Advice
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14348 Registered: May-04 | . If you've seen a review where someone liked a cable with a component or two you own or have heard and liked in the system, then there's a good chance it's headed in the right direction for system synergy. Not neccesarily though and that's why it's best to not take reviews out of context. You need to become somewhat familiar with the reviewer to understand what their priorities are. If the reviewer is after values that mean little to you but everything to them, then they can very much like a new product - and even the product you own - while you would find the new product less than valuable. Remember, the reviewer should be after a synergy also and their's may be built on items they hear that you ignore even in the same components. You know we both like many of the same components but we hear them differently. Read more than one or two reviews by the same person before you jump to the conclusion that this reviewer liked this therefore I will like this. Understand what they are listening for, you can begin by looking at the associated equipment. Would you want to listen to the same gear? If not, then possibly the reviewer and you are on different levels of what sounds like music to your respective ears. For example, if I'm reading Stereophile, I will take a review by AD far more seriously for my own purposses than I would a review by JA. Not that I don't trust JA's ears or ability to define priorities, he has simply defined priorities that do not mean that much to me. On the other hand, AD likes Audio Note, so do I. AD likes Audio Note for reasons I read in the review that align with what I see as my own priorities. I look at the gear both have reviewed and liked and the systems they use as a personal reference and I see a system in JA's posession that I could aprreciate for a short while before I started to want more of my own values represented. I look at AD's system and think I could relax into that music for hours on end. The same applies to manufacturers. I know McGowan, Pass and Kimber built very good products and I can discern what they are after in their designs. However, I know I prefer what Rowland, Weisfeld and Denney offer. Further, I have the basic problem that many complain about as "no bad reviews". I disagree with that exact sentiment, I've seen many negative reviews of components that didn't live up to the hype. But what I have seen more is a reviewer who laundry lists the recordings where they heard "X" and the recordings where they heard "Y" and those are supposed to represent a new component that surpasses other components in "XYZ" manner. You and I both know audio gear has not made the advances that would be suggested by such reviews where this new component is always better than yesterday's component. If it had made actual leaps in performance - "The best I've had in my system" or something to that effect, we would be listening to performers with far more realism than what the 240's can present - that isn't the case. Yes, there are components that are better at certain values than the Mac amps but, at what cost? Reading a review that tells me this amp/cable/speaker/etc does this while this other amp/etc doesn't quite present the same picture tells me little - particularly when the intial review of "that" amp said it did better than another amp. If you look long and hard enough, you'll probably find someone who liked the component you are considering. IMO that means no more than when you asked me whether I saw anything in the blurb for the cable that I disagreed with. Unless a component is truly awful, there's a good chance someone will find some value in it. Having written a few reviews the task of the reviewer is to point out mostly the good values of a product, why you would want to own this rather than why you would not. Saying the speaker presented the impression of musician's in the room still doesn't say it made the musicians appear to be playing music. So, the final piece of advice is take everything you read with a large grain of salt. Ultimately, while the magazines are not shills of the industry for the most part, their job is to continually sell you a product. Most people would stop reading after about a year if all the reviews said the gear was pretty much the same except for these little details where the reviewer heard "XYZ" on "ABC" recording. The more you know about the reviewer the easier it is to see through what they are puttting on the page. If their values seem to agree with your own, that increases the chance you'll find something to like. But your system has reached the point where IMO you shouldn't be looking just for something to like. You should be looking for something that really extends and improves the exact priorities your system is built upon. Change for the sake of change is not change for the better. . |
|
Gold Member Username: Mike3Wylie, Tx USA Post Number: 2271 Registered: May-06 | Thanks for the input. I agree that just reading the marketingspeak for the USB cable I was considering could in of itself make it an easy decision to purchase and try that cable. Srajan Ebaen has been the most consistent reviewer whom I have read where the products I have tried match up well with his commentary as well as fitting synergestically into my system. The Anthony Gallos Ref. 3.1s were the first of Srajan's reviews which got my attention. In reading about a higher end power conditioner I found quite interesting his view on Audio Magic as compared to Line Stage, and having bought an Audio Magic conditioner to compare to the Line Stage I was demoing I found the view Srajan presented very consistent to my experience. So with the advice you have shared and my experience with this reviewer plus having read this review; http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/streamer/streamer+.html I will pursue the Entreq USB cable as nothing yet I have tried has allowed the HRT Media Streamer + to reach the levels as described in the review. Since that is the USB cable used for the review I might as well see if that is the difference maker for my set up. There really are some reviews with superlative commentary about other high and higher priced USB cables that can be alluring. The advice above is of itself invaluable when confronted with having to trust reviews and opinions to make a decision when one cannot demo a product directly. At least Entreq has a fair return policy should the product not meet expectations. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3509 Registered: Feb-07 | "But your system has reached the point where IMO you shouldn't be looking just for something to like." I agree with this statement Jan. When I first started out in this hobby I tried all sorts of different things exactly for change for it's own sake. My reasoning was that in order to become experienced and reach a point where I knew what sounded good, I had to try all sorts of gear - good, bad and everywhere in between. Now that I reached a point where I have a system that I consider good (and developed, I think, an ear for what sounds good), it would be pretty had to go back to mediocre gear. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 3618 Registered: May-05 | One of the biggest wastes of time or misleading things I find in the mags are the recommended systems at certain price points. I think they're suggesting what they feel are the best components at certain price points, then making a system out of them. While I haven't heard every combo nor component that they use in these systems, I can say that very, very few of them have any synergy at all. I've seen them mix NAD and Rotel, Cambridge and Marantz, and so on. I highly doubt they've actually listened to the entire system they're recommending. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3513 Registered: Feb-07 | Anything that bugs me about some of these mags (Stereophile especially) is that the components they review are wayyyyyyyyyyyy out of reach of the average "audiophile" consumer. At least on my planet. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2796 Registered: Nov-05 | Ah yes Dave, but you can keep the article for 20 yrs into the future when the component can be bought for peanuts.  |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 2927 Registered: Jun-07 | Then have it rebuilt for cheap.LOL!! How about some 50 thousand dollar mono blocks? What you guys cant afford that? PhhHFFFFf lol j/k. |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 461 Registered: Dec-06 | I agree with this statement Jan. When I first started out in this hobby I tried all sorts of different things exactly for change for it's own sake. My reasoning was that in order to become experienced and reach a point where I knew what sounded good, I had to try all sorts of gear - good, bad and everywhere in between. I am there right now, David. Though I haven't exactly had much reasoning in many of the decisions I've made. Those decisions were made thinking I was making the right move, too often though they were simply hasty decisions that I ended up regretting. Not for every purchase, but for many. But the end result is the same...listening to lots of different systems over decent periods of time. Buying discounted gear is a good way to try things out while minimizing the impact to the wallet. I could demo gear in store (and I have) but that is no substitute for taking something home and spending several weeks or months with it, in my own room in my own system. Selling something you just bought seems like nuts, but maybe most of us have to make our mistakes in order to learn and appreciate differences in sound. At first I would have said my first pair of speakers were bright, with a definite emphasis on high frequencies. Then I heard a few other speakers, some a little hotter, some not. Then I heard one that made me say "whoa, now that's bright!". That one listen can really clarify certain things. Over time I think I've started to realize what my priorities are, what I like and what I don't. Jan, that's an interesting way to narrow down components to consider (i.e. by following certain reviewers). I think many of us (me included) will find a component that captures our interest somehow and then start searching for reviews. The fact that 97% will be positive only reinforces that I need to really consider buying this! But of course, I probably haven't actually paid attention to which aspects of sound got the most praise and which got the least. I suppose a person should list his priorities. You may not need to find a reviewer that has those same priorities, but perhaps at least ensure the reviews you find touch on those priorities and then make note of how well the reviewer feels the speaker has achieved them. If you notice a trend among different reviewers then that probably means something. However, one reviewer you can rely on surely means fewer unknown variables. But I wonder, at the end of the day, how much of a crapshoot is it? Can a person read pro and user reviews and look at specs, maybe even do a store demo, and know if a component will work for them? To what degree of certainty? 95%? 50%? Can experienced listeners make mistakes too? Obviously, the only way to know for sure is to hear something in your own system, but just how far can the research phase get you to the truth? I'm guessing quite far, but at the same time system matching surely is more art than science. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14354 Registered: May-04 | . "But I wonder, at the end of the day, how much of a crapshoot is it? Can a person read pro and user reviews and look at specs, maybe even do a store demo, and know if a component will work for them?" I would say you can tell with a fair degree of accuracy what you should buy and what you should leave behind. Not so much with user reviews for the very reasons I noted in the op. If you have no reference for what the reviewer hears and prefers to hear, the rest of their system and their musical tastes and the room the system occupies then you have nothing useful in their review other than simple items like "the knob fell off". That is the point of the op, reviews are typically about what aspects of a product are good and few are about what is bad. Even those that are comments regarding something godawful bad are a waste of your time if you still have no reference for why the reviewer might have said such a thing. As I have said before on this forum, everyone likes what they own - until they decide to buy something new. Then what they own shows all of its flaws and it is near worthless. Like trading in a car the component has no instrinsic value until you're offered less than you wanted to get in trade. Then once again the product becomes the most valuable piece of equipment ever to grace the Earth. Perceived worth is difficult to tie down when using a consumer as your guide because consumers are so fickle. For the most part "professional" reviewers have no real ties to any product as they can have another within a few weeks and they've generally paid nothing for what they have on review. How to go about minimizing the crapshoot aspect of audio is through experience. Not so much experience with every available component but experience with music. If you understand the sound of music as you hear it, then you should be able to understand which components reproduce music well. Get your concepts of music in your head and you'll quickly get your concepts of audio in your head also. Keep refreshing those concepts and do not rely on what you heard as a child under your grandmother's piano. I'm very much against comparing the sound of one component to the sound of another component. That approach may be fine when you're deciding which fast food burger you prefer but it doesn't cut it when you are dealing with higher end audio. I often suggested clients take some time to have a few recent experiences with live music before they made a decision about which component to buy. Not all of them took the advice and I can't say they bought terrible systems or even a component I wouldn't have otherwise recommended but they did so for reasons that sometimes left me baffled as to how they arrived at their decision. One thing is to not worry about whether you managed to find the "best" component. There is no such thing, one component might be just right for the hard, bright recordings while another might suit your tastes for a particular style of music. Ignore the hifi aspects of imaging and soundstaging and so forth, they are superfluous to what the music is about in almost all cases. If the component plays the music, it will do the rest well and not rely on "wow-ing" you in the showroom. The component that consistently finds the music in even the worst recordings is probably the one you should consider. There will always be a better component than what you own unless you are certain of why you chose what you own. The more reasons you can compile using your list of priorites as to why you bought a particular component IMO the less you worry about what else is out there. The system is a tool, nothing more, and you need not worry about whether you purchased "the best" tool if what you own does the job as you desire. This gets you into the realm of diminishing returns which is yet another topic altogether. That doesn't stop people from wanting to experiment with other cables, tweaks, speakers, etc. There are at times nothing to be done about someone who has become addicted to the thrill of "the new". For those people it is not always about what will be beneficial to the sound, it is about having a new amplifier, speakers, cable, etc. That's a problem that's difficult to deal with and my advice in the op is to simply understand why you are buying something. Are you buying it because of "the bargain" you've found or because you've considered how the addition will affect the music you hear? How did you come to the conclusion it might benefit the music? Or will it just benefit the audio system? There's a difference. To repeat more advice I used to give clients; bargains come and go and there will always be another bargain around the next corner. Good deals exist when six weeks, six months or six years after the sale you can say you got what you expected and it served the music well. Don't buy the bright, shiny thing that jumps off the shelf at you. Buy the good component that impresses you the least because it is typically the most truthful to the music. Don't buy anything just because you feel you have to buy something. Take your time and consider just what you are buying and just how it might benefit the music. IMO if all of your components are purchased with how they benefit the music as the first priority, then I don't think you can go too far astray. If you're on the cycle of buying the bargain and not the music, of buying the speaker or amplifier that just has to be yours, then you'll be on that cycle for a long time. I've said on this forum that bargains are often bargains because they represent the products other people didn't want. That's not always true but more so than not. . |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 464 Registered: Dec-06 | When I go to a concert it's most often of the hard rock variety, but I've gone to a few mellow shows recently, in concert halls with good acoustics, and took your comments to heart about live music, Jan. I listened intently to try to get a grasp on what real music sounds like. I think we've had the discussion before...the only problem I see is that 99% of my CD collection isn't live music that is recorded faithfully to the performance, it is studio albums that are made to sound a certain way via all the tools made available to producers and engineers. I've heard quite a few systems over the past year, and I think it's in comparing all of them that I'm beginning to learn what kind of sound I like best. Getting a sense of what real music sounds like is obviously a worthwhile exercise, but at the end of the day I want to enjoy the sound my system extracts from studio recordings and plays back into my room. If I'm sitting in my chair and either liking or not liking what I hear, to me that's what it all boils down to. Some people may not enjoy a system that sounds like a live show. Maybe they want some kind of coloration. Others want the music to be relayed honestly. It's the hifi-ers vs. flat-earth-ers, so to speak. I find myself leaning to the latter group, I think. I like a system that is fast, has some sizzle and snap to the sound, is dynamic, and isn't overly emphasizing one part of the frequency range over another. This is what a live show sounds like to me. I gather it's what Naim fans are after, or at least partly what they are after, but more on that below. I agree with the soundstaging comment, music doesn't necessarily require it to get the message across, but listening to Naim gear really opened my eyes. People say you either love it or hate it. For me, it may have been PRaT-y, it may have been musical, but I couldn't focus on that - I just could not get past the fact that it lacked any kind of body, and the music seemed so distant. There may have been some left to right soundstaging, but music wasn't projected forward. It just made it feel like I was way up on the nosebleeds, not enjoyable at all. But I gather than Naim is a bit of a special case, and just about all other brands do not soundstage the way Naim does. Naim didn't wow me, so perhaps I should consider buying it. But I don't think I'd ever consider buying a system that left me so cold on first listen. Your point about understanding why one makes the buying decisions they do I think is an excellent one. It's also why I read so many audiophiles lamenting the one piece they let get away. They were probably drooling over something else that they just had to have, and to finance that purchase they sold their other piece. Years later they regret it. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3521 Registered: Feb-07 | "Getting a sense of what real music sounds like is obviously a worthwhile exercise, but at the end of the day I want to enjoy the sound my system extracts from studio recordings and plays back into my room" I feel the same way Dan. Live music is great, but is really a lot more interesting when it's actually live. Listening to a live recording at home is actually quite distracting usually with audience noise and the sub-par production quality than what I'm used to with the studio recording. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2802 Registered: Nov-05 | I agree, however, in many classical and jazz live recordings much attention is paid to creating the best possible rendition of the performance. As an example, try the Diana Krall "Live in Paris" cd. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 3620 Registered: May-05 | The point in getting familiar with live music and using it as a reference is to get a sense of what the instruments and voices really sound like. It basically means not comparing your stereo to what other stereos sound like, but rather to determine if your stereo is letting Lucielle (BB King's guitar) actually sound like Lucielle, or if it's butchering it. I'm sure you've heard guitars, drums, and the like played live a bunch of times. How close does your stereo come to reproducing that sound, rather than sounding like a stereo? That's the point of a live music reference IMO. |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 465 Registered: Dec-06 | I just don't have a lot of live albums. I've got a few. Though I listen to lots of live shows as I collect GN'R bootlegs. Those range from excellent quality to hideously poor. The excellent quality isn't audiophile excellent, it's just sound recorded off the soundboard and is nice and clear. So it's great to listen to, but not at all like the Krall CD that M.R. referenced. I don't listen to these shows looking for audiophile quality, it's simply a chance to experience just a small part of the history of my fave band, as much as watching a video 25 years later can let you experience. Surprisingly, some of these recordings really bring a great performance through. I get what David is saying though...for many bands they just don't work as well on a live CD. I'm sure many would say that of GN'R...they can sound really rough live...but for a big fan we see past that! Got the Leonard Cohen concert from the O2 Arena released last year (or the year before maybe). Haven't listened to it yet but that one seems promising, both from an audio and performance standpoint. Saw him live, I think back in 2007. A great show. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2804 Registered: Nov-05 | What Stu is is right on. It's getting a sense of what instruments and even vocals sound like in a live performance, the timbre of a piano, the attack and decay, the vibration of an ecoustic bass string being plucked and ting of the high hats and so forth. Electric guitars in rock is more difficult - you can have a Gibson and a Fender sounding similar depending on the pick-ups used and effect pedals etc,. Listening to live acoustic, which covers just about every instrument used in an orchestra with the exception of wind and some percussion, is a more honest method of sensing whether or not your audio equipment comes close to the reality of the live performance. |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 466 Registered: Dec-06 | Thanks Stu. I wonder about differences in instruments though. Like, does a guitar really sound like a guitar? What if you hear a 1957 Les Paul Custom (off the top of my head, not sure if this is a real model) live, played through Marshall amps. Then on a CD you hear the same song, only it was played through a different guitar and/or amp. If it sounds different you might blame the system. But maybe it's not the system, maybe it's the fact that it wasn't the same instrument, or the amp was different, or the place it was recorded in was different than the live performance you were at. Likely it's more than just one variable. So I would think there are a plethora of variables that are hard to account for. But I'm guessing that what you and Jan are getting at is the way to account for these is to simply go to lots of live shows, which might provide an overall sense of what sounds right and then you'd work off of that. EDIT: M.R. pretty much addressed the above. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2805 Registered: Nov-05 | My secret's out Dan, I'm clairvoyant. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jazzman71Phoenix, AZ USA Post Number: 1067 Registered: Dec-07 | Years ago I used to shun live recordings. I never liked the way the live sound was reproduced. For whatever reason, I was just never exposed to really good live recordings. Today, there are many terrific live recordings, including remasters of older perfornances. In addition to M.R.'s excellent suggestion of Diana Krall's Live in Paris, I would offer three of my favorite live recordings: Keith Jarrett Trio - Whisper Not Bill Evans Trio - Live in Switzerland (1975) Oscar Peterson Trio - A Summer Night in Munich Many others. I've gotten to the point now where I enjoy a really well done live recording as much or moreso than studio recordings. The venue makes a big difference. A small nightclub can sometimes be a little too intimate. I don't want to hear the wait staff collecting the plates and taking dessert orders--LOL! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jazzman71Phoenix, AZ USA Post Number: 1068 Registered: Dec-07 | "Anything that bugs me about some of these mags (Stereophile especially) is that the components they review are wayyyyyyyyyyyy out of reach of the average "audiophile" consumer." Agree, David. What bugs me even more is when they review a $1,500 amplifier and pair it up with reference equipment that costs $40,000 (including $10,000 worth of cables). What in the he!! does that tell you? Nothing. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 765 Registered: Oct-07 | Diana Krall 'Live in Paris' was broadcast some months ago. While the SQ was not up to CD standards, the visuals that went with it more than made up. As for reviewers. I made a similar point without elaboration when I was going thru reviews and listening to equipment for my major system renovation. Basically, if you find a reviewer with whom you substantially agree, stick with 'em. Disagreement can also tell you some things, if you can identify those areas in which you nearly always disagree. I draw the line at the word 'palpable'. gives me the willies. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 766 Registered: Oct-07 | OH, in all fairness, I also am guilty of not having found 'bad reviews'. I guess I hadn't looked hard enough, 'cause they are out there, even if some amount to (xxxxx) with faint praise. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2807 Registered: Nov-05 | Leo, have you played the "Live in Paris" cd or not? |
|
Gold Member Username: Mike3Wylie, Tx USA Post Number: 2273 Registered: May-06 | Moreso to Dan, when I had a friend who is a musician, a piano player, and an aspiring audiophile listen to my kit and tell me that it portrayed the most lifelike piano reproduction he has yet to here I felt pretty good about the direction I was taking my system. I do not think I can listen to enough live music to form an opinion as strong as his about that. I have listened to enough piano bar singers to know what I expect in a female voice and whether it is a live or a studio recording that expectation is the same for me. Lastly, there are a couple of vinyl albums I have, one a Patricia Barber and one an Alice Cooper bootleg from various spots, where the setting is a small club, nightclub, or dinner club. I truly enjoy hearing the ambient noise that accompanies the performance as it provides me the intimacy of what it would be like to be sitting at the center table one or two back from the front of the stage. Where I prefer live music is when the artists become somewhat improvisational, where I prefer studio music is where the recordings are top notch. I have been searching out specific labels and thus have been listening to more jazz and classical lately. These labels produce very high quality recordings IMO, some of which are Telarc, EMC, Phillips (thanks JV), and Sony Digital Classics. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14361 Registered: May-04 | . "When I go to a concert it's most often of the hard rock variety, but I've gone to a few mellow shows recently, in concert halls with good acoustics, and took your comments to heart about live music, Jan. I listened intently to try to get a grasp on what real music sounds like." Then you were probably doing this all wrong. What did you do when you listened intently? What were you hearing? How is what you heard "real music" while what you hear in other venues or from a disc not "real music"? "I think we've had the discussion before...the only problem I see is that 99% of my CD collection isn't live music that is recorded faithfully to the performance, it is studio albums that are made to sound a certain way via all the tools made available to producers and engineers." All of your collection is live music. It has to be, as much as many people would prefer otherwise Patsy Cline and Jerry Garcia are not making any new recordings. One thing we have to deal with here is the (un)fortunate situation where many, if not most, of you are either too young or have not been involved in this hobby for such a long time that you remember the once ongoing and never ending battles over just what is "The Absolute Sound". Stereophile magazine was the first subjective audio review publication begun by J.G. Holt in the early 1960's to describe what he was hearing in the music that did not correlate with what the measurements were predicting. Holt had by that time spent many years at HiFidelity magazine and was frustrated that what was being portrayed in the final listening event was not truly the "good value" that was claimed for all advertiser related products reviewed in the then current crop of audio'zines. For the first few years of publication in the 1960's Stereophile was a one man operation with JGH as the only reviewer, writer, editor, publisher, etc. Reviews were compiled into a somewhat irregularly mailed "underground" magazine to a short list of subscribers only when Holt felt he had enough information to publish a magazine. To the end of his days Holt felt the only music useful for reviewing purposes was an unamplified classical performance. (This ideological stance eventualy led Holt to break from his original magazine after many years and several changes in ownership/editorial direction when "electrified" music became the most commonly used material in reviews.) A few years later, when HP began TAS he too declared unamplified classical music as the only true "Absolute Sound" to which all components must be compared. He would seldom allow his reviewers to mention anything more lowbrow than a good three mic jazz combo recording. This sort of "not good enough for me" stance left many rockers, jazz-ers, blues-ers, folkies and others listening to contempoary music out in the cold and the arguments for other genres began long before Clapton, Baker and Bruce first recorded with amps set to "11" (driving the classically trained EMI engineers crazy with this "rock and roll stuff") with the bebop and "cool" jazz listeners insisting their music was just as relevant and just as useful when used as reference material as would be Bach and Bernstein. Before long Desmond and Davis were being used as reference quality demo material in highbrow audio salons. However, the music of Desmond and Davis was still largely that of unamplified instruments and it would take another dozen years before "rock" was finally accepted into the pantheon of something worth listening to on a good stereo system. Ocassionally the letter will still come into an editor of a magazine about the value of Springsteen as demo material but for the most part the wars have abated as the old guard has died off only to be replaced by boomers with a worn copy of DSOTM in tow. Rock and almost any genre are now accepted as "real music". Why? Because the art of making music is transcendant between musicians. You can certainly argue whether there is more talent required to produce gorgeous, compelling music on a Guanerius violin than a "woman tone" on a Gibson LP through a wahwah pedal or whether a piano sonata is more useful to mankind than a 12 bar blues but, when it comes down to it, music is about ideas and communication. How those ideas get translated into a communicated emotion of tension and release is what sets musical performance apart from the random sounds you hear on the street. Does it take more talent to play a three hundred year old composition with strict guidelines to its performance or to perform a work that alters the direction of thinking for an entire generation and then some? In other words, what is the purpose of music? That is what any lasting performance should be about. Just as Bach and Mozart profoundly changed how people thought about and composed music so too did Elvis, Scotty and Bill. "Getting a sense of what real music sounds like is obviously a worthwhile exercise, but at the end of the day I want to enjoy the sound my system extracts from studio recordings and plays back into my room. If I'm sitting in my chair and either liking or not liking what I hear, to me that's what it all boils down to." I don't think anyone ever asked you to spend time with a system you did not enjoy. Or to listen to "unreal" music. However, just saying, "I have to like it", is a rather lazy way out of this hobby. Sure, no one says you must be committed to the hobby as deeply as another person and you can stop at any level of performance you choose. But the thread is about taking it one step further. How do you do that and not wind up playing craps? If all you have to do is enjoy what you hear, then almost any component or any system will manage that at some point and you can buy whatever you "like" just because you like it. But where do you go from there if that is your desire? Well, if you don't want a wholesale exchange of Klipschorns for LS3/5a's, vinyl for digital servers and transistors for vacuum tubes or IC outputs, you'll need a bit of a plan. That's what the thread is about. "Some people may not enjoy a system that sounds like a live show. Maybe they want some kind of coloration. Others want the music to be relayed honestly. It's the hifi-ers vs. flat-earth-ers, so to speak. I find myself leaning to the latter group, I think." You have me somewhat confused because in my world "a live show" is an amplified event and "a live performance" is not. A narrow distinction but one worth noting as far as I see it. Do I want my system to sound like the one at Poor David's pub where I heard the blues show last weekend? God, No! It's a horrrible system with so many colorations, room problems and (I hestitate to eleveate him to such status) a board "engineer" clearly descended crudely from closely related lower ranking primates that I cringe everytime I even think about hearing a show there. I can see others wanting a system at home that reminds them through similar colorations and distortions of that experience but it is not for me. In my mind, I am after "honesty" and it is not to be found in a Mackie 64 channel board and hanging Yamaha monitors. Therefore, if I am listening intently for the sound of the music and the musicians, what exactly am I listening to? How do I translate that experience to what I am after when I try to find a home reproduction system that conveys my concepts of "live performance" to my brain? "Flat Earther's"? For decades they were those who eschewed the "hifi" aspects of soundstaging and imaging and went for dynamic and rhythmic structure and emotional connection over all else. They wanted their music "flat" and colorations were to be minimized. "I like a system that is fast, has some sizzle and snap to the sound, is dynamic, and isn't overly emphasizing one part of the frequency range over another. This is what a live show sounds like to me. I gather it's what Naim fans are after, or at least partly what they are after, but more on that below." I'm sure you can see what you are describing has more to to with the audio system's virtues than with those of the music? IMO, it is an essential problem of the hobby. We use terms to describe what we hear from the equipment while what we claim to desire is better musical enjoyment. How can we achieve better music when we use words like "fast" or "sizzle"? To a musician those words have an entirely different meaning. "I agree with the soundstaging comment, music doesn't necessarily require it to get the message across, but listening to Naim gear really opened my eyes. People say you either love it or hate it. For me, it may have been PRaT-y, it may have been musical, but I couldn't focus on that - I just could not get past the fact that it lacked any kind of body, and the music seemed so distant. There may have been some left to right soundstaging, but music wasn't projected forward. It just made it feel like I was way up on the nosebleeds, not enjoyable at all. But I gather than Naim is a bit of a special case, and just about all other brands do not soundstage the way Naim does. Naim didn't wow me, so perhaps I should consider buying it. But I don't think I'd ever consider buying a system that left me so cold on first listen." If you bought a Naim system, do you think you might be enticed to find music that was not of the GNR variety? How likely are you to do that with a system geared primarily to GNR? I believe one of the greatest benefits to a superior audio system is its ability to portray all types of music with equal vitality. As a system improves and becomes ever more transparent to the source more and more musical genres open up to the listener as the structure of and the ideas within the music are made more comprehensible. So, while I agree with the sentiment that you should feel a connection between your apparent location in the auditorium and the presentational style of the component, I have to ask would you, if you were listening to a Shostakovich String Quartet, want the music projected "forward"? Would that not represent a definite coloration in the system that would then impose itself on all musical genres? If that were the case, how useful would it be to have, say, a violin that was forward and a cello that was recessed in that Quartet? It is not the staging of the instruments we are trying to reproduce so much as the composer's and performer's concepts of how the two instrument's colors play aginst one another in time and space. If one is constantly, additionally colored by the system, then the entire intent of the music is altered in irreparable ways. " I feel the same way Dan. Live music is great, but is really a lot more interesting when it's actually live. Listening to a live recording at home is actually quite distracting usually with audience noise and the sub-par production quality than what I'm used to with the studio recording." I think one thing we must define is exactly what is "live music". When I suggest you become familiar with the sound of "live music" I do not mean to say you need to listen more to "live recordings". However, when you do have a performance captured live in front of an audience, there will almost always be a certain ineffible quality that is very much at the heart of what you are trying to achieve with a better system. If your ability to "hear" is confined to the poor recording quality of many such "live recordings", you'll miss it. If your priorities are restriced to the audio aspects of the sound, you'll not understand what makes all recordings "live". Go back and think about the questions I've placed in bold and see what you come up with for answers. How many of you have ever or do now play an instrument? Did you ever play with a band of any type? Do you have children who play in a school band? . |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3524 Registered: Feb-07 | I'm going to have to give your questions some more thought Jan. To quickly answer your final question, though, I've been involved music in one form or another since I was probably 9 years old. First trained on piano in classical music, then later in life played bass, then guitar. I played the bar scene in downtown Toronto before I was even of age (and had to have notes from mom to be in licensed clubs underage, lol). Playing live music is a blast, but at home I prefer the clean, clinical sound of the studio. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14363 Registered: May-04 | .. "Playing live music is a blast, but at home I prefer the clean, clinical sound of the studio." I don't understand what you're trying to say there, Dan. Can you more fully explain what "the clean, clinical sound of the studio" is in your estimation. To me this sounds like you're still talking about frequency response and distortion levels. If that's the case, then you've missed most of what I was trying to convey in that post. "The point in getting familiar with live music and using it as a reference is to get a sense of what the instruments and voices really sound like. It basically means not comparing your stereo to what other stereos sound like, but rather to determine if your stereo is letting Lucielle (BB King's guitar) actually sound like Lucielle, or if it's butchering it." Well, yes, to an extent that is what I'm saying. To a classical performer the choice of instrument is very important. To the classical music listener, the ability to identify a Bosendorfer, a Baldwin or a Steinway is also important. Knowing the timbre and tone of those individual instruments is part of building your vocabulary if you choose to listen to music where the selection of a Stradivarius or a Guarneri is important to the final performance. Knowing how an instrument "sounds" in a live acoustic space - how it projects into the air and how it resonates against the boundaries of the room, how it commands a space is of particular importance to me in judging a component or system. Is there a proper amount of woodiness to a clarinet or cello? Does a trumpet sound as focussed as I've heard in live performance? Does that same trumpet fill the envelope of the space as I've heard in performance? Do the ambient sounds of the diminishing note provide audible clues to the recording venue or do they just sound mechanical and created in an isolation booth? Those are values that are important to me - but not to everyone. To someone who knows a specific venue quite well, these can be values which tell immence amounts about the quality of the system. Here in Dallas the DSO has been recorded numerous times by various labels and in multiple venues over the years. I have the experience of hearing many of the same performances under the same baton as those recorded. The sound of the system has to bear some witness to what I hear when I listen to the live performance. Famous halls such as Carnegie are well known and many listeners need these same audible clues to complete the transformation of their space into the performance space. A listener who had heard a particular performer sufficient times to be familiar with their style, tone and timbre would want a system that approximates the talent of that performer. "What I experienced from Hunt Lieberson that afternoon is what I ultimately expect of a sound system. When I feed my system a great performance, I want it to convey emotion and intent with such clarity and directness that I am transfixed and transported. That may be a tall order, but why not? Given all the time and money we audiophiles invest in our systems, why should we settle for less? As I sat listening to Hunt Lieberson's Bach, I asked myself some essential questions: Is this the same voice I heard that magical afternoon? Is it as round, as healthy, as communicative? Does it seem a direct portal to her soul? If not, what can I do to improve the experience?" http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/508awsi/ What is it you want to know if you do not listen to Lieberson? What are you hearing if you listen to Rose or Cobain? Is it simply frequency response? Is it distortion? Do these guys produce a "clean, clinical sound of the studio"? "So it's great to listen to, but not at all like the Krall CD that M.R. referenced. I don't listen to these shows looking for audiophile quality, it's simply a chance to experience just a small part of the history of my fave band, as much as watching a video 25 years later can let you experience. Surprisingly, some of these recordings really bring a great performance through ... for many bands they just don't work as well on a live CD. I'm sure many would say that of GN'R...they can sound really rough live...but for a big fan we see past that!" Here's where listening with intent comes in. What is a great performance by GNR? Tell me in terms of the music and the performance what makes a great performance. Obviously, you can listen beyond the limited frequency response and the poor recording quality to hear a great performance. What is it you're hearing at that point that says this is your "fave band"? " It's getting a sense of what instruments and even vocals sound like in a live performance, the timbre of a piano, the attack and decay, the vibration of an ecoustic bass string being plucked and ting of the high hats and so forth." The issue with amplified instruments has always been one of exactitude. Just what are you judging when you hear a '58 Les Paul Studio Gold Top? Is it the guitar? If so is it the mahogany body or the maple neck? The P90 Humbucker pickup or the individual tone controls and selector position? Where the performer plays on the neck? The strings or the amp? How is any of that different than a reproduction of the same instrument? Are you hearing the tone of a "broken in" guitar? Or the tone of overdriven tubes? "Electric guitars in rock is more difficult - you can have a Gibson and a Fender sounding similar depending on the pick-ups used and effect pedals etc,. " That would be almost impossible. A single coil pick up on the Strat cannot sound like a Humbucker on the Gibson. The slab of flat ash wood that makes up the body of the Fender does not have the sound of the mahogany LP. Anyone can walk into a instrument retailer and without knowing how to play a single note can hear the distinct differences between those two iconic rock guitars. IMO your system should at the very least portray the difference between a Strat and a LP as clearly as it portrays the difference between a piano and a tuba. And a rock enthusiast should recognize the sound because the guitarist has chosen their instrument for a reason. If you don't know the difference, listen to Clapton's Gibson period during The Yardbirds and The Cream and then to his later years with his Strats. "Listening to live acoustic, which covers just about every instrument used in an orchestra with the exception of wind and some percussion, is a more honest method of sensing whether or not your audio equipment comes close to the reality of the live performance." In a way it does and in a way it does not. As with the Fender and the Gibson electrics a system should be able to replicate the sound of a Gibson, a Martin or a Taylor acoustic guitar as these are iconic instruments in modern music. However, knowing your favorite artist plays a Martin on stage does not mean a Martin was used for a recording as Martins can be notoriously difficult to capture on a recording. But give B.B. King a guitar other than Lucille and there's a very good chance the end result will still be B.B. King. Ask yourself what is it that makes B.B. King recognizable no matter what guitar he might pick up. TONE!!! It drives guitartists crazy and makes them even more obsessive about what they own than are audiophiles. http://digital.premierguitar.com/premierguitar/201002_1#pg116 So it comes down to how is the particular guitar recorded? Is the LP driven straight into the amp or straight into the board? How many and which pedals? Which tubes? Which effects? It all comes down to "tone" for the musician. It becomes impossible to decipher just what is going on with any one instrument when there are so many variables! But B.B. King will always be identifiable. What then is more important to you as a listener? " But maybe it's not the system, maybe it's the fact that it wasn't the same instrument, or the amp was different, or the place it was recorded in was different than the live performance you were at. Likely it's more than just one variable." That has always been the dispute with anything other than unamplified instruments. What do you suppose changed that allowed electric guitars and keyboards, amplified drumsets and vocals to be recognized as useful tools in judging an audio system's ability to reproduce music? What is the non-variable in all of that? "I have listened to enough piano bar singers to know what I expect in a female voice and whether it is a live or a studio recording that expectation is the same for me." But I would bet most of those piano bars have cheap microphones and speakers on the vocals and on the piano. So what are you hearing, Mike? How do you form expectations if all you have to go by are more cheap amplifiers and speakers? Mike raises a good point though, live music is everywhere. You don't have to pay much or even anything in some cases to hear live music. I have been attending free concerts at the museum and library as well as an open to the public chamber music series for several years. Colleges and high schools have many free or excedingly inexpensive concerts. Music is available if you look for it. Every time you hear a live performance it is an education. . |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3525 Registered: Feb-07 | What I'm trying to say is that I prefer my recordings to sound more "polished". With a properly produced studio album there seems to be just a better sense of air and spaciousness to me (if the production is good, of course). Let me give you an example. One of my favourite bands in Iron Maiden, and my favourite album is "Powerslave". This is a very slick, well produced album. The tone and distortion of the guitars sound perfect to me, their levels are perfect, and the attack , sustain and delay are perfect. The bass drum is the perfect volume and is a very satisfying "thump!" with every strike instead of sounding like a click, the vocals are neither too loud nor too quiet, there is not excessive reverb on the vocals (unless mixed in intentionally in certain phrases), and there's no background noise (applause, people screaming, etc). This of course is all very subjective, and perhaps just a matter of what you get used to, but I have several live recordings of the same songs and they are just not as enjoyable for me to listen to. For better or worse, a lot of albums these days are pro-tooled as well, so timing is always perfect, everything is always perfectly in key and vocals always have perfect pitch. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy live music, but only in a live setting, but I guess after cranking it to 11 for so many years in garages and bars I no longer enjoy the excessive volume (and the resultant hearing loss, unfortunately). |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14383 Registered: Dec-04 | David, and others have cut their teeth, spent their youth and laid the allegiance to metal music. It is very difficult to advise on specific listening preferenes, as none of us has likely seen Slayer in concert and the TSO in the same year. While I have to agree to the acoustic set deal, I just do not have the library or interest to support it. I must guide my investments and choices by my interests. Choose what works for what you like. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3527 Registered: Feb-07 | I saw Slayer at the old Massey Hall Nuck. Those plush velvet seats became airborne before the first song was over. The promoter who set that gig up must have lost his shorts. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14365 Registered: May-04 | . I take it there is no "direct portal" to the soul of Slayer. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14386 Registered: Dec-04 | http://www.sickthingsuk.co.uk/timelines/t-ftf.php Thats all I found fronm the rock riot that I was stuck in. |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3528 Registered: Feb-07 | I remember that from the news Nuck. Wasn't there a Teenage Head riot at Ontario Place once? Jan, I think the closest thing to a direct portal to the soul of Slayer is http://slayer.net. Alas it doesn't take you anywhere diabolical, just to their website. |
|
Gold Member Username: Mike3Wylie, Tx USA Post Number: 2274 Registered: May-06 | As to the cheap microphones and speakers, I concur, which is why I sit within 5 to 7 feet of the female vocalist and somewhat out of range of the amplification or I do not stick around. I had given Chicago Rose a Carole King boxed set and she thanked me by learning one of the cuts and singing it to me acappella while standing right next to me. Still one of my musical highlights to this day. As to poor Richards, yes, it is exactly as you describe. Good Records is actually better, and cheaper. They have live music and free beer on Record Day |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 468 Registered: Dec-06 | Then you were probably doing this all wrong. What did you do when you listened intently? What were you hearing? How is what you heard "real music" while what you hear in other venues or from a disc not "real music"? By "real music" I simply mean in a live setting, without all the tinkering that can go on in a studio to make a performance sound perfect. I'm sure they must also alter the tone or other characteristics of the sound of instruments on studio albums, and so what you hear isn't actually an honest depiction of the sound that is produced by the musician in question. I understand that technically all my albums are live, but surely there is a difference between truly live recordings that are not tinkered with, and ones that are done in a studio which then go through a process to make them sound their very best (or not, unfortunately). You asked, what did I do when I listened intently? Well, I tried to focus on each individual player and the characteristics of the sound their respective instruments made. But you are right, I don't think I know what it really is that I should be listening for. Should I be focused on one thing, or should I be trying to hear the big picture? Am I even listening for the right things in either case? I think I want to know how each instrument sounds on it's own (audiophiles often ask if a system makes a piano sound right, for example), and how it should sound relative to other instruments in the mix. If you bought a Naim system, do you think you might be enticed to find music that was not of the GNR variety? How likely are you to do that with a system geared primarily to GNR? I believe one of the greatest benefits to a superior audio system is its ability to portray all types of music with equal vitality. As a system improves and becomes ever more transparent to the source more and more musical genres open up to the listener as the structure of and the ideas within the music are made more comprehensible. So, while I agree with the sentiment that you should feel a connection between your apparent location in the auditorium and the presentational style of the component, I have to ask would you, if you were listening to a Shostakovich String Quartet, want the music projected "forward"? Would that not represent a definite coloration in the system that would then impose itself on all musical genres? I didn't try to assemble a system geared towards hard rock. It isn't all that I listen to. I think I've always simply wanted a system that makes most if not all of my CD's sound great. If I bought Naim would I look into other genres of music? I already am, not because of my system but because I want to hear different things. Well, I can't say the system has nothing to do with it, after all I think we assemble these systems because the sound quality can be phenomenal and we want to hear music conveyed in this way. I know other genres are often recorded to a higher standard...this too raises my level of interest in them...and of course one seeks out good recordings in the first place because he has a nice system he wants to hear them played through. I've no reason to think that a Naim system is any more or less suited to GN'R than a non-Naim system. In fact, I would think it might be more given Naim's reputation for making music flow (rock needs that feeling of pace and momentum). But does this preclude a bit of imaging? Making you feel as if you are closer to the music while still preserving it's PRaT and ultimately the musical message? Perhaps one can become accustomed to, and maybe ultimately prefer, the Naim sound if they give it some time. Maybe it turned me off because I was so used to hearing music presented another way. Here's where listening with intent comes in. What is a great performance by GNR? Tell me in terms of the music and the performance what makes a great performance. Obviously, you can listen beyond the limited frequency response and the poor recording quality to hear a great performance. What is it you're hearing at that point that says this is your "fave band"? Wow, that's hard for me to put into words. It's really just a feeling, like a chill running down my spine when they perform. It's parts of the vocals and parts of the music that just connect with me. It's on some sort of visceral, emotional level. It can be a guitar lick or vocal melody, the simplest thing, but that just sounds really amazing for some reason. A simple change from one note to another. A recording might be poor, but the message being conveyed, the melodic line running through the song still comes through because you can make it out over the noise in the recording, even if just barely, but it's like you hear it clearly because you hear the message, not only the actual noise. But I can't tell you exactly why a specific vocal or instrumental line connects with me, it just does. And a great GN'R show is like controlled chaos...the band sounding like it is about to explode but somehow they keep it all together. Like Slash not playing a solo to perfection, note for note, but veering off course and yet somehow the same melody makes it through. And of course all this has nothing to do with soundstaging and pristine recordings and any of that at all, does it? I think what a system needs to be good at, to get this stuff right, are things like attack and decay, dynamics, pace, and detail; or at least to accurately reproduce those things which are already in the recording. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2816 Registered: Nov-05 | How about just relaxing and enjoying the music? I know we want to get that sound quality right - but right means something different to each person. I'm not obsessive about picking a Yamaha grand from a Steinway, I've heard great piano played with many brands. It really is about enjoying the music and not obsessing over it imo. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14367 Registered: May-04 | . Here ya'go, Dan; http://www.gibson.co m/en-us/Lifestyle/News/slash-0112/ . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14374 Registered: May-04 | . "It really is about enjoying the music and not obsessing over it imo." I think if you gave that advice to YoYo Ma or to Slash, both would ignore you. I agree obsessing over a system is not healthy - a system is simply a tool. I disagree with the suggestion that obsessing over music is not a quite worthy pursuit. Obsessing over which instrument a performer uses? When it makes a difference to the final result, I can see being atuned to just why a performer chooses that particular instrument. If you've heard a performance on a Bosendorfer and the same composition on a Baldwin, there is no comparison. An instrument choice is as personal as the voice of a performer. As I've said, B.B. King would be identifiable playing a $99 Squire Telecaster. But once I've heard Lucille, she is what makes King a master of his art. MW has been kind enough to loan me his Lucille and I can tell you once you've played her it makes all the sense in the world that she is King's choice. That's not obsessive IMO, that is just understanding the artist a bit more deeply than having never known which instrument has been chosen. If you take the time to read the linked article on guitar tone, you'll see the search for such a thing often evolves form first hearing a sound on a recording. Knowing more about the sound becomes a way to know more about the artist and even about yourself. Sure, the majority of recordings I have in my library don't have that effect on me. But when it happens there is no stopping it. Not in order to know which exact pedal was used to produce a woman tone but to think through the process that allowed the of creation of that sound in the artist's mind is what I'm after at that point. It has nothing to do with my audio system but everything to do with why I own the system I use in the first place. . |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2818 Registered: Nov-05 | You are taking what I said to the extreme. The point I was making is there must surely come a time when it really is about relaxing and listening to the music. I'm not disagreeing with you at all - I know various brands and models have differences which people will prefer and what suits them. All I was getting at is the reason why we do so much to get things right - is it so we can really enjoy the music at its full potential or is it to keep tweaking and tweaking and tweaking until we are so old we can't hear any more. An exaggeration I know, but that's more or less the point I obviously badly made. You might remind yourself that each of us may have different goals or preferences in what is is we do and why, in getting our gear to the point of being satisfied. I'm an aspiring musician (and always will be)and sure there are certain things I listen for - especially when it's related to certain sounds and styles, but the thing with music for me is to become enveloped by it and let it take where it will. