The Audiophile As a Social Construct...

So Jan-Erik: why? What is the answer?

Is it the pursuit of the perfection?

Is it 'mine is better than yours' phenomena?

Oh it's not that simple. Depends whether you're a churner, an analyst or a realist, or most likely, some combination of these (Chapter 2 : The Axiom of Uniformity and the Types of Audiophile).

I am now totally committed to a mono valve amplification set driving one ESL.

This is easy to see as the end point in my pursuit of replay to my taste. Not many people ever acknowledge the end point! Actually most people do not really think there is an end point. If they ever really think about it at all. ...

I have not read the book Jan proposes, but i guess that my outlook on replay is as different from the norm as could be found on this Forum!

Best wishes from George

Ultimately I am coming to a point where I still care a little but about the equipment. But it's not that important anymore.

But... pursuit of music is more important. I don't want to make it too philosophical. I play live music every week, so I know how much pleasure / frustration goes into creating a piece. For me good audio equipment is simply means to an end

As to mono vs stereo - each natural instrument is mono

Wow, I like it.

Jan that's very interesting, and a great thing to bring to this online party we have.  However, from that piece there appears to be something rather odd about me...

I could afford a much more expensive system than I have, but I don't think I'd get that much more joy from it, so I stick with what I have.  I also find the why at least as interesting as the what.  True the what is easier to see, but the why has much more depth and many more levels to explore within that depth.

May be it has something to do with my low Baron-Cohen score - I can't look outward, so for information I look inward.  Even then, discussing that inward journey is even more difficult than taking it.

It's very simple for me - at least the main reason - to optimise the music. 

Secondary factor - I'm actually quite materialistic - I like to think that the items I own are well designed, care has gone into manufacture, that they will sustain, I hate the  disposable culture. 

Glad you like it Huge. I've just finished the chapter on EATs (Early Audiophile Triggers), i.e., what it was that got us interested in music and hi-fi in the first place. From there, Musgrave delves into the different ways that we each hear and experience music. One size does definitely not fit all...

Well, that is interesting. For me, my primary love in all this is the music. I listen to music a LOT and I want it to sound really good - very rarely do I listen to the hifi, I almost always listen to the music. 

After that, I love things that are designed with care and built to last.

An interesting distinction between the how and the why.   The latter is possibly deep and complex but, like Lindsay, I'd say it is to squeeze the very last drop of enjoyment out of the music we love.

I've been thinking about my own EATs and have realised it comes from the mergence of two separate sources.

1  I always found I liked a wider range of music than many of my contemporaries - OK, no jazz or atonal music [dyslexia], and very little high opera.  Even as a child I collected classical recordings as well as pop & rock.

2  I had an interest in electronics from a young age (<7), so when my father wanted to get a better system, I did some research for him, and found the engineering side fascinating.

Then I merged the interests and hit the slippery slope.  This is why I designed and built my own amps and modified my turntables.  The engineering challenge and the pursuit of understanding was a reward in itself; but it also benefited me in my depth of understanding of the music, giving me access to an even wider range of genres, and that was a further reward (it still comes back to dopamine as you pointed out in an earlier thread!).

I note the "Spending more on the equipment than the music" argument isn't completely refuted in the article.  However I have a different view on spend - not monetary, but temporal.  I spend much more time listening to music than 'tinkering' with the system, and I spend much more time researching new music to add to my collection than I spend researching new equipment (whether or not that equipment is something I could ever develop an intent to buy).

For me, the better equipment allows appreciation of a wider the range of music, and the wider the range of music gives a wider range of internal experience I can have; so, for me, that's the ultimate why.  The engineering is a fascinating pursuit in passing, but it is temporary: once achieved, it's done.  In contrast, the pursuit of new experience through music continues, and with the degree of access now available it seems almost inexhaustible.

One day scientists will discover the audiophile gene, and they will treat it with ultrasound therapy, and what a treat that will be 

Debs

I'm sure before that, some marketing exec will 'invent' audiophile jeans, and they will be 'one size fits all'!   

