The Rationale of Listening

[semente]

This interests me. How to describe these differences in types of listening and what psychological capacities they are drawing on. I'm wondering if the word "analytical" is right for concentrating on the sound quality of playback performance? It is very clear, and makes great sense, that for you, the system tuning listening is clearly in service of what you describe as the more immersive, deeper, more "elevated" listening.

 

I also wonder if, when musicophile is doing evaluative listening to a recorded performance, and is comfortable doing this with mp3s, if this is more analytical as well, although quite different form of analysis than system SQ listening. I've been surprised to see that standard textbooks for music history are packaged with mp3 discs or links to mp3 streaming (naxos usually). If one is simply trying to follow a score, I suppose this is just fine. But I'd like to know how you can evaluate a performance with confidence by listening to mp3s on your phone. I'm not sure I could do that with full confidence.

 

I have what I consider an innate aversion to synthetic instruments.

And even though they are perfectly fine if all we wish is to follow the score, they in my view rob the music of all it's beauty and the interpretation all of it's expressiveness.

Elevator music, bland, dead...

[mansr]

I also wonder if, when musicophile is doing evaluative listening to a recorded performance, and is comfortable doing this with mp3s, if this is more analytical as well, although quite different form of analysis than system SQ listening. I've been surprised to see that standard textbooks for music history are packaged with mp3 discs or links to mp3 streaming (naxos usually). If one is simply trying to follow a score, I suppose this is just fine. But I'd like to know how you can evaluate a performance with confidence by listening to mp3s on your phone. I'm not sure I could do that with full confidence.

 

Depends on the aspects of the performance you're looking at. Even a poor reproduction is useful for assessing the performance of the musicians with regard to timing and such or comparing, say, how different conductors interpret the same piece. An mp3 is obviously not suited for evaluating the production quality of the recording.

[PeterSt]

I have what I consider an innate aversion to synthetic instruments.

 

(assumed you mean synthesizers)

 

Hmm ... while for me that music contains a 100 times more than any Jazz combo (instruments) could ever show.

 

they in my view rob the music of all it's beauty and the interpretation all of it's expressiveness.

 

Funny, because earlier on somewhere I said exactly that.

... When things in the chain are not right ...

 

our perception is challenged at a more elevated levels: aesthetic, cultural, intelectual, philosophical, spiritual.

 

More funny, because I would give synthesizers as such as the first example for such music.

This is not true all the way because it depends on where the music origins (like when really from India etc. normal instruments will be used more, while someone like Adham Shaikh kind of mimics that and is good at it (but now with synths mostly)).

Someone talked about orgasmic. Well, try this album : https://www.discogs.com/Adham-Shaikh-Essence/release/238793

and the first track (Somptin Hapnin (Water In Me)) - and see if you can keep it dry.

But with the system "off" nothing much happens.

 

Might you really try some time and agree ... I have well over a 1000 of such type of albums. This is not Vangelis you know. This is the ultimate best sounding with really everything in it.

But for those who know : this is how my wife calls this (the mentioned) Test Signals and how she might say "bring in the Shoarma !".

 

Anyway about the spiritual stuff : I love it. Say that all which is Boeddha and the like, is what can easily be sensed because it can be put into music so well.

And just saying : that is not my religion at all.

[esldude]

 

I also wonder if, when musicophile is doing evaluative listening to a recorded performance, and is comfortable doing this with mp3s, if this is more analytical as well, although quite different form of analysis than system SQ listening. I've been surprised to see that standard textbooks for music history are packaged with mp3 discs or links to mp3 streaming (naxos usually). If one is simply trying to follow a score, I suppose this is just fine. But I'd like to know how you can evaluate a performance with confidence by listening to mp3s on your phone. I'm not sure I could do that with full confidence.

 

On recording forums it is common to put up two different miking positions or two different mikes or some such as MP3 and ask more experienced people their opinion. MP3 seems no impediment to that kind of evaluative listening. Once you get some experience listening to mikes and results you can do it yourself. I would not say as well as lifelong pros, but enough to understand what is going on.

 

Musicians are infamous for having lousy hifi in general. Yet they can hear how other musicians are doing their craft. They aren't listening for realism, just how the musician is playing. Stop and think for a second and it is clear total hifi reproduction isn't needed for that sort of evaluation. It might even impede it in some cases.

 

So what are audiophiles listening for in evaluative listening sessions? It isn't really the music, some say the emotion. In fact the old cliche is correct I believe. Music lovers use their system to listen to music. Audiophiles use music to listen to their system. Now yes one can evaluate their system and switch gears to use it for musical listening enjoyment.

[christopher3393]

I have what I consider an innate aversion to synthetic instruments.

And even though they are perfectly fine if all we wish is to follow the score, they in my view rob the music of all it's beauty and the interpretation all of it's expressiveness.

Elevator music, bland, dead...

 

Yes, you are referring to very elementary midi files that virtually anyone could through together to demonstrate some compositional development. Peter is speaking of something much more sophisticated, that also may not be to your taste.

 

Actually, the mp3 files for the Norton and Oxford music histories are of actual acoustic performances. I imagine the decision was to save space (and perhaps $). It is just seems too bad that many music students are probably using mp3s, a portable device, and earbuds to study these scores. I'm sure they are still learning, but my own impression is that much that I appreciate is lost.

[christopher3393]

On recording forums it is common to put up two different miking positions or two different mikes or some such as MP3 and ask more experienced people their opinion. MP3 seems no impediment to that kind of evaluative listening. Once you get some experience listening to mikes and results you can do it yourself. I would not say as well as lifelong pros, but enough to understand what is going on.

