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
frogman
7,476 posts
 
I can't disagree with your comments; except, perhaps, to temper somewhat the suggestion that there are so many recordings NOT worth listening to because of "the recording industries natural ability to suck the fidelity out of most recordings". IOW, I find that there aren't that many recordings of a GREAT PERFORMANCE that has been made "unlistenable" (not worth listening to) by bad recording/production. I think there is merit in always keeping our delicate audiophile sensibilities subservient to the quality of the music, and not just the sound. But, your point is well taken.

****There are thousands of Musicians who are around high end systems in studios listening to their raw tracks played back at a phenomenally high fidelity that rarely makes it past post production let alone CDs and LPs.****

A comment about this observation (which I also made in an earlier post). Even when the gear that many studios use for playback is not of "audiophile pedigree" (often the case), the "phenomenally high fidelity" heard on raw tracks is often there. The damage done to the performance from both a musical and sonic standpoint, up to that point, is minimal compared to what we hear in the final product. There is an immediacy and sense of aliveness that is startling; even over crappy speakers like the ubiquitous Yamahas. A kick drum over those crappy little speakers can make even a megabuck Wilson sound like it's on Valium (I'm showing my age).
chayro
3,005 posts
 
Vicdamone - wow, you seem to know a lot of musicians.
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 

I recall ages ago, (which means I was ages younger) a professional jazz musician and his lady friends lived in my apartment for over 3 months. During that time, we hardly listened to music at the apartment. Most nights I was driving him to different sets, and if there was any down time; he never tired of telling me about his life on the road as a professional jazz musician, and I never got tired of listening.

Although I have every recording he made that I can find, none of them even come close to the music I have inside my head when I was right there on the set.

orpheus10
8,668 posts
 
Jazz and blues musicians prefer midfi even when they can afford "high end" because it's less complicated, plus the fact they prefer "live" music to recorded music of any kind, and they always want to be on the set. While it seems that classical musicians definitely prefer the high end, and from what I've seen, always tubes; and the older the better. They also like horn speakers.

People who get the most enjoyment out of music, don't even know the high end exists.
orpheus10
8,668 posts
 
Correction, that "S" after friend is a typing error, there was only one lady.
More to discover