HT and another for music. Neither satisfies in the other's role. My music system is for listening to music...my gear choices yield a sound which is analytical, reserved, even a bit dry. I want to be able to reach down and hear the second-desk flutes. My HT system is big, ballsy, intended for visceral experience.

I suspect some conductors and players hear the music so accurately in their heads (think of the deaf Beethoven composing whole symphonies) that all they need is a sort of external cue.

Will
bobj
11 posts
 
I read the many thoughtful responses to Bishopwill’s intelligent question with interest. I agree with Bomarc’s comment that sound and music are two different hobbies, high-end audio and music appreciation. But the two are related.

An analogy in my experience is bird watching. I go bird watching with a friend who is far more knowledgeable than I about birds. His appreciation of the experience is in some respects greater. I bring a pair of Swarovski EL 8x42 binoculars and a TeleVue 85 mm spotting scope, while my friend has a pair of Bushnell binoculars. In audio terms, that is like comparing the absolute best tube preamp and SET amp (I will not venture to guess what that is) with an inexpensive receiver. With greater knowledge of the birds, my appreciation of the experience grows. However, I also appreciate the instrument though which I observe the birds, and the optical clarity of the image. The instrument itself is to me also a thing of beauty. It enables me better to experience the beauty and awe of what I am observing, and contributes to the overall experience.

I have a love of acoustic jazz. Much of the music I listen to was recorded between 1926 and 1959. I can appreciate a poorly recorded Charlie Parker session, because of the innovation and creativity of the music, its historical context, and the unique excellence of his art. However, the experience is much more enjoyable if the recording is of high quality, and the stereo system produces a more engaging natural sound. Part of the experience also is an appreciation of the instrument, in this case the stereo system, and of the assemblage of the system, which itself can be considered an art form. All of this contributes to the overall experience.

The sound and the music complement each other. In my view, a greater appreciation of each enhances the appreciation of both.

Best regards,
kthomas
911 posts
 
Great thread, and I think the best sentence was the last one - that "a greater appreciation of each enhances the appreciation of both". I'm not a musician - never have been, probably never will be. I've always loved music (that's my second favorite line from this thread - "music is the soundtrack of our lives"). As the sound quality of my system has gone up and my ability to engage with it has gone up (ie, more time), my pursuit of and experimentation with various genres and artists has grown as well. Each feeds the other in a positive way.

It may be that I'm not a musician, that I don't "know what it's supposed to sound like", or that my tastes have not "matured", but each feeding the other has not led me to a point where I fret (or even care all that much) about small differences of similar CD players, cables, etc. In other words, I don't think my pursuit of and enjoyment of the sound, rather than the music, has become a pursuit in and of itself. Rather, it remains intertwined. I would guess that although a large percentage of the postings on this board revolve around the pursuit of sound through equipment, and despite the fact that there are undoubtedly people for whom the technical purity is THE goal, that the vast majority of posters here have intertwined goals and, in fact, the pursuit of sound is secondary to the pursuit of music. -Kirk

More to discover