What's Best? The Absolute Sound or today's High End Systems?

Back in the day of Harry Pearson and the evolution of the High End Audio, Pearson, in the pages of The Absolute Sound, defined the "absolute sound" as unamplified acoustic instruments and/or vocals performed in a real space, usually a concert hall. The evaluation of reproduction systems (HiFi equipment) was a based on a subjective comparison to the "absolute sound." The best systems came the closest to the sound of a live performance in a real space.

Over the last several years I have been a regular attendee of live music in San Francisco at Davies Symphony Hall and The Metropolitan Opera House. I have come to the realization that, in my opinion, the best sound and musical enjoyment happens at home with my highly evolved system, and I question weather it's worth the expense and effort to attend, other than for the occasional performance of a favorite artist.

I've tried various seating choices, always seeking the best. But more and more I have come to the conclusion that the best seat in the house (at least sonically) is at home! Do other WBF members share this view?

 

Appropriate to your referencing the Copland passage and talking about 'letting go' ...

In his book "What to Listen for in Music", composer Copland describes how a fundamental aspect of enjoying music takes place on a “sensuous plane,” “a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music.” This is the "innocence of the intuituve amateur." I'd say we may be alchemists in terms of creating systems, but not in terms of listening - the innocence comes from not making or causing the "attractive state" - but allowing it to happen. Surely quality reproduction helps. Having "the preparation of the trained professional" helps us appreciate the creations of of Bach and Stravinsky on a different less transitory plane.

Completely... and yes our alchemy is just in bringing the system together. With listening having understanding and experiencing are such very different things. Listening is the pure passive. It is just being still in the centre, kind of aware, absorbed into the fluid and being completely dissolved into it and taken along with the flow of the music. It is just letting go of any sense of separation and there is no sense of difference between us and everything. So for me music is that most complete and essential flowing communication.

