Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Why do no audiophiles listen to electronic music?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do no audiophiles listen to electronic music? - Page 2

post #16 of 174
I like electronic music but once i upgraded to the hd 600 I can literally hear how badly compressed electronic music is. I feel most electronic music is not audiophile quality.
post #17 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post


It also has to do with music that is created by an instrument held in one's hand without electronic amplification. All electronic music does not exist without an amplification chain and thus one can never know how it 'really sounds' as the mixing, mastering, etc chain always enters into it.

Vocals, acoustic guitar and bass, all classical and chamber music exist regardless of amplification and thus have a reference vs. what one hears when it is played through an electronic amplification chain.

This explains why electronic music fans who have good headphones, almost always are obsessed with bass over all other considerations. Since you can never know how much bass was really intended, it's always a case of moar is better!

Isn't that the beauty of electronic music though? It can't exist without a chain of equipment, there is no mythical optimal sound. You don't have to care whether it sounds right or real, just whether it sounds good. 

 

Personally, I like my electronic music with sparkly treble, with enough bass to get a nice thump, but not too much. 

post #18 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by marone View Post


This explains why electronic music fans who have good headphones, almost always are obsessed with bass over all other considerations. Since you can never know how much bass was really intended, it's always a case of moar is better!

I'd say that only applies to stuff like EDM and dubstep. There's plenty of electronic music where the bass is the least important thing.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by audiojun View Post

I like electronic music but once i upgraded to the hd 600 I can literally hear how badly compressed electronic music is. I feel most electronic music is not audiophile quality.
 
 
I think that's just the stuff you're listening to. Boards of Canada for example isn't compressed at all and has around the same dynamic range as your average classic rock song.

Edited by chewy4 - 5/6/13 at 5:46pm
post #19 of 174

People who listen to electronic music do come here seeking new audiophile headphones, so I'm sure they're out there.  Have to remember people who post reviews are only one opinion, sharing their impressions of gear with music they enjoy, but it does not limit you from sharing your own or make your own impressions wrong.  

post #20 of 174
@chewy4

I heard boards of canada on youtube and like the ambient chillstep kind of music its same genre that I like also. So I downloaded some of their tracks on flac. I would say that its better than most electronic music out there but still lacking dynamics and micro details it seems the music is deliberately blurry to maintain the appearence of an analog recording but it isn't one. listen to some high quality classical music and you'll see what i mean by lack of dynamics in electronic music. still a great artist though, I have heard many high quality electronic music before and some do approach accoustic levels of details but it is rare.

Electronic can sound euphonic as it can do things that accoustic can't. But when testing equipment and choosing music as a reference most audiophile won't use electronic music because accoustic music has better scalablity it sounds much better with good equipment and bad with bad equipment; it's easier to hear your gear.
Edited by audiojun - 5/7/13 at 6:13pm
post #21 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiojun View Post

@chewy4

I heard boards of canada on youtube and like the ambient chillstep kind of music its same genre that I like also. So I downloaded some of their tracks on flac. I would say that its better than most electronic music out there but still lacking dynamics and micro details it seems the music is deliberately blurry to maintain the appearence of an analog recording but it isn't one. listen to some high quality classical music and you'll see what i mean by lack of dynamics in electronic music. still a great artist though, I have heard many high quality electronic music before and some do approach accoustic levels of details but it is rare.

Electronic can sound euphonic as it can do things that accoustic can't. But when testing equipment and choosing music as a reference most audiophile won't use electronic music because accoustic music has better scalablity it sounds much better with good equipment and bad with bad equipment; it's easier to hear your gear.

 

Yeah the only thing that has the dynamic range of classical music is classical music. 

 

I actually have been scanning random tracks in my library recently and I'm surprised at the number of electronic stuff that has a DR of around 10 and above all the way up to 15. Which is pretty good especially for something made in the past couple of decades... nothing but classical generally goes past 15. Although I did find a live jam/rock album in my library that went up to 19. 


I agree it's not the best reference for a lot of qualities. but at the same time I think there's plenty of it that serves as a great display of micro-detail and musical separation. Not saying it beats classical at that but it can beat most other genres since it can have so many layers of detail.

post #22 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post

Most of my electronica CDs are releases from the 90s btw, with very very few from 2000 or newer. Anyone who doesn't have at least two of the Top 10 albums on this Web page can't call themselves an electronica fan! tongue.gif (I have 6 of them myself.)

