Is Steve Guttenberg BS’ing Audiophiles About Their Systems?

In a zombie apocalypse, the guy you throw to the horde so you can escape while they eat him is the one wearing this shirt

 

wow .... harsh !

 

Well, yes. Because, unlike Steve, even zombies do have some minimal fashion sense.


(sry Steve, just funnin’ )
.

 

i keed, I keed….

 

I’m not under this delusion, myself, as I’ve played and heard enough live music to know better (or for that to even be my goal with hi-fi; I just want whatever my source is to be played well). However, when we had my mother-in-law over for St. Patrick’s Day and I just had some playlist streaming that included some song with a harp, she said “it sounds like there’s a harp in the room!” Now, it didn’t — I’ve been in plenty of rooms with harps being played — but it’s apparently good enough for someone with no expectation of that being how quality audio playback should sound to make that comment, even from a lossy streaming source (Apple Music through a Roku player, which is not available lossless but sounds OK).

 

Similar to Audiophile proverb.. Its actually its more like in the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade's... "He Chose Poorly." after he took and drank from the wrong grail. That's what I meant.

 

Didn’t read through the entire thread so this may have been mentioned/discussed but…

95% of studio recorded music doesn’t sound like “live” music so not sure how our home systems are supposed to morph those into what a band playing live would sound like anyway.

Oh and I am in the camp that thinks most professional musicians are not audiophiles.

 

I can reproduce live venues that use a PA, such as a live concert, Broadway show or intimate jazz club.

Likewise, I can reproduce movies music that you hear in a theater. An example of this might be the Star Wars theme. I can not reproduce this same piece of music when played by a live orchestra.

Yes is does. I think a home audio system is better at reproducing simple acoustic music than complex music involving multiple instruments.

Very good point! You are only going to reproduce music from your source. You can only hope to approach the sound of your source recording.

 

I must say Steve is correct. The Absolute Sound got its name by seeking components that came closer to the absolute sound of live acoustic instruments playing. Sit in a room with a grand piano played by a great musician, then go home and play a great recording of a grand piano. They will be miles apart. No system I’ve ever heard came close to convincing me I’m listening to a real Steinway.

However as he also stated, trying to reproduce the sound of live instruments isn’t the point of most recordings. They are just creating some kind of sonic, sensory experience.

 

[Is Steve Guttenberg BS’ing Audiophiles About Their Systems?]

No, he's correct...it's All an Illusion! However, the more it creates "Suspension of Disbelief", then the closer you are to the promise of 2-channel playback magic!!

Ted

 

I think there was more of a reason for magazines like, The Absolute Sound, to exist in 1973. I think the objective for companies in the 60's and early 70's to manufacture audio components that could reproduce sound that was as close to lifelike as possible.

I think that many companies of that era did accomplish what they started out doing. In other words, mission accomplished!

In more recent years, the industry has moved away from these concepts...

Magazines and reviews today are longer tasked with this purpose. They exist mostly to be shills for their advertisers.

 

agree

 

It’s a known fact, if your city or town’s power supply ain’t good, then it compromises the sound, too. Gotta have your own power supply.

 

Steve puts out these "Jack Handey's Deep Thoughts" type videos when he doesn't have a review ready, so he can be sure to ask for Patreon money at least twice a week. By the way, he used to have a "lunch with Steve at the restaurant of his choice" offer on his Patreon for a mere $500. I guess people weren't taking him up on it so that wonderful perk seems to have been discontinued. I wonder if it came with a free autograph, or was that extra?

 

Advice to Steve on that:

1) Cut price to $200.
2) Wear better shirts to dinner.
.

 

Oh my! I watched the video and thought Steve made some great points. I've never called myself an audiophile because the term has a negative association for me. When I hear the term audiophile, I picture someone with super fancy/expensive audio gear that can't enjoy the music. They can't enjoy music because the gear/recording can't match the unrealistic expectations of what their mind has conjured up that should be happening. All of the effort, time and expense has yet to deliver a "perfect sound", whatever that is. I prefer to call myself an audio enthusiast. I listen to a lot of different gear (many times it's so far out of my price range by multiples). It's all good. Sometimes I like it, many times I don't.