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14376 Registered: May-04 | . "You might remind yourself that each of us may have different goals or preferences in what is is we do and why, in getting our gear to the point of being satisfied." You must have missed this, " ... no one says you must be committed to the hobby as deeply as another person and you can stop at any level of performance you choose. But the thread is about taking it one step further. How do you do that and not wind up playing craps? If all you have to do is enjoy what you hear, then almost any component or any system will manage that at some point and you can buy whatever you "like" just because you like it. But where do you go from there if that is your desire?" The thread is intended to give direction to someone interested in taking another step in the refinement of their music. How is it done? How do you judge what is "better"? How do you define success when you have made a change? What guides are available for finding the next new component? Listening to music is what this should all be about but, if listening to music with the components already in the system were all this forum was about, I wouldn't have started this thread. To be successful the goals are the same IMO no matter at what level you begin or end. The thread is about discussing the goal of further and more completely enjoying the music. . |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 472 Registered: Dec-06 | Jan's suggestion of subscribing to a magazing (in the Oppo thread when I asked about dual DACs) I think was a great point, as a way to stay up on technological and design changes in audio. If you can find a reviewer you usually agree with that's another big plus. I used to buy issues of HiFi Choice here and there, but the British mags are a little too expensive on this side of the pond. Stereophile strikes me as a little too inaccessible for a relative newbie. Might try a subscription to TAS. Although, I do read a lot of Stereophile's reviews, and try to understand the measurements they publish. These are quite useful, and I don't think TAS publishes any. Any other suggestions when it comes to North American mags? One day I hope to just be able to sit back and enjoy listening, without even thinking about making a change. I'm not there yet though, so for now I am trying to understand what it is I want in terms of sound and then buying what will bring that to me. I think I'm almost done determining what my system is going to consist of. But for the time being, just because I am preoccupied with assembling the right system doesn't mean I'm not also enjoying the sound I am currently getting (even if it's not ultimately what will stick). |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14395 Registered: Dec-04 | At the music store 2 weeks ago, there was a fellow playing a harmonica. The chap was absolutelt owning a hohner generic C model, worth about 12 bucks and drawing a crowd. The fact that he had to introduce a Mozart piece seemed a little pompous to me, expecting that the folks over in piano would know right away. he played it like Mozart on a 12 buck Hohner, and got applause, from me included. A very talented player and musician. Then he brought out the absolute finest Hohner concerto C sharp harp from the back, a 2000$ piece, and played THAT. You wanna guess the outcome? Lucille, indeed. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14386 Registered: May-04 | . When I picked up the harmonica for the first time I was told the difference between someone with ten hours of instruction on the harp and someone with 1,00 hours of instruction is how many songs the latter guy knew. Not at all true but there are limits. Mozart on a harmonica, huh? Lucille, indeed?!!! Nuck, if you choose to make a $2 grand Hohner your reference instrument, the best of luck with that. I'm stickin' close to Martin, Gibson and whatever Leo Fender cooked up. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 14426 Registered: Dec-04 | A few guys make a living with a harmonica and win awards and stuff. Expand your horizons a bit, JV.  |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14387 Registered: May-04 | . "By "real music" I simply mean in a live setting, without all the tinkering that can go on in a studio to make a performance sound perfect. I'm sure they must also alter the tone or other characteristics of the sound of instruments on studio albums, and so what you hear isn't actually an honest depiction of the sound that is produced by the musician in question. I understand that technically all my albums are live, but surely there is a difference between truly live recordings that are not tinkered with, and ones that are done in a studio which then go through a process to make them sound their very best (or not, unfortunately)." Dan, I think you and I have a very different idea of what sounds good and certainly what sounds "perfect". I can't help but think about albums such as I listened to the other night, Sinatra's Only the Lonely recorded in 1958. It was the dawn of the Stereo age and the concepts of multi-channel mixers and banks of studio tools weren't even on the horizon. When you see photos of the session there stands Sinatra in the center of the quite large recording studio - no isolation booth and nothing between him and the musicians other than air - with an arc of musicians to his sides and his rear. The conductor stands before the group. A handful of microphones captured the entire event as it occurred and, since overdubs and edits were uncommon in those days, if someone somewhere screwed up, they began again from the top. There is a small audience of invited guests off to the side. The sound of the recording is of a natural acousitc and drips with real - not artificially induced - reverb. No doubt a bit of sweetening was used to bring the whole thing together but for most this is as honest as a recording gets. This is a cabaret and saloon singer at his best. Give a listen to "One More for My Baby" and "What's New"; http://www.amazon.com/Only-Lonely-Frank-Sinatra/dp/B001BJ65SU You can visualize Sinatra picking out a member of the small, intimate audience to sing each song to. This is how all recordings were once made. This sort of recording style was one that has been revived on ocasion by those artists interested in the intrinsic values such recording events can produce. I'm not a techno-phobe in this reagrd and I can appreciate a good studio production when that is what is called for but IMO most studio production and most especially post production is more of a crutch for fixing problems after everyone else leaves. Also give a listen to The Cowboy Junkies' The Trinity Sessions". Try "Walking after Midnight"; http://www.amazon.com/Trinity-Session-Cowboy-Junkies/dp/B000002WCL This again is a recording done in one day with everyone present and in a live acoustic which literaly became another player in the mix. When I listen to these recordings my room is disappeared and they transport me to the venue where the music was made. Afterwards, studio productions of the average type just seem such a waste of time, money and talent. "You asked, what did I do when I listened intently? Well, I tried to focus on each individual player and the characteristics of the sound their respective instruments made. But you are right, I don't think I know what it really is that I should be listening for. Should I be focused on one thing, or should I be trying to hear the big picture? Am I even listening for the right things in either case? I think I want to know how each instrument sounds on it's own (audiophiles often ask if a system makes a piano sound right, for example), and how it should sound relative to other instruments in the mix." I'm going to put you on the spot here, Dan, and ask you to tell us how you would have listened to this if you were on stage playing along with the performers. Not everyone here has had the opportunity to play at all and most not with another musician and it might be interesting for them to think about this as a musician does. "I know other genres are often recorded to a higher standard...this too raises my level of interest in them...and of course one seeks out good recordings in the first place because he has a nice system he wants to hear them played through." One of the images that persist among non-audiophiles is that of the audiophile friend, neighbor or in-law who simply cannot listen to an entire album. They know which side of the disc has the cuts that make their system show off the best and they are jumping up after each song to change the album. "Wow, that's hard for me to put into words. It's really just a feeling, like a chill running down my spine when they perform. It's parts of the vocals and parts of the music that just connect with me. It's on some sort of visceral, emotional level. It can be a guitar lick or vocal melody, the simplest thing, but that just sounds really amazing for some reason. A simple change from one note to another. A recording might be poor, but the message being conveyed, the melodic line running through the song still comes through because you can make it out over the noise in the recording, even if just barely, but it's like you hear it clearly because you hear the message, not only the actual noise. But I can't tell you exactly why a specific vocal or instrumental line connects with me, it just does. And a great GN'R show is like controlled chaos...the band sounding like it is about to explode but somehow they keep it all together. Like Slash not playing a solo to perfection, note for note, but veering off course and yet somehow the same melody makes it through." You did a very good job of explaining it, Dan. "It can be a guitar lick or vocal melody, the simplest thing, but that just sounds really amazing for some reason." Yep! When I listened the other night there was a song that ended with a single strike of a cymbal. The vocalist had ended, the other musicians where allowing their last notes to fade away into the room noise and then it was just a second - maybe more but not likely - before the drummer hit the last final note with just the right amount of delicacy and just the right amount of intensity and at just the right location on the metal dome and that was the capper! If he had waited just a tad longer or jumped just a nano-second sooner, the effect would have been entirely different. If he had chosen a mallet instead of a stick, not the same. I sat there with a big grin on my face because what he had accomplished was perfection. I have on ocassion stood up and applauded such perfection that was put on a disc four decades prior. Music is controlled tensions and even more controlled release so while I can appreciate your description of a great GNR performance as "controleld chaos"- " ... the band sounding like it is about to explode but somehow they keep it all together." - isn't that what all music is to one degree or another? Listen again to that Sinatra version of "One More for My Baby". The opening words, "It's quarter to three ... " are as ripe with the controlled chaos burning inside his character as any you'll find despite being not much above a whisper. "Like Slash not playing a solo to perfection, note for note, but veering off course and yet somehow the same melody makes it through." And that's what makes music interesting, isn't it? Dan, you say you've played music for a number of years. Let me put you on the spot again and have you answer a few more questions. When Slash takes off on an improv as you describe, what's likely going through his head? Can you guess? And, then this is the big one, can you explain some of the differences between a band or a single performer running through a song for the first few times and then moving through rehearsals to the point where everything gels with the entire group into a preformance piece? What are they working on in their minds and with their figners and what are a few of the relevant differences between early on and when the selection is ready for performance? That's a lot to ask but I think we might have some good directions here if you can get us started. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14388 Registered: May-04 | . "A few guys make a living with a harmonica and win awards and stuff. Expand your horizons a bit, JV." You're in a p!ssy mood today, Nuck. First you go at Art and now me. What'samatter, credit card get turned down at the liquor store?  . |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3530 Registered: Feb-07 | "I think you and I have a very different idea of what sounds good and certainly what sounds "perfect". " That's it exactly Jan, "perfect" is a very subjective thing. Now if we were talking mathematics or engineering, perfect would have a very well defined set of parameters, but with music its up to the listener to decide what sounds perfect. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14391 Registered: May-04 | . I've yet to hear "perfect", DM. I'm just working on "not bad" for my own system. Even live venues can have problems when they try to achieve perfect. It always seems the harder they try the farther they get from it. However, making comparisons between what was and what is leaves me the curmudgeon wondering what happened to the music. It takes just a few seconds listening to a "live recording" to know just how much music has disappeared from modern recordings. Just as MP3 has destroyed realism so too IMO have most of the studio techniques of today in a bow to the ever expanding costs of recording. Even back in the late '50's and early '60's the three mic system pioneered by Mercury and still lauded as the pinnacle of recorded sound quality by many audiophiles and music lovers who should know gave way to less time consuming and therefore lower cost techniques which decidely lowered the fidelity of the subsequent Mercury recordings. Lowering costs to maximize profits is how things work. I can accept that is how the majority of the world operates but I don't have to accept that it is better when it is not. And I can certainly appreciate the audible differences the "time consuming" techniques have to offer. . |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3532 Registered: Feb-07 | OK, I'll give you that Jan. "Perfect" is a stretch - how about "pretty darned good"? I'm at the point where I'm about 90% satisfied with the sound of my system. But, if I'm listening to a low quality recording, or a recording that does not meet my expectations of what "sounds good" (to me) then I'm very dissatisfied with the entire situation, and put on something else to listening to. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14395 Registered: May-04 | . My first reaction is you should spend the last 10% of your satisfaction getting your system better able to find the music. Possibly you have that already and I'm misreading your words. I have numerous discs that have less than stellar sound quality but they have music I sometimes want to hear. Remember, I listen to mono LP's and 78's. Not many 78's have survived without layer of crud on top. I have to agree with Dan when he says, "It's really just a feeling, like a chill running down my spine when they perform. It's parts of the vocals and parts of the music that just connect with me. It's on some sort of visceral, emotional level. It can be a guitar lick or vocal melody, the simplest thing, but that just sounds really amazing for some reason. A simple change from one note to another. A recording might be poor, but the message being conveyed, the melodic line running through the song still comes through because you can make it out over the noise in the recording, even if just barely, but it's like you hear it clearly because you hear the message, not only the actual noise." While Dan and I probably disagree about what makes a recording less than perfect and what is "noise" I think we both get the idea of hearing through the deficiencies of the recording when the music is what you're after. This is somewhat like improving your system and playing a recording you never thought was very musical to begin with, say, late Miles Davis. You never could see what others found interesting in Davis' later productions but now the system has improved to the point where things are making more sense musically and you can get a glimpse of why Davis was a powerhouse. IMO it really comes down to putting together components that can make the best of poor recordings, not just by rolling off frequency response but by emphasizing what is important about music more than what is important about having a pricey hifi. Polyrhythms and microtonal compositions pr!ck up your ears a bit more than they had before and performers are united while staying within their separate lines. Each performer with their own separate "beat" gets your attention. I'm not saying you'll sudenly start listening to Borodin and Myaskovsky but you'll find Shostakovich more interesting. And maybe those crappy recordings will be good for something after all. It also doesn't hurt to have a bit of knowledge about music IMO. The more you understand what is happening with each performer the easier it is to find the music within the performance. I worked across the street from SMU when I first got into a shop in Dallas and I sold to many professors who had good but not outstanding systems. It used to be the definition of an audiophile was someone who had more money tied up in their system than in their recordings. A music lover had just the opposite. I once sold a system to one of the local symphony's conductor who had another system he used for "work". It was a Pioneer rack system with the speakers mounted in opposite diagonal corners. He knew what he was listening for and this system was a workable tool for him though I couldn't listen to it for very long because of the boom and muddy sound I heard. However, if you have more knowledge of where the music is headed, I think you'll find it easier to hear through most of the noise on those recordings. But, as you say, to each their own. . |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 479 Registered: Dec-06 | Dan, I think you and I have a very different idea of what sounds good and certainly what sounds "perfect". When I said that studio recordings sound perfect I didn't mean that they actually sound good. Too many of them do not. Maybe it was a bad choice of words on my part. The studio enables a lot of tinkering, to get a song down to just the way the performers want it. So that a vocalist sounds like they really nailed their part, in a way that they cannot live. The studio affords the chance to use multiple takes, and technology to enhance the sound. If not used judiciously however, this technology can make a song sound less raw than it should. It saps the emotion from the music. I'm going to put you on the spot here, Dan, and ask you to tell us how you would have listened to this if you were on stage playing along with the performers. Not everyone here has had the opportunity to play at all and most not with another musician and it might be interesting for them to think about this as a musician does. Dan, you say you've played music for a number of years. Let me put you on the spot again and have you answer a few more questions. When Slash takes off on an improv as you describe, what's likely going through his head? Can you guess? And, then this is the big one, can you explain some of the differences between a band or a single performer running through a song for the first few times and then moving through rehearsals to the point where everything gels with the entire group into a preformance piece? What are they working on in their minds and with their figners and what are a few of the relevant differences between early on and when the selection is ready for performance? I think you may have me mixed up with David, Jan. I didn't say that I played music. I have an acoustic guitar, but to say I play it would be a stretch! I'll answer your question though, if I was performing how would I actually listen to the performance. I might be way off here, but this is how I always understood it. Isn't a band mostly concerned with proper timing? The drummer keeps time and other band members follow that. They are probably listening most intently to him, and what they actually play they probably aren't thinking about it a lot. It's like a batter in baseball, you don't think about how you are swinging the bat, rather you focus on the pitch and the actual swing is mostly muscle memory. I'm not sure how a singer listens, I believe a singer needs to hear himself, either that or again he is probably keeping time along with the drum beat. Again, I might be way off with this. The second question (what Slash or another guitarist thinks when improvising). I'm guessing it's just a feeling, like he is basically just going where the music is taking him at that instant. I don't think that sort of thing is planned, it could be I suppose if he practices another version of a solo say, but most of the time it's probably an off the cuff, let's try it another way because I'm kind of bored playing the same thing every night, kind of thing. As for the band putting together a performance from beginning to end, at first I'd say the goal is to get the individual parts down so that they are second nature. Then it's about incorporating all of them so that they are played at the same time...which I think gets back down to keeping time and knowing when to play your own part. I'm guessing this is what matters to a performer...I need to know that I can play my part right and I need to know when precisely to play it. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2828 Registered: Nov-05 | Yep, a band is only as good as their drummer. Timing is key. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 773 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, Find yourself a Paul Butterfield album and get back to us on bluesharp, which is a correct variant of Harmonica. I don't know any 'harmonica' players, though I'm sure there must be a few. Spend some time in Chicago, which has a style all its own. Used to be plenty of Jazz clubs. When I was going to college and had roomies, one of em, a drummer with an awful band, (Diamond REO) brought home a buddy from school who proceeded to sit in front of the stereo and jam for a couple hours to anything I put on. Great stuff. As an Aside, the band Diamond RIO is a (no printable word) of Spanish and English. RIO is of course Spanish for 'river'. I don't think there IS a 'Diamond River'. However, REO are the initials of Ransom E. Olds, of Oldsmobile fame. They (as REO Motor Company) merged with the Diamond T Motor Car Company. So the junk band from Southern California was both first with the name and had it right. Anyway, Nuck, Enjoy your bluesharp. Don't let Jan get you down. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14398 Registered: May-04 | . Awwww, geez, Leo, I wasn't trying to get anyone down. I was just saying that a $2k harmonica isn't to be found on many recordings. Having an up close knowledge of the sound of blows and draws is great but you won't find many of the Chicago (or any other city's) bluesmen playing anything that expensive. A $2k harmonica sounds to me like a component people complain about in audio magazines. It's not for everyone, it's for those who buy it because they can. No one plays "harmonica"? Leo, you need to listen to some Country and Folk. Or some Mozart. Is that a good enough reply or do I need to break out the hairshirt? To Dave and Dan, sorry for the mix up. Dave, would you care to take a shot at answering those questions I posed or commenting on Dan's post? BTW, Dan, I think you did a very good job of guessing what is going on in a group setting and in a soloist's mind. . |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3535 Registered: Feb-07 | From what I remember from performing live (or even rehearsals) is that one is not (obviously) a passive listener to the music, but is instead an active participant in making the music come together. I'd be thinking about timing - being in the same rhythm as the other members. I guess it just comes down to hitting the right notes at the right time, at the right place. This is something not done by consciously thinking about it, for the most part, but feeling it. It's very different from sitting in a room in the sweet spot in front of 2 speakers that have been carefully placed. There's no sense of imaging, since the music is coming from every direction and there's very little sense of balance between instruments. You may be standing close to the drum kit and when the drummer hits a splash, that's all you hear for a few seconds. Also, especially in a rehearsal space, which is typically a small room where you're probably not running things through monitors with nicely mixed levels, you're playing LOUD just to keep up with the drums. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14399 Registered: May-04 | . Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking too. So, we have several votes for "timing" as an important component to the sound of live music. And we have two votes for "feeling" the music. I suppose everyone knew that already. Let's take a look at another question you all might be able to answer. Probably everyone who has sat in front of a pair of home speakers has at one time or another also enjoyed a bit of refreshment or a relaxant of their choice. If you've done that, then you'll probably agree the music has taken a turn for the better as the process takes effect. Music sounds better after a few drinks or a few tokes. The obvious question then becomes, what has changed? Has the music somehow become different? What are you hearing after you imbibe compared to what you heard before. Same room, same system and the same music but it sounds better. You can listen deeper into the music hearing things you never noticed before and having familiar themes take on more meaning. Why? Any thoughts on what you are hearing that makes the music sound better? And anyone who has anything else to contribute to the questions Dan and Dave answered can certainly weigh in on their experiences or their thoughts on the subject. . |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3536 Registered: Feb-07 | Good question Jan. Besides the effect of certain mind-altering recreational substances, which would change way we actually hear right down to a biological level, for me, sitting down with a couple of drinks to listen to music changes because I'm relaxed. I'm not worrying about work, the bills, the kids.... |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14400 Registered: May-04 | . Yeah, you're relaxed. Kind of what I expected. Let's have a few others put in their thoughts but answer me the next question. What happens to the music when you're relaxed? Why does the music change when it's you that has changed? This happens at live events or in your own home. See what I'm getting at? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11870 Registered: Feb-05 | What happens when I relax in front of the music. I let the music come to me. Rather than listening critically, I relax and let the music speak for itself. The music enhances the euphoric feeling I am enjoying with a glass of scotch. Cliche as it may sound it's easier to let go and become one with what I am hearing. It's like the sports analogy of letting the game come to you. When you are uptight you try too hard and everything becomes more difficult. If you can relax and let the game come to you, it's all easier and more natural. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14403 Registered: May-04 | . And what are you hearing in the music when you are relaxed that you are not hearing at other times? Go beyond or further explain "speak for itself". . |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11872 Registered: Feb-05 | I feel that by not engaging critically that I am better able to hear the language of the music. So by not engaging critically I'm able to let the music engage me with it's own language. I'm better able to hear deeper into what I believe is the intent of the artist and then relate to the music on it's own merits. I can better hear the whole of the piece rather than just discrete parts. I can still hear those details but as part of the bigger picture. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14405 Registered: May-04 | . What is the language? |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 774 Registered: Oct-07 | First, Yep, no bluesman worth his pay would get caught dead with 2k$ worth of harp. Now, after some 'refreshment' what changes? I believe you open another channel for the music to enter. One less critical and more appreciative. The critical / intellectual part of the brain 'rests' while the rest of the brain gets on with it. Maybe I am not expressing myself well. I use a model those people who stammer but sing perfectly. It is vocalization coming thru a different internal circuit. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11874 Registered: Feb-05 | What is the language? Depends on the artist, I suppose. I am referring to "language" as the artists unique voice and/or message and how that communicates with my soul. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2830 Registered: Nov-05 | I think alcohol and (from distant memories that other stuff ) exaggerates the senses while also being relaxants. This tends to close the gate on all the crap going on in your life allowing more focus on the whole or parts of the music or wherever else your mind takes you. Language - the language is the music. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14407 Registered: May-04 | . "Depends on the artist, I suppose. I am referring to "language" as the artists unique voice and/or message and how that communicates with my soul." Fine, we all need more comunication. But, if we take it as a given the majority of us on this forum spend the majority of our time listening to Western(as opposed to Eastern) Music, that music is a language of its own. It can be written down and anyone who understands the language can communicate with any other person who understands the langage just as a schematic is a language of electronics which all electronics engineers can understand. There are twelve tones from octave to octave, if you start at "A" you end at the next octave "A". Chords are formed from triads and you can augment them, suspend them, play sevenths as arpeggios or as scales. You can play a major chord or a minor chord, you can play a Dorian mode scale, a blues scale or a Mixolydian scale. If you hand a musician a chart with nothing but chord numbers on it and say, "This is a 12 bar blues in G", everyone will be on board and can start and finish at the same time and in tune. Music that was written 500 years ago is still using the same language as the newest artist of today. So, music is a language. In this case it doesn't depend on the artist as all artists playing twelve note to an octave Western music are using the same language. There are values that have been established for how the language of music is interpreted. Just as the English language has consonants and vowels, verbs and nouns, phrases and paragraphs, so too does the language of music. These have nothing to do with your audio system. When you are "relaxed" you become more aware of this language. You may not register the sounds as a Dorian scale as that's not all that important to know as a listener. There are more elemental values that I would say we all hone in on as the relaxation effect becomes more pronounced. What are the values you pay attention at those times? I understand the artist is speaking to you. I'm asking you what you are hearing. What elements are you more aware during those times? The nouns? or the sentences? How about the pauses? Every language employs pauses and emphatic tools to make sense of words that are "the language" we speak just as a musician makes use of various elements to make new music out of the same twelve tones that have been played thousands upon thousands of times over the last 2500 years. Are you more aware of pauses or something else? Shouts? Nothing? What are you paying attention to in the language of music when you have relaxed? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14408 Registered: May-04 | . "This tends to close the gate on all the crap going on in your life allowing more focus on the whole or parts of the music or wherever else your mind takes you." That seems to be what Dave said too. Leo says we power down the critical parts of our brain and open up another internal pathway. That's sort of big picture stuff. Is that it? That you can listen to "whole or parts" of the music? OK then, what parts are you hearing that you didn't hear before? What are you aware of that you weren't aware of before? Yes, it's a feeling and, yes, it's language. Break your response down further to remember just what elements of the language are more apparent. Other than just the "less critical" part of your brain what is exciting those other pathways? How are you accessing them? Not by just relaxing but what are the stimuli in the music that open them? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11876 Registered: Feb-05 | I don't know, Jan. When I'm not listening critically I'm doing exactly that, not listening critically. When I spoke of language I wasn't talking about about the mechanics of the language but instead it's emotional content. That which you can't read on sheet music, but that which is communicated by every artist worth listening to. The technical aspects of painting can be taught and every painting can be dissected and analyzed. But it's language, for my meaning, is not technical it's emotional. How does that painting or piece of music speak to my soul. What am I doing differently or what am I hearing that makes that possible, or more possible at some times than others, I'm not sure. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11877 Registered: Feb-05 | Perhaps we open our memories up and allow the music to connect with our cognitive schema in ways that we don't when we are not relaxed. The music then takes on greater meaning and emotion as it's connecting to something real in us, rather than something speculative. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14409 Registered: May-04 | . OK, Art, what are you doing when you are "listening critically"? What are you hearing at that time? |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2831 Registered: Nov-05 | Geez - JV, it seems you are taking the same blues courses I am - Griff Hamlin and Bob Murnahan actually. I highly recommend both. Break it down further. I don't know if I can. I don't even know if there's a right and wrong way to describe what you are asking and maybe it can be a little different for everyone. All of a sudden you could be focussed on the bassline of a song and begin following that part of the rhythm or maybe the percussion. I know after a drink or three I can drift along with a melody and my mind will automatically pick out a part to focus upon. It's not a deliberate thing - unless you particularly play a tune for a reason - for say a great off-beat for example. Then your partner gives strange looks as your drumming on the coffee table is upsetting their focus. If anything I suppose the most apparant part of the language to me would be the rhythm. If there's another answer then it'll have to wait until happy hour. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14410 Registered: May-04 | . "When I spoke of language I wasn't talking about about the mechanics of the language but instead it's emotional content. That which you can't read on sheet music, but that which is communicated by every artist worth listening to." And those are the same things I'm talking about, Art. I'm just asking you to think about what specific elements of that language seem to be of higher value when you have relaxed the critical listening parts of your brain. What is the artist doing or not doing that makes them that much more worth listening to, that much more communicative, at that time? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14411 Registered: May-04 | . "Geez - JV, it seems you are taking the same blues courses I am - Griff Hamlin and Bob Murnahan actually. I highly recommend both." I've seen the Hamlin stuff. The point to be made though is that music is a language that is universal so while I understand Art's "speaking to me" there are ways the artist uses the language to be more effective at speaking than a lesser artist can or knows how to. Take a hundred music or "how to play" courses and the instructor is sooner or later going to talk about the same elements of music and how you can use them to your advantage because that's how music is constructed. The language stretches across all types of music from blues to classical and from folk to hip hop. It's all in how the musician puts together those same elements that makes one a Bach and another a Muddy Waters. "If anything I suppose the most apparant part of the language to me would be the rhythm." There you go, that's an "element" of how a musician uses the language provided him or her. That's a basic building block of all music, Western or otherwise. We could say the rhythm is one of the emphatic tools available to a musician. Can anyone come up with other similar tools a musician can use to add emphatic value to their language? "If there's another answer then it'll have to wait until happy hour." It's 5:00 O'Clock somewhere, gentlemen. . |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2833 Registered: Nov-05 | Actually, I'll be seeing Avatar in place of happy hour today. Another 'element' you have already mentioned is 'tone'. That's something else that draws me into music. Whether it's vocals or instruments it's in all music. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11878 Registered: Feb-05 | I believe that an artist that communicates from a familiar place and who is honest and genuine can be heard and felt in ways that ones who are just intellectualizing cannot. Whether it's a sax, guitar, or voice "genuineness" can be sensed by those who are open to it. I'll leave the tools to the handy... Nice discussion. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14412 Registered: May-04 | . http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to/video/how-to-use-delta-blues-style-strumming-a nd-picking-on-guitar-260824/view/ http://www.justinguitar.com/ IMO these are some of the best on line lessons. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14413 Registered: May-04 | . OK, Rantz, here's a big one for you. Describe "tone". Anyone else can contribute their thoughts, this is not limited to one person. I linked to an article in Premier Guitar on just this subject. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11881 Registered: Feb-05 | I understand that you are looking for what the differences are relative to rhythm, pace, timing, melody, timbre and such (elements of music) and I'm going another direction relative to the psychology of hearing deeper into the music...I think both are interesting and I will watch for answers that are more in line with what you are attempting to elicit. Again, nice discussion. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2834 Registered: Nov-05 | Tone is variations in pitch basically but can be descibed in many ways. It can set the mood of a melody, whether dramatic, romantic or frivolous etc. Just to add - tone can be descibed as a difference in sound. Technically, it is the sound of the difference between notes. Gotta go. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 775 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, you said something I must react to. The thinking part of my brain, such as it is, takes over. That music is a language is without doubt. However, take 2 'interpreters' at opposite ends of the scale. I suspect the originator/writer of a tune will give a substantially different interpretation than one of those usually awful covers on American Idle. (sp on purpose). And probably more true to the original intent. The language is not as unambiguous as clear expository text. A far cry from what I did when I had access to a keyboard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3m7BZ5tzeg : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMwhl4IrPNc |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11882 Registered: Feb-05 | I was just having this discussion with my wife and she talked about phrasing relative to singers. I would add that phrasing is more than just about singers and it encompasses all of the elements of music. Timing, tone, rhythm and so on. Just think of Blossom Dearie and Alberta Hunter, Sonny Rollins and Charlie Parker, Miles Davis and Dizzy Gillespie. Each pair play the same instrument and yet their phrasing with the instrument can change the meaning of the very same notes or words...and they may speak to each of us differently based on our experiences. We talked about those summer nights when we like to get out the records and listen to the popular music of our youth and how that speaks to us uniquely at that time and at other times the same music can be grating or uncomfortable to listen to. Hmm. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2835 Registered: Nov-05 | In response to JV's question I believe the elements that take hold of us in a relaxed state are tone, tempo and rhythm. Many other things have to do with the performance (like phrasing) but they represent differences in performances whether it's between various or even the same artists. When there's something special happening for us, imho it's when all three T, T & R click with our brain and grab us by the - er - ears. Critically listening we evaluate other things, but they are all closely associated with T, T & R. Elements within those elements if you will. That's my take. |
|