Huge posted:

I'm sure before that, some marketing exec will 'invent' audiophile jeans, and they will be 'one size fits all'!   

One legged version for George? 

G

naim_nymph posted:

One day scientists will discover the audiophile gene, and they will treat it with ultrasound therapy, and what a treat that will be 

If only...

Some more from Mr Musgrave :

We start with the observation that audiophiles are made not born. There is no instinct, survival value or genetic coding for being excessively picky about speaker cables. Quite the opposite. The love of music may be universal enough to be considered instinctive, but the love of boxes full of electronics is not. The conversation on the Serengeti Plains about fifty thousand or so years ago as we evolved into humans that might have run thus:

‘Coming out to hunt wildebeest for dinner Ugg?’

‘Nah mate. No time for trivial tosh like food. Still trying to get the ritual chant storage media right. Tricksy stuff granite. Always a hilly bit when you want a daley bit and vice versa. And that’s before you try and get it perfectly circular and as for cutting thorns to track the ups and downs….’

Almost certainly did not take place. A shame but there you go.

So we learn to be audiophiles, and it is this learning process that I want to look at.

Full text on audio-insight dot org

At the recent Montreal Audio Show, I attended one of the sessions given in the Audio Note room, where a live cellist accompanied himself on a previously recorded session, played back, naturally, through Audio Note gear. While the objective was to compare live and recorded music, the experience left me uncomfortable and troubled. Firstly, for the sound and music comparisons (the two experiences are completely different) and secondly for the musician. I felt sorry for him. 

Now, after reading Musgrave's Article 6 (Music In the Home and the Core Conundrum), it has finally sunk in that, as he states, « Live music and recorded music are so different that one cannot serve as a clone of the other. »

« We must first explore how live music is different from recorded music and re-examine our response to the changing paradigm that is encompassed by the phrase ‘Music in the Home’. As ever with this site, the assumption is that the harder and deeper we ask and push into a thorny subject, the wiser we will become and the more fruitful and fulfilling our efforts and outcomes. So here we go:

1. In a live performance the musicians are in the space with us and we look at them. We can see their instruments, their body movements and facial expressions. Their spiritual vibrancy draws us into the performance and amplifies its emotional impact. When we listen to recorded music the performers are not in the room with us and we stare at a bunch of metal boxes which is emotionally and culturally about as barren as it gets.
2. At a live performance we are with an audience and must obey the group ethic, which by and large is to restrain movement, attend to the performance, not to talk loudly (or at all), use our mobile phones or do the crossword. When we listen at home we can do all of these things without restraint.
3. Most live music venues are large and designed for good acoustic performance. Most home listening is done in small rooms that have problematic acoustic performance.
4. Live unamplified music is never distorted, music in the home is always distorted, sometimes to a degree that renders it unpleasant or impossible to listen to.
5. No two performances of live music are ever musically the same. All performances of a piece of recorded music are musically identical.
6. We have paid for our tickets to a live performance, have travelled to the venue, maybe had a meal beforehand and want and expect to get an extraordinary experience. In the home we pay little, if anything, for the music, approach it casually and expect a great deal less from its hearing. Live performances become key events in our lives in a way that recorded performance does not.
7. We control recorded music content, sequence, volume and other parameters. We do not control live music performance. With live music we are slaves to the performers, with recorded music we are the masters.
8. We accept the sound of live music as it is, we audiophiles constantly critique the sound of recorded music.
9. Because live music is an event shared with other people, it is a profoundly social event with cultural and socio-economic dimensions (think opera or Glastonbury) that listening to recorded music rarely, if ever, has.
10. Listening to recorded music in the home predicates the purchase and usage of electronic equipment which live music does not require. Optimisation of playback equipment introduces a new and unwelcome focus for the listener’s attention, thereby detracting from the emotional impact of the music.

(My underlining)

GraemeH posted:

Huge posted:

I'm sure before that, some marketing exec will 'invent' audiophile jeans, and they will be 'one size fits all'!   

One legged version for George? 

G

I am getting there. Soon will arrive a nice valve mono amp. Lots to do though, selling my existing amp, and ancillaries. Double bass bow, and some other unimportant possessions! Strange to think that this change will make my room tidier! Less cluttered. When all is done, I’ll post a photo in the system Pictures thread, though I shall not be reviewing the system on the forum. I do not believe it is close enough to the conceptual  norm here to be credible for most people. 

Not keen on Jeans though. Not even one legged ones! 

Best wishes from George

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

At the recent Montreal Audio Show, I attended one of the sessions given in the Audio Note room, where a live cellist accompanied himself on a previously recorded session, played back, naturally, through Audio Note gear. While the objective was to compare live and recorded music, the experience left me uncomfortable and troubled. Firstly, for the sound and music comparisons (the two experiences are completely different) and secondly for the musician. I felt sorry for him. 

Now, after reading Musgrave's Article 6 (Music In the Home and the Core Conundrum), it has finally sunk in that, as he states, « Live music and recorded music are so different that one cannot serve as a clone of the other. »

« We must first explore how live music is different from recorded music and re-examine our response to the changing paradigm that is encompassed by the phrase ‘Music in the Home’. As ever with this site, the assumption is that the harder and deeper we ask and push into a thorny subject, the wiser we will become and the more fruitful and fulfilling our efforts and outcomes. So here we go:

1. In a live performance the musicians are in the space with us and we look at them. We can see their instruments, their body movements and facial expressions. Their spiritual vibrancy draws us into the performance and amplifies its emotional impact. When we listen to recorded music the performers are not in the room with us and we stare at a bunch of metal boxes which is emotionally and culturally about as barren as it gets.
2. At a live performance we are with an audience and must obey the group ethic, which by and large is to restrain movement, attend to the performance, not to talk loudly (or at all), use our mobile phones or do the crossword. When we listen at home we can do all of these things without restraint.
3. Most live music venues are large and designed for good acoustic performance. Most home listening is done in small rooms that have problematic acoustic performance.
4. Live unamplified music is never distorted, music in the home is always distorted, sometimes to a degree that renders it unpleasant or impossible to listen to.
5. No two performances of live music are ever musically the same. All performances of a piece of recorded music are musically identical.
6. We have paid for our tickets to a live performance, have travelled to the venue, maybe had a meal beforehand and want and expect to get an extraordinary experience. In the home we pay little, if anything, for the music, approach it casually and expect a great deal less from its hearing. Live performances become key events in our lives in a way that recorded performance does not.
7. We control recorded music content, sequence, volume and other parameters. We do not control live music performance. With live music we are slaves to the performers, with recorded music we are the masters.
8. We accept the sound of live music as it is, we audiophiles constantly critique the sound of recorded music.
9. Because live music is an event shared with other people, it is a profoundly social event with cultural and socio-economic dimensions (think opera or Glastonbury) that listening to recorded music rarely, if ever, has.
10. Listening to recorded music in the home predicates the purchase and usage of electronic equipment which live music does not require. Optimisation of playback equipment introduces a new and unwelcome focus for the listener’s attention, thereby detracting from the emotional impact of the music.

(My underlining)

Must say all of those are pretty good arguments.

I found his web site AUDIO INSIGHT a little difficult to get around in as its layouts convoluted as the content. But persevered and yes, great stuff.  Makes a change from usual hifi journalism. With his manifesto's - AUDIO INSIGHT would make a good printed publication. 

I thought the web-site a model of clarity, apart from the links that went nowhere.

I applaud someone who has taken the time and trouble to do what he has done in the pursuit of his hobby and then spent more time writing it all down and publishing it for free on the interweb.

