"Sounds Great" or "Less Fulfilling"?

[Burke Strickland]

Is the hardware the reason to be in this hobby, with the software a distant second? As a corollary, are we supposed to seek out only the most pristine, creatively engineered sound mixes that "blow us away" sonically? Or is our goal to enjoy the movie or recreate a musical experience in our viewing/listening space, with the equipment being a means to an end, not the end itself?

We could discuss video, (for instance, is a 32 inch true-HDTV monitor "better" for recreating the movie experience than a front projected eight foot wide 854x480 pixel image) but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to focus on the sound part of the system.

The more I get into this hobby, the more I'm convinced that the performances are paramount and our sound systems are there to recreate them as closely to what the engineers could capture of the performance as the technology of the times allowed, not to exist as an end in itself. I've found that just having "great sound" in a recording isn't enough to sustain my interest for very long. Like a vacation destination, it is disappointing if there is no "there" there. :>) IOW, there has to be some interesting musical content which not only stands up to, but INVITES listening multiple times.

For example, a few years ago, I had a co-worker who went "ga-ga" over some smooth jazz recordings that were superbly recorded, but were about as interesting musically as listening to a sewing machine. :>) I couldn't stand to listen for more than about the five minutes it took to confirm that the recording engineers had done an excellent job accurately transcribing what had happened during the performance. Beyond that, the mechanical repetition was simply boring.

Having a great system to hear it on allowed the tedious playing to be reproduced faithfully, but could not make up for the lack of inspiration in the performances. In this case, a boom box would probably have been sufficient, because what was being played did not warrant sufficient attention beyond what you'd give "elevator music".

In contrast, the following weekend, I heard a piano recording made in the 1920s that had a lot of pops, crackles and other noise, but the performance was sheer genius. After listening about a minute, I was able to ignore the noise and focus on the performance and was enthralled. When I've visited there since then, I've asked to hear it again and the owner willingly obliged. (It is a rare, hard to find, release that goes for some really astronomical amount, or I'd have it in my own collection.)

Having a really great system to listen on assured that the best qualities of the performance could shine through (even though the recording was less than pristine) without an additional layer of equipment-induced "grunge". A "boom box" would not have done it justice. However, a "good" system would have been up to the task, since at some point, the capabilities of the system would overtake the qualities of the recording.

Of course, ideally, I'd rather have BOTH a great performance AND great sound, but if I have to choose one or the other, I'll vote for the performance. By analogy, if a strikingly beautiful woman has a veil, you still get a perception of her underlying beauty. But if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still just a pig. :>)

Your comments and further discussion are welcome.

Burke

[ajpoe]

Hrmm, you're making us exercise our brains... I would have to agree that it comes down to content but quality certainly adds to the enjoyment factor. I say this because over the years I have slowly evolved from that boom box to what I consider a pretty darn good system. I remember watching Jurassic Park and Top Gun on VHS in full screen on a 19" TV in Pro Logic via my basic Pioneer Prologic receiver, 2 Fisher fronts, no sub, no center, and 2 $15 (a pair) KLH surrounds (my first setup). I remember how involved and exciting it was to watch a movie. Now, with several thousands more involved in equipment, it's still the escape and getting involved in the story that is most important to me. It is easier now with a big screen, and much more fulfilling because of the quality of picture and sound I can experience. But, a bad movie is still a bad movie... if I can't get into it, I won't enjoy it just because it sounds great or has good special effects. Same with music... I have tried listening to several of the 'reference' quality recordings that people have listed in the In Tune section of this forum, but several of the titles I just can't get into and didn't enjoy. It's like your Jazz example... if I don't enjoy the track, it doesn't matter whether it's reference or not. I'd rather listen to a 128 bitrate MP3 of a song I really like than reference quality that I don't enjoy at all whether it's on that boom box or a several thousand dollar setup. (Of course, with a choice, I'd rather listen to that MP3 on the expensive setup to get the most out of it even though it's not the best quality recording)

AJ

[Andrew Pratt]

