2. analog
  3. 1359784802

$$$ vs music enjoyment

The January 2013 Stereophile e-mail newsletter featured an interesting reprint of a 1994 article titled "R.I.P. High-End Audio?" The reprint generated interesting discussion, and I found one post in particular raising an interesting point.

"The article suggests there is some public good to spreading the high-end. I'd like it first shown that someone is happier listening to music on $20 speakers than 'mid-end' $2k speakers. I mean empirical evidence - hook up blindfolded listens to brain scanners and measure their neurotransmitter levels. If there were a correlation between musical enjoyment and price beyond a certain point I'd have expected my musician and conductor friends to own better stereos than they do."

A few points raised there. Does a more expensive system (a nicely set up, moderate system vs. a significantly more expensive system) indeed elevate the level of musical enjoyment? It would be very interesting to compare owners of all-out assault systems with average audiophiles who can't wait to fire up their systems on a Friday night to get themselves immersed in music. I believe I myself would in fact enjoy the music more if able to afford a more expensive system, even though my modest system has given me extreme enjoyment. But who knows...

And then, yes, why does the audiophile community feature relatively so few musicians? I must say this argument is actually not very convincing to me. The underlying assumption is that any given trade professional would necessarily strive to replicate or pursue the same standards or level of performance in his private life, which I think is a fallacy. Does a fancy restaurant chef have to always eat gourmet food at his home to enjoy it? Does a fashion designer have to always wear designer clothes lest they show high fashion is a sham?

Comments welcome.
actusreus
zd542
5,339 posts
 
"That there aren't musicians who are also audiophiles is a myth; that they "don't know that the high-end exists" is an even bigger myth. This notion keeps coming up time and again, and is completely false. Consider how many people in the general population are audiophiles; a very small percentage. There are far more audiophiles within the community of musicians, as a percentage of that population, than there are audiophiles in the general population; and while probably not to be considered "high-end", the vast majority of musicians have playback gear that is infinitely better than what the average non-musician owns."

I'm not saying you are wrong but I have no idea where you get that info from. I know plenty of musicians and I don't know 1 that has any idea what high end audio is. They seem to have more of a pro sound mentality when it comes to audio. I can only go by my own experience, though, because, as far as I know, there are no stats that can give us any indication as to what type of audio systems musicians have. My best guess would be that musicians get into high end audio the same way regular people do, myself included; by accident. You either wander into a store that sells high end gear or see it in someones home.
onemug
784 posts
 
Ketchup,

I haven't done one because I don't feel what a person owns gives his opinion any more worth "in general". From time to time when it's relevant, I mention what I own and have direct experience with so the person knows I'm not just giving an opinion on something I've "read" about.

But I see your point here because of the contrast between "$$$ vs music enjoyment".

So from the minimum $$$/Vintage:
Marantz 18,19,2270 (rotate them in) driving custom designed components inside Altec Valencia cabinets. Cost...300 to 700 depending on receiver.

To the max $$$:
CJ ART 3>Pass XA100.5's>Maggie 3.6's with custom x/o's. Cost...over 40K not including sources.

No question about my high $ sounding more like the real thing. I just don't need it to enjoy an evening of music "even more".
photon46
1,088 posts
 
Actusreus, your original question regarding "empirical" evidence for evaluating the quality of a subjective experience seems based on a peculiar understanding of reality. How can one "prove" the quality of a subjective experience? To suggest that there is some scientifically valid neurological scan that can divine the heights of aesthetic experience a subject is experiencing is the stuff of science fiction at best. Sure, we've all seen the "science for the layman" Discovery Channel documentaries showing how this or that area of the brain lights up to more or less greater degrees when we look at a picture of loved one vs. any other pretty face, etc. but this seems a far cry from what you suggest. Often questions like this seem rooted in some hope that we're really not missing out on something those with greater financial means may be enjoying. Unfortunately, we'll never know. That person with greater means may be a musically illiterate tin ear (unlikely if they chose to spend $$$ on high end) or they may be possessed with the ear of a skillful conductor. We'll just have to learn to live with the fact that somebody out there is always enjoying better audio, faster cars, tastier wine, and more beautiful women than we are.
syntax's avatar
syntax
2,193 posts
 
Groovy Baby
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Good and thoughtful comments Frogman.
Regards,
More to discover