Before I comment on your and Steve's points, I have a little story. A true story! I had an uncle that took things in the media way too seriously (to the point of absurdity). For example, we kids would watch the 1960s Batman TV show. Even though it was the silliest of shows to take seriously, he would get upset when that show was on. What was his main problem? He would get mad because the villain would always leave the dynamic duo to escape whatever instrument of doom was carefully crafted to cause their demise. That's right. He would get upset that the villain wouldn't just kill Batman and Robin outright or at least stick around to make sure that they actually died in the wacky contraptions. When he asked us kids how we could watch that, we just shrugged our shoulders and said because it's just a fun TV show. When the show episode ended, we went on to the next fun thing to do without giving the show more weight than it deserved. On to the points.

1. Recorded music on the best of systems doesn't sound live. You said "Duh". I don't think Steve was giving us a new revelation. It might sound obvious but Steve makes a great point. Instead of hearing different systems or components, we should all get out regularly to hear live and unamplified music. It does cleanse the auditory palette.

2. Steve has a point that that various gear sounds different, not necessarily better. I read postings here and elsewhere in the hardware section and it doesn't take long to see that the best gear is usually whatever the poster has or is into. There are usually more haters of certain types and brands of gear as there are fans in my estimation. As for my own experience, no matter what gear I have, I'll never recapture that pure joy that I felt when I first discovered new music back in my youth on the most unimpressive of gear. Anything that i have now is superior in every way but it's only a pale comparison to the excitement of hearing "that song" or artist for the first time. To take this a bit further, have you ever seen a professional reviewer in any hobby that wrote that they were through reviewing products because they found perfection? Have you ever read a performance car magazine were they wrote that they were closing shop because they had found the perfect automobile that fit all needs and filled all niches? Even if I had gear that was my audio bliss in every way (not sure that's possible), I would still listen to other gears just for the experience.

3. I've also found that musicians don't tend to be audiophiles in the typical sense. I'm an amateur musician myself but I know quite a few pros. In my experience, they get exited by the melody, or other attributes of a recording more than the actual awesomeness of the sound coming from the gear. A musician is likely to pull out a guitar or go to a piano to play a cool song they heard and try to work out what is going on there musically. I've never seen a musician wait until they could find a Steinway piano when an old upright is within reach. You gave a list of professional musicians that have high end gear but I wonder if many of those musicians have that gear because they are at a point that they can afford to have great gear. They may have been just as into the music when they could only afford low end gear when starting out. Just a thought.

 

Musicians exist to create music. They do not concern themselves about how music is recreated...

 

Eddie Vedder. Looks like he’s a B&W fan.

 

Sly Stone.



.

 

Louis Armstrong. Yup, ‘Satchmo’.

.

 

Is Steve Guttenberg BS’ing Audiophiles About Their Systems?.....

Its a job.

 

I agree to a point but I think it varies. Arranging, mixing, etc. for great sounding playback are as much of the creative process as writing and performance for SOME musicians.

I recall an interview several years ago with Quincy Jones. He was speaking about when he was finishing up work on Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album. He said they (Michael & Quincy) had worked right up to the deadline mixing the master tapes. Both Michael and Quincy were exhausted and thought they had a fantastic sounding master tape ready to go. They called it a day and left to get some much needed rest. The very next day they met again and put a master tape on to admire the finished product. There was something all wrong about the tape. They played even more of the album and it sounded terrible to both of them. Quincy said that their ears were so fatigued when they did the mixing that they didn't realize how bad it turned out. He said that they ended up missing the deadline to have the master tapes ready but it was worth it.. They remixed a new master with fresh ears to get the product that they wanted.

 

My experience matches this…most musicians while performing are just trying to hear themselves above the din of everyone else and are focused on making the music and what their particular part sounds like (is there enough chorus effect on that guitar, is my bass in tune?). More interest maybe during mixing in the overall sound & soundstage, but again more like “the vocals are too low”. Again, my experience.

 

I can assure you I absolutely don't want my sound system to sound like "live music" which I don't even think sounds that good to begin with.

 

I think he’s absolutely correct, the devil is in the details and whether one goes looking for it or is bothered by it will ultimately impact the enjoyment they get from listening. At the end of the day the spirit of his video that I took away was just to enjoy the experience for what it is, and a suggestion from Steve to abandon the thinking that an endgame system exists that will sound nearly as authentic as live performances without playback degradation. Having that said… I disagree to some extent that that “illusion” isn’t possible - perhaps from a technical perspective, but lately there are times when I can close my eyes and trick my brain into thinking I have a direct window to the singer or instrument - it’s all in the state of mind/willingness to hear and focus on the music and performance and forget about the gear.