Silver Member Username: EzntnGreeneville, TN Post Number: 104 Registered: Apr-09 | We talked about those summer nights when we like to get out the records and listen to the popular music of our youth and how that speaks to us uniquely at that time and at other times the same music can be grating or uncomfortable to listen to. Hmm. My brother, a lifelong musician, & I, a lifelong (well, at least for the last 50+ years) appreciator of music, shared a very similar conversation with our parents several years ago. We spoke of our collections, and knowing when and where we obtained each issue. We recalled the angst, joy, amusement or ache that each brought as we listened to it. Unfortunately, the folks were incapable of appreciating the concept we attempted to convey. Music, IMO, should not be analyzed. It should be enjoyed. It should, even in its simplest form, invoke emotion, either a smile, contemplation, or, if it's the artists intent, a tear. We should not be pensive, remorseful or hesitant to enjoy it. Those who have devoted themselves into analyzing music .. to break it down to rhythms, beats, pentameters ... well, all things display a pattern or ideal "golden ratio" that makes it appealing. They've identified the patterns and nuances. A musician doesn't require those tools. They know within themselves the rhythm that moves, inspires .. that sings to one's inner being, that stirs their soul. The analysis doesn't alter or enhance enjoyment. It doesn't aid in the creation, not from the artist's point of view. Perhaps from the critic's. But then, how many critics are capable of creating what they critique? I enjoy what brings emotion, preferably a smile, through what I hear. If it doesn't appeal to me, I possess the greatest censorship tool .. the off switch. I think about those on the devastated half of the island of Haiti. Images a few days ago of those who had lost everything, and they had so little to loose, singing .. walking through the streets reeking of death and destruction ... singing. Their song .. the music .. brought them relief. It brought them pleasure, escape, a bit of happiness in the midst of a disaster I cannot fathom to understand. Music .. it soothed, it brought a bit of peace. |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 480 Registered: Dec-06 | I don't think there is only either listening critically or listening relaxed. I think you can do a bit of both at the same time. There are also different degrees. I'm sure we've all taken listening critically to the extreme, when we desperately try to determine the difference between A and B no matter how minute it may be. I've found that there is a happy medium where I can listen carefully but not take it to extremes. I can be very alert to what a song sounds like, focus on the pieces that make up a song, but I can also get the big picture. This is sometimes referred to as multitasking. Seriously though, I think there is too relaxed. There needs to be some level of engagement in the brain in order to connect with the music. Maybe it's the more creative side like Leo suggested, but the brain is still actively listening and thinking. When I listen to music various things jump out at me. I love the sound of drums, this may have a lot to do with my main choice of music as drums do serve to propel a song along. That's the part of the actual music, the instruments, that I tend to focus on most. I don't think it's at the expense of the rest of what is happening though. There will be parts to a song, be it vocals or guitar or what have you that, depending on the passage, will jump out more. Most verses for example, will tend to be focused on the singer's vocals. So that takes center stage at that point. Also, and maybe this is what Art meant when he said phrasing, but music for me is all about following parts of a song as they wind away to their inevitable resolution. I'm not sure if this is what "melody" is, or if melody is a little more fundamental to music theory (melody is always something I've had trouble defining), but what I'm getting at is something like a guitar solo (think GN'R's Sweet Child O' Mine solo). I love following it's progression, the twists and turns that are created by the playing of different notes. It blows me away that someone can come up with something that amazing, and yet it all sounds so right and thus feels so logical. As if anyone could have figured it out. Or many songs by Leonard Cohen, "Everybody Knows" for one. The verses start out and progress, then end. Before they end there is some tension, and the ending resolves it. It is this tiny journey that I love about music. Start > journey > resolution. The entire song is that way, but when you break a song down it's individual passages are that way too. It is amazing to hear the words Cohen comes up with (in part because the man is just an incredible writer), but also the way he fits the words in to the music (or vice versa). They fit perfectly, there is no feeling of anything being forced, it feels natural. Hifi can certainly enhance these things, no? Detail and resolution for example. Two things I listen for. A system that has this should really be able to enhance the flow of a song, the start > journey > resolution that I described above. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2837 Registered: Nov-05 | Dan, I think you missed the question: Probably everyone who has sat in front of a pair of home speakers has at one time or another also enjoyed a bit of refreshment or a relaxant of their choice. If you've done that, then you'll probably agree the music has taken a turn for the better as the process takes effect. Music sounds better after a few drinks or a few tokes. The obvious question then becomes, what has changed? Has the music somehow become different? What are you hearing after you imbibe compared to what you heard before. Same room, same system and the same music but it sounds better. You can listen deeper into the music hearing things you never noticed before and having familiar themes take on more meaning. Why? Any thoughts on what you are hearing that makes the music sound better? either that or you are referring to another question perhaps? |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 481 Registered: Dec-06 | I think there have been a lot of questions asked in this thread, and the thread has also veered off in various directions. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14418 Registered: May-04 | . "Tone is variations in pitch basically but can be descibed in many ways. It can set the mood of a melody, whether dramatic, romantic or frivolous etc." I was thinking you would go for a concept of "tone" which becomes a Holy Grail by many guitartists. In that case "Tone" is mean to be the unique sound of a performer or a particular combination of equipment or both. As I suggested B.B. King would be identifiable on a cheap instrument simply because of his sense of "Tone" which is uniquely his and which he has developed as his signature vibrato and his commonly used phrasing over the decades. To understand more about King's personal Tone you can place "How to play like B.B. King" in a search engine to read about how King gets much of his signature sound though to achieve it would be another thing altogether. And, of course, B.B. King is tied to Lucille - an ES335 variant without sound holes - with her stereo outputs and a Varitone control which allows an easy slide from crisp and somewhat bright to very warm and mellow tone. King, like many players working on "Tone", also uses a heavier than normal guage string. You'll find "Tone" works its way into all aspects of the equipment choice and players with great "Tone" tend to change very little of the years even down to having the same pick at each performance. This set up provides a "Tone" that is quite unique and very different than someone like Slash with his vintage Les Paul's and Seymour Duncan pick ups. Anyone interested in the subject as defined by a guitarist might want to go back to the link I provided and begin reading the article on "Tone". " ... tone can be descibed as a difference in sound. Technically, it is the sound of the difference between notes." Since we're discussing elements of music here, it might be worth your time to enter "Elements of Music" in a search engine and just spend sometime getting yourself familiar with how music works. You should be surprised when you do your search to find no one agrees on just how many elements are important to a musical style. Some writers will list four while another will have as many as eight or more elements. . |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 778 Registered: Oct-07 | Here 'ya go. Some 'psychoacoustics' to toss in the mix. http://www.cs.ubc.ca/nest/imager/contributions/flinn/Illusions/TT/tt.html |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11885 Registered: Feb-05 | It's interesting to see the different approaches folks have. It's like applying a personality inventory...the different ways that we think are pretty apparent in this excercise... |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2838 Registered: Nov-05 | You're right Art, there are many variables and a lot of what is discussed is subjective. Elements of music can be broken down into multiple parts. Tone is tone and it is the difference between notes. Of course there are many variations of tone brought about by different instruments, the composition of instruments and electronics (pick ups, amps, pedals, synthesisers and so on), but these variations are tone colors or timbres. There are many variables or elements that can be thrown in the mix. But when I look at it - as per the question asked - I still believe the main ingredients of what it is that gets our attention in music in a relaxed state after a drinks or such is tone, tempo and rhythm. After reading up on the elements as you suggested JV since I know nothing about how music works, the only other addition I would make would be perhaps dynamics. As for BB, yep he has a unique style and sound, but it is more easily recognised when playing his Lucille. But I think you'd have a much harder time picking him if he was playing a 6120 Gretsch with TV Jones pick ups. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11886 Registered: Feb-05 | Of course I meant what I said in my last post in the best way. When we get along on this forum, I have time, and a clear enough mind to appreciate our different approaches to the same question. Some posts get at the meaning intended by the OP, others don't as much but have interesting content none-the-less. Every post says something about how we approach music and probably life and all responses have been appreciated by me. Back to work... |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14421 Registered: May-04 | . "I can be very alert to what a song sounds like, focus on the pieces that make up a song, but I can also get the big picture. This is sometimes referred to as multitasking. Seriously though, I think there is too relaxed. There needs to be some level of engagement in the brain in order to connect with the music. Maybe it's the more creative side like Leo suggested, but the brain is still actively listening and thinking." Creativite/critical thinking are right brain/left brain operations. What we are talking about is called "relaxed attentiveness" which is a brainwave function. The brainwave function normally associated with the relaxed yet attentive state would typically be the Alpha brainwave frequencies that range between roughly 8-13 cycles. " Alpha (8-13 cycles per second) The first pattern discovered in 1908 by an Austrian Psychiatrist named Hans Berger. Alpha pattern appears when in wakefulness where there is a relaxed and effortless alertness. Light meditation and day dreaming. It is recommend to practice your creative visualization and auto-suggestion technique in alpha state. http://www.psychic101.com/brainwaves-beta-alpha-delta.html If you'll read the link, you'll see that our normal day to day functioning brainwave activity falls between 13-40 cycles in which state we have all the worries and anxieties of life impinging on our thoughts - I think that's basically how it was put in a few responses above. The higher frequencies (35-40) in the Beta range tend toward agressive action or thoughts or nervous anxiety while the lower frequencies are an indication of relaxation and eventually as your brain drops below 8 cycles it enters a near dream state at frequencies in the Theta range. This may sound New Age but is generally regarded as solid, provable information. Unfortunately, this is not "multi-tasking", it is simply how all human brains operate. "Also, and maybe this is what Art meant when he said phrasing, but music for me is all about following parts of a song as they wind away to their inevitable resolution. I'm not sure if this is what "melody" is, or if melody is a little more fundamental to music theory (melody is always something I've had trouble defining), but what I'm getting at is something like a guitar solo (think GN'R's Sweet Child O' Mine solo). I love following it's progression, the twists and turns that are created by the playing of different notes. It blows me away that someone can come up with something that amazing, and yet it all sounds so right and thus feels so logical. As if anyone could have figured it out." "Melody" is "the tune", it is the note to note portion of a non-classical composition that you can sing or hum. Melody exists in classical music also but most of us can't hum classical compositions beyond the opening to Beethoven's Fifth. http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/summary/play.cfm/sound_iid.364103 "It's quarter to three" is carrying the "melody" of the Sinatra song. Single notes normally make up the melody where notes which "harmonize" with the single note of the melody make up - wait for it - the "harmony". Chords are harmony. If the melody hits a C, the harmony to that note can easily be heard by playing the triad "C-E-G" or a "C" major chord. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_chord Solos are supposed to sound logical though they might also sound mysterious or Middle Eastern depending on the decisions the artist makes but no matter how they "sound" they sound that way because of the logic behind how they are constructed. They are typically built from the key signature in most contemporary music; rock, blues, jazz, etc. There's too much to go into when you could find this information elsewhere but if a song is in the key of A, the solos will normally begin with an A scale of some sort and probably will start on the note of A to make a stronger point the song is in the key of A. The structure of music is extremely mathematical and the solo will be based on the chords and the scales which relate to the single note "A". When Slash takes a solo or plays a quick lick he is very likely starting his solo or lick on a note that is the "root" of the chord playing at the moment. Rock licks and solos are quite often based on a pentatonic (five note) scale which is derived from the chord being played or possibly the blues scale (six notes - a pentatonic scale with a single "blue" note added) or a combination of both. There really is a great deal of complexity to how solos are created but in the end they are very well structured even though they sound off the cuff and "in the moment". Slash has made quite a name for himself and is often seen on the covers of the various guitar magazines. His style is somewhat unique and often copied; http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=how%20to%20play%20like%2 0slash&type= Read about how he puts together his solos and how his signature sound is composed and maybe you'll find youself appreciating his work just a little more than before. "Or many songs by Leonard Cohen, "Everybody Knows" for one. The verses start out and progress, then end. Before they end there is some tension, and the ending resolves it. It is this tiny journey that I love about music. Start > journey > resolution. The entire song is that way, but when you break a song down it's individual passages are that way too." That is the essential structure of music, Dan, Slash does the same thing with his solos, set up tension and then move to a resolution or release of that tension. If you play guitar just well enough to know three chords you can hear this for yourself. A basic chord progression in the key of G would start with the "1" chord (written as I) or the root of the key which would be a G major. A simple rock song might only include three chords all related to that "I" chord. The next chord to play would be a "4" (IV) chord which is a C major. Move back to the G and then to the "5" (V) chord which would be D major. The progession resolves back to the "I" which is a G chord. That's a basic progression that you could play with any song in the key of G. It doesn't really have any tension to it, just movement from one chord through to the next and ending on the root chord of G. Adding a 7th chord to the progression adds the tension. Play the same I-IV-V progession but this time rather than playing the V chord as a D major play a D7. Now the progession goes I-IV-I-V7-I or G-C-G-D7-G. As you move from the V chord with the tension of the 7th added to the root chord (I) of the key you'll hear the tension resolve. If you don't know these chords, look them up in a chord finder on line and give this a try. While there are plenty of ways to make a chord progession work in rock that's the basis for most rock songs and lots of material has made lots of people lots of money knowing nothing more than three chords. One of the things that makes the newer metal and rock guitarists interesting is how they stretch the rules to make that simple three chord progression more interesting than most other players. "Hifi can certainly enhance these things, no? Detail and resolution for example. Two things I listen for. A system that has this should really be able to enhance the flow of a song, the start > journey > resolution that I described above." You're somewhat mixing terms here. We often speak of "detail resolution" as a desirable quality for a system. As you can see from the above example, "resolution" of the music's tension is something all together different. However, if this thread continues for a while, we'll get to the point where we'll discuss how a system makes those resolutions more interesting. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14422 Registered: May-04 | . I think what we've established is that most of us have several types of listening. Most of you listen to a new component or an unfamiliar system in a "critical listening" manner. Then you get home and when you first turn on your system you are listening in a non-critical manner (more or less). As the session moves forward you have a few drinks and so forth and you now enter into a "relaxed attentiveness" where the music takes on new meanings and new sounds are heard or interactions between performers are realized. The big picture is accompanied by the individual building blocks. If we were looking at your brainwave status at those times we would see you moving through the stages of Beta to a slower Alpha stage and even in some cases to a much slower Theta stage where you are dozing off. Does everyone agree with this? . |
|
Gold Member Username: DmitchellOttawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 3546 Registered: Feb-07 | I would say that's pretty accurate. Sometimes I get so relaxed listening to my system I actually fall asleep. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14423 Registered: May-04 | . Does anyone disagree or simply not understand the concept? |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 785 Registered: Oct-07 | seems a reasonable listening model to me. That's why my system stayed static for 20 years. good enough. Now, my ONE misgiving with this entire approach is that something analyzed to the extreme changes. The subject of 'listening to and enjoying music' will morph into philosophy, biology, behaviorism, substance abuse, psychoacoustics and a dozen other studies. As over analytical as I am rightfully accused of being, I'm content to leave it alone at the summary 3 posts above. Not that I think anyone really would be concerned, but I can, at greater length, clarify my above statements. |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 483 Registered: Dec-06 | You're somewhat mixing terms here. We often speak of "detail resolution" as a desirable quality for a system. As you can see from the above example, "resolution" of the music's tension is something all together different. However, if this thread continues for a while, we'll get to the point where we'll discuss how a system makes those resolutions more interesting. I just meant that a system that reveals all the little details within the music will enable the listener to hear everything that is happening within the song. Therefore, the interplay between the different parts will become more easily recognized. Following a theme within the music will be easier. But perhaps we will get to this soon, as you alluded. |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11887 Registered: Feb-05 | Here is a great example of what I stated earlier about this thread resembling a personality inventory. For me this thread has now gone from a fun and interesting conversation where you learn about each other, to tedium. From something you can do after work for a few minutes, to work. Not a complaint, just an observation. I think it's as good a reason as any for the personality conflicts we see here at ecoustics. Big differences in how we approach things and what it is we are looking to get from audio/music and related websites. Still an interesting thread. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14426 Registered: May-04 | . "I just meant that a system that reveals all the little details within the music will enable the listener to hear everything that is happening within the song. Therefore, the interplay between the different parts will become more easily recognized. Following a theme within the music will be easier. But perhaps we will get to this soon, as you alluded." We all get to enjoy our systems as we wish to hear what they reproduce. That's why there are so many options that exist. Consider for the moment though that what is captured on a studio recording is not always what you might hear at a performance. Hearing the phleghm in the back of a vocalist's throat still is not my idea of detail I want to know about. Being informed the performer is shuffling in their seat probably isn't of any relevance to me as far as the music goes - possibly it is but probably it isn't. I'm not saying those bits of information might not be interesting to you but then I have to ask, why? I judge my system's ability to reproduce music as I would judge a live performance. This goes back to the idea of being familiar with the actual sound of a live performance. What is it we are getting familiar with? As has been noted studio conditions seldom equal those of a live performance. I hear music not from note perfect studio performances courtesy of edits and overdubs (which a system with extreme detail resolution will only emphasize) but instead by realizing the artist has some trouble reaching a certain note or sustaining it for such a length of time. Those are the touches of humanity that make a recording real to me. While not many of you listen to opera I would take you back to the quote regarding the goal of a good audio system. " When I feed my system a great performance, I want it to convey emotion and intent with such clarity and directness that I am transfixed and transported." I'm not overly concerened about a signle mistake or two, everyone makes mistakes. IMO the mark of an accomplished artist is how they make the most of that mistake. If Slash goes for something that doesn't quite work, I am confident of his artistry and skill to make the next move and the next a way to correct that mistake and make it work for him. That is what I want to hera, that is the excitement of the live performance that is being left on the floor of the mastering studio for the sake of something entirely unlike what I hear in real life. Am I interested in how a vocalist breathes? Yes, because that is part of the craft of singing. If, in alive performance where I am seated ten to a hundred feet away from a performer, an instrumentalist shuffles their feet, am I to be interested or even aware of such things? My opinion is I do not. But close mic'ing has become the norm for almost all musical styles and this technique now treats me to an excessive overexageration of "detail" that otherwise would go unnoticed in the real world. This sort of fixation on "hyper-detail" has become a cause celeb with many components in modern audio because many audiophiles unfamiliar with the sound of live music, or at least of live unamplified music, demanded it. Through the 1980's and '90's manufacturers pushed the envelope of detail resolution to the brink of making all too many components not music reproduction systems but minute detail retrievers. To that end many of those components lost all sense of musical values and existed only for those who wanted to hear the sound of sweat hitting a drumhead or a whispered curse between warring bandmates. The music became secondary to the ability to portray minutiae. The overexageration of that sort of information led to components with bright, glaring sound and - the favorite word to now describe the excesses of the time - "etched" high frequencies. These components continue to sell because they in many ways represent to the newest members of the high end community the epitome of what a better system can achieve. To many of these same listeners live music doesn't sound as good as their recordings. DOH! To each their own, if that's what represents music to someone, then that's what they have the opportunity to buy. However, a very quick look at the threads coming into the forum from all sides would suggest one of the most common complaints from owners is the harshness of their system. Taken together with the ubiquitous practice of goosing high frequency content during post production to arrive at a "sellable" sound that benefits boomboxes and portable players, the modern recording and mastering techniques combined with the push for ever more detail through many of today's components provides anything but an enjoyable music experience to those familiar with the sound of live music making in a real acoustic. . |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 484 Registered: Dec-06 | When I think of detail I thnk of bringing forth all the detail in the music. Not so much the things you mentioned (a drop of sweat, shuffling of feet). To be honest I do not hear much of that kind of thing on 99% of my studio recordings. I would imagine a live CD may contain more of these things, and I agree I am much less interested in those than I am in the actual performance. The brightness complaint is for sure a popular one, and one that I have too. I'm actually finding that brightness can obscure detail. I think my Monitor Audio RS5's are a great speaker and to my ears do most things very well. The only thing I am not liking right now is the performance of the tweeter. When a passage is playing and it's only lows and/or mids, it sounds great. When it's only highs, again it sounds great and despite the sharpness in the highs it doesn't seem to bother me. It's when there are highs and mids/lows at the same time that I'm finding an issue. The high frequencies are emphasized so much that I find they obscure what is happening in the lower ranges. The highs just sound louder than the mids and lows, and given other user feedback and Stereophile's frequency response graph on the RS6, I think they are. That said, I'm still playing around with my room and speaker placement to try to get the best sound I can. This is not meant to start discussing this particular speaker (there are other threads for that), it's just an example of how I am finding an emphasis on highs does not necessarily correlate with great detail retrieval. When listening for detail I find myself focused mostly on the mids, where most of the music lies. That said, I understand why detail is associated most with high frequencies. Another point I should make is that I've found most 2-channel systems that I have heard are pretty good at detail and resolution. Hopefully I'm not taking this discussion too far off course. A lot has been said and going off on some tangent is easy to do. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2841 Registered: Nov-05 | Music is music whether it is recorded live or in the studio. Personally, I prefer studio recordings. I have not found too many live recordings to my liking and most certainly do not come close to listening at a live event - acoustic or electric. Many older studio albums were certainly trashed by the the recording/enginnering process, but more recently much has been improved. I got a cd yesterday "The Magic Hour" Wynton Marsalis Quartet. I recommend to anyone to have a listen. This is about as close to live music as it gets to me. Instruments and vocals come from where they are played on the soundstage, no instrument is overtly muted or exaggerated and no annoying audience applause drowning the begining, end, or even after a mid tune solo. This doesn't occur with all studio recordings I know, but these days most studios do a decent job of getting the music right. Sure there are some live recordings I like, but those too have been remixed and worked on before becoming one's and zero's. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14434 Registered: May-04 | . "Does anyone disagree or simply not understand the concept?" The question required not much more than a "yes" or "no" response. Or, as Dave put it, a mere confirmation of the concept, "Yes, I see how that might work." If the concept of implanting in your head three different listening methods which you already employ is thought of as "work", then there won't be much for you in this "Advice" thread. If thinking of the difference between the number 8 and the number 13 is beyond your lifting capacity, you might as well take a break from a thread where that difference is mentioned in passing. If doing anything whatsoever in a new way is so totally undesirable to you, then I suggest you head on over to a thread where you can do the same old thing over and over again. No hard feelings and we all agree nothing ventured, nothing gained. Otherwise, I'm not interested in carping about what is in the thread. Saying you are not complaining when that is exactly what you are doing does not make your comments any less of a complaint. Suggesting anything that lies outside the borders of what you want to do on this forum will lead to conflict is, IMO, merely pointing your own finger back at yourself. If this thread moves forward - and it will cease when no one responds, I will be suggesting something very minor, something you already can accomplish but you will be doing so in a manner unlike your present methods of listening. If that translates into "work" or "over analyzing", then we can end this right now. I will tell you I expect you to resist doing what I am suggesting. I've had this conversation with a dozen other people and I've always received the same reaction which is to do things exactly as they have always been done. I can only assume this is one of those "guy things" and that they are unwilling to try anything new that would change their guy behavior. I can't change DNA. So, that is what you need to know so far. You can come or you can go. I don't care. I named the thread "Advice" and I was intending to give some advice acquired during my experiences selling to many different clients over the years. You can take it or leave it or not even read it. But the question required not much more than a "yes" or "no" response. "Does anyone disagree or simply not understand the concept?" https://www.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?tpc=1&post=1824192#POST1824192 . |
|
Platinum Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 11892 Registered: Feb-05 | I see, this was not to be a discussion but instead a lecture. You're right the lifting is too heavy for...lol! You really need to take a course on learning styles. The more you know your audience the better your chance to convey your message in a way that you are heard. I will never listen to music like anyone else here, just as they won't listen like I do. The more critical the analysis, for me, the less pleasurable the listening becomes. With that I'll leave this thread to those who are my intellectual superiors...the floor is all yours, Jan, and I will not repsond to any bashing. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14435 Registered: May-04 | . "the floor is all yours, Jan, and I will not repsond to any bashing." You just did. You complain abut what is going to happen before it happens and not knowing that it will happen. Art, I know all I need to know about you as an "audience". You live to be critical. . |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 774 Registered: Jul-07 | Some interesting questions and comments to ponder for sure. When we go to a live performance, or have a musical experience of any kind (perhaps you're the performer), we are experiencing the event with more than just our ears. We can feel the music through the vibrations and resonances in the room, we smell whatever is in the air, we alter our emotional state, and of course we see the musicians play and how they relate to each other. When I'm listening to music either on my hi-fi, or live, I can feel my internal state completely change when the music is right. Not all performances do that of course, but that's the specialness of the occurrences when it does happen. When I watch my kids play at a recital or concert, I enjoy watching them fall "into the moment" with the music....as they feel the other musicians around them, and they discover how they are connected to the piece they are playing. Not a care or worry is in their minds at that time I'm sure.....just the music. Often I remember more the visual aspects of their concerts than the audio ones....which is a good thing when they are just learning to play. I judge my hi-fi more or less by it's ability to alter my state, and fall inside the musical performance it's attempting to recreate. When I audition components that don't take me there, there is usually a failure to preserve pitch, tempo, tone or some other aspect of the music, but most often for me it is the complexity that's lost. Voices and instruments have very complicated tonal structures. They are neither singular or flat, but multiple and deep. Take Kurt Elling's voice for example. Very rich, deep baritone voice that you can feel as well as hear. If that gets thinned at all it doesn't transport me in the same way. If any of you have been to an opera and heard an opera singer project his/her voice into the audience, you can actually feel the vibrations in your body. It's incredibly powerful. To recreate that on your hi-fi is very difficult. I think much of the satisfaction is derived in the subconscious mind, and has been stated already, the conscious part is decidedly right brained if you can turn off the analyst in you for a second. The effects of music on the mind and body are profound, and this is true whether you own modest or exotic hi-fi equipment. But I think for many of us, the right recording on the right system is a state of bliss that is truly priceless. Back to JV's original post for a minute, certainly good advice. It's easy to get excited about a new component that gets a rave review. However the variables are mind-boggling, and finding reviewers that you can relate to, and that share the same priorities that you do, is very, very important. However, without your own priorities defined first you have nothing to align to. When I read someone's list of components they are planning to audition, and each component is quite different in it's presentation than the other, I always wonder if they even know what they are looking for.....or are they just looking. As to the listening process, I think what you describe JV sounds about right. For myself, I definitely go through listening stages, where I go from almost a diagnostic mindset (does everything sound as it should ?) to an almost meditative state if I've selected the right music for my particular mood. Sometimes at the end of a disk I sit still in my chair for several minutes before getting up to either flip disks or go back upstairs....just slowly coming back into a more "here and now" state. |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2845 Registered: Nov-05 | You do seem to hold the floor as 'The Teacher' JV and expect all your little students to be good little boys and girls and toe your line. That is not what a forum is all about. It comes down to how you go about giving advice - it's your way or the highway or that's how it appears. You might want to think about whether folk here have the will to change they way they do things or have the time on their hands to even consider the things you ask. Many of us are quite content with the status quo of our listening habits and obtain our enjoyment from music in our own way. You are well educated in this field and your knowledge is well regarded as is your willingness to offer help and advice as people need it. You seem to be a person that analyses each and every little thing and while that's not a bad thing, it's not what everyone else does. I'm certainly happy to discuss things here but don't expect me and maybe some others to sit quietly and nod our heads to your every word. In life we tend to treat people as we are treated. Art is right, you often come across here as a lecturer and we young'uns tend to rebel against those. And then, it seems, we drop out or get expelled. Oh - and to your question - yes, I would agree. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14439 Registered: May-04 | . Thanks for the input, CH, you've mentioned several things which are pertinent to the thread. I'll talk a bit more about those concepts shortly. For the moment, let's see if anyone else has anything of value to add. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14440 Registered: May-04 | . And then there's you, Rantz. I'm going to say this for what I sincerely hope will be the last time; screw off! Stay away from me and take that little child with you. You don't want to hear anything from me - so go away. You've made up your mind just like Art you already know what I'm going to say before I say it and you've also made up your feeble little mind you won't do anything different no matter what I actually say or how it might benefit you - so stay away. I knew when I saw you two on this thread that you couldn't help but behave like small little children kicking the back of the driver's seat. If it weren't for Art, you would be the most mentally lazy individual I've ever encountered. Go! Art has another thread that he wants everyone to rush to rather than be here. He needs you there to validate his worth. Go and for godssake don't come back. Stay away from me. I'm absolutely fed up and tired of dealing with you two and I can only hope you have the good manners to not turn this into another p!ssing match. I hadn't said a thing to you, Rantz. But you had to take the opportunity to insult me no matter. You two are the perfect pair. Screw off! Both of you! . |
|
Gold Member Username: My_rantzGold CoastAustralia Post Number: 2852 Registered: Nov-05 | Then you stay way from us JV. I was willing to conduct a civil discussion here, but that's impossible with you unless we bow to your commands. I knew you couldn't take a little critique rather than an insult which is all you can manage. Girl you are the hypocrite. Cya! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14442 Registered: May-04 | . Then you stay way from us JV." Didja use that line in fourth grade? Or are you just pushing for the goal of actually being the most mentally lazy one? Obviously, you have no manners.  I'll say it one more time - SCREW OFF!!! GO AWAY AND STAY AWAY, CHILD!!!!! . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14444 Registered: May-04 | . To refesh your memory this is where we left off; "I think what we've established is that most of us have several types of listening. Most of you listen to a new component or an unfamiliar system in a "critical listening" manner. Then you get home and when you first turn on your system you are listening in a non-critical manner (more or less). As the session moves forward you have a few drinks and so forth and you now enter into a "relaxed attentiveness" where the music takes on new meanings and new sounds are heard or interactions between performers are realized. The big picture is accompanied by the individual building blocks. If we were looking at your brainwave status at those times we would see you moving through the stages of Beta to a slower Alpha stage and even in some cases to a much slower Theta stage where you are dozing off." Leo posted this; "The subject of 'listening to and enjoying music' will morph into philosophy, biology, behaviorism, substance abuse, psychoacoustics and a dozen other studies." The idea here is not to over analyze anything but instead to get you to the point where you understand there is a difference between hearing and perception. When 90% or more of the audiophiles out there discuss how music sounds or more specifically how a component or a system "sounds" they are talking about what occurs to the physical audio signal as it travels from the source to the speakers - nothing more. Is the frequency balance shifted? Is distortion added? Does that result in a soundstaging shift or an aberration to the imaging? And so on we go always being concerned with what is happening within the mechanics of the system. A few might bring the room and its acoustic into the conversation but they are almost always stopping at that, still using words like "bright" or "forward", and rarely do they even mention the human element of hearing and the all important brain function of perception. It is as if we do all "hear" alike which we do al know is not the case. What is being ignored completely is the transmission of electrical pulses (created by those tiny hairs in your ear canal and the sensitive bones in your head being excited by the simple compression and rarefaction of pressure waves) created within the inner ear and then sent to your brain where the two more highly advanced functions of hearing and ultimately perception take place. While we discuss our hearing as we understand it from having our "hearing" checked for frequency response and our ability to hear low level signals we cannot so easily discuss our sense of perception. Mostly the problem here is few of us understand or have even given a thought to how we perceive an audio signal once we get it in our ears. As noted in the one linked article from Stereophile, we are all to some extent what the cognitive scientists would refer to as "Sharpeners" and "Levelers". Between those two extreme points we waffle during the day along a line drawn between the ying and yang/right and left depending on what the circumstances require. Some of us tend to stay closer to the "Sharpeners" side of the process by making less obviously relevant, smaller details or shifts in quality more important to our perception and decision making. Some will remain more toward the "Levelers" end and to those listeners such details and small shifts in perception are as not important - these are the "everything that measures the same sounds