Audiophilism is a hobby


This post grew out of another discussion on music vs. sound. According to a poll taken in that discussion, it is clear most A’goners claim they listen to their rigs primarily for the music. Although I don’t doubt the truth of that, I maintain that much of the listening is as a hobby, with music being a very important component. I’m not saying we can’t be profoundly moved by the music but rather that a lot of our enjoyment comes from the sheer sound emitted from our speakers. Great music is of course a vital part of the experience, but with all the manipulations we do with our systems, we  are fascinated by the idea of sound in itself as a hobby.

128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xrvpiano

Music lovers use gear to listen to music.

Audiophiles use music to listen to their gear.

I'll admit I'm guilty of being the latter.

I guess it depends on your definition. For me, audiophiles passionately pursue the accurate wholistic reproduction of the music. As opposed to high end audio enthusiasts. My definition leaves a very large percentage of folks out that are pursuing a “sound spectacular” that does not reproduce the musical experience. To me audiophiles are the purists.

I consider my system an audiophile system. Not making instruments into soloists where they are not… not bringing out details out of proportion with the whole of the music. Not hitting you with an artificial wall of bass that would not be there if in real life. A system that reproduces the emotional connection of live music… focused on rhythm / pace and midrange with proportional details.

 

Music lovers… and I have known a number, simply do not care about the fidelity. They love the notes and order in which they come out. One such music lover I knew owned 3,000 albums and a portable record player with one speaker that he brought in to the record store where he worked. This was a typewriter sized device with a plastic tune arm, red and white box with a handle.

I’m just curious.  How do you define “rhythm and pace?”

I was wondering about that as well.

Rhythm and pace is an overall characteristic of reproduced music. As I eluded to above it is the characteristic(s) that convey the connection to the pace / beat, the emotional content of the music. The term became very popular in the 1990’s because of the rise of solid state equipment that performed spectacularly from a technical point of view, but would leave the listener unaffected emotionally… a problem that is still common.

I read extensively about it, but just never really could perceive it. This in large part because it is more or less omnidirectional and is a characteristic of the whole sound field.

However, as I thought back… there were certain systems I had heard that just gripped my emotions and drew me in… that made me want to move and sway… actually to get up and dance (well… made me feel that way… not actually do it… I used to be a young white nerd, not a Risky Business kind of guy... now I’m an old white guy). I’d just forget about the small elements of the music and get emotionally involved in the music.

Finally, this happened on enough disparate systems I realized this characteristic is Rhythm and pace. That it is present in different systems to different degrees. It was a breakthrough moment. After that, it became easy to sense it and evaluate it. Like lots of variables in audio, at first you can’t hear something, then when you do, and you cannot unhear it.

 

From a classic Stereophile article… “The definitions of "pace," "rhythm," and "dynamics" inevitably involve such related aspects as drive, timing, involvement, flow, and coherence. "Pace," for example, connotes speed; indeed, the concepts "fast" or "slow" have often been applied to sound reproduction.”

 

The article is worth reading.