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

At the recent Montreal Audio Show, I attended one of the sessions given in the Audio Note room, where a live cellist accompanied himself on a previously recorded session, played back, naturally, through Audio Note gear. While the objective was to compare live and recorded music, the experience left me uncomfortable and troubled. Firstly, for the sound and music comparisons (the two experiences are completely different) and secondly for the musician. I felt sorry for him. 

Now, after reading Musgrave's Article 6 (Music In the Home and the Core Conundrum), it has finally sunk in that, as he states, « Live music and recorded music are so different that one cannot serve as a clone of the other. »

« We must first explore how live music is different from recorded music and re-examine our response to the changing paradigm that is encompassed by the phrase ‘Music in the Home’. As ever with this site, the assumption is that the harder and deeper we ask and push into a thorny subject, the wiser we will become and the more fruitful and fulfilling our efforts and outcomes. So here we go:

1. In a live performance .

 

As annotated above, the assessment as given isn't universally true. And it omits what arguably is the biggest differences of all, a luxury we all take for granted, that at home we can choose when we listen to any particular piece of music and how frequently - with some live performances it is literally  a once in a lifetime event unless you can get to multiple gigs in a tour presenting one particular work. 

None of the above need stop any of us from wanting the closest we can get to that elusive 'being there' sound at home - but  how close we can get depend, amongst other things, on the style of music and the ambiance of recordings, and how willing/able we are to immerse ourselves in it.

I'm quite fond of elegant theories though.   Delicate structures that with a bit of rigorous prodding come tumbling down.   But why do that, it's a literary construct after all.

IB,  In general I agree with your comments, in come cases wholly, in some cases conditionally; so I would like to present a few caveats:

I believe Mr Musgrave was trying to keep the word count down, and so found it necessary to dispense with description of many of the conditional modifiers.  He is a games designer, and therefore acutely aware of the necessity for a reduced word count to keep readers focussed, and make it less likely for them to skip important passages (this also reflects the KISS principle).

I also believe he was presenting a position to which many will take umbrage (due to SAVs - Strongly Argued Views), and as such, to convince a higher proportion, he has stated the case in somewhat more polarised terms so as to overcome psychological inertia.  The irony here is that the piece itself then comes across as a SAV, and is thus more polarising; as, in addition to overcoming inertia, it can also engender an equally strong contrary reaction from readers. 

I don't believe he would consider the piece to be a complete view of the situation.  An important part of his overall premise is that human beings are complex and diverse, particularly psychologically; and that perforce precludes a fully complete description of the psychological effects of any circumstance on all people.  Similar logic also applies to how people react to the diversity of motivating and demotivating forces that act on them.

Provoking subsequent discussion is absolutely intended, as that's one of the ways in which we all investigate out 'whys'.  So he succeeded!

Adam Zielinski posted:

So Jan-Erik: why? What is the answer?

Is it the pursuit of the perfection?

Is it 'mine is better than yours' phenomena?

 

 

In a way Adam has hit both nails on the head as to why we do high end audio.  I would add the third obvious reason 'in pursuit of listening to music' which brings pleasure to all of us.  I think all three reasons are often interrelated but most will safely admit to the first and third reason.

i recall an episode of Fawlty Towers in which a guest who happened to be a psychologist said something like "... there is enough material for a whole week's confrerence there..." after observing one of many Basil's shenanigans...

"Adiophile as Social construct"  -- if i might be allowed to take poetic licence -- there is enough material for at least a year's conference there... :-)

enjoy...

ken

Romi posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

So Jan-Erik: why? What is the answer?

Is it the pursuit of the perfection?

Is it 'mine is better than yours' phenomena?

In a way Adam has hit both nails on the head as to why we do high end audio.  I would add the third obvious reason 'in pursuit of listening to music' which brings pleasure to all of us.  I think all three reasons are often interrelated but most will safely admit to the first and third reason.

They are nails, most useful for sealing long-term satisfaction into its coffin. Perfection is a moving target. Mine is better than yours ? 'nuff said.