Why audiophiles are different (explained with color)

There is truth in some of what has been written in recent posts about the subjective nature of perception and the difficulty in describing those perceptions to others in a meaningful way. Not impossible to do so TO SOME DEGREE, especially if a well chosen (as much as possible) descriptive vocabulary is developed based on agreed upon perceptions. Example: at its most basic, it would not be difficult for there to be agreement when there is an increase in overall volume, or bass, for instance. Obviously things get much more subtle and complicated that. Still, it would be a good start to build on. I have done precisely this with inexperienced listeners with success.

However, all this points to something that I feel audiophiles have unfortunately gotten away from and which used to be one of the foundational ideas of this hobby: the use of the live unamplified (acoustic) music reference. First, and to point out the obvious, this is not an argument against the idea of wanting a type of sound from our systems that pleases us without regard to a live music, or any other reference. Anyone is obviously free to enjoy their music with whatever type of sound that he wants. Moreover, if a listener has no interest in music genres that are acoustic/unamplified in nature then this is probably all moot. This  is, however, an argument against the idea that it is NOT possible nor valid, to use the live acoustic music reference. It most certainly is.  The detractors should remember that for some listeners THAT IS the most pleasing sound and that this is not just an exercise in some sort of “academic” pursuit.

There seems to be a knee jerk reaction to dismiss this idea by citing the subjective nature of perception. The problem with that argument is that one’s subjectivity carries over to whatever the source of the sound is at any moment. In other words, if for example, a certain spectral balance, or aspect thereof, is heard a certain way when attending a live performance of unamplified music due to any idiosyncrasies in our personal physiological hearing “mechanism”, it will be perceived the same way when listening to a recording. A valid comparison can thus be made. Clearly, there are many variables present when listening to live unamplified music; different halls, seating position, different reproduction equipment, etc. However, there is so much more information, particularly in the areas of timbral and rhythmic nuance in the sound of live unamplified instruments/music that enough of it survives the recording process and our imperfect reproduction equipment to still be able to make a valid comparison between what is heard live and what is heard from our sound system. Substantial familiarity with the sound of live is of course necessary; something which may be impossible or unappealing for some to pursue. Add electronic amplification to the mix (😉) and it makes it much more difficult, if not impossible.

Harry Pearson was right.

Take the Max Luscher Color Test - a classic in psychology.

We need words to communicate but words help us to engage in a pointed direction , like a maestro with his words and gestures conducting an orchestra.... But they are not the experience nor the music...

The Vocabulary of audio is useful to describe the electronic performance of the gear....thats all...

The performance of a system cannot be judged by amplified music or electrical music...

Why?

Because we are designed for a long time now to hear timbre voices in speech recognition....This is an evolutive fact...

All our music come from human voice not from electronic moog synthetiser....

I trust my ears listening subtle piano cues or voices in a choir to decide if my audio system is optimal not his way to give a great rock concert with electrical guitars in decibels and bass ....

Recognizing sounds frequencies is one thing, recognizing timbre is completely another thing and the two are not superimposable with one another or dont overlay completely with one another....

This is psychoacoustic scientific fact....

Music is not sound but through sound , and music is not also only signals in a sea of noise....Music is from another time than the physical clock, and from another space than the usual geometry of the physical world...And music speak about other colors than the one we know of in the physical world , like the precise color of the mother voice in Mahler kindertotenlieder....Listen in your heart and memory to the colored voice of your own mother adressing you when hurted to have an idea about music....Speaking of sound with acousti vocabulary after that is ridiculous...

Colors are not color they are world in itself....like a musical tone....And they are together a new body....

The great composers create new cosmos.... The great musician recreate our body.....It is what i look for....

Any attempt in enlightenment which attains group consensus... is inherently incorrect.

Many things exist on a continuous spectrum.

Language often attempts to chop that spectrum up into discrete units.  Take watery precipitation: drizzle, rain, downpour, etc.

For the same spectrum, different languages may chop at different points along the spectrum, and they may create a greater or lesser number of discrete units along the spectrum.

Within a given language, as Saussure demonstrated, meaning depends on members of that language group having broad agreement as to what a particular word refers to, as, with the exception of onomatopoeia, the relationship between word (and the sound of the word) and thing is purely a matter of convention.