I posted this over at CAM (Canuck Audio Mart), but thought I would drop it in here as well to see what kind of response it might garner. Here it is.
"Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that many audiophiles are more concerned with sound than they are with music. Here's why.
Several people on this site have noted that, in the pursuit of ever better systems, it's easy to become so obsessed with the quality of sound that one ends up listening to sound instead of music. Does this actually mean anything or is it just gibberish? I think there is something to it and that it rests on the distinction between sound and music.
What is music? Is it just sounds and nothing else? I would suggest that while music depends on sound, it is also more than the collection of the sounds by which it is conveyed. A good analogy here is language. Written words and sentences on a computer screen are comprised of letters and pixels, but the meaning of a sentence is more than the simple collection of letters and pixels that are used to convey that meaning. While the letters and pixels are ingredients in or vehicles of the meaning conveyed, there are a host of features or characteristics associated with the letters or pixels that are actually irrelevant to the meaning being conveyed (at least in most cases). In typing this, for example, the size and colour of the letters I'm typing or the density of the pixels are not directly relevant to the meaning currently being conveyed (though of course they may be relevant in other cases, e.g. italics as a matter of emphasis). In fact, in conveying my meaning I'm actually assuming (and hoping) that the reader will ignore these other features or characteristics of the letters and pixels being used so as not to get sidetracked from the meaning I'm trying to get across.
Now I want to suggest that the relation between music and sound is analogous to this. Sound is important to the conveyance and production of music, but music is more than just the sounds being heard. Further, many of the sounds being produced when playing and listening to music may actually be irrelevant to the music as such, e.g. the sound of skin on a string, the inhaled breath of a flutist, or even the spatial location of the instruments and players as extraneous elements that may not actually be part of a musical score. Now obviously some composers do actually incorporate these additional, otherwise extraneous sound elements into their pieces, but it seems reasonably safe to assume that most music does not (or at least not deliberately as an intended ingredient of the music as such). In most cases these extraneous, peripheral elements or 'sounds' should be ignored as irrelevant to the music being conveyed. Nevertheless, it is precisely these kinds of elements (e.g. the sound of skin on a string, the inhaled breath, or the spatial location of an instrument or player) that may audiophiles seem to focus upon when listening to their systems.
This or something like it is, I think, what people mean when they say that it's possible to become so lost in the sound that one fails to hear the music. It's kind of like a kid who becomes so caught up in the colours of the letters in a sentence that he or she misses the meaning being conveyed. Now just as colours can be interesting and aesthetically enjoyable in their own right, so too can sounds, but one should be careful not to confuse the simple act of listening of sounds to the experience of music."
"Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that many audiophiles are more concerned with sound than they are with music. Here's why.
Several people on this site have noted that, in the pursuit of ever better systems, it's easy to become so obsessed with the quality of sound that one ends up listening to sound instead of music. Does this actually mean anything or is it just gibberish? I think there is something to it and that it rests on the distinction between sound and music.
What is music? Is it just sounds and nothing else? I would suggest that while music depends on sound, it is also more than the collection of the sounds by which it is conveyed. A good analogy here is language. Written words and sentences on a computer screen are comprised of letters and pixels, but the meaning of a sentence is more than the simple collection of letters and pixels that are used to convey that meaning. While the letters and pixels are ingredients in or vehicles of the meaning conveyed, there are a host of features or characteristics associated with the letters or pixels that are actually irrelevant to the meaning being conveyed (at least in most cases). In typing this, for example, the size and colour of the letters I'm typing or the density of the pixels are not directly relevant to the meaning currently being conveyed (though of course they may be relevant in other cases, e.g. italics as a matter of emphasis). In fact, in conveying my meaning I'm actually assuming (and hoping) that the reader will ignore these other features or characteristics of the letters and pixels being used so as not to get sidetracked from the meaning I'm trying to get across.
Now I want to suggest that the relation between music and sound is analogous to this. Sound is important to the conveyance and production of music, but music is more than just the sounds being heard. Further, many of the sounds being produced when playing and listening to music may actually be irrelevant to the music as such, e.g. the sound of skin on a string, the inhaled breath of a flutist, or even the spatial location of the instruments and players as extraneous elements that may not actually be part of a musical score. Now obviously some composers do actually incorporate these additional, otherwise extraneous sound elements into their pieces, but it seems reasonably safe to assume that most music does not (or at least not deliberately as an intended ingredient of the music as such). In most cases these extraneous, peripheral elements or 'sounds' should be ignored as irrelevant to the music being conveyed. Nevertheless, it is precisely these kinds of elements (e.g. the sound of skin on a string, the inhaled breath, or the spatial location of an instrument or player) that may audiophiles seem to focus upon when listening to their systems.
This or something like it is, I think, what people mean when they say that it's possible to become so lost in the sound that one fails to hear the music. It's kind of like a kid who becomes so caught up in the colours of the letters in a sentence that he or she misses the meaning being conveyed. Now just as colours can be interesting and aesthetically enjoyable in their own right, so too can sounds, but one should be careful not to confuse the simple act of listening of sounds to the experience of music."
I think I pretty much agree with the sentiment of that posting.
That said I also think that the 'sound of skin on a string', a flutists breathing etc adds to the music and although I don't specifically listen out for them I do miss them when they are not there.
All those little 'mistakes' which are quite abundant on '60s and '70s recordings are easily removed in these days of digital recording/editing but they add to the magic IMO.
That said I also think that the 'sound of skin on a string', a flutists breathing etc adds to the music and although I don't specifically listen out for them I do miss them when they are not there.
All those little 'mistakes' which are quite abundant on '60s and '70s recordings are easily removed in these days of digital recording/editing but they add to the magic IMO.
Different people get different things out of the audiophile hobby, there's no doubt. It's not quite the same as just being a music lover, and some audiophiles get their thrills out of listening to the gear vs. listening to the music. Still, I'll argue that any sound on the recording is relevant, otherwise we are dispensing with the basic idea of high-fidelity reproduction.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.