WHY are high-efficiency speakers are better at conveying emotion of music vs. audiophile vocabulary?

[PeterA]

At the end of the day, if PeterA feels he connects with music better through system A than B, great. I would bet I could find 10 people who prefer system B to A for exactly the same reasons.

So what? That doesn’t matter at all. People spend their time and money however they want. No one is telling others what to do. There are far more important things in life.

 

[Al M.]

Of course not. What a silly question. No one needs a high-end system to appreciate music.

I don't think it's a silly question at all. It gets to the heart of the matter.

And it makes the puerile thread title seem even more questionable.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Other wise all we say is that our goosebumps and tears are more intense than those of another audiophile.

And if we're being strictly intellectually honest, we cannot even say this.

(Due to the incomparability of interpersonal utility.)

 

[Ron Resnick]

It asks about conveying the emotion of music. What do we mean by the emotion of music? Is it the emotion of the listener resulting from hearing the music?

A) yes

Or is it the emotion embedded in the music by the composer and then interpreted by the performer?

B) no

But I suspect that strong emotion from B) aids the emotional engagement in A).

If it is the latter, I would argue a system that presents the most information as uncorrupted as possible, is the one that is more successful at conveying the emotion of the music. And if this is the case, we must ask ourselves what types of systems are able to present the most amount of uncorrupted information captured by the recording.

This is true if, and only of, one's objective is Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

 

[Ron Resnick]

This is a quote from someone else that resonates with me. Its is a path that I have been pursuing with my system.

Why high efficiency is the only thing that makes sense for high end audio loud speakers. High efficiency = high dynamic range = high resolution and low distortion. This, results in Transient resolution, which is the ability to track very fast and complex dynamic (loud) pulses, retaining the fine interwoven acoustic detail in between the pulses. The ability to achieve this goal, is paramount, if we want to create a performance that is anywhere near something that can approach reality. This lack of efficiency is the industry's biggest stumbling block on their path to realism. They work with what I refer to as a non starter, regardless of how much they shine

This quote is a hot mess.

It confuses objective versus subjective; it discloses that the author has selected one or more particular sonic cues without realizing that these are merely his/her personal preferred sonic cues; it arrogantly assumes that his/her preferred sonic cues are the "paramount" ones; and it implicitly adopts Objective 2), without acknowledging the other possible objectives.

 

[PeterA]

I don't think it's a silly question at all. It gets to the heart of the matter.

And it makes the puerile thread title seem even more questionable.

We have discussed that it is possible to “appreciate music” over a laptop or car radio. Some even appreciate the music from a system video over YouTube and computer speakers. Therefore, it is pretty clear that one does not need a high end system to appreciate music.

We have also discussed that a high end system can allow us to appreciate music more than over a cheap radio. So the question of whether anyone “needs a high end system to appreciate music” seems pretty silly.

 

[PeterA]

A) yes


B) no

But I suspect that strong emotion from B) aids the emotional engagement in A).


This is true if, and only of, one's objective is Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

How you are certain it is A and not B? Have you never seen the face of a conductor or solo violinist as he creates his music? I can feel his emotion without even hearing the music. He is infusing his music with emotion and one can see the intent through his every motion and expression.

 

[Ron Resnick]

How you are certain it is A and not B? Have you never seen the face of a conductor or solo violinist as he creates his music? I can feel his emotion without even hearing the music. He is infusing his music with emotion and one can see the intent through his every motion and expression.

Live, yes. Whatever is the emotional intent or the emotional content of the musician and the conductor is irrelevant at home.

At home our only emotional receptor is our ears. We have only our own personal emotional reaction to gauge by what is coming through the speakers. The emotional intent or the emotional content of the musician and the conductor is baked into the cake at that point. At home we can go only by our own emotional reaction.

 

[hopkins]

So what? That doesn’t matter at all. People spend their time and money however they want. No one is telling others what to do. There are far more important things in life.

Yes, that’s obvious.

 

[hopkins]

Here’s an amusing, playful, scene from Bob Rafelson’s “Five Easy Pieces” about “emotion” in music performance:

To get back to the point, our hobby is about reproducing music. I agree with PeterA that reproduction should be as faithful as possible, but the solutions offered to do that are so varied, and the results so different, it is confounding. No system comes close to achieving that objective.

Even though it is music we are talking about, it’s reproduction is technology and « science », and I don’t see why we can’t evaluate the results from an analytical angle - in addition to other means of course.

 

[tima]

This is true if, and only of, one's objective is Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

An objective impossible to know if it is achieved.

 

[bonzo75]

Live, yes. Whatever is the emotional intent or the emotional content of the musician and the conductor is irrelevant at home.

By this logic someone like Angus Young would have been the most emotional inducing guitarist live, and Ritchie Blackmore the most boring.

People listen to the music, more so in classical than rock, and don’t simply go by visual cues. There are many stylish and visually engaged soloists and conductors who deliver poor in hall performances that disappoint the listeners

 

[microstrip]

Do you even need a high end system to appreciate music?

A quality system will allow people to appreciate music better and more frequently. The high-end is an hobby, that is more than just listening to music and emotion. Our high-end biases affect the way we feel the reproduced music.

 

[bonzo75]

This is true if, and only of, one's objective is Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

That’s the problem of debating with you, despite many times having been told how this objective relates to your other 3, you don’t get it and come back to quoting each in isolation as if they are independent of each other. Which is consistent with the fact of not getting importance of transparency to recordings

 

[microstrip]

An objective impossible to know if it is achieved.

While the signal is in the electrical domain, we can objectively control such objective. But as stereo is a loose, non standardized format, relying in room reflections and listener imagination to create space, it is not possible to have such objective in full.

 

[Robh3606]

I really don't get some of these responses? You either like the music or not. Does it make you happy ,sad are you indifferent to it? Do you appreciate the artistry or the lyrics? Does it have a great hook to pull you in?

You don't need a high end system for any of this. All you have to do is listen to it on whatever system you have available. It may sound better, better defined by preferences, on a more expensive system but that is not what defines your response. Those early Caruso recordings really don't elicit any emotion because the fidelity sucks?

Yeah right YMMV

Rob

 

[bonzo75]

I really don't get some of these responses? You either like the music or not. Does it make you happy ,sad are you indifferent to it? Do you appreciate the artistry or the lyrics? Does it have a great hook to pull you in?


Rob

On many hifi systems I cannot listen to the music I usually like. They distort too much

 

[Rexp]

I really don't get some of these responses? You either like the music or not. Does it make you happy ,sad are you indifferent to it? Do you appreciate the artistry or the lyrics? Does it have a great hook to pull you in?

You don't need a high end system for any of this. All you have to do is listen to it on whatever system you have available. It may sound better, better defined by preferences, on a more expensive system but that is not what defines your response. Those early Caruso recordings really don't elicit any emotion because the fidelity sucks?

Yeah right YMMV

Rob

So you get equal emotional involvement on a Bluetooth speaker as you do on your system, interesting ....

 

[Robh3606]

On many hifi systems I cannot listen to the music I usually like. They distort too much

Geez that sucks! In this day and age? What do you mean by distortion? Conventional THD as an example or something else?

What type of music? Classic Rock or Classical?

I seem to be immune which is fine by me.

Rob

 

[Robh3606]

So you get equal emotional involvement on a Bluetooth speaker as you do on your system, interesting ....

Oh hell yes! Don't you? You like vinyl? You can't listen through surface noise on 78's?

Seems to me you have a self inflicted "fidelity gate" you have to satisfy for musical enjoyment.

Rob