[Ericus Rex]

Maybe you can have both.  I have yet to hear a system that does both.  That may be because, for me, hearing every little thing is a distraction from the music.  Hearing the third stand violist's heavy breathing does not bring me closer to the music.  I've always thought that those audiophiles who listen for every single bit of information on the disc are missing the point.

[Seano]

So..........God is in the nuances.  But the Devil is in the details.








This probably explains why I get soooooooo confused about hi-fi.  I think it'll be safer for me to continue to take it all at 'face value'.........sounds like air guitar for me.

[Geardaddy]

I've always thought that those audiophiles who listen for every single bit of information on the disc are missing the point.

I agree....but one question that comes to mind is is not simply what "experience" we are after when listening but the associated "perception" of how things should sound.  Sauer made the point, and it is a good one, that sound engineering exerts a tremendous influence on the sonic outcome of a disc, LP, and how this does not necessarily line up with the reality of the live event.  He used the example of an orchestral recording.  Multi-source miking does not replicate the sound the concert goer heard in the actual hall.  So, that begs the question of how good our sonic memories are for the actual live music....

[zybar]

I've always thought that those audiophiles who listen for every single bit of information on the disc are missing the point.

I agree....but one question that comes to mind is is not simply what "experience" we are after when listening but the associated "perception" of how things should sound.  Sauer made the point, and it is a good one, that sound engineering exerts a tremendous influence on the sonic outcome of a disc, LP, and how this does not necessarily line up with the reality of the live event.  He used the example of an orchestral recording.  Multi-source miking does not replicate the sound the concert goer heard in the actual hall.  So, that begs the question of how good our sonic memories are for the actual live music....

Which is why it comes back to emotion for me.

I know that what I hear on the recorded medium is somebody's interpretation of what "they" heard. Given that, why shouldn't I build a system that allows me to consistently connect with the music I play regardless of accuracy, detail, etc...? 

When I first started out in this hobby it was all about the music for me.  Along the way, it started to become more and more about the gear and trying to constantly "improve"...to wring every little detail, nuance, etc...  While this used to work for me, it no longer pushes my buttons like it once did.  Now I just want to listen and enjoy the music again.  If the system isn't SOA, I am ok with that.    

Now before somebody says, "George, you go through more gear in a month than I have in the last 10 years"    - I still like to try different gear and I am also trying a different approach to system assembly.  Since no one system can do everything, I have decided to build multiple systems that are relatively easy to swap in and out of my main 2 channel system.  Depending on my mood or musical tastes, I might go with the single driver system or maybe an active open baffle system.  While these two approaches don't sound anything alike (at least to my ears), I am finding that I can enjoy the music with either. 

George

[Ericus Rex]

I agree....but one question that comes to mind is is not simply what "experience" we are after when listening but the associated "perception" of how things should sound.  Sauer made the point, and it is a good one, that sound engineering exerts a tremendous influence on the sonic outcome of a disc, LP, and how this does not necessarily line up with the reality of the live event.  He used the example of an orchestral recording.  Multi-source miking does not replicate the sound the concert goer heard in the actual hall.  So, that begs the question of how good our sonic memories are for the actual live music....

And I agree with you and Zybar as well.  If we really tried to recreate the live experience in our listening rooms we'd toss the notion of imaging out the window.  At Symphony Hall here in Boston, when you close your eyes you'll hear horns coming at you from all over, not center back.  But I'll admit imaging is a nifty phenom....

Expanding on perception, we all tailor our systems based on our perceptions of sound as well.  If my system delivers on my perception of good sound I'll connect more easily with the music.  If it doesn't (even if it is more true to the live event), it will not illicit an emotional feeling from me as easily.

[DSK]

...
When I first started out in this hobby it was all about the music for me.  Along the way, it started to become more and more about the gear and trying to constantly "improve"...to wring every little detail, nuance, etc...  While this used to work for me, it no longer pushes my buttons like it once did.  Now I just want to listen and enjoy the music again.  If the system isn't SOA, I am ok with that.     ...

Hey George, get outta my head awreddy!! More and more I'm realising that although my "audiophile" side is impressed by ultra high resolution, my "music lover" side prefers tone and body. It makes me more relaxed and my body moves to the music more. I don't mean tubey and lush, simply the naturally warm and organic instruments and vocals we hear live (especially unamplified).

