What are we listening to...for...with?

Well, cfb, I'm not at the point of having to give up All Things Considered but I stopped listening to car radio music a while back.

Awdeeofyle frames the real question, of course: what is our motivation? What motivates a person to have, as I and many others do, two (or more!) complete systems with different purposes. I have one for HT and another for music. Neither satisfies in the other's role. My music system is for listening to music...my gear choices yield a sound which is analytical, reserved, even a bit dry. I want to be able to reach down and hear the second-desk flutes. My HT system is big, ballsy, intended for visceral experience.

I suspect some conductors and players hear the music so accurately in their heads (think of the deaf Beethoven composing whole symphonies) that all they need is a sort of external cue.

Will

I read the many thoughtful responses to Bishopwill’s intelligent question with interest. I agree with Bomarc’s comment that sound and music are two different hobbies, high-end audio and music appreciation. But the two are related.

An analogy in my experience is bird watching. I go bird watching with a friend who is far more knowledgeable than I about birds. His appreciation of the experience is in some respects greater. I bring a pair of Swarovski EL 8x42 binoculars and a TeleVue 85 mm spotting scope, while my friend has a pair of Bushnell binoculars. In audio terms, that is like comparing the absolute best tube preamp and SET amp (I will not venture to guess what that is) with an inexpensive receiver. With greater knowledge of the birds, my appreciation of the experience grows. However, I also appreciate the instrument though which I observe the birds, and the optical clarity of the image. The instrument itself is to me also a thing of beauty. It enables me better to experience the beauty and awe of what I am observing, and contributes to the overall experience.

I have a love of acoustic jazz. Much of the music I listen to was recorded between 1926 and 1959. I can appreciate a poorly recorded Charlie Parker session, because of the innovation and creativity of the music, its historical context, and the unique excellence of his art. However, the experience is much more enjoyable if the recording is of high quality, and the stereo system produces a more engaging natural sound. Part of the experience also is an appreciation of the instrument, in this case the stereo system, and of the assemblage of the system, which itself can be considered an art form. All of this contributes to the overall experience.

The sound and the music complement each other. In my view, a greater appreciation of each enhances the appreciation of both.

Best regards,

Great thread, and I think the best sentence was the last one - that "a greater appreciation of each enhances the appreciation of both". I'm not a musician - never have been, probably never will be. I've always loved music (that's my second favorite line from this thread - "music is the soundtrack of our lives"). As the sound quality of my system has gone up and my ability to engage with it has gone up (ie, more time), my pursuit of and experimentation with various genres and artists has grown as well. Each feeds the other in a positive way.

It may be that I'm not a musician, that I don't "know what it's supposed to sound like", or that my tastes have not "matured", but each feeding the other has not led me to a point where I fret (or even care all that much) about small differences of similar CD players, cables, etc. In other words, I don't think my pursuit of and enjoyment of the sound, rather than the music, has become a pursuit in and of itself. Rather, it remains intertwined. I would guess that although a large percentage of the postings on this board revolve around the pursuit of sound through equipment, and despite the fact that there are undoubtedly people for whom the technical purity is THE goal, that the vast majority of posters here have intertwined goals and, in fact, the pursuit of sound is secondary to the pursuit of music. -Kirk

While I have been listening to "classical" music for thirty odd years, I still am not bold enough to state that one performance is better than another, unless, of course, one is supremely good and the other supremely bad. I must confess that I do look to record reviews in various magazines for what I still consider to be a more enlightened and broader viewpoint than mine. I can't afford multiple purchases of the same piece just for the sake of comparing and I would get bored with such comparisons, as I am normally bored by comparing equipment and tweaks. My purchases are not solely based on what I read, but often enough. The salient point in Bishopwill's posts, to me at least, is that, somehow, emotion or more emotion can be wrought from a piece of music by dint of the fact it is being reproduced by a tweaked-up, mega audiophile system. As I have mentioned before, I can be moved to tears by something playing on my kitchen radio, and bored to death by audiophile level recordings on incredible systems. The performance is the thing, the system can only enhance it, but it certainly does not start with the system. The local French audio press has also remarked on occasion that the bulk of musicians in l'Orchestre symphonique de Montréal have some of the worst equipment imaginable. I can't corroborate any of this, as I don't frequent any of these people, for no obvious reason. I do frequent some local blues men though, and I remember how stunned I was when a drummer who, after dinner at my house, said without hesitation that he just hated people who listened to their stereo so loud. I was just playing it at what I consider realistic level for electric blues. Elmore James, Muddy Waters et al played LOUD. My conclusion, a lot of musicians simply see recorded music as a very distant experience from the real thing and couldn't care less if the gap is closed. They listen to the music itself, often enough to technical aspects or simply the feel of the piece, both of which come through to the knowledgeable listener on the worst of equipment. Krell wasn't around when Robert Johnson performed; I can still be moved by his music. There has to be a good compromise between the "performance" aspect and the "reproduction" aspect. I, for one, have been very consistent in my favouring the "performance" side of the spectrum. The majority on this site seems to be so heavy on the music system side of things, I wonder where they find the time to actually listen to music. Dif'rent strokes...