2. analog
  3. 1359784802

$$$ vs music enjoyment

The January 2013 Stereophile e-mail newsletter featured an interesting reprint of a 1994 article titled "R.I.P. High-End Audio?" The reprint generated interesting discussion, and I found one post in particular raising an interesting point.

"The article suggests there is some public good to spreading the high-end. I'd like it first shown that someone is happier listening to music on $20 speakers than 'mid-end' $2k speakers. I mean empirical evidence - hook up blindfolded listens to brain scanners and measure their neurotransmitter levels. If there were a correlation between musical enjoyment and price beyond a certain point I'd have expected my musician and conductor friends to own better stereos than they do."

A few points raised there. Does a more expensive system (a nicely set up, moderate system vs. a significantly more expensive system) indeed elevate the level of musical enjoyment? It would be very interesting to compare owners of all-out assault systems with average audiophiles who can't wait to fire up their systems on a Friday night to get themselves immersed in music. I believe I myself would in fact enjoy the music more if able to afford a more expensive system, even though my modest system has given me extreme enjoyment. But who knows...

And then, yes, why does the audiophile community feature relatively so few musicians? I must say this argument is actually not very convincing to me. The underlying assumption is that any given trade professional would necessarily strive to replicate or pursue the same standards or level of performance in his private life, which I think is a fallacy. Does a fancy restaurant chef have to always eat gourmet food at his home to enjoy it? Does a fashion designer have to always wear designer clothes lest they show high fashion is a sham?

Comments welcome.
actusreus
tan43
128 posts
 
I sold auto parts all my life. I called on many automobile repairmen.
The last thing they wanted to do was work on their own vehicle.
Musicians probable realize that they can not reproduce music that is equivalent to live so why go to the trouble or expense.
mapman's avatar
mapman
21,837 posts
 
Best to focus on musical enjoyment and then do what is needed within your means to acheve it. A little knowledge and experience goes a long way.
roxy54's avatar
roxy54
7,651 posts
 
Wow! For the second time this week, I am in complete agreement with Elizabeth. Even if it could be objectively proven that the more expensive system sounded better to some listeners than the cheaper one, it means nothing.
I am in jewelry and watch sales, and there are customers who become bored with an Audemars Piguet Royal Oak tourbillon (expensive) within a year, while another is still thrilled and enjoying his Tag Heuer Formula 1 (modestly priced) eight years after he bought it. In other words, even if "quality" could be objectified, it doesn't matter. What matters is the attitude of the customer, or in this case, the listener.
tom6897's avatar
tom6897
1,484 posts
 
I must say that I too am in agreement!

I remember the first time I heard Adele sing "Chasing
Pavements"' or Melody Gardot "Baby I'm a Fool" I was wearing ear
buds. I was so emotionally excited and happy. I was like "Dam'n'"
these girls can sing. I went and bought the CDs.

Of course it sounds different on the home system better may be a word to
describe it as well, but both systems regardless of the level of
sophistication.......moved me. If a humble system can do that then why are
we talking about this?

For me, it is about the musical/emotional attachment, not the equipment.
actusreus OP
733 posts
 
Elizabeth
The entire premise of the op's comments are useless.
Who cares?
The idea I am supposed to give a damn what some other fool besides myself does with their money is a waste of time.
Same could be said for ANY item at all. Cars,watches, golf clubs, clothes, you name it.
So what if there is no correlation between money spent and enjoyment? It is all relative, and has little to do with price, money spent at all.
Some kid with an old stick playing in a park can be happier than some other kid with his expensive toy anytime. It does not invalidate toys!
Maybe the op needs to sell his stereo and invest in a small $29 radio for his music....

You mean the person who commented on the article? He's not the OP...

The question I posed is whether, at least theoretically, there should be an increase in enjoyment between listening to music on a very expensive equipment vs. modestly priced one. It's not about how people spend their money, or why. However, I do think that the analogy between audio equipment and other luxury items is rather faulty. Watches, jewelry, even cars, are more of a status symbol than passion, at least for most. Certainly, many rich people have mega-buck systems as status symbols as well, but I'm talking about audiophiles who actually listen to music on their systems and feel passionate about it. Do they enjoy the music more than they did when they listened to the same record thousands of dollars earlier, for example? I think it's an interesting question.
More to discover