the same" folks. To some extent we all have some of both in our make up but we spend most of our time hovering more toward one side or the other. Possibly we are Sharpeners when it comes to audio and Levelers when it comes to cameras or cars. To listen "critically" we must switch to the left or analytic side of the brain and in the process of analysis we also raise our brainwave activity. It would be all but imposible to do analysis while in the "relaxed attentiveness" Theta stage where you are comfortable to the point of drifting into a slumber. Agreed? So too would it be nearly impossible to reach any useful state of analysis should we be at the high end of the Beta stage where agitation and agressive thoughts occur. If you're unsure of what these two stages represent as far as brainwave activity, once again here's the link to a quick explanation of what is occurring at the various frequencies; http://www.psychic101.com/brainwaves-beta-alpha-delta.html There is no need to over analyze this, just to know it exists and this is how we all function. This simple understanding brings us to the point where we can say we know broadly what is happening when we enter into the "relaxed attentiveness" stage of listening deeper into the music. Rather than our brain operating from the left hemisphere and our brainwave clicking away at a Beta stage frequency of, say, 35 cycles, we are now slowing our brain's activity to a more comfortable low Alpha to a high side of the Delta stage with brain function operating around 6-12 cycles. In this stage we are almost exclusively using the right/creative side of our brain. " As to the listening process, I think what you describe JV sounds about right. For myself, I definitely go through listening stages, where I go from almost a diagnostic mindset (does everything sound as it should ?) to an almost meditative state if I've selected the right music for my particular mood. Sometimes at the end of a disk I sit still in my chair for several minutes before getting up to either flip disks or go back upstairs....just slowly coming back into a more "here and now" state." At the end of a disc your brainwave activity might have slowed into the 7 cycles range and it will take just a moment to raise your brain activity from a restful almost slumbering state to being in the "here and now". If, say, a fire broke out in your house, this rising brain activity would occur almost instanteously but normally we have all experienced what Chris has described. This would then be described as a portion of the process we call "perception". Perception of small detail and the big picture increases when we are in the relaxed attentiveness stage and decreases as we move to a more analytical stage when we need to solve a problem or to "listen critically". Without further analysis, the point here is we can control our brainwave activity to a large degree without much effort on our part. Anyone who claims they can switch to a "critical listening" mode has already said they have the ability to raise their brainwave activity and to control which side of the brain they are relying on most heavily at that time. My proposal then is, if you can control your brainwave activity to that extent, why not achieve the same degree of control in the opposite direction? If you can enter a "critical listening" stage quickly and at will, then doesn't it makes sense you could also enter a "relaxed attentiveness" stage just as easily? You have the ability to shift your perception from one stage to another in a few moment's time. Why not learn to use this ability to allow ourself the almost immediate awareness of those small details and vast expanses which you are now capable of hearing but only with an artificial relaxant to accomplish the change? Teach yourself to always be in the relaxed attentiveness stage whenever you sit down to enjoy music. Whether you are listening to a live performance or at home with your own system and music or, more importantly for some of you, in an audio shop auditioning a new component for possible purchase. Wouldn't it benefit you to have your perception at its highest level at that time rather than relying on the stage where you are over analyzing the subject through the "hyper-critical listening" process? If you could be aware of all of the fine details and interactions of the performance at will - the small and large scale details that make the relaxed attentiveness stage the most enjoyable and the most informative, wouldn't that be where you could also make the most intuitive response to what you are actually hearing when judging just how truthfully a component reproduces music? Is that not the stage where you can reach tne greatest enjoyment of the music while forgetting the functions of the system? Is that not the concept of all high end audio - a transparency to the music? In other words, if you could train yourself to switch to the Alpha stage of brain activity just as easily as you have trained yourself to operate in the hyper-critical stage, wouldn't the stage where you most viscerally respond to the music be the one you would naturally prefer? Wouldn't it benefit you to always have the ability to move freely between stages when you are simply listening to music and not judging an audio component - your own or one you might purchase? . |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 803 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, Book title suggestion: 'Zen and the art of music appreciation' I get to take the album / jacket photo. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14445 Registered: May-04 | . You can think of it that way, Leo. The point would be just to think about it. Consider it and do you not conclude you could radically improve the sound of the music without any more than allowing it to happen at your desire? A resistance I normally get to this proposal is some are not wanting to improve the perception of the music so much as they are wanting to improve "the sound" of the system. . |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 775 Registered: Jul-07 | "If you can enter a "critical listening" stage quickly and at will, then doesn't it makes sense you could also enter a "relaxed attentiveness" stage just as easily?" It makes sense, sure. The trick would be developing that ability....one which perhaps is not particularly instinctive for many. In a meditation class we learned to anchor positive "states" that we could trigger at a time when we felt out of balance, or not particularly resourceful. Once anchored you can "fire" the state using the trigger you've anchored. It's a very effective way to "jump" to a state that may otherwise take hours to get to. Perhaps audio queues or a small ritual you go through prior to beginning the listening experience would work. I've never tried that but I see no reason it wouldn't work. I also wonder how many people find it easier to fall into the Alpha stage with the lights out or dimmed. I know I do. I find the less visual stimulus I give my brain, the more experiential the music becomes. My reasoning for why this might happen is that the musical experience created by your hi-fi is in some ways an illusion. Your eyes see noone in front of you, no instruments, no "evidence" of performers. Perhaps your brain naturally resists treating it as "real". With the lights down there is less visual stimulus, and less conflicting visual information countering the information your are hearing. Or perhaps there is just less for your brain to process (less bits of information) so it can dedicate more attention to what you are hearing. All this is pure speculation on my part of course. What I will try is this. Friday nights are typically wind down night for me and that always involves a few disks and a beer or two. When I get to that desired state, perhaps at the end of a cd....I'll try anchoring that state (I usually do that by pinching the skin between my thumb and index finger). I'll do that a few nights, deepening the anchor each time I do it. When I think I have the anchor firmly set, I'll fire the anchor before hitting play on a listenting session, and see if I can enjoy that relaxed state immediately, and enjoy it for the entire listening session. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14446 Registered: May-04 | . Yes, this is very much like a meditation and this is probably why so many people resist it - too touchy feely for them. You can however also think of this as a biofeedback process (useful in, say, pain management), a biomechanical process (useful in training your muscles to react to a certain stimuli - the "being one with the ball" mentioned earlier) or a dozen other approaches that all come to the same conclusion. For me this came about through my background in Theatre and understanding how an actor almost instantaneously recalls situations, reactions and emotions to reach a desired response. For some people it becomes a process and for some it involves something on the order of a talisman, a smell or a touch. If you play golf or prefer to paint in your spare time, drive a rally or play a guitar, you'll already understand the concept. You have to see it happening before it becomes reality. That may sound too t-f again - though you'd pay a golf pro for the same advice - but you get to choose how you go about this and there are no perfect ways that fit all individuals. This doesn't require time other than you can't expect to get perfect results the first time out. It does require the will to have an increased perception of the musical values you say you want anyway. If that is considered too much work, then this is not for you. If you are content doing things the same old way and getting the same old results, then you can forget what I've mentioned. The next question then is how do you accomplish this? How do you train yourself to operate in a relaxed attentiveness state without sitting crosslegged on the floor for an hour chanting to yourself? Or without the additional relaxants that ultimately aren't capable of being carried around with you at all times. That is the question. What ideas would anyone have for how to go about the process? Ultimately, the result should really be triggered as Chris says so you can reach the Alpha stage with ease and repeatability. "Perhaps audio queues or a small ritual you go through prior to beginning the listening experience would work. I've never tried that but I see no reason it wouldn't work." This is on the mark as far as ideas. One of the ridicules the "measurements are all" crowd has for those who believe analog generally sounds better than digital (despite the common, don't look too far in measurements saying the opposite) is most LP users have a defined ritual they must go through before they can hear music. Digital seldom requires the same sort of "pre-performance" activity. While this is typically meant to be a putdown of the LP listeners it is not that far from the truth if you consider what we are trying to achieve here. "When I get to that desired state, perhaps at the end of a cd....I'll try anchoring that state (I usually do that by pinching the skin between my thumb and index finger). I'll do that a few nights, deepening the anchor each time I do it. " One thing I'll mention is that once you have become adept at this technique, there is little change between where you start the night and where you end as far as the relaxed attentiveness is concerned. If you can reach that level at the beginning of a listening session, the only real difference between where you start and where you end will be passing out. That might also be why I find some resistance to this, everyone thinks I'm telling them not to drink or smoke since it won't change your perception as you now expect. No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is where you typically stopped just before you drifted off to sleep is where you will now start and all of the small details and large pictures will be available from the beginning of the night. Any suggestions? After we cover this topic we'll do a bit of exploring just what you might be hearing in this relaxed attentiveness state and how you can use this as a technique to determine a better component by paying more attention to the music and less to the hifi artifacts. . |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 776 Registered: Jul-07 | Another thought is triggering through smell. If you burn incense, or a scented candle, or something that produces a familiar and enjoyable aroma as you're enjoying music, perhaps simply lighting the candle and taking those first deep breaths may trigger (through association of past experience) you to more quickly relax. Just a thought. The trigger can really be anything. Your comment related to how actors so quickly take on their characters (altered state) is an interesting one. I've never taken acting lessons so I'm not sure what techniques they teach for this, but they would undoubtedly be useful. |
|
Silver Member Username: KbearCanada Post Number: 490 Registered: Dec-06 | Interesting stuff. I've never really paid attention to my state of relaxation/awareness and how it impacts the quality of my listening. I will try to at least be in tune to how I feel and how that makes the music sound when I listen this weekend. I have noticed that sometimes I am into the music and sometimes not so much. I think it's not so much when I am distracted and have other things on my mind - not surprising really. I don't usually drink when I listen. Drinking happens more when I'm out. I'll give that a shot too. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 805 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan, your last summation is all I need. I'm sorry, but the rest is over intellectualization, IMO. Now, I'm generally on your side here. That to consider yourself a consumer of music and not a participant is a way to go techno / gross perception crazy. Even when I turn on 'background' XM, for example, if I hear something interesting, I'll simply stop what I'm doing and go listen to a couple tunes. (most) Everyone already knows everything they need to know about listening. It is just if they are willing to step back and realize it. Most Western People (caps intentional) have trouble with such approaches. The sound of one hand clapping, sort of thing. |
|
Silver Member Username: HawkbillyNova Scotia Canada Post Number: 777 Registered: Jul-07 | "I'm sorry, but the rest is over intellectualization, IMO." With all due respect Leo, I think it's exactly the opposite. What I think we're talking about is "being", which is the farthest thing from intellectualization. It's changing the process of how you approach listening, to maximize what you already enjoy and to change how you think of, and evaluate, the components that enable that enjoyment. It's not intellectual, it's just human. |
|
Silver Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 807 Registered: Oct-07 | Oh, *&^&*, I wanted to avoid philosophy, which is where I saw this going all along. Being is being, not talking about it. It is a principle of physics, which I admit is a far cry from this discussion, that you can only know so much about a phenom. Please see attached link:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle And for all you cat lovers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat I believe that all this TALK about perception gets in the WAY of perception. By perceiving the wave function of perception, you collapse said function and change it forever. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 14447 Registered: May-04 | . "I believe that all this TALK about perception gets in the WAY of perception. By perceiving the wave function of perception, you collapse said function and change it forever." That was a line in ... oh, ... wait ... was it "McClintock" or "The Green Berrets"? Then The Duke slaughtered somebody, right? Very macho stuff. "I'm sorry, but the rest is over intellectualization, IMO." Like I said, I usually get resistance to trying this exercise. How about I reduce it all down to; if you can do that, then you can also do this. If you tell me you can engage in critical listening, then you can do this just as easily. There's really nothing more to it, the rest is simply prologue to provide some reference for understanding why and how the mechanism operates. I can't see that it's over thinking the issue to realize there is more to what we perceive than the on paper THD spec of an amplifier dictates. If someone is curious, shouldn't I provide some background for them to do more research? I already said, if this isn't for you, if this is too much work or too much over-analysis, if this is something you are resisting, then move on. Nothing more is required and nothing more is definitely appreciated. "That to consider yourself a consumer of music and not a participant is a way to go techno / gross perception crazy." Leo, I don't get that. How the he!! did you get any of that from what I posted? Possibly by thinking, "I wanted to avoid philosophy, which is where I saw this going all along"? If that's where you went with this, then you over-intellectualized this. You're reading too much into what is not there on the page. There's no philosophy in what I wrote. Would you call biofeedback a philosophy? Would you tell that to the cancer patient? If the golf pro told you to see the ball hitting the green, would you say you are over-intellectualizing the event? That's simple biomechanics. If not, if you wouldn't think of not doing what the golf pro suggested, then how can you call this exercise anything other than what it is? Meditation is not a philosophy - it's practiced by people with numerous and varied backgrounds and principles in all parts of the world, no one's asking you to give all your Earthly possessions to any organization. So, even if I was asking you to meditate, which I am not, how would I be discussing a philosophy? I guess I'd take your remarks more seriously if they made more sense than they do. Mostly, I just see resistance to something new. Look, Leo, if this is not what you're after, that's fine but how about not criticizing something; 1) you're not willing to try, and 2) that you are making a more difficult exercise than it should be. And to poopoo this as some sort of whack-job philosophy is ludicrous. To say it is anything more than an exercise is creating a problem where none exists. Leo, this is what you posted a few days ago, "What happens when I relax in front of the music. I let the music come to me. Rather than listening critically, I relax and let the music speak for itself. The music enhances the euphoric feeling I am enjoying with a glass of scotch. Cliche as it may sound it's easier to let go and become one with what I am hearing. It's like the sports analogy of letting the game come to you. When you are uptight you try too hard and everything becomes more difficult. If you can relax and let the game come to you, it's all easier and more natural." Explain how that is any different than what I am suggesting. What? you think you're brain works different than everyone else's brain when you relax? Schrodinger's Cat, eh? Would it surprise you to find out Schrodinger's Cat is a basic argument for why this works and not for why it does not. Suggesting you can affect your brain's perception without altering the physical signal within the system is hardly new age mumbojumbo. Not to pursue something off topic for long, but tell me, are you of the inclination Schordinger was onto something or that he was just a laughable and dismissable fool? Just linking to the Wikipedia page without further explanation doesn't tell me what you want me to gain from reading the information. You introduce physics which is definitely over thinking what I have presented. Why bring physics into the discussion when physics has nothing what so ever to do with this simple exercise? Philosophy? Physics? Uncertainty Principle? Leo, where are you getting this stuff? You admit it is all a far cry from this discussion but I suppose since you have a very strong resistance to changing anything you reach for everything. I've described in what I thought was a coherent manner the physical reactions which exist during three types of listening. That's it, you now can place them in the back of your head and not worry about whether you're working at 8 cycles or at 10 cycles. Because, if you are thinking about whether you are functioning at 8.2 cycles, then you certainly will not be functioning at 8.2 cycles. That's again about all you need to know to try the exercise. But why criticize if you're not going to even try? The result is the end in itself, all else is there only for those who want to understand why they are doing the exercise and what is occurring to create the end result. Everyone is free to decide what they want to do with the information other than unreasonably criticizing it without trying it. That's not logical nor is it fair to the others. I expected that from a few others - it's what they do - but I didn't expect it from you, Leo. If I had just said reduce your brainwave function to 8.2 cycles, would you have done that? . |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics