What is it I'm failing to grasp?


I come across statements here and elsewhere by guys who say 1) their systems come very close to duplicating the experience of hearing live music and 2) that they can listen for hours and hours due to the "effortless" presentation.  

I don't understand how these two claims add up. In tandem, they are profoundly inconsistent with my experiences of listening to live music. 

If I think about concerts I consider the best I've witnessed (Oregon, Solas, Richard Thompson, SRV, Dave Holland Quintet, '77 G. Dead, David Murray, Paul Winter Consort), I would not have wanted any of those performances to have extended much beyond their actual duration.

It's like eating-- no matter how wonderfully prepared the food, I can only eat so much-- a point of satiation is reached and I find this to be true (for me) when it comes to music listening as well. Ditto for sex, looking at visual art, reading poetry or playing guitar. All of these activities require energy and while they may feel "effortless" in the moment, I eventually reach a point where I must withdraw from aesthetic simulation.

Furthermore, the live music I've heard is not always "smoothly" undemanding. I love Winifred Horan's classically influenced Celtic fiddling but the tone she gets is not uniformly sweet; the melodies do not always resemble lullabies. The violin can sound quite strident at times. Oregon can be very melodious but also,(at least in their younger days) quite chaotic and atonal. These are examples on the mellower side of my listening spectrum and I can't listen to them for more than a couple hours, either live or at home. 

Bottom line: I don't find listening to live music "effortless" so I don't understand how a system that renders this activity "effortless" can also be said to be accurate.   

What is it that I'm failing to grasp, here?  


 

stuartk

"What is it that I’m failing to grasp, here? " I don’t think you are failing to grasp anything. As a corollary to your point, no one can say that live music is always perfectly presented. Many of the same problems with acoustics, etc. exist in a live performance and no one even mentions the sound engineers that are typically present on live performances. In my experience there are several sound engineers that have accompanied top flight live performances that I have attended that had tin ears or no ears at all. We eventually will reach a saturation point with anything and emulating our personal playback systems to sound like a live performance misses the point anyway, I think -i.e. live performances are simply not always great and if you reach that point with your home system so it sounds like a live performance, sometimes it’s not going to sound good. Yes, certain, but not all, recordings are going to sound good but that is likely true on almost any system. If you consistently enjoy listening to your system, that, I think is the finish line at least until some new system improvement takes hold of you that you simply can no longer live without.

 

Post removed 

It’s just different for everyone. That’s what makes this such a cool hobby. What I find amazing is that no one on this forum has the exact same setup for listening to music. Also, no one has the exact same taste in music. I think some people fail to realize how individualist this hobby actually is. I think this what also leads to the unnecessary arguments. Our goals and expectations based on our individual experiences all lead us to finding a system that works just for us alone. To me that is fantastic. 

I suppose that we can try and believe that.

… But the arrival of the printing press brought the written word to many, the same way that later Edison’s phonograph brought sound.

(So I am finding it hard to believe that it is tailored for the individual.)

One can argue that the data rate (or bit error rate) is lower with ASCII characters, than with sound, but it is tending towards intellectual masterbation to think that the majority of systems at the playback end… is having a more profound effect than what happens on the front (recording) end.

All of our equipment may be different, but it all likely sounding more similar than dissimilar.

as this thread is now shifting towards a discussion of live musical performances in its many forms, and the sonic issues they can have, it is worth mentioning that this is why, to me, the bbc's substantial research and development in the 60s and 70s into acoustics and monitoring and recording of first classical (then pop) performances - think london philharmonic leading to the beatles - is seminal in its field

that research led to iconic speakers such as the spendor bc1, rogers ls3/5a, and their descendants today, by spendor, harbeth, stirling, graham and so on

Trying to explain to someone else what one of your senses; sounds, smells, tastes, feels like, is very difficult. That is one reason most strange foods all are explained as "tastes like chicken". Most people have tasted chicken so when you say that you expect others to understand, but does their chicken taste experience really match your taste experience, I do not know? Following this logic when someone tries to explain how their system sounds, "like live music" in my mind is the same as "tastes like chicken". No one wants to admit, if it is true, that their system is assembled so badly or their room's acoustic is so horrible that they can only listen at low listening levels for 20 minutes max, so "my system sounds so good that I can listen for hours on end and never become fatigued, and it sounds like live music" is just trying to convey that they like the way their system sounds in their room.

I for one do not go to concerts much anymore, forgetting Covid, because I find rock concerts in large sheds or concert halls a truly fatiguing experience. I enjoy listening to the same band's albums, studio or live, much more in my home. Does it sound like that live experience, I sure as heck hope not. Does it sound fantastic, yes indeed it does and in my opinion it sounds live :-) and I could listen for hours on end.