 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012
10,000 Maniacs

A lot of you aren't going to like this post. Its not about Natalie Merchants old band, but the amount of time it is acknowledged it takes to become very proficient in an art or discipline, and that is roughly 10,000 hours. Its by no means definitive, but seems to be surprisingly accurate for many endeavours.
It is certainly true for the art of critical listening of high fidelity reproduction of recorded music.
10,000 hours is about 13 years of 2 hours per day. Very few people get to listen for those sorts of time periods, and if you can only manage an hour a day it will take a quarter of a century to get to the 10K mark.
Just as much a skill, the art of critical listening is an evolutionary process, you cant go from begining in hi-fi and owning your first hi fi to having good analytical skills and the knowledge to listen honestly and illusion-free overnight.
That's the hard part- you might have 20Hz-20KHz hearing , but unless you can seperate objectivity from subjectivity and honestly process what you are hearing into something approaching truthfullness, you are a long way from the ability to critique the reproduction of music.
There are 10,000 maniacs on every audio forum giving their opinion on what is the "best" this and the "best" that. These opinions are pretty much based on how far along the 10,000 hour path they are, and the stages of evolution goes something like this:
Early on the hi fi path is the "loudness" stage- big bass , big treble. The bass is a dead giveaway , 100Hz boom gets mistaken for sub -bass, and more is better. The low damping factor of low feedback or SE tube amps gives a boomy , inarticulate bass that impress's the beginner. If they use subs they tune them into the >50Hz region to add even more bass boom into the mix.
Eventually it wears a bit thin (and it is despite the boom) , and 2-3 thousand hours later they discover "beautiful" music, or at least their interpretation of what it is.
They decide that this is how all music should sound , how all equipment should sound, and death to all who dont hear it the way they do.
The midrange becomes very important, and female vocals have to have a richness and warmth that is euphonic and pleasant.
Very subjective based, and many get to this stage and stay there permanentely, which is good for them, unfortunately many turn into fundamentalists who don't like to see evolution continue , and will turn to the forums to preach their gospel.
Fortunately many do come to realize that it is all subjective, that everyone hears differently, in different environments, and that their is no "best".
But this doesn't stop them from seeking and this is the dangerous and expensive era for the audiophile, with a new piece of equipment every other month.
Eventually this also becomes a bit tiring and our poor audiophile wonders whats next?
He/She reads the forums and sees a zillion opinions about why this class A amp is better than this class D amp, why flac files sound inferior to wav files, why Sabre dac chips sound better or inferior to 30 year old NOS dac chips.
Again, every opinion is subjective, every opinion is just one persons interpretation, what is the truth?
Unfortunately, in this game it is impossible to completely remove subjectivity from objectivity, just as you cannot declare a glass of wine or a painting better than another, it always comes down to it being simply opinion, it may become a consensus, or acknowledged as the rule, but it will always be open to dissent.
However, up towards the 10,000 hour mark, something clicks and they realize they are listening to a RECORDING, its just a recording of the musical event, its not the actual event itself, but a reproduction of the music played at that point of time, which includes the sound of the equipment used to record it, the ability of the recording engineers to reproduce it as accurately as possible , and the ability of the mastering engineer to accurately transfer the recording to the medium you will ultimately use in your equipment.
You can never hear the original and actual music, the best you can hope for is an ACCURATE reproduction of the music. If you dont like an accurate reproduction and want to use equipment that is "warmer", then the music you listen to in your home is your interpretation of the event, it is less accurate. You are in the land of subjectivity, and while you will hear things as you like them to be heard, you will never hear recordings at their very best (and worst) .
Objectivity and accuracy go hand in hand, the very finest and the very worst are recognised by accurate ears, accurate equipment , and most important of all an honest and open mind that can differentiate what a recording actually is, and can hear it as the recording, not as an interpretation that suits your ideal.
The truth, or at best a near truth, is the highest level of hi-fidelity.
It is no coincidence that at the upper echelons of hi-fi gear , accuracy is the key distinguishing factor, realism can only come from accuracy.
Without fail, all the 10,000 hours+ audiophiles I've met desire accurate recordings and equipment, they've heard all the various flavours of equipment, recognise it as colouration and have the ability to filter or adapt to these colourations in order to hear the recording as it is. Although they may own coloured equipment and systems they strive for accurate equipment above all else.
They can enjoy the sound of a SE tube amp into a high efficiency speaker but know that it is far from accurate . They can listen to to the very latest high technology dac chip , and appreciate that the resolution of it will show up most recordings as less than ideal.
But when a musical event is played with true passion and ability and the recording is faithfully transferred to your accurate equipment, then the true beauty of the performance is revealed, and you are closer to the event."

Posted by Supratek at 11:03 AM

Mick Maloney is the man behind Supratek Amplifiers. Supratek is a small concern based in Margaret River, WA and exports all over the world. It is fair to say that Supratek punches above its weight - there are very few owners (there are only so many that Mick can hand-build, so there are only so many he can sell). Supratek does not advertise. There is no dealer network. The asking price is not low. Despite all these normally fatal obstacles, the company has grown from nothing to exporting all over the world. The growth seems to be solely due to word of mouth recommendation, which is testament to the quality of the product.

 

You can never hear the original and actual music, the best you can hope for is an ACCURATE reproduction of the music

Okay. Granted we can't hear the original, what counts as accurate? Or put differently, what is 'accurate'?

Btw, when issuing long quotes it's nice to include a reference to where you took them from.

 

“. . . the best you can hope for is an ACCURATE reproduction of the music.”

The selection of the goal is as subjective as the sonics which subjectively get you there.

Without acknowledging the alternatives you have selected “accuracy” (whatever that means) as your personal, subjective goal.

“Accuracy,” which we characterize as “reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,” is but one of at least four possible high-end audio hobby objectives, the other three of which are:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

3) create a sound that seems live.

These objectives are not mutually exclusive, and an audiophile might seek a combination of them.

 

“. . . the best you can hope for is an ACCURATE reproduction of the music.”

The selection of the goal is as subjective as the sonics which subjectively get you there.

Without acknowledging the alternatives you have selected “accuracy” (whatever that means) as your personal, subjective goal.

“Accuracy,” which we characterize as “reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,” is but one of at least four possible high-end audio hobby objectives, the other three of which are:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

3) create a sound that seems live.

Ron, point 1) is impossible, since recreating the sound of an original live event begs the question of: heard by whom? The microphones? They don't hear like humans and also are located differently than ears. For starters, microphones are often hung from a ceiling or are otherwise located above the instruments. Yet since 1) also seems similar in goal setting to 3), I would replace 1) and 3) with just 3). The latter seems a reasonable objective.

 

I appreciate the points, Al. But I, for one, I’m not open to re-debating these definitions and objectives. We collectively spent a huge amount of time and effort on the objectives and what each of them means a couple of years ago.

“Recreate the sound of an original musical event” is an objective, not a command. You correctly raise a question about as heard by home or by what?

“Create a sound that seems live” if I remember correctly was added by Peter. I still agree with his addition as it is an arguably separate objective.

 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012
10,000 Maniacs

A lot of you aren't going to like this post. Its not about Natalie Merchants old band, but the amount of time it is acknowledged it takes to become very proficient in an art or discipline, and that is roughly 10,000 hours. Its by no means definitive, but seems to be surprisingly accurate for many endeavours.
It is certainly true for the art of critical listening of high fidelity reproduction of recorded music.
10,000 hours is about 13 years of 2 hours per day. Very few people get to listen for those sorts of time periods, and if you can only manage an hour a day it will take a quarter of a century to get to the 10K mark.
Just as much a skill, the art of critical listening is an evolutionary process, you cant go from begining in hi-fi and owning your first hi fi to having good analytical skills and the knowledge to listen honestly and illusion-free overnight.
That's the hard part- you might have 20Hz-20KHz hearing , but unless you can seperate objectivity from subjectivity and honestly process what you are hearing into something approaching truthfullness, you are a long way from the ability to critique the reproduction of music.
There are 10,000 maniacs on every audio forum giving their opinion on what is the "best" this and the "best" that. These opinions are pretty much based on how far along the 10,000 hour path they are, and the stages of evolution goes something like this:
Early on the hi fi path is the "loudness" stage- big bass , big treble. The bass is a dead giveaway , 100Hz boom gets mistaken for sub -bass, and more is better. The low damping factor of low feedback or SE tube amps gives a boomy , inarticulate bass that impress's the beginner. If they use subs they tune them into the >50Hz region to add even more bass boom into the mix.
Eventually it wears a bit thin (and it is despite the boom) , and 2-3 thousand hours later they discover "beautiful" music, or at least their interpretation of what it is.
They decide that this is how all music should sound , how all equipment should sound, and death to all who dont hear it the way they do.
The midrange becomes very important, and female vocals have to have a richness and warmth that is euphonic and pleasant.
Very subjective based, and many get to this stage and stay there permanentely, which is good for them, unfortunately many turn into fundamentalists who don't like to see evolution continue , and will turn to the forums to preach their gospel.
Fortunately many do come to realize that it is all subjective, that everyone hears differently, in different environments, and that their is no "best".
But this doesn't stop them from seeking and this is the dangerous and expensive era for the audiophile, with a new piece of equipment every other month.
Eventually this also becomes a bit tiring and our poor audiophile wonders whats next?
He/She reads the forums and sees a zillion opinions about why this class A amp is better than this class D amp, why flac files sound inferior to wav files, why Sabre dac chips sound better or inferior to 30 year old NOS dac chips.
Again, every opinion is subjective, every opinion is just one persons interpretation, what is the truth?
Unfortunately, in this game it is impossible to completely remove subjectivity from objectivity, just as you cannot declare a glass of wine or a painting better than another, it always comes down to it being simply opinion, it may become a consensus, or acknowledged as the rule, but it will always be open to dissent.
However, up towards the 10,000 hour mark, something clicks and they realize they are listening to a RECORDING, its just a recording of the musical event, its not the actual event itself, but a reproduction of the music played at that point of time, which includes the sound of the equipment used to record it, the ability of the recording engineers to reproduce it as accurately as possible , and the ability of the mastering engineer to accurately transfer the recording to the medium you will ultimately use in your equipment.
You can never hear the original and actual music, the best you can hope for is an ACCURATE reproduction of the music. If you dont like an accurate reproduction and want to use equipment that is "warmer", then the music you listen to in your home is your interpretation of the event, it is less accurate. You are in the land of subjectivity, and while you will hear things as you like them to be heard, you will never hear recordings at their very best (and worst) .
Objectivity and accuracy go hand in hand, the very finest and the very worst are recognised by accurate ears, accurate equipment , and most important of all an honest and open mind that can differentiate what a recording actually is, and can hear it as the recording, not as an interpretation that suits your ideal.
The truth, or at best a near truth, is the highest level of hi-fidelity.
It is no coincidence that at the upper echelons of hi-fi gear , accuracy is the key distinguishing factor, realism can only come from accuracy.
Without fail, all the 10,000 hours+ audiophiles I've met desire accurate recordings and equipment, they've heard all the various flavours of equipment, recognise it as colouration and have the ability to filter or adapt to these colourations in order to hear the recording as it is. Although they may own coloured equipment and systems they strive for accurate equipment above all else.
They can enjoy the sound of a SE tube amp into a high efficiency speaker but know that it is far from accurate . They can listen to to the very latest high technology dac chip , and appreciate that the resolution of it will show up most recordings as less than ideal.
But when a musical event is played with true passion and ability and the recording is faithfully transferred to your accurate equipment, then the true beauty of the performance is revealed, and you are closer to the event."

