Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Do audiophiles "like" music?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do audiophiles "like" music? - Page 17  

post #241 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 

 

 

Now while I agree with you that it is rare to find an audiophile who is NOT a music lover, it is not uncommon to find an audiophile who is a gear lover first and a music lover second. For me the biggest turn off is "audiophile" approved music such as the dreck that passes for listenable music on those infamous Harry Pearson "Super Disc Lists", which thankfully are no longer being published. As I noticed while reading this thread, Miss Krall and Miss Jones have gladly stepped in to fill that void.


I don't think it's correct to say someone is a "gear lover." With the exception of people who like their gear as jewelry or decorative objects, they are really "sound lovers." And I don't see anything wrong with loving sound. Great orchestration, for instance, is about creating beautiful sound.

 

You also have to wonder what you mean by "music"? What is "music" as contrasted with "sound"? Just curious how you define "music" as something separate from sound. When you say certain discs are "dreck" what aspect of the sound on these disks is dreck? In many cases the sound is quite beautiful. So what is "dreck" about it?

 

I have my own answer to all these questions but I'm curious to know what you would say.

 

Mike

post #242 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 

Thanks Chris and now I understand what you were trying to say. I should have known that you would give me a straight answer simply based on the number of your head-fi posts. One cannot have so many post around here and be a jerk :smile_phones:

 

Now while I agree with you that it is rare to find an audiophile who is NOT a music lover, it is not uncommon to find an audiophile who is a gear lover first and a music lover second. For me the biggest turn off is "audiophile" approved music such as the dreck that passes for listenable music on those infamous Harry Pearson "Super Disc Lists", which thankfully are no longer being published. As I noticed while reading this thread, Miss Krall and Miss Jones have gladly stepped in to fill that void.

 

Ouch....hey, I actually like Norah Jones. LOL!

OTOH, I like most of her albums, even the "non-audiophile" albums, for example, her latest album,   I don't think that one is audiophile approved!  :wink_face:

 

Not too crazy about Krall, even though she is a fellow Canadian. 

post #243 of 345

I love Norah Jones. Yes, I went out and bought her first record because every audiophile on the planet seemed to be in love with her, but I loved her first record so much that I immediately went out and bought all of her records. She was up to "The Fall" at the time. I have spent a countless amount of time listening to, and enjoying, all of her records since then.  Norah Jones has been a part of my regular rotation of records to listen to for enjoyment and when auditioning new gear. :)

post #244 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
Okay where were we. Let's see. Why do audio equipment reviewers have such bad musical tastes? I don't know but there seems to be some kind contest among these clowns as to who can use the most obscure music when listening to the equipment under review. The Beatles? no way. The Rolling Stones? never. A personal recording of the West Lost Lake Symphony Choir performing in 1972? That's just the ticket! Now the reader will have absolutely no idea how the equipment sounds.

 

If you're referring to the "name" reviewers affiliated with major audio publications like Stereophile, then I agree with them having "bad" musical taste. It's one of the reasons why I stopped subscribing to Stereophile a couple of years ago—no reviewers listened to any music that I could relate to. (I listen to predominantly electronica/trip-hop, bluegrass/folk, & metal, and rarely see any pro reviewers anywhere who listen to those types of music. The only "reviewers" I've found who listen to those genres are the non-pro ones here on Head-Fi.)

 

So your music references are nothing that I can relate to either, as I generally don't listen to classic rock (just don't like it that much). Those specific artists you mention open another can of worms though—they tend to be available in multiple formats (CD, vinyl, lossless digital files) and in multiple remaster versions as well. Take The Beatles for example—on CD there are multiple versions of their albums. There are CD masterings that came out in the 90s, other boxed-set versions, and the 2009 mono & stereo remasters. So in that case it's sort of necessary to use the best-mastered versions and for a reviewer to mention which mastering he's using. I'm aware of multiple remaster versions of The Rolling Stones' albums too. And aren't there multiple vinyl releases of a lot of classic rock albums now too? So that makes using classic rock all the more complicated for a reviewer (and hence the review-reading audience) whether his source is a turntable, a CD player, or a computer....

post #245 of 345

I love music. For the longest time, I never believed in spending money in making it sound better. I've reached a stage where I have so much music that it's worth spending money on equipment to boost the value of all of it. Selling my soul to the financial devil that is audiophilia was a necessary evil.

