Why listen
JimC wrote:
A question sometimes asked by those who aren't audiophile enthusiasts
(and don't understand the logic of spending thousands of dollars for a
decent system in the first place) is: Why do audiophiles want to spend
hours of their time simply listening to music played on their stereos or
surround systems? To many non-audiophiles the concept of "listening to
music" is to use it as mood-enhancing background noise while doing
something else, to liven up a party, or to listen to it in association
with TV or a home theater system, but certainly not as something
entailing listening to music with some degree of attention for extended
periods of time. In other words, why waste all that money on a stereo
system other than as a high-tech toy for impressing your buddies?
This subject was addressed in an essay published years ago, in either
Stereo Review or Hi-Fi Review, describing the experience of listening to
classical music. As I remember it, the thesis of the author was that
listening to classical music is a subjective (note: highly
subjectivist!!!) experience in which the music bypasses conscious
thought and current mental clutter and begins to communicate directly
with the subconcious. Unlike other art forms, it requires giving up the
amount of time required to listen to a given work. (Hard to "browse" a
Beethoven symphony, for example.) But the reward is that the music can
speak to and sometimes reenergize the most civilized aspects of the
inner self. Obviously, audiphiles vary in how and to what they listen. -
In addition to classical, I happen to be an enthusiastic Stones fan. But
listening to the Stones has never had quite the same effect. As to why
a good sound system is especially important for listening to classical
music, IMO, in addition to minimizing distortion, a major factor is that
many classical works have such substantial variances in sound level that
ordinary "stereos" can't handle them without lots of distortion in the
louder (pianissimo) passages.
Well, maybe this topic isn't appropriate for discussion on RAO in the
first place, since it doesn't relate directly to personalities, the
objectionist-subjectivist debate, dbt, etc. Somehow I thought that
considerations such as this were part of the underlying reasons for
getting into the hobby in the first place. In any event, if anyone
remembers this particular article, I would appreciate getting the reference.
Jim
It is a pleasure to see a message about the fundamentals
of MUSIC reproduction rathet than the endless boring bickering about
the
instrumentation one uses to achieve it.
For that reason I reject the "audiophile" label. It
means literally a
friend or a lover of sound. I knew people who used their equipment for
playing
train whistles and such. They were audiophiles. I'm a musicophile and
use hi-fi to try and get the closest I can to the live musical
experience.
I too like the Rolling Stones- the earlier the album
the better. But
after 20 minutes of real single-minded *listening* I have enough. But
I can listen to
the "classical" (another unfortunate term- what about the contemporary
serious
music- is it already "classical"?) chamber or solo music for hours.
What is tantalising and hobby- like about hi fi is
that it can come
closer and closer to that unattainable ideal of perfect reproduction
without ever
reaching it. Also that as happens with all aesthetic (i.e.
like-dislike) judgements
the opinions vary. Compare with reproductions of painting. Which
printing
technique is "better"? What about the paper: glossy or matt? How to
reproduce
those artists who stick tridimensional "objets trouves" on their
canvasses?
You have to concentrate on anything serious to allow
the impact.
Jenn chooses music. What about poetry? What about "serious" novels?.
If you do not *listen* you will never understand
what *listening* is
about. And when you try to communicate with those who do you're
shouting at
each other in your own dialect incomprehensible to the other side.
Ludovic Mirabel
|