Music lovers

[3db]

Let me rephrase ... you can love music; you can love equipment; you can love both music and equipment. This is the meaning of "not mutually exclusive", no??

I understand what your saying. What I'm saying is that love of music is not dependent on equipment and visa versa. You can love both... I do...but I loved music much longer than I had for equipement and the equipement hasn't influenced my love of music. That make sense?

[Hyfi]

I don't know the words for this phenomenon, if it truly exists, but I've heard the brain just needs the reminder of the music for the listener to enjoy it. On inferior noisemakers not all the sounds can be clearly heard in the distinct way audio gear can deliver it, but the brain knows what the music sounds like...even if the noisemaker at hand is just a cheap clock-radio.

I'm not sure I follow this. Yes if I hear a few notes of a familiar song, I can guess it. Yes if I hear a 128kb MP3 of a song I know, I will recognize it, but, in no way does my brain fill in the missing highs and missing lows and all the missing detail and instrument timber.

This is similar to listening to a good LP side by side with a CD made by BMG of the same recording. My brain does not fill in the missing length of the cymbal crashes that are missing from the CD. My brain does not fill in all the missing feeling and emotion that an analog recording has that most digital recordings lack. The analog wave is not square and does not just drop off like a digital signal normally does.

Yes there are many digital recordings that come close to analog recordings but all in all, minus a little snap crackle pop, an LP on a good rig will always sound better than the same CD on similar gear.

Maybe I only have half a brain but I can clearly hear all the differences that I just mentioned above and although I will know the song, the words, the music, my brain does not fill in the missing data while the crappy sounding version plays. My brain usually tells me "this recording sounds like crap".

[pixelthis]

Good equipment is important because a crap listening session is time you don't get back.
BUT sometimes you cant help it.
Last night I listened to public radio, their nightly jazz show, while at work, on a cheap
"Emerson research" clock radio with a ten cent speaker.
AND IT WAS GREAT.
On my home system it would have been outstanding, on an "audiophile" grade system even better.
I love music, and sure I love gear too.
But gear needs a reason, to love just gear without taking its function into account is kind of soulless don't you think?
MY LOVE OF "GEAR" DERIVES from what it does, the way music comes out of a well built loudspeaker will always thrill me.
But without the lifetime love of music as the drive, not so much maybe.

[02audionoob]

I'm not sure I follow this. Yes if I hear a few notes of a familiar song, I can guess it. Yes if I hear a 128kb MP3 of a song I know, I will recognize it, but, in no way does my brain fill in the missing highs and missing lows and all the missing detail and instrument timber.

This is similar to listening to a good LP side by side with a CD made by BMG of the same recording. My brain does not fill in the missing length of the cymbal crashes that are missing from the CD. My brain does not fill in all the missing feeling and emotion that an analog recording has that most digital recordings lack. The analog wave is not square and does not just drop off like a digital signal normally does.

Yes there are many digital recordings that come close to analog recordings but all in all, minus a little snap crackle pop, an LP on a good rig will always sound better than the same CD on similar gear.

Maybe I only have half a brain but I can clearly hear all the differences that I just mentioned above and although I will know the song, the words, the music, my brain does not fill in the missing data while the crappy sounding version plays. My brain usually tells me "this recording sounds like crap".

I think you're carrying my choice of words too far...overanalyzing it. The theory is that for many people music can be enjoyed with limited detail...even with recordings that sound like crap.

[3db]

Good equipment is important because a crap listening session is time you don't get back.
BUT sometimes you cant help it.
Last night I listened to public radio, their nightly jazz show, while at work, on a cheap
"Emerson research" clock radio with a ten cent speaker.
AND IT WAS GREAT.
On my home system it would have been outstanding, on an "audiophile" grade system even better.
I love music, and sure I love gear too.
But gear needs a reason, to love just gear without taking its function into account is kind of soulless don't you think?
MY LOVE OF "GEAR" DERIVES from what it does, the way music comes out of a well built loudspeaker will always thrill me.
But without the lifetime love of music as the drive, not so much maybe.

Excellent post. A big fat +1 for thist one.

[E-Stat]

On inferior noisemakers not all the sounds can be clearly heard in the distinct way audio gear can deliver it, but the brain knows what the music sounds like...even if the noisemaker at hand is just a cheap clock-radio.

I play back music in my head all the time and can fill in what I know is there even when listening to a system that may not be capable of highlighting that detail. When I run, I have a game of playing back songs in alphabetical order by group. I'll choose something by America, then the Beatles, etc.

rw

[E-Stat]

Just a small correction: love of music and love of equipment are two different things -- but they aren't mutually exclusive.

