Is my music not worthy? - Page 2

The notion of texture is subjective. I don't see any fundamental difference between an electronic sound and an acoustic one. So the examples I give might sound completely "untextured" to your ears.

But if by "texture" you mean a complex built of attack, decay, sustain and release, with rich variations between them, then I would pick

Depeche Mode - Some Great Reward (1984). Tracks : People are People, Master and Servant...
Depeche Mode - Music for the Masses (1987). Tracks : Strangelove, Behind the Wheel etc (NOT the single versions, that are completely different).
Front 242 - Tyranny >For you< (1991) Tracks : Moldavia, Tragedy >For you< etc

One of my favorite songs/tracks of all-time! And I also really like IM as gear auditioning music.

On the broader topic, I'd say unless you're listening to the absolutely most awfully mastered stuff out there exclusively (e.g. Metallica - Death Magnetic, RHCP - Californication, etc.) there really isn't much cap to what good gear can do for your musical enjoyment. Your musical preferences might shape your audio preferences (e.g. I don't like 'stats much for metal, love them for orchestral).

Everyone knows that audiophiles listen to bluegrass and lament that the good jazz exists only in poorer recordings.

interesting.
i do hear (and appreciate) the refined textures in 'music for the masses', but not really in the older 'some great reward'. the three years between those two albums might have something to do with it, or it's just a cleaner production.

there was a recent fad using commodore c64 sounds as samples, sometimes simple beeps - that's what i meant by "too low-textured for audiophile use". the ultimate example would be a simple sine wave. while you can use sine waves for detecting distortion, that would not be a very enjoyable process.

but even with my limited exposure to electronica i fully agree that there is no principal lack in the 'amount of texture' possible with electronic music. what remains of my point is that intentionally/accidentally 'low-textured' examples are rarer in acoustic/electric music than in electronica. (hm. is that really the case? i already expect you to disagree...) the deadened drumming in metallica's st. anger would be an accidental example, big black's 'drummer' roland (an official band member) an intentional one. while the limited texture and monotonous beat of a simple drum machine works perfectly in that steve albini-context, i'd rather test my headphones with a bodhi drum.

anyway,
listening again to 'music for the masses' has convinced me that electronic music reached my subjectively preferred level of 'texture' decades ago, so:
count me wrong, and thanks for correction

I've been loving my relatively huge trance collection, along with all of my eurohouse/dance/etc, as well as the IDM and whatnot on my HD 580's all week (and my D2000's for the better part of a year)


honestly, some music is more "sophisticated", from a mathematical or otherwise subjective perspective, either it was mastered with more dynamic range, or its a very "rare" or "good" recording, something along those lines, that can "show off" a system, however that isn't neccisarily to say that all music "less than" this standard is "worse than" this standard

notice the massive amount of " "'s used there? getting the point?

for a much more subjective example and to talk on the subject of headphones billed as "ideal for the engineer recording classical music" (Sennheiser HD 580, based on Sennheiser's marketing litearture), listening to a track that is "more dynamic", say a piano solo, or even better, an organ solo, you can pick up on more details, if the track was recorded and mastered properly (i.e: the details were there to begin with), compared to something "less dynamic" (or "less textured" as this thread is going with), like say, Orbital's Halcyon & On & On, you won't pick up on TONS of intimate new details, but the overall listening experience is equally good (assuming you like Orbital and organ performances equally), its just different content reaching your ears, but its being done at the (subjectively) best quality possible, so if the recording was dumpy in the first place, you're going to get dumpy back, at the best quality possible, if the recording was good, you're going to get good, at the best quality possible


as far as what genre is the "best" to listen to, where is your sanctuary?

From what I've seen and read, audiophiles care more about the quantiatives, which translate to judging the quality of music. I would think that there are audiophiles for every genre of music out there, but I'm uncertain.

As a punk rock listener, who listens to pure trash most of the time, I wouldn't worry so much

I've struggled throughout my life with the question of pure SQ vs the basic value of the music without regard to fidelity. In a perfect world, I would listen only to pristine recordings of brilliantly performed music. Unfortunately, I don't live in that world. So I have tried to strike a balance; I balance my expenditures so that I can get good sound out of the recordings I listen to, without spending so much on equipment that I have less left over for music than I would like.

