Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why would someone like LP?
Hi,
I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described "newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important point. I repeat the post he ------------- My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. ------------ The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl, with its obvious flaws? The quick answer: because these listeners are relating the external stimuli to a broader range of internal percepts. Traditionally, science has investigated only the external manifestations of response to stimuli, because only the external can be observed in an objective way. Internal percepts (the personal "experience of what happens") have remained off-limits to hard science. But philosophers and Zen monks have always been able to investigate internal percepts. Musicians and all creative artists are carrying out their own investigations, in a way. What is obvious to those who care to introspect is that "listening is not listening." The crucial question is, "What are you listening for?" It is also obvious to those who care to introspect that different people draw on a different set of potential concepts; that is, concepts stored in memory that can be "activated" by stimuli. New listeners to music generally relate music to potential concepts that they have already developed from non-musical experience with sound: "loud," "soft," "fast," "slow". The "beat" may seem a musical concept, but it is closely related to the heartbeat and other phenomena of nature, so that potential concept of "beat" is sitting in unconscious memory waiting to be activated even in the non-musician. On the other hand, very experienced listeners of music, and even more so musicians, have more highly developed abstractions as potential concepts. An experienced listener hears aspect of form and subtle nuances of expression: this is an entirely different set of potential concepts from the beginner. Again, it is obvious from introspection that as experience develops, the earlier potential concepts diminish in importance and are replaced by more abstract potential concepts. In other words, the surface noise of an LP corresponds to a relatively juvenile potential concept, which is immediately derived from normal, non-musical experience. The beginner will weight this concept highly, and since it is normally a non-musical experience, it will interfere quite a lot with listening. In the experienced listener, the weight of this concept has diminished greatly and is superceded by the abstract concepts of musical expression and form. In simple terms, what this boils down to is that the experienced listener "hears through" the noise into the music. This kinds of experience seems impossible to the beginner; they simply haven't developed the necessary potential concepts yet, just as a child wouldn't normally have the ability to comprehend something abstract like subtle competition in a political debate. I've noticed that the "objectivists" here are extremely naive, philosophically. They don't understand and don't even acknowledge the knowledge to be gained about perception through introspection. In fact, I predict they will respond to this post by demeaning the whole idea and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not "objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety. Helen |