Exactly. The term means that if one is true, the other CANNOT simultaneously be true as well. If you are sad, then you cannot be happy. A power switch can either be on or off, but not both at the same time. In this case, the love of high performance gear can most certainly feed and enhance the love of music. It is just not required. I developed a love of music regularly listening to a battery powered Zenith AM radio. But, I'd rather hear my music on the Sea Cliff system.

rw

[Worf101]

Their is a belief held by many audiophiles, that you can't be a music lover unless you have a "high quality" system.

However, a love of and enjoyment of music does not require never ending upgrades, and bankruptcy. Loving Music has nothing to do with our hobby.

Audiophiles traditionally claim the love of music as the reason for this hobby. I dispute that claim. Love of Electronics, tweaking and gadgets is IMO the real driving force behind Audiophilia.

Nothing wrong with being both a Music Lover and an Audiophile (or even just one) but we shouldn't confuse the two. A person who listens to music all day, everyday on a a portable FM radio has far more claim to be a music lover than an Audiophile with half a million dollars worth of electronics, that he spends more time running test signals through, than listening to albums.
__

When growing up poor in the projects, our "sound systems" consisted of hand me down junk from relatives and friends. Still didn't diminish my love for music I listened all the time to '45's, LP's, AM Top 40 Radio, anything I could get my hands on. Yes, I know that listening to The Impressions "Gypsy Woman" (our first '45 we ever bought) on my current system is light years ahead, of our "Hi Fidelity" pink and creme monstrosity but I loved it then as much mebbe even more'n I do now, because it was all NEW then.

No you don't have to have a big money system to love music, just a heart and soul.

Da Worfster

[caz223]

I look at it like this-You have heard the music, and are intimately familiar with it, you don't need to hear it at full volume and resolution every time you hear it-you know what it sounds like. You remember, and your brain fills in the gaps.
It's kind of like aging with a loved one.
You'll always remember the way they looked when you met them, and don't need them to look that way forever. Your brain just fills in the gaps.
That's the definition of a music lover. The music will always take you back to where you were when you first heard it, and you hear it as it should be-not as it is.
I have hearing loss on my left side and I can tell you-it works that way- when I hear something I've never heard before I hear it as it is.
If I've heard the piece before my hearing got damaged-I hear it in stereo in it's full glory. Even if it is "only in my head" -that's where it matters.

[3db]

Exactly. The term means that if one is true, the other CANNOT simultaneously be true as well. If you are sad, then you cannot be happy. A power switch can either be on or off, but not both at the same time. In this case, the love of high performance gear can most certainly feed and enhance the love of music. It is just not required. I developed a love of music regularly listening to a battery powered Zenith AM radio. But, I'd rather hear my music on the Sea Cliff system.

rw

Keeping this in perpsective to the OP, the question was do you have audiophile quality reproduction to love music. That requirement as you point out is mutually exclusive. Is it possible to love both? Dam straight.

[E-Stat]

That requirement as you point out is mutually exclusive. Is it possible to love both? Dam straight.

What I point out is they are independent, not mutually exclusive. There is no exclusion whatsoever. If they were mutually exclusive, if you loved music, you couldn't love equipment or if you loved equipment, you couldn't love music. Such is clearly NOT the case.

rw

[Ajani]

Keeping this in perpsective to the OP, the question was do you have audiophile quality reproduction to love music. That requirement as you point out is mutually exclusive. Is it possible to love both? Dam straight.

3db, I think we all understand what you are trying to say. The issue is that you are using the term "mutually exclusive" incorrectly...

Mutually Exclusive, in the context of this discussion, means that if you love music then you cannot be an audiophile. And if you are an audiophile then you cannot be a music lover.

What you are actually saying is that someone can be a music lover, an audiophile or both.

[3db]

3db, I think we all understand what you are trying to say. The issue is that you are using the term "mutually exclusive" incorrectly...

Mutually Exclusive, in the context of this discussion, means that if you love music then you cannot be an audiophile. And if you are an audiophile then you cannot be a music lover.

What you are actually saying is that someone can be a music lover, an audiophile or both.

oops.. me bad.. thanks for setting me straight

[3db]

What I point out is they are independent, not mutually exclusive. There is no exclusion whatsoever. If they were mutually exclusive, if you loved music, you couldn't love equipment or if you loved equipment, you couldn't love music. Such is clearly NOT the case.

rw

right you are. many thanks for setting me straight here.

[E-Stat]

right you are. many thanks for setting me straight here.

My goal is not to "be right", but to clarify. I thought Feanor broached the topic to you in a kind manner.