Posted by Supratek at 11:03 AM

Mick Maloney is the man behind Supratek Amplifiers. Supratek is a small concern based in Margaret River, WA and exports all over the world. It is fair to say that Supratek punches above its weight - there are very few owners (there are only so many that Mick can hand-build, so there are only so many he can sell). Supratek does not advertise. There is no dealer network. The asking price is not low. Despite all these normally fatal obstacles, the company has grown from nothing to exporting all over the world. The growth seems to be solely due to word of mouth recommendation, which is testament to the quality of the product.

Unfortunately not sure I agree with any of this really. Grouping everyone into just one prescribed framework of perceptual development isn’t reflective of any neuroscience modelling nor in life at all in general. Any correlations in learner patterns is more likely to be held in broad conceptual and thematic ways rather than just in any one concrete mileage based pathway. The magic 10k hours to some critical listening cycle of development also doesn’t really have any data or evidence to really corroborate it other than someone anecdotally nominated a time frame. Where are even the benchmarks for competence in critical listening. How is it validated at all?

Perceptual development for learners varies so very greatly, it isn’t about the exact number of the hours but varies based on a range of capacities and functions that come out of prior learning, experience and already developed individual pathways to understanding.

I know guys with well over 10k hours of music time up that have little or no real consciousness about what is going on at all.

In the end there is no default badge of merit that comes with having done a prerequisite amount of work, this isn’t just a directed skill, there is higher order synthesis involved. In terms of understanding we never stop growing. 10k is no more of a landmark than 50k hours...

Ultimately I don’t believe it is all about critical listening in itself at any rate (as if that has much singular and summative meaning on its own) but if we are talking music as much as sonics and rather than us just being some sonic tool (and many of us can act that way at times) it is in developing music appreciation to help consciously validate the experience and that is a lifetime journey that just can’t end and isn’t achieved just through critical analysis of itself at any rate.

Perceptual states vary and critical analysis is only ever a phase in understanding and is one of the number of perceptual states that is a temporary state within a quick change transition within a framework of other states. The greater cycle of consciousness itself is yet to be fully described.

How long it takes to work through all phases and states of being from my observations over years of teaching and assessing for learners to develop some holistic understanding (working with many very varied adult learners) the path in both time and direction is considerably different for all... we all have our own path and that is where the work comes, uncovering who we are in the process of absorbing everything else. If it was a simple a case of putting in the hours but not also the work then it would be an easy and rather cheap badge to get.

 

I appreciate the points, Al. But I, for one, I’m not open to re-debating these definitions and objectives. We collectively spent a huge amount of time and effort on the objectives and what each of them means a couple of years ago.

“Recreate the sound of an original musical event” is an objective, not a command. You correctly raise a question about as heard by home or by what?

“Create a sound that seems live” if I remember correctly was added by Peter. I still agree with his addition as it is an arguably separate objective.

Sorry Ron, but a couple of years ago several of us, including me, considered that such division was artificial and could not describe the objectives of the high-end in general. My objections were not exactly the same, but in some aspects similar to those of Al.

 

. . . Grouping everyone into just one prescribed framework of perceptual development isn’t reflective of any neuroscience modelling nor life at all in general. Any correlations in learner patterns is more likely to be held in broad conceptual and thematic ways rather than just in any one concrete mileage based pathway. The magic 10k hours to some critical listening cycle of development also doesn’t really have any data or evidence to really corroborate it other than someone anecdotally nominated a time frame. Where are even the benchmarks for competence in critical listening.

. . .

I love this!

 

Sorry Ron, but a couple of years ago several of us, including me, considered that such division was artificial and could not describe the objectives of the high-end in general. My objections were not exactly the same, but in some aspects similar to those of Al.

Dear Francisco,

Fair enough. I never said it was a unanimous vote.

 

I appreciate the points, Al. But I, for one, I’m not open to re-debating these definitions and objectives. We collectively spent a huge amount of time and effort on the objectives and what each of them means a couple of years ago.

“Recreate the sound of an original musical event” is an objective, not a command. You correctly raise a question about as heard by home or by what?

“Create a sound that seems live” if I remember correctly was added by Peter. I still agree with his addition as it is an arguably separate objective.

Ron, I've heard you refer to the exercise previously but only know it as a lengthy effort. Other than the three sentences you cite, I am not familiar with the, er, discussion. I don't want to wade through a long thread that arrives at that conclusion but I'd like to read a succinct definition of each objective.

Are these definitions and objectives rolled up into a single post that makes clear their description? That sure would make a handy sticky you can reference.

 

Okay. Granted we can't hear the original, what counts as accurate? Or put differently, what is 'accurate'?

Btw, when issuing long quotes it's nice to include a reference to where you took them from.

Quoted from: http://supratekaudio.blogspot.com/2012/

 

meistersinger 57 said - "They can enjoy the sound of a SE tube amp into a high efficiency speaker but know that it is far from accurate ."

Some of those single ended based systems have been the most "accurate" and alive sounding systems I have ever heard. Just goes to show you how different we all hear. Horn based systems to me have always sounded more like the real thing. However, I have not heard many that sound great super loud. To me, they sound their best at moderate listening levels.

 

@

Tuesday, July 24, 2012
10,000 Maniacs

A lot of you aren't going to like this post. Its not about Natalie Merchants old band, but the amount of time it is acknowledged it takes to become very proficient in an art or discipline, and that is roughly 10,000 hours. Its by no means definitive, but seems to be surprisingly accurate for many endeavours.
It is certainly true for the art of critical listening of high fidelity reproduction of recorded music.
10,000 hours is about 13 years of 2 hours per day. Very few people get to listen for those sorts of time periods, and if you can only manage an hour a day it will take a quarter of a century to get to the 10K mark.
Just as much a skill, the art of critical listening is an evolutionary process, you cant go from begining in hi-fi and owning your first hi fi to having good analytical skills and the knowledge to listen honestly and illusion-free overnight.
That's the hard part- you might have 20Hz-20KHz hearing , but unless you can seperate objectivity from subjectivity and honestly process what you are hearing into something approaching truthfullness, you are a long way from the ability to critique the reproduction of music.
There are 10,000 maniacs on every audio forum giving their opinion on what is the "best" this and the "best" that. These opinions are pretty much based on how far along the 10,000 hour path they are, and the stages of evolution goes something like this:
Early on the hi fi path is the "loudness" stage- big bass , big treble. The bass is a dead giveaway , 100Hz boom gets mistaken for sub -bass, and more is better. The low damping factor of low feedback or SE tube amps gives a boomy , inarticulate bass that impress's the beginner. If they use subs they tune them into the >50Hz region to add even more bass boom into the mix.
Eventually it wears a bit thin (and it is despite the boom) , and 2-3 thousand hours later they discover "beautiful" music, or at least their interpretation of what it is.
They decide that this is how all music should sound , how all equipment should sound, and death to all who dont hear it the way they do.
The midrange becomes very important, and female vocals have to have a richness and warmth that is euphonic and pleasant.
Very subjective based, and many get to this stage and stay there permanentely, which is good for them, unfortunately many turn into fundamentalists who don't like to see evolution continue , and will turn to the forums to preach their gospel.
Fortunately many do come to realize that it is all subjective, that everyone hears differently, in different environments, and that their is no "best".
But this doesn't stop them from seeking and this is the dangerous and expensive era for the audiophile, with a new piece of equipment every other month.
Eventually this also becomes a bit tiring and our poor audiophile wonders whats next?
He/She reads the forums and sees a zillion opinions about why this class A amp is better than this class D amp, why flac files sound inferior to wav files, why Sabre dac chips sound better or inferior to 30 year old NOS dac chips.
Again, every opinion is subjective, every opinion is just one persons interpretation, what is the truth?
Unfortunately, in this game it is impossible to completely remove subjectivity from objectivity, just as you cannot declare a glass of wine or a painting better than another, it always comes down to it being simply opinion, it may become a consensus, or acknowledged as the rule, but it will always be open to dissent.
However, up towards the 10,000 hour mark, something clicks and they realize they are listening to a RECORDING, its just a recording of the musical event, its not the actual event itself, but a reproduction of the music played at that point of time, which includes the sound of the equipment used to record it, the ability of the recording engineers to reproduce it as accurately as possible , and the ability of the mastering engineer to accurately transfer the recording to the medium you will ultimately use in your equipment.
You can never hear the original and actual music, the best you can hope for is an ACCURATE reproduction of the music. If you dont like an accurate reproduction and want to use equipment that is "warmer", then the music you listen to in your home is your interpretation of the event, it is less accurate. You are in the land of subjectivity, and while you will hear things as you like them to be heard, you will never hear recordings at their very best (and worst) .
Objectivity and accuracy go hand in hand, the very finest and the very worst are recognised by accurate ears, accurate equipment , and most important of all an honest and open mind that can differentiate what a recording actually is, and can hear it as the recording, not as an interpretation that suits your ideal.
The truth, or at best a near truth, is the highest level of hi-fidelity.
It is no coincidence that at the upper echelons of hi-fi gear , accuracy is the key distinguishing factor, realism can only come from accuracy.
Without fail, all the 10,000 hours+ audiophiles I've met desire accurate recordings and equipment, they've heard all the various flavours of equipment, recognise it as colouration and have the ability to filter or adapt to these colourations in order to hear the recording as it is. Although they may own coloured equipment and systems they strive for accurate equipment above all else.
They can enjoy the sound of a SE tube amp into a high efficiency speaker but know that it is far from accurate . They can listen to to the very latest high technology dac chip , and appreciate that the resolution of it will show up most recordings as less than ideal.
But when a musical event is played with true passion and ability and the recording is faithfully transferred to your accurate equipment, then the true beauty of the performance is revealed, and you are closer to the event."

Posted by Supratek at 11:03 AM

Mick Maloney is the man behind Supratek Amplifiers. Supratek is a small concern based in Margaret River, WA and exports all over the world. It is fair to say that Supratek punches above its weight - there are very few owners (there are only so many that Mick can hand-build, so there are only so many he can sell). Supratek does not advertise. There is no dealer network. The asking price is not low. Despite all these normally fatal obstacles, the company has grown from nothing to exporting all over the world. The growth seems to be solely due to word of mouth recommendation, which is testament to the quality of the product.

I had never thought about the 10k outliers theory in audio. It may explain the lightbulb that flashed above my head in a thread I started about not caring about so called neutrality. Thanks for articulating this

 

meistersinger 57 said - "They can enjoy the sound of a SE tube amp into a high efficiency speaker but know that it is far from accurate ."

Some of those single ended based systems have been the most "accurate" and alive sounding systems I have ever heard. Just goes to show you how different we all hear. Horn based systems to me have always sounded more like the real thing. However, I have not heard many that sound great super loud. To me, they sound their best at moderate listening levels.

I see this frequently, "how we all hear differently". Granted physical differences in ear canal shape, differences in age and acuity, etc., I believe we hear more similarly than differently. Where we are different is in terms of preference.

 

I see this frequently, "how we all hear differently". Granted physical differences in ear canal shape, differences in age and acuity, etc., I believe we hear more similarly than differently. Where we are different is in terms of preference.

Well put. Preference I would say both due to listening priorities and perception. We may hear more similarly than differently, but we seem to listen differently.

Different listeners attribute different levels of importance to bass, soundstage, timbral resolution, separation of instruments, fullness or 'neutrality' of tone, rhythm & timing, dynamics, capability of playing loud etc. And when it comes to 'accurate timbre', even among those who have unamplified live music as reference, perceptions differ.

All of this is also the reason why it is so ridiculous and tiresome when some, also at WBF, try to convince everyone that just one type of system is the "right" one, and everything else is inferior.

 

So who came first? Supratek or Malcolm Gladwell?

 

I see this frequently, "how we all hear differently". Granted physical differences in ear canal shape, differences in age and acuity, etc., I believe we hear more similarly than differently. Where we are different is in terms of preference.

Very much so and also perhaps at times in our preferred ways of perceiving.

I knew a guy who had a setup that was based around two crazy big subs with big speakers and soulution gear and for him a very big part of the sound was always how physical it was and how he felt when the wave of sounds hit when the music pumped and the room was fully energised. He’d often drink either several coffees or several bourbons and when he put the system on he’d sit down and brace himself almost like when you see people stiffen when they get on to a roller coaster and prepare themselves for the physical onslaught just before it starts.

While a different context but in my party days going out nightclubbing then also the physical quality to being in an immersive massive sound field was a giant part of the experience.

Some people experience their sound systems quite critically (analytically) and spend all their time hearing and assessing and very dominantly consciously... others seem more often to set themselves in and just immerse themselves into the feeelings and emotional shifts that the music brings with it and mostly let go of being very conscious at all. I believe most of us do some of and or a mix of all these ways of experiencing the music and the sound at times... so physically, emotionally and or cerebrally.

At different times I have been much more focussed in a way of experiencing music and sound. Mostly now I am more old and generally less conscious. Happy to feel more and think less.

The changes in the way I most tended to listen was also then related to gear changes though I’m not sure whether it was the gear or the way I wanted to experience the music that drove the gear change and so which was then either the chicken and which the egg.

I think we tend to feel it’s all about hearing but I’d be surprised if it isn’t just as much about how the sound and music feels emotionally and physically and how it at times is as much about awareness and an occupation of the mind, the body and the feelings and that sensation of connection.

I’ve just found a whole series of Sviatoslav Richter recordings on the stream and am just about to start playing the two volume Scriabin, Shostakovich and Prokofiev piano works and definitely shifting over into just feeling and not thinking. Brilliant stuff from the master SR.

 

While a different context but in my party days going out nightclubbing then also the physical quality to being in an immersive massive sound field was a giant part of the experience.

Recreate that immersive massive sound field ... put on some Donna Summer and turn it up.

I’ve just found a whole series of Sviatoslav Richter recordings on the stream and am just about to start playing the two volume Scriabin, Shostakovich and Prokofiev piano works and definitely shifting over into just feeling and not thinking. Brilliant stuff from the master SR.

Richter - sheer genius. What a touch.

 

All of this is also the reason why it is so ridiculous and tiresome when some, also at WBF, try to convince everyone that just one type of system is the "right" one, and everything else is inferior.

Indeed, Al - it does grow tiresome, and not just here. While not all gear is equal, I'll go so far as to arrogate that failing to grasp the difference between "the best audio system" and "the best audio system for me" suggests inexperience.