Although I have mentioned “mining” Music many times before, I think I have not elaborated on it, despite this practice is the reason for most of the major changes I have worked on my audio system over many years. The Loudspeakers are case and point. They were specifically meant to open up Big Music (Bruckner, in particular) for better, more complete access, and they have in fact facilitated mining plenty of Music in addition to Bruckner. By “mining” I do not mean factory strip or open pit mining, etc., rather I refer to opening my awareness to the Music with the loosely held idea of “opening fully” to the experience. This is for me a case where I am having a rarified Musical experience, since “parts of a live performance are missing”, perforce. As “value” is personal, the practice of mining Music also has an important (arguably all-important) personal aspect concerning both what is realized and what is made of the experience. In the case where hi-fi is a means for transporting and delivering Sound, the audio system used for Music mining must itself be something l can “work with”, as it is only in the junction/interface between the Sound and the listener (in this case, moi) that the audible and therefore discernable Music exists. I hope it can be determined from this that the system is not a direct part of the Sound/Listener interface but the audio system itself must effectively “get out of the way”, along with any “obstructions” or “distractions”, including all the problems with recordings and playback that we have had waved in front of us for so long. My own working version of Jacques Derrida’s “Play of Differences” keeps the parts of something (anything) distinct from “something else”, and in the best cases this means subtle differences between parts are available in addition to profound differences, apropos. One might say the differences here come from “good dynamics”, since they do in audio terms.  But this definition is stilted in the sense that we are not listening to Music if we are hearing dynamics, per se. One might include pitch, tone, timbre, texture, on and on. If these audiophile touchstones cannot be expressed in terms of Music as assayed by the Listener, then they may actually interfere with Music appreciation, by degrees or in total.  Anyone might get off on the wrong foot and eff up their own Music playback with any hi-fi component or components that might be named. In my own case, speaking about The Loudspeakers, they ”can do Bruckner” for me, using my sources and amps, and I am now regularly mining Bruckner performances I have heard many times. The original hi-fi strategy was to get a wide range of Musical Sounds and “values” such that the sound field conveys the Music to me without limitations or a signature that obscure(s) “The Message conveyed by The Music”.  The rote process might be called “Music in Sound”, and the final test of the system is (broadly speaking) the variety of Music the system delivers.>>

> >

Paul S>>

Paul S wrote:

Although I have mentioned “mining” Music many times before, I think I have not elaborated on it, despite this practice is the reason for most of the major changes I have worked on my audio system over many years. The Loudspeakers are case and point. They were specifically meant to open up Big Music (Bruckner, in particular) for better, more complete access, and they have in fact facilitated mining plenty of Music in addition to Bruckner. By “mining” I do not mean factory strip or open pit mining, etc., rather I refer to opening my awareness to the Music with the loosely held idea of “opening fully” to the experience. This is for me a case where I am having a rarified Musical experience, since “parts of a live performance are missing”, perforce. As “value” is personal, the practice of mining Music also has an important (arguably all-important) personal aspect concerning both what is realized and what is made of the experience. In the case where hi-fi is a means for transporting and delivering Sound, the audio system used for Music mining must itself be something l can “work with”, as it is only in the junction/interface between the Sound and the listener (in this case, moi) that the audible and therefore discernable Music exists. I hope it can be determined from this that the system is not a direct part of the Sound/Listener interface but the audio system itself must effectively “get out of the way”, along with any “obstructions” or “distractions”, including all the problems with recordings and playback that we have had waved in front of us for so long. My own working version of Jacques Derrida’s “Play of Differences” keeps the parts of something (anything) distinct from “something else”, and in the best cases this means subtle differences between parts are available in addition to profound differences, apropos. One might say the differences here come from “good dynamics”, since they do in audio terms.  But this definition is stilted in the sense that we are not listening to Music if we are hearing dynamics, per se. One might include pitch, tone, timbre, texture, on and on. If these audiophile touchstones cannot be expressed in terms of Music as assayed by the Listener, then they may actually interfere with Music appreciation, by degrees or in total.  Anyone might get off on the wrong foot and eff up their own Music playback with any hi-fi component or components that might be named. In my own case, speaking about The Loudspeakers, they ”can do Bruckner” for me, using my sources and amps, and I am now regularly mining Bruckner performances I have heard many times. The original hi-fi strategy was to get a wide range of Musical Sounds and “values” such that the sound field conveys the Music to me without limitations or a signature that obscure(s) “The Message conveyed by The Music”.  The rote process might be called “Music in Sound”, and the final test of the system is (broadly speaking) the variety of Music the system delivers.Paul, I do not know how to respond to your post. Before 2025, I would have taken a very strong and highly supportive position regarding what you said. However, right now I have a completely different understanding of how the interface between music, humans, and machines takes place. Or perhaps it is only the illusion of such an understanding. Still, if truth is anything that gives a person meaning, I am comfortable with all the charades I have invented in my mind. Why now? I feel that although what you are saying is very accurate, it is not truly applicable to my current understanding of audio. To give you a clue, pay attention to what I am doing. I discarded what was objectively better by every imaginable evaluation system and drifted toward something absolutely inferior — not only from an audiophile perspective, but from every technical perspective with which I am deeply familiar. I do not feel like a victim of some psychological or metaphysical crisis. Rather, I recognize this as a very deliberate and intentional change of objectives, the means to accomplish them, and the integration of the results. In my current perspective, what you are describing is not a set of questions that require answers, because in my present understanding of how audio works, there are no answers to those questions in the realm of audio as we know it today.

Paul S wrote:

Good luck with the things that still hold your interest.

Paul S wrote:

Meanwhile, I will never forget the experience of Music on LSD (starting way back when it was still legal...), how "audio-derived" Music was in no way limited by the "sound system".

Wojtek wrote:

Nothing new here. I was right betting on "Boombox" as a vehicle of an intellectual pursuit of self. At least it is not out of "crushing sense of defeat" which most of people face at certain point if they are honest. I disregard any form of "message" in art along with "messengers" as well. I concentrate on beauty and a basic honesty understanding that even artists have to eat.  I do not wish to "develop" intellectually to gain deeper understanding of anything art related. I already know too much to be happy. Portrayal of Mozart in Forman's "Amadeus" is probably the truest personification of an art and so called "creative" process of art that has ever been attempted.Usually art simply farts in your face  but instead of sniffing around more or less discreetly with forbidden pleasure you just set the werkstat and start scribbling endlessly, inventing Gods as you go.  Damn Romy, you couldn't have chosen a worst moment for your menopause period. I don't have a single spare dime for incoming "exotic leftovers "

Romy the Cat wrote:

I am not quite sure what this is all about or where all these conversations about artists and critics come from. It is very clear that you do not understand what the subject is about, and you clearly show that you are not even interested, yet you continue to express your opinion about people who clearly do care and who are actually doing something. What are you trying to accomplish by expressing yourself this way? It is completely legitimate to remain silent. Do not post anything if you have nothing to say.