I hope you will take the following comment in the spirit in which it is communicated. My job involves writing documentation and I give public presentations. As such, I am always aware of spelling because people judge you by the quality of your work. I think you will find that taking an extra moment to go back and correct your many typos will serve to better reflect your comments. End of rant.

rw

[Woochifer]

Before anyone goes denigrating listeners based on their gear, some perspective is in order.

Consider that 20 years ago, most listening was done using prerecorded cassettes (LP nostalgists have it all wrong -- the CD did not supersede the LP format, because the cassette sales had already surpassed the LP the year before the CD format was even introduced). And most of those cassettes were played through portable devices or boom boxes that further butchered the audio quality. I can tell you from first hand experience that a 128k MP3 file is heaven to the ears compared to what those cassettes sounded like.

And even the retroactively beloved LP format didn't fare much better. Unlike the revisionist lovefest with the LP that you see nowadays, most LPs from 30 years ago were played back on wretched sounding record changers or portable record players or all-in-one systems.

And going back another generation before that, the 78 disc was the dominant format. And again, from first hand listenings, I can tell you that a 128k MP3 will blow away the audio quality of 78s.

Previous generations primarily listened to their favorite music on inferior systems, and using inferior formats. I doubt that they loved music any less than anyone today does.

Same thing goes today. People generally listen to music on inferior systems. But, you know what? The sound quality from a low end set of speakers today sounds a LOT better than anything that was available 20 or 30 years ago for the same price.

Personally, I don't think that having a cheap sound system means that you love music any less than someone with a high end system. I've known some of the most devoted music fans getting by with horrible sounding mini systems at home, and some of the most indifferent music "fans" spending five figure sums on their home audio systems (these are people who choose their music based on how it sounds).

[Luvin Da Blues]

(these are people who choose their music based on how it sounds).

Uhmm, don't we all?

Just ribbin' ya, I get yer drift.

[poppachubby]

Before anyone goes denigrating listeners based on their gear, some perspective is in order.

Consider that 20 years ago, most listening was done using prerecorded cassettes (LP nostalgists have it all wrong -- the CD did not supersede the LP format, because the cassette sales had already surpassed the LP the year before the CD format was even introduced). And most of those cassettes were played through portable devices or boom boxes that further butchered the audio quality. I can tell you from first hand experience that a 128k MP3 file is heaven to the ears compared to what those cassettes sounded like.

And even the retroactively beloved LP format didn't fare much better. Unlike the revisionist lovefest with the LP that you see nowadays, most LPs from 30 years ago were played back on wretched sounding record changers or portable record players or all-in-one systems.

And going back another generation before that, the 78 disc was the dominant format. And again, from first hand listenings, I can tell you that a 128k MP3 will blow away the audio quality of 78s.

Previous generations primarily listened to their favorite music on inferior systems, and using inferior formats. I doubt that they loved music any less than anyone today does.

Same thing goes today. People generally listen to music on inferior systems. But, you know what? The sound quality from a low end set of speakers today sounds a LOT better than anything that was available 20 or 30 years ago for the same price.

Personally, I don't think that having a cheap sound system means that you love music any less than someone with a high end system. I've known some of the most devoted music fans getting by with horrible sounding mini systems at home, and some of the most indifferent music "fans" spending five figure sums on their home audio systems (these are people who choose their music based on how it sounds).

Seen, but it's all relative now isn't it?

[LeRoy]

When growing up poor in the projects, our "sound systems" consisted of hand me down junk from relatives and friends. Still didn't diminish my love for music I listened all the time to '45's, LP's, AM Top 40 Radio, anything I could get my hands on. Yes, I know that listening to The Impressions "Gypsy Woman" (our first '45 we ever bought) on my current system is light years ahead, of our "Hi Fidelity" pink and creme monstrosity but I loved it then as much mebbe even more'n I do now, because it was all NEW then.

No you don't have to have a big money system to love music, just a heart and soul.

Da Worfster

My love of music remains the same regardless if being played on a cheapo clock radio. I simply prefer to hear music through audiophile gear because I enjoy it more when played through a system whose presentation makes it more vivid or more exciting to hear than a clock radio....but I still love the music even from the clock radio.

[poppachubby]

My love of music remains the same regardless if being played on a cheapo clock radio. I simply prefer to hear music through audiophile gear because I enjoy it more when played through a system whose presentation makes it more vivid or more exciting to hear than a clock radio....but I still love the music even from the clock radio.

Noble but c'mon, you really mean that?!? Dude, I'm a musician and have "loved" music since I was a boy. Let me tell you something, the last thing I love is music from a clock radio or anything remotely similar. I would rather hear a song in my head...

[LeRoy]

Noble but c'mon, you really mean that?!? Dude, I'm a musician and have "loved" music since I was a boy. Let me tell you something, the last thing I love is music from a clock radio or anything remotely similar. I would rather hear a song in my head...