There will always be a group that's more hardware driven then software and vise versa. I tend to flop between the two but i agree with you 100 percent that without quality media what's the point? Case in point which of the following is easier to get emotionally involved with 1) listening to a song you don't like on a $$$$$ stereo or 2) listening to a song you love on a clock radio

[Bent]

funny that this is mentioned today, I was mentioning to a coworker today about the Travelling Wilbury's "End of the Line" sog, and how I've never ever paid it any time or attention, in fact I found it to be a bit of a waste of time. Then yesterday I was driving back to the office in my service vehicle (OEM radio) and heard it being played... I was drawn into it and found it to be a very rewarding song - I actually had to crank it.

I guess there is still more to this music thing than just hardware and software, at least for me anyways. I think that timing makes a difference. I previously wasn't ready to "appreciate" the Willburys, but yesterday something changed inside my head and the song made a connection with me. Hmmm?

[Andrew Pratt]

Most definitely Ben...I mean our moods have a much impact on what we get out of any media we listen to or watch. You're bound to feel more emotionally about a song at a funeral for example then if you heard that same song at a christmas party not matter what gear it was being played on.

[Bruce]

I think our brain reacts differently to the sound quality of the environment. For instance, I can remember really getting into a number of songs I heard on the FM radio in my car (high ambient noise environment), but when I bought the CD and played it on my home system I didn't like it. I found too many flaws, like mismatched levels, compression, and other anomolies that ruined the listening experience on my home system.

So, I think the quality of the listening environment (including the playback equipment) has an influence on how we perceive the performance.

[Chris D]

Burke, you know I've got to get in on this topic. Can't post now, though. I'll mark this one and come back.

[NMG]

I'll take crappy sounding music I enjoy over high quality sounding music I can't stand. In a similar vein, I'd rather watch a corny old kung-fu flick on a 25 inch 4:3 set than the Country Music Awards produced in HD on my widescreen Toshiba. I guess this is why, on occasion, I still break out old tapes and listen to them even though they can sound rather dismal as far as quality goes.

[dave]

Case in point, When Jimmy Hendrix was alive and recording he used to go from the recording studio to a car radio for his sound check and if the song did'nt sound the way he wanted it to on that car radio he would keep remixing it till it did!!!

for me the performance is what is the most important thing. It does'nt do anything for me if the sound is phenominal and I am miserable with the song writing. Of course if you've got a good recording and a good song as well, then that's great!!!

[Bent]

Dave, I think we all know why Jimmy went out to his car all those times...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

in all honesty though, I would love to have been able to see just how good Jimmy would have been if he'd just taken care of himself.
:cry: I think we all lost something when Jimmy died.

[Chris D]

Okay... must post... can't avoid... opinions demand to be released...

First, I very much agree that ENJOYMENT of media, be it music or movies, is paramount. You can give me a pristine SACD of Yoko Ono, and I'll still puke my guts out. Likewise, when I hear my favorite band U2 over scratchy mono radio, it still brings a smile to my face. As I travel around the world, I'm impressed from time to time how spoiled we are in Western countries, such as when I see people in a small cafe in Africa enjoying a small AM radio.

So if you enjoy your media, in whatever form, and whatever quality, I give you a thumbs up! :T That being said, I've noticed a few issues with my own involvement with media:

1. I ALWAYS enjoy a live performance tenfold over a recording. To physically watch an artist create is very enjoyable, seeing the emotion, pride, and creativity flow. That goes for musicians, storytellers, play actors, artists, and dancers alike. I've been repeatedly astounded over the years seeing an artist do things live in person, ad libbing, scatting, (vocalist making music and rythm with vocalized non-word sounds) or doing something improv. Hearing tapes of the same artist later, even in a cleaner environment and recording, perfected from practice, or maybe even the SAME performance taped, just loses an emotional edge for me.