[stvnharr]

Live music is always ultra high resolution. 

[LM]

I think I got sidetracked for a bit with the ‘more detail is everything’ bit but have since found (IMHO) that I was looking at the problem 180deg out.  Now I look for cleaner and less distorted in the first instance and detail, and more important musicality, seems to naturally follow.  I found previously when I focused on detail alone that I often mistook a clinical, forward or hard-edged sound as more detailed at first, but rapidly tired of it.

[DSK]

Live music is always ultra high resolution. 

Yes, I guess you could actually say that the live performance is actually MAXIMUM resolution and recording and playback equipment simply tries to capture as much of it as possible.

What I actually meant was that I find it more musical and enjoyable to lose a little resolution/detail than to lose tonality and body. Systems that are immediately impressive with ultra high levels of detail are often fatiguing in the long run as the detail is unnaturally highlighted as a result of inferior tonality and body ... ie. less body seems to thin out the performance a little thereby unnaturally emphasizing leading edges and detail. This can be impressive and give a real WOW factor but is, to my ears, more "thin" and "up tight" than the live performance and shifts some emphasis away from the body of stringed instruments and toward the strings themselves.

[sandgrownun]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-and-tv/tv-radio-reviews/last-nights-tv-when-a-bit-of-rhythm-beats-the-blues-839437.html

This perhaps explains what happens when the brain connects with a piece of music, which is similar to a religious experience in its neurophysical effects.

I've no idea how you could connect that to equipment quality! Perhaps, as other have said, the "better" the equipment in some sense, the more likely it is to induce that transcendent experience.

[kyrill]

hi sandgrownun

welcome on "the forum" and you choose a nice topic to start

[stvnharr]

Live music is always ultra high resolution. 

Yes, I guess you could actually say that the live performance is actually MAXIMUM resolution and recording and playback equipment simply tries to capture as much of it as possible.

What I actually meant was that I find it more musical and enjoyable to lose a little resolution/detail than to lose tonality and body. Systems that are immediately impressive with ultra high levels of detail are often fatiguing in the long run as the detail is unnaturally highlighted as a result of inferior tonality and body ... ie. less body seems to thin out the performance a little thereby unnaturally emphasizing leading edges and detail. This can be impressive and give a real WOW factor but is, to my ears, more "thin" and "up tight" than the live performance and shifts some emphasis away from the body of stringed instruments and toward the strings themselves.

Hi Darren,
I know what you meant in your post. 
I often get the feeling from reading things here that nobody ever listens to live music.  Live music, even in a crummy sounding venue, never seems to suffer from any of the shortcomings experienced in electronic playback.  It always sounds just about right and nobody ever really worries too much and nobody waxes poetically about the sound quality.
And if you jump onstage to play air guitar you are not likely to have a thrilling emotional experience for very long.

Steve

[soundbitten1]

I often get the feeling from reading things here that nobody ever listens to live music.

I rarely do . For the bands I'd like to see it's usually too far to travel , too expensive and too much of a hassle .

[LM]

Yes, I guess you could actually say that the live performance is actually MAXIMUM resolution and recording and playback equipment simply tries to capture as much of it as possible.

What I actually meant was that I find it more musical and enjoyable to lose a little resolution/detail than to lose tonality and body.

I think these two statements summarise it perfectly for me.  I love ‘quality’ national and international acts in class venues for sure but have probably had my most complete and enjoyable ‘involvement’ moments in small clubs or pubs with amateur bands in a less than ideal (sonic) environment.  Hearing an old guitar being played though a clapped out Marshall stuck under a chair and though a noisy crowd is not Abbey Road standard, but can be fun.  And what I have looked for and largely found with Hugh’s kit is a very high level of such musical involvement.

[timind]

Ok so I can sit and listen to my system for hours enjoying every minute but those times that bring the goosebumps don't happen as often as they used to. In fact they are just as likely to happen while I'm driving my Ford Focus with the radio on. It's a combination of mood and music.
My wife is out of town on business now so things are cookin on the system. As for emotional response to music though, she told me her rental car was a Chrysler convertible. She drove through the Smoky Mountains this afternoon with the top down and her ipod blaring. Now there's a true emotional experience induced by music, mood and situation.