I am not a musician and therefore I am sure I don't have the trained ear/mind that musicians do have due being more involved with making of music. Both of my nephews are musicians and both are quick to point out to me subtle points in a recording that I seem to miss.

So, I am not saying that I love the "sound being projected" by the clock radio. I am simply saying that I can still love the music (for it's own sake) even if being played on a clock radio. Sure it can sound like doggie-do on a clock radio but that does not diminish my appreciation for music. Listening to music on a clock radio does certainly increase my appreciation for higher end audio gear for sure.

The radio in my truck went out about in 2002 and I have played music in my head while driving everywhere ever since..... I'd rather do that than put in another factory radio in my old truck...lol

[JoeE SP9]

Noble but c'mon, you really mean that?!? Dude, I'm a musician and have "loved" music since I was a boy. Let me tell you something, the last thing I love is music from a clock radio or anything remotely similar. I would rather hear a song in my head...

Although I don't really play anymore, I have kept several of my old "axes". They include a Fender Precision, a Chocolate Brown Gibson EB-3 and an Ampeg Baby Bass. Music is playing in my head most of the time. If all I had was that old plastic table radio I would listen to it and get much pleasure from it. I'd rather listen to a "good" system but as long as it's not overly distorted it's still music to my ears.

For me, being able to hear the bass parts on recordings the way I knew they should sound was a major impetus toward acquiring a "good" system. Getting the bass right was/is hard. The midrange and treble while not having the greatest or sometimes any fidelity (on BPC etc.) has always been clear enough for me to hear the lines. When the bass sounds right I know my or any system is on the right track.

Living in the inner city gives lots of exposure to some of the worst sounding gear anyone's ever been assaulted by. I'm speaking of those rolling distortion boxes sometimes called car stereo's. Bass sounding like it's coming from underwater is so offensive to me I sometimes wish I could shoot cars with a "zap" gun and kill just the stereo.

Last week while sitting on my porch steps I heard what I thought was a standard "crappy" car stereo coming down my block. It turned out to be a young teen riding a bicycle with a large basket on the front holding two 12 volt car batteries powering a car stereo with an amp and equalizer. He had tied two bookshelf sized speakers (12" 3 ways) to the rear rack and was entertaining himself and most of the block. It actually sounded better than a lot of car stereo's. You guy's in the "burbs" just don't know what you're missing!

[EYEdROP]

I think its fun to listen to crappy speakers sometimes. I still listen to classic rock with FM radio in my car. I just enjoy music more with audiophile gear (which is what it is intended for).

There are some low cost consumer grade speakers that sound actually decent if you set them up properly. But most people want aesthetics and comfort first.

[pixelthis]

Uhmm, don't we all?

Just ribbin' ya, I get yer drift.

Reminds me of when I gradually went from rock to Jazz and rythm &blues.
The better my equipment got the worse Rock sounded.
I still listen to rock, but in this case proper equipment helped me discover something
that became very important to me.
The music is key.
Recently I was vexed over changing speakers, B&W being replaced by Axiom 80's.
WELL, AFTER constant A-B'ing and changing out,(and a near broken back) I kept the Beemers, they are hands down more refined and better sounding.
This is a classic and has beaten several contenders , doesnt matter if its eight years old,
or as simple as an anvil, the sound beats a lot of more "fancy" speakers, and since
B&W is now making these in China you'll not see their like again.
The music is more important than "fancy".

[Auricauricle]

Hey, guys: At the risk of repeating a point that may have already been voiced, I'll contend that the terms audiophile and music-lover overlap, but only to a certain degree. There is a point where the audiophile stops tweaking the knobs and enjoys the music for its own sake and when the music-lover gets out his chair and reverie and turns the bass up a notch. Musicians know that sound and its production involves processes that involve both musical and technological prowess. The french horn, as an example of an instrument that involve beautiful music (Mozart's horn concertos, anyone?) and technique (what mouthpiece will be used? How far will the hand be inserted into the horn?). Likewise the armchair enthusiast will be drawn to the music, and as (his) ear becomes more keenly involved he will invariably make adjustments (even it's only volume) to increase his appreciation.

As to what appellation is used, it's a matter of priority. If one is an audiophile, the technology drives the passion; if (he) is a music lover, then the music does. Yet, this distinction, I contend, is arbitrary ("not mutually exclusive"), and, therefore, rather pointless (I reckon). Yeah, I like to twiddle, but I do so because doing so maximizes my enjoyment of the music--which came first, the music? The technolgy? The chicken...?

Shhhhhh....I don't know. I need a beer!