Since we started labeling, let me put my labels:
"non-analytical" = not clean
"musical" = colored
Let me explain. Sound without distortion might seem analytical or lifeless since distortion adds "kick" - just compare distorted guitar and clean jazz guitar. I even read negative user opinion of my Benchmark DAC1 that claims that each instrument can be heard independently instead of preferred "sound blob".
As for appreciating music more by musical people who sing in the shower - creating, performing and receiving are completely different things. One doesn't have to have music inside (soul as you called it) to be able to receive it. More, people who create music often have complete disregard for good sound. Same often goes for performers.
Musicality is often associated with warm sound that has enhanced even harmonics therefore colored. Warm sound might be good for guitar or voice but is not so good if instrument has complex harmonic structure (piano, percussion instruments). Piano sounds, on very warm gear like out of tune. That was the reason why Benchmark's technical director John Siau did not want Benchmark to sound warm. I remember reading about test conducted with Benchmark and few other DACs in recording studio. Benchmark was the most accurate, according to sound engineers (also audiophiles) and worst sounding according to regular users. To me Benchmark sounded too clean at the beginning as well - made impression of missing instruments in known recordings. One has to learn to listen, I guess.
Let me introduce other label (not mentioned so far)- NEUTRAL, CLEAN, TRANSPARENT, RESOLVING, PURE |
Tvad - Absolutely agree, but being audiophile I like to analyze sometimes. |
Tomcy6
I hear this mantra often "foot tapping music", "don't worry be happy - and don't analyze".
So, shall we put random pieces together until it clicks after 1000 iterations? We all analyze, but for some reason don't want to admit it. I'm pretty sure that I would find in your posts analysis of bass, treble, imaging etc. No one is free from that. |
Tomcy6
Most often I just listen to music but sometimes I analyze how I could improve it. I don't understand why it should be only one or the other. |
Sabai - Are you suggesting that musicians are better listeners? Nothing can be further from the truth. I have a friend who is jazz musician with degree in music (oboe) but he enjoys playing more than listening. My brother on the other hand finds Nirvana in listening to music from all over the world, from ancient to modern - being even almost an expert in Indian Classical music. He never played any instrument nor he was ever interested. He cannot even sing in tune. Music to him is his whole life.
Creating, Performing, and Receiving are separate things. Performers are not the best receivers of music, composers are not the best performers etc. There are types of music that cannot be even performed by western musicians and types of music that cannot be performed at all (Conlon Nancarrow studies for player piano) - I still enjoy it. |
Learsfool - I've never said that musicians have worse or no ability to listen. What I said was that they are often not so much interested in listening as in performing. Also fact of being musician doesn't make somebody receive or enjoy music better.
As for your argument that musicians have often less than perfect gear because they know they will never get sound of real performance - this is really lame. If they know what is the sound of real live performance shouldn't they try for the next best thing - highest quality system?
The reason is different in my opinion - they simply don't care. You can defend musicians, being one, all you want but I met few who listen on really bad boom box. I would even say that quality of gear is inversely proportional to musical education and involvement.
I also strongly disagree with your statement that being professional musician gives you more pleasure in listening. I wonder how you came to this conclusion? How do you know how much pleasure music bring to me? |
Bryoncunningham - Good news: You can have cake and eat it too. You don't have to have inclination toward holistic or analytical listening. One can listen most of the time holistically forgetting about volts, watts dB etc. being lost in music, but from time to time sit down to analyze system shortcomings using test CDs auditioning and comparing gear to get better results. That's how progress happens. |
Jax2 - People became more practical in last 50-70 years and tend to learn only skills that have some market value. It was different before. Generations of our fathers or grandfathers were learning often useless skills believing that life is not practical (has no purpose) to start with. People used to learn singing just for the pleasure of it. My father was learning Greek and Latin etc.
Music role was also different. In many cultures (China for instance) music was on such high pedestal that was breaking social divisions. Peasant was allowed to perform with noble man or even emperor if he possessed required skills. Music and dance ability was subject of an exam for higher government positions. In modern India, every movie has dance and singing sequence every 10 min. - if it doesn't it means it was made for US. In many countries (whole Europe) there is a a special government department in charge of culture (music art etc).
In western culture government was involved in promotion of art and music for centuries - not so much today, at least here. We're closing music and art programs in schools calling it a waste of taxpayers' money.
It is interesting that economic crisis in our country makes it worse for the art and music but same conditions in India produced world best musicians like Ali Akbar Khan (at least Yehudi Menuhin called him that) who had been learning music 18 hours a day for 20 years because competition is so strong that only the best are successful.
I just wonder if he, having no equal, could enjoy music played by others as much as I do. |
"Simple, we get bored with the music side of it and need a change to spice things up"
Tonywinsc - do you think that listening thru better equipment doesn't offer better overall experience? People get better TVs to see games better not just for the sake of having larger TV. I had a choice of listening to music with poor sound or with good sound. What do you think I chose. |
Sabai - One factor is missing in this discussion. It's passion for music. I think it accounts for 99% of music appreciation. I know people who are interested in one genre of music like Opera or Classical and don't care for the rest of it. At the very beginning of Jazz many musical people refused to even call it music. Generation of my parents was not much into Rock and Roll. I would say that interest in music is everything while musicality is far second. There is also a lot of music that has no melody at all (or melody has secondary importance). I know few people who are very musical (remembering phrase and singing or humming in tune) but not really into music (wasted gift?). They enjoy music, but not enough to buy CD/LP. Again - passion for music is everything. |
If you read the original post, he wants to know what makes a system good! OP stated that: "Appreciating good music is not only a matter of how good your equipment is. It is a measure of how musical a person you are." He was not asking about good equipment, but rather stating fact that some people are very musical by nature and don't need great sound to enjoy music. I'm not one of them - being unable to have ANY enjoyment listening to symphony orchestra on tiny pocket transistor radio. In fact it would annoy me knowing what I'm loosing. That's logical brain speaking. I wish I could turn it off. |
