Jimmy James Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 ---------------- On 6/16/2005 12:24:25 PM Allan Songer wrote: ABSOLUTELY!!! But I would never sit there and gush on and on about the HIEGHT of the "soundstage" or say "listen to Percy Heath's fingers on the fret!" BECAUSE IT WOULD BE DISTRACTING THEM FROM THE MUSIC! And that's all I have to say. ---------------- The poor system he's trying to get them away from provides enough distractions of omission already. Are you saying that when you shop for equipment and audition it, you don't listen for these details and cues? An education for the novice such as this, is what leads to more sales of brands like Klipsch, rather than the typical box store garbage. As far as remaining focused on the elements of fidelity, this soon becomes second nature, second to the MUSIC, like breathing well is second to LIVING, only becoming a problem when it's gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I have a couple of comments on this topic, the first being that what the guy is "after" is an attempt at "realism" (or a reproduction of what is on the recording). Absolutely NOTHING is WRONG with THAT! But it should be noted that the stereo soundstage presented by 2 loudspeakers is quite a bit different than the soundstage presented by headphone, same recording and same equipment. The second is a cautionary note: how does the author "know" that his system is reproducing the soundstage "correctly", i.e., how does one know where and how far back and such? I doubt that "his-version of soundstage" is going to reproduce in my listening space with any relatable exactitude whatsoever. Different systems = different soundstages. The problem I have is I like the soundstage to NOT be a virtual reproduction of the recording studio, where multiple microhones and tracks blow that right out of the water. What is the point of trying to make spacial sense of that? Alas, the brain WILL try and correlate all of it to attempt to make spacial sense out of it anyway because THAT'S just WHAT IT DOES, practical or not. Orchestral work is probably best for overall soundstage reproduction, but I want at least 2 mics for a stereo soundstage, not one as stated. Perhaps he mis-spoke/typed. I want to imagine concert hall seating, about middle row, center. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Very interesting choices, of course the Chesky and DMP offerings are very good for examples of these affects. So too are the Stereophile magazine test discs. High Resolution closely miked, small group ensembles Depth imaging? Same type as above, pull loudspeakers 3 ot 4 feet away from front and side walls Atmosphere uncut live studio recordings Midrange Purity female vocalists Naturalness same as all three above Transparency same as all three above Presence same as all three above Visceral Impact first think that comes to mind is the deep earth tones of Enyas Watermark CD, or the drum whacks of DMPs recordings Rhythm and Pace again DMP recordings Focus is this same as details? Holographic Imaging same as three above Transients acoustic and percussive music has fast attack Bass Resonance DMP, Stereophile and Chesky Dynamics has to be the Japanese ceremonial drums on DMP recordings oh, and I agree with Allan... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franczyk Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 An interesting note: All of those audio files are stolen directly from the CHESKY ULTIMATE DEMONSTRATION DISC. In fact, the disk itself has a explanation track between each song, where the announcer says pretty much the same notes that are typed in the post above... The disc was meant to be used to evaluate audio equipment. I think it might be out of print, but you can probably pick up a copy used on half.com, ebay, or amazon.com. That way you don't have to listen to an MP3, and you can actually hear some of the things it recommends. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006AZL4Y/qid=1118945668/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl15/102-6906770-9272910?v=glance&s=music&n=507846 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franczyk Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 ---------------- On 6/16/2005 9:40:57 AM Allan Songer wrote: Seems to me this guy cares far more about showing off his fancy hi-fi than he does about really falling into the MUSIC. And that BOTHERS me when he is trying to INSTRUCT all of us about how best to enjoy MUSIC. I think it's crap. ---------------- I wouldn't worry about it. 1) It can't ALWAYS be about the music. 2) This is a discussion board about audio equipment, not music. 3) He is not trying to instruction how to ENJOY the music, but instead, how to listen to your audio equipment. (which is fine) However, I see where you are coming from. I find that people that prefer Klipsch tend to be less interested in listening to the equipment, and more interested in enjoying music. If you want to be bored and analyze the quality of the audio reproduction instead of just enjoying the music, get yourself a set of Martin Logans or some other sort of boring snoozefest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erukian Posted June 16, 2005 Author Share Posted June 16, 2005 I do appreciate what some of you guys are saying about music, particularly about how to enjoy it. But I haven't offered my two cents in this topic yet so it's about time I do, since I started the darn thing! Essentially, this is not a guide for the existing audiophile, instead, it's a tool for audio enthusiasts to learn how to appreciate the HARDWARE they play their music on. A lot of the points Zemo makes tell us that the hardware should just dissappear and the only thing you should be thinking about is the music. I don't believe he's doing anything wrong, and I certainly wouldn't call his article 'CRAP'. I found his explanations of the samples for the most part really accurate. Did he rip his details from the test CD? Maybe, but either way they do tell us quite a bit about the peice being played. Where it's being played and how the microphone is placed, etc, etc. I believe this can only help us to appreciate music in the long run. If I had no idea what to listen for in the depth of the image the speakers produce, then this guide is the right thing to give me a good example of just that. Now with the newly gained knowledge, I can listen to the rest of my recordings in a different way. Not in a judgmental way, going through each measure of music being played and tearing apart the recording, mixing, and skill of the musicians, but in a well recorded piece I can just simply, understand the complexities. I think it's all part of being an audiophile. Anybody can enjoy music and anyone can understand how amps and speakers work with a little bit of reading. But to train your ears to where they hear the details in any recording is just like a musician training his ears to be able to pick any instrument out of a hundred people in a orchestra and point to who is out of tune. Just because a good musician can pick apart his own playing as well as other's around him, doesn't at all mean he no longer truly enjoys music, I believe it's just a simple level of understanding that comes with the training. However you take to heart what this topic is about, I'm glad some of you appreciate it as much as I do. -Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sivadselim Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Listen to her voice. It should sound throaty and female. At 3:23 you should be able to tell she's a brunette. It should be obvious to you what she had for lunch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 I have a Linda Rhondstat album with an orchestra and you can hear her lick her lips. I am assuming it's her lips. At least I like to imagine that she's licking her lips. If she's licking anything else but her lips it detracts from the music, IMO. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 ---------------- On 6/16/2005 1:16:35 PM franczyk wrote: An interesting note: All of those audio files are stolen directly from the CHESKY ULTIMATE DEMONSTRATION DISC. In fact, the disk itself has a explanation track between each song, where the announcer says pretty much the same notes that are typed in the post above... The disc was meant to be used to evaluate audio equipment. I think it might be out of print, but you can probably pick up a copy used on half.com, ebay, or amazon.com. That way you don't have to listen to an MP3, and you can actually hear some of the things it recommends. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006AZL4Y/qid=1118945668/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i3_xgl15/102-6906770-9272910?v=glance&s=music&n=507846 ---------------- franczyk is absolutely right...I own the same exact disc: "The Ultimate Demonstration Disc - Chesky Records' Guide to Critical Listening", 1995 Chesky Records, Inc. High Resolution Technology 128x Oversampling. Catalog: UD95. Written and produced by Steve Guttenberg, Executive Producers: David & Norman Chesky. Giving credit where credit is due! FWIW... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 How to REALLY listen to music About half-buckled........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 My point is made... this started about listening to music. Linda's lip smacking is in the same category as reflections, stick clicks, and the afore mentioned contralto's fart. I think its what musicians and music lovers call noise. Its what tone deaf audiophiles write about. All the same, it may not be worthy of arguing about. I "test" my gear with what I like to hear - music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 ---------------- On 6/16/2005 12:15:42 PM Allan Songer wrote: So those who have lesser equipment shouldn't listen to good music? ---------------- Of course not. I listen to a lot of music in my car. And enjoy it. But when I listen on my home system. I can really get into it. BECAUSE I can hear all those things mentioned above. Our hi-fi system is merely a tool that we use to get into our music. But we need to understand our toy and know what to listen for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erukian Posted June 18, 2005 Author Share Posted June 18, 2005 I've been thinking about this topic now and again. Taken from some of the comments i've read, it seems he's not telling readers that they don't know how to listen to their music because his way is the right way. The point seems to be, from what I gather, is he's just helping people understand the low-level information packed into recordings. Once you learn that this low-level information exists, and what the difference are plus being able to put the differences into words, you have the knowledge to not just hear the music like anyone, but to really listen to it. I believe there's a difference between hearing music and listening to music. Today's pop music is just for people to hear, something to bob your head to. But if you know how to listen for the information in the records you enjoy music entirely on a new level. The background info is not just noise, I believe it just enhances the realism -- and was included by the studio engineer and musician on purpose. I also feel that learning these terms, learning how to idenfity the low-level information allows you to take a well recorded peice of music, and do something that most people who just hear music can't do, peice together an image of the room, the instruments, how many singers are there, etc. Just like going to a concert then buying the record and listening to it, you keep imagining the concert while the recording is being played, a person with trained ears can do the opposite, put together a picture of the band/group before they've seen them live. I think i've made my point though, i'd like to know what people think about it. -Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krispykoilz Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 Erukian, thanks for posting this guide. Some really good tunes in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krispykoilz Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 ---------------- On 6/16/2005 5:43:11 PM mike stehr wrote: How to REALLY listen to music About half-buckled........ ---------------- LMAO, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrol Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 "... - I was waiting for the part where he indicates how far into the choral music we have to wait to hear the contralto slip out a fart between verses. "Breath" anyone?..." ROFLMAO! lol btw, that last live concert I went to (awesome seats for U2 in Philly) was so loud I used wadded up tissue as ear plugs . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuNat Posted June 20, 2005 Share Posted June 20, 2005 i think this is the same zemo who ive seen all over the net on various forums.. I see him give people truly bad advice on various forums about sound equipment. for example: "mp3s are just as good as the original recordings if encoded right" this guy listens to MP3s on an emo soundcard through headphones. hes rather obnoxious and thinks he knows everything about music and hi-fi equipment.. I find him to be very misinformed and this article demonstrates his pompusness to the nth degree. this guy is a clown, how dare anyone tell me how to listen to music.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 this guy is a clown, how dare anyone tell me how to listen to music.. Relax, it's just an article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I have no problem with the music he is listening to! What I was commenting on is that he says NOTHING about the music and EVERYTHING about the recordings: When listening to a recording (which is what we are doing at home with our stereos), we are listening to a recording... being reproduced by who-knows-what-where. Allan, would you have been more pleased if it was called "some recordings and what to listen for in them"? Or "How good is your equipment and speakers"? DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 I didn't read anything but the initial post of this thread. Sorry if I'm redundant. How to REALLY listen to music Easy answer,Get a yearly pass to the concert hall and go to shows if you have the chance not to live in a hell pit where the only live music you'll ever listen is the old lady on Sunday church singing like a drunken Irish. The given list is a sad compilation. It's a good exemple why the hi-fi business is down the drain.Do you listen to "depth" or you listen to music?Do you listen to "midrange purity" or your listening to music?Do you listen to "focus" or your listening to music?Do you listen to "Pomps and Pipes" or...Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.