 

http://www.ghostdeep.com/2010/03/top-100-albums-of-the-90s/

very nice list, thanks!

post #23 of 174

I've owned the HD800 and K1000 and listen to electronic music.  For one thing neither of those headphones are overly super impressive with the genre and most electronic music no recorded to very high fidelity standards.  Recordings with more analogue instruments are generally more impressive sounding to my ears.

post #24 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkAwesome View Post

Isn't that the beauty of electronic music though? It can't exist without a chain of equipment, there is no mythical optimal sound. You don't have to care whether it sounds right or real, just whether it sounds good. 

Personally, I like my electronic music with sparkly treble, with enough bass to get a nice thump, but not too much. 

Optimal sound is not 'mythical'.

A violin sounds like a violin. A female vocal with her playing acoustic guitar sounds as it sounds. Dave Grohl's drums have one sound when you stand in front of them. Period. Listen to it live, record it, play it back and hear what is missing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiojun View Post

I like electronic music but once i upgraded to the hd 600 I can literally hear how badly compressed electronic music is. I feel most electronic music is not audiophile quality.

To be very fair, this is not an issue with Electronic Music - it's an issue with nearly all music in 2013 and for the past 5+ years or so.

The good thing about computer power and music making software is that anyone in their parent's basement can make a great piece of music.
The bad thing about it, is that ANYONE can make great music.
And it's all compressed and filtered.
You cannot even see a band live without hearing them filter their instruments and voices through reali-time Autotune and such.

If the bands of today had to play as Chuck Berry did, they would sound terrible.

You take your amps and guitars, you plug your vocal microphones into one of the guitar amps, and you play. Either you are in tune, in time and in sync, or you are not.
Edited by marone - 5/11/13 at 2:26am
post #25 of 174

What is a violin supposed to sound like though? I played violin through middle school and my first two years of high school in orchestra and still occasionally pick it up to see if I can still play. I guarantee you, what the audience is hearing isn't what the violinist is hearing. Distance and room acoustics change the sound, there are a million ways a violin can sound right. What do the violins sound like to someone in the cellos? Is the sound of a violin from 3 feet away somehow more real than a violin from the nosebleed seats? 

 

Which one is right? Am I wrong to want to hear violin like how I would be hearing it if I was the one playing instead of the one watching? 

post #26 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkAwesome View Post

Which one is right? Am I wrong to want to hear violin like how I would be hearing it if I was the one playing instead of the one watching? 

Where is the audience? Sitting in 2nd chair Cellos or in row N?

Where are the microphones? Next to you as you play or overhead and in the performance space in front of the performers?
post #27 of 174

Correct me if I'm wrong, but mics in concert halls mostly tend to be dangling from the ceiling. 

 

A perfectly realistic headphone would let you listen to what a secret agent entering through the roof would hear. Most people aren't particularly interested in hearing that. I think most stuff is mixed so that in theory it should place you in the middle of the audience though. What if you aren't interested in hearing what is on the recording as it is? You could always find recordings that do contain exactly what you want to hear. But not all things are going to be recorded the way you want to hear them, so that is where headphones come it. 

 

When listening for fun, the job of the chain of equipment that turns the audio data into something you can hear is to make the sound sound like what you want to hear. A lot of very colored headphones have the label "realistic sound" attached. There is no way that they are reproducing the music exactly as is, but they are "realistic" because they are reproducing it in a way that puts listeners in the place they like to be. 

post #28 of 174

as someone who listens almost exclusively to electronical music id just like to say that its rather unfair to state that "most" electronic music is badly produced or compressed. there are plenty of artists who produce their unrealistic inaccurate music perfectly. downtempo, ambient and psychedelic artists usually produce very clean recordings, and even dubstep can be well produced, like skream for example. i think most electronic music out there is rather obscure and unknown to people who dont actively look for it, so it gets a bad name because of modern/"mainstream" producers who take the centerstage.

post #29 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by razor5cl View Post

I was perusing some high end headphone reviews(LCD3, HD800, T1) and none of them make reference to electronic tracks. They say that this jazz song sounds good, that rock band's music has good treble etc, but no house, dubstep, drum and bass, trance and so forth. Why?

I think that your data sample wasn't representative and you made the wrong conclusions.

post #30 of 174
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by asko View Post

I think that your data sample wasn't representative and you made the wrong conclusions.

I wasn't conducting a scientific experiments, as there is a grey area as to the definition of "electronic" and "audiophile". I was making a massively sweeping generalisation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Why do no audiophiles listen to electronic music?