Hi-Fi is NOT a subjective hobby.

[PYP]

I have heard many other systems, and am well aware of my systems' limitations, but yet can honestly say that I love how it sounds and would not trade it for any other I have heard - at this point, and given my "room" - simply because I don't see the benefits in terms of musical enjoyment.

That is my basic thinking too. However, I continue to be curious about ways to lower the network noise and continue to experiment upstream of my streamer/DAC. I'm not sure that such experiments have increased the enjoyment per se of an already enjoyable system, but there is no doubt that, for example, more of the piano has moved into the listening space - so to speak. Currently, I don't want to upset the equilibrium of my setup because the balance (with decent recordings) is at a sweet spot (to my tastes/ears). That requires noise abatement that is very neutral and doesn't add its own voice.

 

[ssfas]

As an audiophile for 40+ years, I would say that my priorities have changed over the years. Excessive reading of HP's writings in TAS led me to spend an inordinate amount of time of what I now consider silly pastimes like imaging and sound staging. When I go to a concert (and I have attended tens of thousands of live concerts all over the world, due to a lot of international travel), the last thing I am concerned about is imaging or sound staging. You "hear the music" and revel in the "The Absolute Sound" (in this, HP was absolutely right, although he went off on a tangent when it came to describing hifi systems). Having owned many systems, and sunk a minor fortune into them (which if I had bought some tech stock 30+ years ago would make me a millionaire many times over!), what I have learned from experience is that there is no perfect system and no perfect way to enjoy a system. I ended up having 4-5 systems in my house of varying degrees of sophistication, and enjoy all of them, from the humble Quad ESL 57 that's 50+ years old and works perfectly, to a massive 9' pair of Soundlab G9-7c's that's my latest loudspeaker acquisition. The SL won't work in spaces that the 57's will and they both do different things in different ways. The same goes for tube and solid state components, and I consider it an absolute waste of time to pontificate on "What's Best" (that's about as silly as a question that asks who the best composer is, or who the best singer is, or the best pianist). Life's too short to waste on meaningless questions, for which there are no answers.

So, now, each evening I play music and listen, to music, not sound staging, not imaging, nor depth or any of the silly audiophile notions that I used to so love doing in my youth. I enjoy mono vinyl records from the 1930s just as much (and often more so) than the latest whizbang DSD recordings. I always keep J. Gordon Holt's law in mind -- the better the recording, the worse the musical performance generally is. I have rarely found exceptions to Holt's law. The recordings I enjoy most are often poorly recorded (e.g., classic jazz is often mono mixed into stereo).

I have found it useful to simply walk around my large listening room, which connects to the adjoining kitchen and dining room, while playing music. I get exercise, and enjoy the music. I don't sit with my butt glued to my listening chair. I can't imagine anything more silly than doing that. Yet, I did exactly that in my youth, and wasted many hours doing that. As you get older, you hopefully get wiser!

As someone who has also been to a lot of live music, most of it classical/acoustic, I also find the idea of "what's best" slightly deranged because some of the most marvellous musical experiences take place in the most unlikely of venues. We have a whole summer festival on the second floor of a multi-level car park, from soloists like Johan Dalene below, but also full orchestras and dance, in the beautiful St Martin's-in-the-fields, which may look lovely but in the winter is freezing cold and the benches are hard, and in restaurants, like Victoria Mullova and her son Mischa Mullov-Abbado below. Of course there are lots of lovely venues, mostly the Royal Opera House, but you can have rubbish shows at the best venues.

Imaging is an audio construct. Of course you don't want to listen to two point sources of sound, but we are way past that. We watch as well as listen to live music and the imaging is - literally - done by sight. We can see the interplay in a string quartet and our brain locates the sound from sight, vastly better than it can do from the best stereo system. It is often composed and performed with the visual aspect in mind. That is not the case with opera and ballet, when the orchestra usually cannot be seen, although for musical effect sometimes they are brought on stage.

Whenever I see pictures of $1m audio systems, I think that if I had that amount of money I'd just go to a show every night and probably not have a hifi. I know a couple of people who do exactly that.

 

[amey01]

Many here think the hobby is purely subjective but there are some objective attributes that one can assign to a music reproduction system. For example, one system can objectively image better than another. Agree/disagree?

Agree - no, it's not a subjective hobby.

Music is very much subjective and emotional.

Hi-fi is not. Reason: There is no voodoo going on with hi-fi - there is a finite input (a single waveform).

So, we know (and can easily and accurately define) what we put in.
The system can do no more than process what we put into it.
We can easily and accurately measure and define what we get out
We can compare what comes out with what we put in.

.......and it's as simple as that!

The system can't do more than re-create what is put into it. And it's all freely available, open-knowledge. And well understood information.

Don't conflate the technical side (a simple waveform and nothing else) with the emotional side (yeah, music conjures up all sorts of feelings and emotions). They are two different things.

 

[Al M.]

As someone who has also been to a lot of live music, most of it classical/acoustic, I also find the idea of "what's best" slightly deranged because some of the most marvellous musical experiences take place in the most unlikely of venues. We have a whole summer festival on the second floor of a multi-level car park, from soloists like Johan Dalene below, but also full orchestras and dance, in the beautiful St Martin's-in-the-fields, which may look lovely but in the winter is freezing cold and the benches are hard, and in restaurants, like Victoria Mullova and her son Mischa Mullov-Abbado below. Of course there are lots of lovely venues, mostly the Royal Opera House, but you can have rubbish shows at the best venues.

Imaging is an audio construct. Of course you don't want to listen to two point sources of sound, but we are way past that. We watch as well as listen to live music and the imaging is - literally - done by sight. We can see the interplay in a string quartet and our brain locates the sound from sight, vastly better than it can do from the best stereo system. It is often composed and performed with the visual aspect in mind. That is not the case with opera and ballet, when the orchestra usually cannot be seen, although for musical effect sometimes they are brought on stage.

Whenever I see pictures of $1m audio systems, I think that if I had that amount of money I'd just go to a show every night and probably not have a hifi. I know a couple of people who do exactly that

Nice post. I don't quite agree that I would exchange my stereo for concerts every night. The stereo allows me to hear performances of pieces that I love which are rarely heard live, yet in a reproduction that, to my perception, reminds me of being in a concert hall (no, it's not the same).

Also, I can play that performance over and over, so that I can actually study the music. Listening to a piece a number of times on my stereo is also the way I like to prepare myself for a live performance of it.

Live performances have their place, and so has a stereo.

 

[TonyW]

Let’s look at the life cycle of a Stereo Receiver made in the late 1970’s- early 80s. That receiver new was at its highest status- on someone’s living room shelf. In a few years we might find that receiver in a teenager’s bedroom or in a dorm room. Eventually, that receiver is sitting on a garage shelf making background music and finally it is taking up space in a landfill- or shredded in a recycle center. 99% of all electronics follows this nearly linear decline from prized new possession to landfill, as most products have since the beginning of the Industrial Age. But there’s that 1%. That 1% that for some reason might start on the path of decline but then raises in stature to become a classic. That 1% that is now economically viable to repair, refurbish or restore. If manufacturers could measure, quantify or define that property, well wouldn’t they be in the money.

Hifi is more art than science. If measurements and computer modeling could completely define and optimize a product then we would be down to one speaker by now- one amp, one DAC, one turntable, one phono cartridge. Instead we have more speaker designs, more turntables and DACs today than ever before. Paint colors can be measured and quantified so that paint manufacturers today can reproduce a particular color repeatedly and consistently. But those measurements cannot predict which color will be the most popular or why. Subjectivity is the final say in just about all things connected to or related to people.

In the hifi world music is the means to listening to our hifi rigs. Music is the means- not the end for listening to our hifi’s. There, I said it twice. Yes, the intention is to make our hifi rig the means for listening to our music. That is my goal too. But that is not what happens. We get caught up in the gear and we listen to the gear. Then we get bored and feel the need to upgrade something in our gear. Before you dismiss me, look at your playlist on Roon. How many songs have you played 50+ times in the past year or two? Or how about listing all of your record albums that you have played maybe just 3 or 4 times since you have owned them. Might be a big list, right? I know it is. I have about 1300 record albums. I’d say over the years I am down to a a hundred or so, maybe that I could say have been played over the past few years. Think about it: If someone comes over to hear our stereo what’s the first thing you play? Is it a popular song from 1964? No. Elvis? (I’m thinking the song Can’t Help Falling in Love) No. It is something not so much about music as it is to show off our system. After a few minutes as our captive begins to squirm maybe we ask them what they would like to hear. And they ask to hear some Country hit song from 1994.

The best thing that has happened in Audio for me is Qobuz. I forget about the gear, sometimes, and just explore and enjoy the music. The sound is great, the music is great and before I know it, I missed dinner time.

Measure that why don’t you.

 

[TonyW]

The entertainment industry has for decades tried to measure and define what shows, movies, songs will be hits and generate big returns. I guess they are successful, to a degree since they are still in business. By the 1930s, the movie industry was in its stride. Every studio was cranking out about one movie per week to satisfy America’s voracious appetite for entertainment. If one movie from the 1940s stands out from all others it has to be Casablanca. What a classic. It was just another movie of the week being cranked out by the mill but something clicked with the story, the writing, the actors. That unique quality that has made it a timeless classic. Since I’m up I think I will go watch it now.

 

[ssfas]

Nice post. I don't quite agree that I would exchange my stereo for concerts every night. The stereo allows me to hear performances of pieces that I love which are rarely heard live, yet in a reproduction that, to my perception, reminds me of being in a concert hall (no, it's not the same).

Also, I can play that performance over and over, so that I can actually study the music. Listening to a piece a number of times on my stereo is also the way I like to prepare myself for a live performance of it.

Live performances have their place, and so has a stereo.

It is an often overlooked feature of recorded music that it invites multiple listening of the same performance, and it is of course identical each time. I think it is that that drives audiophiles to start focusing more on the sound quality than the music.

We mainly go to contemporary dance, and the presumption is that the vast majority of the audience will only see the work once, and usually without prior knowledge of the content. In part because many of the choreographers and companies travel the world and second chances might only arise years later. I could go to works by many choreographers, whether Sharon Eyal, Anna Teresa de Kaesmaker, Pina Bausch, Crystal Pite, Lin Hai-Min and dozens of others and easily know whose work I'm watching, just as most people would recognise Beethoven or Chopin, even if they did not know the individual piece. However, most of the experience is the pleasure or pain of a new experience.

Obviously there are some pieces we've seen dozens of times, whether McMillan's Romeo & Juliet (my favourite ballet/music combination) or Beethoven's piano sonatas. I once heard Igor Levit play the last three sonatas twice on the same evening. There were differences, it was not like listening to the same recording twice.

Imagine a world where new recordings self-destructed and we could only listen to them once. We would likely focus far more on the music than the audio quality. Otherwise, if the focus is the sound quality, the musical experience would be lost and the recording effectively becomes a test signal. Which is probably how some people like it.

Of course the history of music, dance and opera is that there is a constant churn of new work, and the more popular works become standard repertoire, usually by the greats like McMillan and Balanchine. Much output never gets a second chance and some composers have a lifetime of fame and then disappear entirely. Then there are live shows that are not available in recordings. So recorded music only provides a fairly narrow perspective.

 

[microstrip]

As someone who has also been to a lot of live music, most of it classical/acoustic, I also find the idea of "what's best" slightly deranged because some of the most marvellous musical experiences take place in the most unlikely of venues. We have a whole summer festival on the second floor of a multi-level car park, from soloists like Johan Dalene below, but also full orchestras and dance, in the beautiful St Martin's-in-the-fields, which may look lovely but in the winter is freezing cold and the benches are hard, and in restaurants, like Victoria Mullova and her son Mischa Mullov-Abbado below. Of course there are lots of lovely venues, mostly the Royal Opera House, but you can have rubbish shows at the best venues.

IMO what's best is just an extremely successful brand name for our forum.

Sound reproduction is a separate entity in the musical experience. I think its value should be accessed independently of the real experiences.

Imaging is an audio construct. Of course you don't want to listen to two point sources of sound, but we are way past that. We watch as well as listen to live music and the imaging is - literally - done by sight.

Surely. Sound engineers manipulate recordings to help our brain recreating the image in the absence of sight.

We can see the interplay in a string quartet and our brain locates the sound from sight, vastly better than it can do from the best stereo system. It is often composed and performed with the visual aspect in mind.

Nice to read. I also have addressed this aspect - interplay is fundamental for my listening - it is why I favour high resolution and micro dynamics.

That is not the case with opera and ballet, when the orchestra usually cannot be seen, although for musical effect sometimes they are brought on stage.

It seems that in the absence of image we need some orchestral staging. For me, ballet and opera need real image - in this aspect the home theatre wins!

Whenever I see pictures of $1m audio systems, I think that if I had that amount of money I'd just go to a show every night and probably not have a hifi. I know a couple of people who do exactly that.

Why not having $2m ?

Thanks for a thought provoking post!

 

[Al M.]

It is an often overlooked feature of recorded music that it invites multiple listening of the same performance, and it is of course identical each time. I think it is that that drives audiophiles to start focusing more on the sound quality than the music.

Not necessarily. Multiple listening can also help to study the music. I want to understand music, so that my emotional enjoyment of it deepens.

As I wrote elsewhere:

"I do not go out of my way to explore all intellectual aspects of the music. Yet to a certain extent, for me personally emotional impact and intellectual understanding go hand in hand. My favorite example, out of many possible ones, to explain why this is the case: If you do not intellectually recognize a variation of a melody as such, that is, in its relation to the original melody, how can you emotionally appreciate its beauty – as variation, not just as melody in itself?

"Understanding of music thus can considerably heighten its emotional impact. The human experience is a whole. One cannot neatly compartmentalize it into 'rational' and 'emotional' parts. Attempts to do so miss out on the richness of life."

_________________

I wrote the above especially with classical and contemporary classical instrumental music in mind, but it extends to other music as well.

 

[ssfas]

Not necessarily. Multiple listening can also help to study the music. I want to understand music, so that my emotional enjoyment of it deepens.

As I wrote elsewhere:

"I do not go out of my way to explore all intellectual aspects of the music. Yet to a certain extent, for me personally emotional impact and intellectual understanding go hand in hand. My favorite example, out of many possible ones, to explain why this is the case: If you do not intellectually recognize a variation of a melody as such, that is, in its relation to the original melody, how can you emotionally appreciate its beauty – as variation, not just as melody in itself?

"Understanding of music thus can considerably heighten its emotional impact. The human experience is a whole. One cannot neatly compartmentalize it into 'rational' and 'emotional' parts. Attempts to do so miss out on the richness of life."

_________________

I wrote the above especially with classical and contemporary classical instrumental music in mind, but it extends to other music as well.

It will depend on the extent of your musical knowledge. I remember going to a masterclass given by Andras Schiff. He played a full programme one evening including pieces by Janacek and the masterclass was the next evening. There was this little arpeggio in the piece "In the mists" which he played with effortless beauty, and his poor student/victim just couldn't get it. I wonder how many people would have appreciated that in the performance. Certainly not me.

There are lots of arguments about how educated the audience need or ought to be. I remember someone quoting Jascha Heifetz on the subject of Orthodox Judaism. He was not an orthodox jew, but his Lithuanian jewish background was in his core. He said that whilst there may appear to be external limitations of religion (in music, the score), within it there are endless possibilities. On the other hand, I went to a talk by Alfred Brendel and his attitude was that you play what's written in the score and that's it. It might explain why he hardly ever played Bach or Baroque music generally.

Bach is often referred to as intellectual music, which it may be, but it affects people in ways they have difficulty understanding. There are pieces in Back, and I can think of a few in the St Matthew Passion, which are as profoundly emotional as anything from the Romantics.

There's a ballet called Requiem by Kenneth McMillan, created for his recently deceased friend/colleague John Cranko, using Faure's Requiem and based on Blake's paintings for Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost. It's an absolutely shattering piece. I defy anyone with a pulse not to be profoundly moved by it. The performing arts can do that. Stereo rarely can.

 

[ssfas]

Why not having $2m ?

I take the point. You don't get a lot for $1m these days.

 

[treitz3]

Nice post. I don't quite agree that I would exchange my stereo for concerts every night. <snip>

Live performances have their place, and so has a stereo.

Yeah, and it's not like I can buy a ticket today so I can enjoy a Little Feat concert, or run out to go see Elvis, Millage Gilbert, Dizzy Gillespie, Micheal Jackson or Bob Marley.

Tom

 

[hopkins]

It will depend on the extent of your musical knowledge. I remember going to a masterclass given by Andras Schiff. He played a full programme one evening including pieces by Janacek and the masterclass was the next evening. There was this little arpeggio in the piece "In the mists" which he played with effortless beauty, and his poor student/victim just couldn't get it. I wonder how many people would have appreciated that in the performance. Certainly not me.

There are lots of arguments about how educated the audience need or ought to be. I remember someone quoting Jascha Heifetz on the subject of Orthodox Judaism. He was not an orthodox jew, but his Lithuanian jewish background was in his core. He said that whilst there may appear to be external limitations of religion (in music, the score), within it there are endless possibilities. On the other hand, I went to a talk by Alfred Brendel and his attitude was that you play what's written in the score and that's it. It might explain why he hardly ever played Bach or Baroque music generally.

Bach is often referred to as intellectual music, which it may be, but it affects people in ways they have difficulty understanding. There are pieces in Back, and I can think of a few in the St Matthew Passion, which are as profoundly emotional as anything from the Romantics.

There's a ballet called Requiem by Kenneth McMillan, created for his recently deceased friend/colleague John Cranko, using Faure's Requiem and based on Blake's paintings for Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost. It's an absolutely shattering piece. I defy anyone with a pulse not to be profoundly moved by it. The performing arts can do that. Stereo rarely can.

I often listen repeatedly to tracks, or even a segment of a track, that I find "fascinating", for lack of a better word.

Here is a good example:

In another post I mentioned a video in which Cecil McLoren Salvant comments on some music, and I was interested to hear that she also mentions playing some tracks over and over again for weeks! I'm going to assume she is not an "audiophile"

I'm not sure musical education changes any of this. I grew up playing piano, but I have very little theoretical knowledge. When I read music criticism that relies heavily on "technical" analysis, I am usually lost.

 

[microstrip]

There's a ballet called Requiem by Kenneth McMillan, created for his recently deceased friend/colleague John Cranko, using Faure's Requiem and based on Blake's paintings for Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost. It's an absolutely shattering piece. I defy anyone with a pulse not to be profoundly moved by it. The performing arts can do that. Stereo rarely can.

In fact, modern forms of art are one the competitors the high-end must face.

I become attracted to modern ballet in the late 70's after going to a performance by the Maurice Bejart Company Ballet of the 20th Century and it was non return trip. In fact it opened my eyes to other forms of modern art as well.

Modern ballet can be as intoxicating as music - sometimes when zapping on the TV classical channel MEZZO I find a modern ballet that looks interesting, rewind to start and the sleeping hours reduce drastically ...

I have watched McMillan Romeo and Juliet - half way between classical and modern IMO, I have to look for a good performance the Requiem - it looks promising.

BTW, one of my retirement projects is finishing the reading of the La Divina Commedia, unfortunately interrupted a few years ago. It sounds like music when well said in italian:

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
mi ritrovai per una selva oscura,
ché la diritta via era smarrita.
Ahi quanto a dir qual era è cosa dura!

Art is a never-ending path ...

 

[ssfas]

In fact, modern forms of art are one the competitors the high-end must face.

I become attracted to modern ballet in the late 70's after going to a performance by the Maurice Bejart Company Ballet of the 20th Century and it was non return trip. In fact it opened my eyes to other forms of modern art as well.

Modern ballet can be as intoxicating as music - sometimes when zapping on the TV classical channel MEZZO I find a modern ballet that looks interesting, rewind to start and the sleeping hours reduce drastically ...

I have watched McMillan Romeo and Juliet - half way between classical and modern IMO, I have to look for a good performance the Requiem - it looks promising.

BTW, one of my retirement projects is finishing the reading of the La Divina Commedia, unfortunately interrupted a few years ago. It sounds like music when well said in italian:

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
mi ritrovai per una selva oscura,
ché la diritta via era smarrita.
Ahi quanto a dir qual era è cosa dura!

Art is a never-ending path ...

My wife grew up with Bejart in Belgium. She started her classical training in 1981. Ballet of the 20th Century performed at La Monnaie, 30 minutes from her home. It's quite a nice theatre, a bit small. My pivotal moment for modern dance was seeing Sylvie Guillem and Laurent Hilaire perform Forsythe's In The Middle Somewhat Elevated in a single performance at Covent Garden in February 1992. It pretty much changed dance generally.

Elevated visions: how William Forsythe changed the face of dance

Forsythe’s 1987 ballet In the Middle, Somewhat Elevated was commissioned by Rudolf Nureyev and starred the young Sylvie Guillem – and it electrified the ballet world. So what made this work so revolutionary? A new revival by the English National Ballet looks set to provide the answer. By Sarah...

www.theguardian.com

Wonderful music by Thom Willems. Bejart made Bolero for Guillem at Paris in the late 1980s and she was still performing it almost 30 years later. There is a slightly deviate and rather more wonderful piece for Guillem by Russell Maliphant called Two.

I think more music was created for dance in the 20th century than for any other art form. Much of my exposure to new music comes from dance.

 

[hopkins]

My pivotal moment for modern dance was seeing Sylvie Guillem and Laurent Hilaire perform Forsythe's In The Middle Somewhat Elevated in a single performance at Covent Garden in February 1992. It pretty much changed dance generally.

Watching Forsythe's "In the Middle..." at the Paris Opera around that time was indeed a memorable moment. Too bad there aren't any quality videos of this performance...

 

[Amir]

I started enjoying the hobby a lot more when I stopped reading the silly magazines. The writers tell you to focus on bits and pieces of the music and hi-fi sound attributes. They want you to chase individual things and are always telling you to upgrade. It’s a complete waste of time. The interests of the magazines don’t align with the interest of the hobbyist If all the hobbyist wants to do is assemble a good system that allows him to enjoy his music collection.

+1