 

Musicians are infamous for having lousy hifi in general. Yet they can hear how other musicians are doing their craft. They aren't listening for realism, just how the musician is playing. Stop and think for a second and it is clear total hifi reproduction isn't needed for that sort of evaluation. It might even impede it in some cases.

 

So what are audiophiles listening for in evaluative listening sessions? It isn't really the music, some say the emotion. In fact the old cliche is correct I believe. Music lovers use their system to listen to music. Audiophiles use music to listen to their system. Now yes one can evaluate their system and switch gears to use it for musical listening enjoyment.

 

Yes, that all sounds right to me. I've seen people do it. My brother has a pretty nice home studio that he sunk a lot into. It is good enough for some pro recording and mixing. And he enjoys listening to mp3s. No problem for him. Of course he prefers cd or even 24 bit playback through his nice studio system, but he's a musician, and can thoroughly enjoy simple inexpensive playback systems because he loves the music. I'm not like that. mp3 would kill it for me personally. I'd listen a lot less. My issue, I know.

[semente]

(assumed you mean synthesizers)

 

Hmm ... while for me that music contains a 100 times more than any Jazz combo (instruments) could ever show.

 

 

 

Funny, because earlier on somewhere I said exactly that.

... When things in the chain are not right ...

 

 

 

More funny, because I would give synthesizers as such as the first example for such music.

This is not true all the way because it depends on where the music origins (like when really from India etc. normal instruments will be used more, while someone like Adham Shaikh kind of mimics that and is good at it (but now with synths mostly)).

Someone talked about orgasmic. Well, try this album : https://www.discogs.com/Adham-Shaikh-Essence/release/238793

and the first track (Somptin Hapnin (Water In Me)) - and see if you can keep it dry.

But with the system "off" nothing much happens.

 

Might you really try some time and agree ... I have well over a 1000 of such type of albums. This is not Vangelis you know. This is the ultimate best sounding with really everything in it.

But for those who know : this is how my wife calls this (the mentioned) Test Signals and how she might say "bring in the Shoarma !".

 

Anyway about the spiritual stuff : I love it. Say that all which is Boeddha and the like, is what can easily be sensed because it can be put into music so well.

And just saying : that is not my religion at all.

Hi Peter,

 

This is a matter of personal taste.

I like the sound of acoustic instruments, the richness of their timbre, if recorded then preferably in a natural space and mic'ed at an adequate distance, and the way that a player can squeeze expressiveness and emotion from the mechanical actuation of its resonating, "real" body. An acoustic instrument exists, it doesn't need electricity, and gains life in the hands of the player.

 

R

[christopher3393]

Preoccupied - Engaged in some mental or physical activity while playing music in the background.

 

Distracted - listening to music but mind wandering / daydreaming.

 

Critical - thinking about sound quality or performance while listening.

 

Mindful - listening deeply to music without discursive thought.

 

Lost - listening and forgetting I exist.

 

I can live without numbers 2 and 3

 

Subject-object dichotomy dissolved?

[semente]

I'd be interested in your "proper methodology", given that I obviously do my share of writing on evaluating performances on my blog.

 

In any case, I agree there are three different ways of listening to me:

 

- casual listening: I have music on whenever I'm at home.

- critical audiophile listening: mainly used to compare equipment, which I don't do that much any more, but sometimes I just put on an album just for the pleasure of the excellent sound.

- listening to evaluate the performance: This can be done completely independently of sound quality. I could do this even on an Iphone speaker, as I just have a completely different area of focus.

 

That, my friend, is a job for Superman...

 

I don't have the time right now for the extensive essay describing my experiences and thoughts that the subject deserves but I could start by saying that my goal is to reproduce "classical" music in a way that it sounds as realistic and natural as possible within my budget (something which is obviously recording dependent), meaning the highest possible fidelity to the recorded signal.

 

R

 

 

 

P.S.: I have just realised that I should have written "equipment performance", and not having done so has led you to believe that I was referring to musical interpretation.

 

Thanks anyhow!

 

I didn't wan't to leave your question unanswered so here goes...

Whilst I do agree that most aspects of a musical performance can be evaluated when listening in lower-fi, I feel that the better system will provide a deeper and more stimulating experience because I find the sound to be an important part of the performance.

My relation with music interpretation is almost completely driven by sensation and emotion, since I lack the musical knowledge and training that would allow me to approach it from a more technical or "accuracy-prone" (respect for the scores) perspective.

I am mostly interested in the Romantic period and early 20th Century which for me personally is more stimulating to the spirit, whilst I find that music from the Late Baroque and Classical genres, which I also enjoy, tends to trigger a more rational, conscious reaction from me.

I don't feel the need to know or own a dozen performances of the same work, nor am I fundamentalist when it comes to period instruments or strict reading; as an example I am quite fond of Claudio Arrau's "creative" interpretations.

 

R

[livelistenlearn]

That, my friend, is a good question, and made me laugh for some reason.

 

Cool. Laughter validates personality.

 

Do you think that listening to the system's sound quality trumps (apologize for that word) listening that judges the quality of the music?

 

Think:

‘Bad music’ does not make any system sound good.

‘Good music’ can make one forget the system altogether.

[Snowmonkey]

Subject-object dichotomy dissolved?

Mu

[christopher3393]

Mu

 

Thank you, Roshi!