tsmith1315 said:
Let me rewrite that paragraph -
'Not exactly so, especially with electronic audio equipment. To a music lover, his equipment is a tool. A better quality equipment will offer better playability, a better feel. It will have better machine tolerances, and therefore more precise.'
So...am I lying?
But can a couple of tin cans on a string reproduce that drum sound in a pleasant and tolerable way?
Though, the counter point is probably AM radio. In general, AM radio is crappola. But, late at night when Clyde Clifford at Clear Channel in Little Rock turns the transmitters north, and slow talking Clyde starts playing Rock, and we've had a few beers and smoke fills the air. I still love to hear the songs I love; good fidelity or bad.
So, yes, the music matters.
The above example is a very good example of 'listening past the equipment'. Even on bad AM car radios, good music can still sound good.
But...you can put a speaker behind a bail of cotton and still get sound to come out, it just won't be very good sound. That bail of cotton is an obstacle between me and the music. Just as poor stereo equipment is an obstacle between me and the music. Just as overly compressed recordings and low sample rates are an obstacle between me and the music. Now under some circumstances, much like AM radio, you just go with what you got, and enjoy the music. But there is the point where the obstacle becomes so big, that you can't enjoy the music no matter how hard you try.
In fact, I would say that stereo equipment is always an obstacle between me and the music, but it is an obstacle that I can control within the limits of my budget. And I know I want the best equipment, and the least obstacle, between me and that music. And within my limited budget, I do a pretty fair job of obtaining that.
In a UK forum I frequent, posters are getting all gooey-eyed over 'egg/pod' speakers, and others are seriously wondering if an 8" woofer might be too big for their living room. Yet in my modest living room, I have one pair of speakers with 12" woofers and another pair with two 8" woofers, and my room is not huge. Personally, I think they are just about the right size. And when I use them together, it kicks some serious a$$.
So, my underlying point is, why would anyone intensionally put a large obstacle between themselves and the music? Why overly and painfully compress songs? Why sample at clearly inferior bit rates?
Now some obstacles can be tolerated under some circumstance, AM radio again. But AM radio should not be anyone perferred circumstance unless they are desperately poor.
For what it's worth.
Steve/bluewizard
Side Note:
If you understand the Clyde Clifford-Clear Channel-Little Rock reference, you are really really old.
gainphile said:
err... because they're used to play music
...
I think part of what Shin might be getting at, since he designs and builds some pretty fantastic speakers, is that for him perhaps the sense of accomplishment and achievement are a pretty strong reward.
Perhaps he derives some sense of pleasure from going from concept to an effective finished product, that for him is more rewarding that the simple pleasure of listening to music.
I speculate that these are two detached things. In general, in his life, pulling off a spectacular design that not only looks good but sounds good is immensely rewarding.
But that pleasure is separate, though implied to be more intense, than the separate pleasure of simply listening to music. Something he admits he enjoys.
I can understand that.
Again, I am just speculating, but I think we need to apply a reasonable context to statements before we challenge them.
Even I take a great deal of pleasure from Shin's designs, and all I've ever seen are drawing and photographs.
Hey...it's just one man's opinion.
Steve/bluewizard
I see.
I can draw some parallels with my other hobby of mine - motorcycling. It seems there are endless people who buy beautiful italian sportsbike to go from one cafe to another along lygon st. (that's our little italian strip in melbourne). Whereas there are also people who buy sportsbike to be ridden fast on the mountains or tracks the way they are "intended" to be ridden
It's also amazing that a simple post of "which oil" would end up billions of post pages just like "which cable" in the audio world.
So it's probably a striking similiarity that I ride an old ugly Ninja but able to do 100kph in first gear and will reach 240kph in no time. I also use cheap car oil. By 'coincidence' my speakers are planks of wood and some 16 cents/meter wire.
I can draw some parallels with my other hobby of mine - motorcycling. It seems there are endless people who buy beautiful italian sportsbike to go from one cafe to another along lygon st. (that's our little italian strip in melbourne). Whereas there are also people who buy sportsbike to be ridden fast on the mountains or tracks the way they are "intended" to be ridden
It's also amazing that a simple post of "which oil" would end up billions of post pages just like "which cable" in the audio world.
So it's probably a striking similiarity that I ride an old ugly Ninja but able to do 100kph in first gear and will reach 240kph in no time. I also use cheap car oil. By 'coincidence' my speakers are planks of wood and some 16 cents/meter wire.
gainphile said:I see.
I can draw some parallels with my other hobby of mine - motorcycling.
So it's probably a striking similiarity that I ride an old ugly Ninja but able to do 100kph in first gear and will reach 240kph in no time. I also use cheap car oil.
I ride a rusty '95 Vulcan 800, it lives in a lean-to, and the other bikers are always at me about cleaning it.. but I love i.. it has "character" (likea good HiFI system should
). Oil.. whatever they put in it when I get it serviced !! It ain't quick like a Ninja, but I rarely get booked I also use Jaycar speaker cable (I picked up a lot of the light blue 'Supra' stuff real cheap.. nice cable) on most of my systems, and $15 WES interconnects.
Yes - I had been thinking about the motorcycle angle as well. All sorts there. Very similar to audio.
I like going to rally and meets as much as the next guy - even orginized a few. Kicking tires, showing off, telling lies and boasts. But mostly I just want to ride.
At one point I was hooked up with a bunch of guys in Honolulu. All Harley chopper types. Lovely bunch of guys, amazing bikes - but they would never just ride. We'd spend hours yacking, then go 2 blocks, stop and vist and yack some more. Maybe a slow spin down to the beach to show off, then lunch. Drove me nuts! I'd get pissed off and storm off in a huff - go riding.
But they just enjoyed motorbikes for the sake of the bike, that's all. Riding was only secondary to the enjoyment. And that's OK. (tho I wouldn't admit it at the time)
So if you enjoy this hobby for the music, or for the audio, or for the gear itself, so what? Just be honest with yourself about what you enjoy- and how.
I like going to rally and meets as much as the next guy - even orginized a few. Kicking tires, showing off, telling lies and boasts. But mostly I just want to ride.
At one point I was hooked up with a bunch of guys in Honolulu. All Harley chopper types. Lovely bunch of guys, amazing bikes - but they would never just ride. We'd spend hours yacking, then go 2 blocks, stop and vist and yack some more. Maybe a slow spin down to the beach to show off, then lunch. Drove me nuts! I'd get pissed off and storm off in a huff - go riding.
But they just enjoyed motorbikes for the sake of the bike, that's all. Riding was only secondary to the enjoyment. And that's OK. (tho I wouldn't admit it at the time)
So if you enjoy this hobby for the music, or for the audio, or for the gear itself, so what? Just be honest with yourself about what you enjoy- and how.
panomaniac said:
So if you enjoy this hobby for the music, or for the audio, or for the gear itself, so what? Just be honest with yourself about what you enjoy- and how.
Its for the MUSIC ! (I also like the woodwork, though not too much in summer)
The great thing about doing live music mixing is the huge variety of music I get to hear and work with, from simple well done acoustic + vocal such as Sarah Humphries http://www.myspace.com/sarahhumphreys , through exotic bands such as MojoJujuVudu http://www.myspace.com/mojovudu
up to the wild and rude "Unfit for Human Consumption" (pretty much describes their music.. just plug your ears and hope for the best
, but its great fun !) Blues, Jazz, you never know what is happening next.
Some of it is VERY good... some of it ISN'T
but its all music !
terry j said:
This is one of the best questions to date. And I'm surprised no one has picked up on it.
Maybe they do get feedback - like "Dude, your CD ROCKS!" That, and declining sales....
I've heard and read a few mastering engineers say that they have mastered a project they are proud of - only to have the musicians come back later to ask if it can be made louder. "So and so have a new CD - can you make it as loud as theirs?"
So what kind of feedback ARE the musicos getting about their CDs? Are they ultimately to blame?
panomaniac said:
but people Don't pay to hear most of the stuff I mix for. they are formative bands doing interesting stuff. (were there any of Sarah's tracks on her page, very worth listening to)
There is one country band I mix for regularly, called 'Sheep Station", but they are a tad tongue in cheek
I generally avoid "real" country if I can, although do find what I suppose could be called "folk country/rock" quite interesting
Shawn Colvin for instance, gets a LOT of air play around this house.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Because it has **musical** significance. Because many want to hear the style and interpretation of music in the day in which it was composed.
I served in US military bands for several years and remember conductors arguing about the style, tempo, etc interpretation of Sousa Marches. All arguing with "authority" gained from thirdhand sources and 20th century experiences . . . Now how about putting on a "bad" recording played by the very band a piece was written for, conducted by the composer himself? Even with lousy fidelity, the info needed to illuminate debate is there. Now any discussion about moving music from the printed page to our ears suddenly becomes much more intelligent and meaningful. That's the redeeming quality. Nobody (sensible) argues for the superior fidelity of anything prior to (perhaps) the vinyl era.
There's Sonic fidelity, which has no actual "meaning", and then there's musical meaning or "Fidelity" - the part that only our brain can provide, even from the horrors of a wax cylinder.
Sonic Fidelity is the only part of that equation most of us will ever have any control over. Hence our pursuits here.
The less the brain has to make up for lost information the more it relaxes and makes listening into pleasure. It is not that we can not appreciate poorly replayed music, it is we may like to get the most pleasure out of it too. If we are interested in finer pleasures in the first place off course.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.