2. I will never stop my quest for improved audio and video performance in my life. Taking ANY media of mine that I enjoy, and expanding it through better quality, volume levels, picture size, or whatever, only makes it more and more enjoyable. Making a quantum improvement in your home theater setup with speakers and better video makes it seem like you just got a whole new movie and music collection, and it's great fun to watch and listen to your entire media collection all over again, like you're experiencing it for the first time.

3. Higher quality equipment (properly used) DEMANDS better media. I always chuckle when I hear comments from enthusiasts along the lines of "product x is too revealing". You've heard this argument disguised in various forms. One objection that comes up a lot against Klipsch speakers like I use is that the horn plays treble frequencies VERY efficiently, and you can hear background hiss in recordings. You'll see people talk about being able to see recordings artifacts on very large projection screens. Yes, these things are true. But what I see people advocate to prevent this are things like getting speakers that cover up imperfections in recordings, making the sound more "palatable" by slightly muting details. Or in the video analogy, "defocusing" the video to ever so slightly blur artifacts. What a crock. I see these people and their solutions as birds, sticking their heads in the sand to ignore problems. When you do these things, yes, you may cover up imperfections in the original recording, but you naturally lose musical and audio detail in the recording, and lose video detail on the screen! The good comes with the bad. It's like emphatically telling someone "Trust me, I'm an expert... you don't want to buy a Porsche, you'll feel all the bumps and cracks in the road! Buy a Cadillac... you don't have to deal with the bumps, and the ride will be much smoother and enjoyable." I want to hear every little note and detail in a symphony, so I'm willing to hear the 3rd trombone take a deep breath too, or hear a bit of hiss that the original studio recording put in with the music.

Getting back to the point there, upgrading to better and better equipment will naturally mean that you will hear and see more and more flaws in your media. So as you upgrade equipment, you'll also find that you're going to want to be more selective with the media quality. You'll be checking to see if an old CD was digitally mastered, or if a SACD is stereo or mutichannel, or if a DVD is anamorphic widescreen, or mastered in Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS ES. You'll find that on large screens, high definition scaling is a MUST when you notice pixels on your standard definition material.

I'm rambling... but you asked.

[David Meek]

Dammit Burke, I've been kicking this around for a week or so and I'm still not sure how to answer it!

I do think Ben is on to something with his comments about timing being important. At times I'm just fine with FM in the truck, at others I need CD-quality while driving. At home, there are times when I'm busy and at that point background-quality music is acceptable, but much of the time when I listen, I want good quality so that I can lose myself in the music. Overall, I think I'm more of a "software" kind of person than I am a "hardware" type, although with the right budget I could get really deep into the hardware end of the pool.

Chris makes a good point, too. As the resolving power of the hardware increases, I definitely like it when the media quality increases. But then again, I'll still put on an old vinyl album that has lots of extraneous noise in it and be just as happy because I can hear a song that I couldn't otherwise.

Isn't fence-sitting fun? :

[AndrewM]

Chris, I'd pretty much agree with you, except for;

1. I ALWAYS enjoy a live performance tenfold over a recording. To physically watch an artist create is very enjoyable, seeing the emotion, pride, and creativity flow. That goes for musicians, storytellers, play actors, artists, and dancers alike. I've been repeatedly astounded over the years seeing an artist do things live in person, ad libbing, scatting, (vocalist making music and rythm with vocalized non-word sounds) or doing something improv. Hearing tapes of the same artist later, even in a cleaner environment and recording, perfected from practice, or maybe even the SAME performance taped, just loses an emotional edge for me.

I can't stand stadium type concert events, there's just nothing really there to spark my interest. They sound bad, the dancing is sub-par (compared to watching something that focuses on dancing), it's just not my cup of tea. Now put me in a small club with a hundred people and a live band and I'll be there.

Past that I'm with the crowd here, I'd rather here really good material that has been recorded poorly than some amazing recording of something I would never listen to....at least to a point, then I'd really rather just listen to something else. My old "remastered" Led Zeppelin set had enough hiss in it to give me a damn headache after awhile (and damnit, I threw away all my LP versions!)

Andrew