I know of audiophiles who will only listen to recordings that show off their equipment in the best light. I respect that, especially since the simple experience of hearing a top-end system show its stuff can be breathtaking.

For my own purposes, however, that approach doesn't really work. I have some Mobile Fidelity CDs and LPs, and a variety of other audiophile pressings, not to mention the odd plain-vanilla disk or LP that beats the odds and sounds great.

But I also listen to, for example, field recordings of Muddy Waters made before he left the Delta and went to Chicago. These recordings were made on primitive portable equipment, and they sound like it. But the performances are bone chilling -- this is the straight stuff, with Waters either by himself or with minimal string band accompaniment. My enjoyment of these classic recordings is in no way diminished, for some reason, by the spotty sound quality of the recordings.

So I guess I'm not a pure audiophile, much as I would like to be. For me, the music comes first, and less-than-stellar SQ is not an impediment to enjoyment.

Just listen to the music you love and don't worry about the quality. Just use a vu meter, if your music goes to the 0db then yeah it's probably compressed too much. Equipments were made to play music, not the other way around.

Classical Mushroom is what I always turn to when testing out new equipment.

Did you really mean Trash or Thrash?


Funnily, plenty of Rock/Metal is pretty complicated stuff. Especially with genres like: Technical, Symphonic/Metal Opera, Avant-garde, Progressive, Alternative...

$he pass...

[QUOTE=MrCrassic;4883309]From what I've seen and read, audiophiles care more about the quantiatives, which translate to judging the quality of music. I would think that there are audiophiles for every genre of music out there, but I'm uncertain.

As a punk rock listener, who listens to pure trash most of the time, I wouldn't worry 70 % ,700 much for buyer without our necessary quote of carbon to base rock to come clear when needed!QUOTE]. Youll get great feedback great feedback to you..just need to climb book rate rate right now...placing in mitt of the glove.

OP, you need a new amp and maybe some cans LOL.
Take your music to a mini-meet, mingle, listen, enjoy.

Sort of. I prefer a lot of jazz and classical because they're recorded live and engineered to recreate the sound of the performance venue with the correct equipment. The engineers know that the people buying the recording are looking for this, so they cater to that audience. That's why you'll find mostly jazz and classical on SACD, which is a format bought almost exclusively by audiophiles. Before SACD there was reel-to-reel, where most of the releases weren't popular music, either. Reel was bought (and still used) by people who are serious about recording quality.

Now, this isn't saying that other genres are recorded badly. Some rock and other popular music is very well done. It's just that rock usually has the instruments/vocalists miked individually and then are mixed by an engineer. That's OK and it can sound excellent, but that doesn't capture the way they sound performing live. When I buy a classical disc, I want it to sound the way it does sitting in the audience. Classical usually delivers there, but rock rarely does.

I agree up to a point. The classic Blue Note recordings of the 50s, for example, were recorded direct to two-track tape, then mastered from that unadulterated recording. No mixing necessary (or possible for that matter). I think this is the main reason these recordings, despite their age, sound so good. I also think that this is why these recordings sound fantastic on CD; the original recordings are pristine, so they transfer beautifully to the newer medium.

This is why I said that I agree up to a point. Many rock artists consider the recording studio to be an additional instrument, and the goal is not to reproduce the sound of a live performance. This philosophy, interestingly, also goes back to the 50s, when techniques like overdubbing started to become widely used. With artists like the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix, the studio became, arguably, the most important instrument on the recording. Think of albums like Sgt. Pepper, Are You Experienced?, or Dark Side of the Moon. These records were made with every technological advance that was available at the time, and they don't sound at all like traditional live performances. But I think that was the intention.

I don't really disagree with you. I enjoy both approaches when they are done well. There is nothing quite like hearing a straightforward recording of Jimmy Smith's quartet with Stanley Turrentine and Kenny Burrell, as on Back at the Chicken Shack. The point of this music is the brilliance of the individual players, and the way they support and work with each other. I want as little as possible to come between that magic and my ears.

On the other hand, when I listen to Dark Side of the Moon, especially with headphones, the use of electronics and other studio effects is as much the point as the songs or David Gilmoure's mind-blowing guitar.