 

I hate buying new gear, selling old gear, worrying about bottlenecks, etc. but it's a necessary evil. I can hear details I have never heard before, feel different things I have never felt before, am exploring genres I never cared about before, all that good stuff. My hope is to reach a point where I feel content and can merrily go back to listening to and rating music.

post #246 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpeng View Post
 


I don't think it's correct to say someone is a "gear lover." With the exception of people who like their gear as jewelry or decorative objects, they are really "sound lovers." And I don't see anything wrong with loving sound. Great orchestration, for instance, is about creating beautiful sound.

 

You also have to wonder what you mean by "music"? What is "music" as contrasted with "sound"? Just curious how you define "music" as something separate from sound. When you say certain discs are "dreck" what aspect of the sound on these disks is dreck? In many cases the sound is quite beautiful. So what is "dreck" about it?

 

I have my own answer to all these questions but I'm curious to know what you would say.

 

Mike

Two part response.

 

By "gear lover" I am referring to those individuals who are always obsessing over the sound of their systems, forever tweaking and upgrading and it would seem always listening for that "night and day improvement" instead of listening to music. When one of these gear lovers tells you about some music they discovered it always it the context of how the recording makes you think that they are in the room with you or how you can hear exactly where the microphone was in relation to the piano, etc. etc. When I hear some new music I don't focus on the recording but rather on the music and the performance and if it turns out that it is well recorded, well that's just a welcome bonus.

 

By "dreck" I am referring to the fantastically well recorded LPs/CDs/downloads that feature music, which had it been not so well recorded would be completely forgotten. For example the highly praised dreck that is "Jazz at the Pawn Shop". It's dreck because it spite of the loveliness of the "sound" the "music" does not stir one's emotions. Sorry but I don't know any other way to phrase things.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post
 

 

Ouch....hey, I actually like Norah Jones. LOL!

OTOH, I like most of her albums, even the "non-audiophile" albums, for example, her latest album,   I don't think that one is audiophile approved!  :wink_face:

 

Not too crazy about Krall, even though she is a fellow Canadian. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by painted klown View Post
 

I love Norah Jones. Yes, I went out and bought her first record because every audiophile on the planet seemed to be in love with her, but I loved her first record so much that I immediately went out and bought all of her records. She was up to "The Fall" at the time. I have spent a countless amount of time listening to, and enjoying, all of her records since then.  Norah Jones has been a part of my regular rotation of records to listen to for enjoyment and when auditioning new gear. :)

Okay gentlemen, I didn't mean to imply that Norah Jones or Diana Krall were substandard in any way, just that they seem to have become objects of scorn because of the high end audio embrace of their recordings.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post
 

 

If you're referring to the "name" reviewers affiliated with major audio publications like Stereophile, then I agree with them having "bad" musical taste. It's one of the reasons why I stopped subscribing to Stereophile a couple of years ago—no reviewers listened to any music that I could relate to. (I listen to predominantly electronica/trip-hop, bluegrass/folk, & metal, and rarely see any pro reviewers anywhere who listen to those types of music. The only "reviewers" I've found who listen to those genres are the non-pro ones here on Head-Fi.)

 

So your music references are nothing that I can relate to either, as I generally don't listen to classic rock (just don't like it that much). Those specific artists you mention open another can of worms though—they tend to be available in multiple formats (CD, vinyl, lossless digital files) and in multiple remaster versions as well. Take The Beatles for example—on CD there are multiple versions of their albums. There are CD masterings that came out in the 90s, other boxed-set versions, and the 2009 mono & stereo remasters. So in that case it's sort of necessary to use the best-mastered versions and for a reviewer to mention which mastering he's using. I'm aware of multiple remaster versions of The Rolling Stones' albums too. And aren't there multiple vinyl releases of a lot of classic rock albums now too? So that makes using classic rock all the more complicated for a reviewer (and hence the review-reading audience) whether his source is a turntable, a CD player, or a computer....

Excellent points. I only threw out the Beatles and Stones because of how well known and familiar most of their music is which in turn makes it more likely that the reader might better understand some of the musical references given by the reviewer. However there is a relatively simple solution to the problem - the reviewers could use a readily available version of some more popular music so that the readers can, as I stated, by better able to put the musical references in context.

 

On a slightly related note my current disdain for the high end audio press has reached a fever pitch recently because of the high end audio press' complete and utter disregard and misunderstanding (should one care to give them the benefit of the doubt - I don't) for some of the most basic properties of digital audio. For example the simple fact that USB cables can not and do not have anything to do with jitter. Reading the nonsense that is being written about digital audio by these clowns makes me call into question EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that they write since I no longer believe that facts play any role in their review process. At present the high end audio press only exists to keep their advertisers happy.

post #247 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
 

Two part response.

 

Okay gentlemen, I didn't mean to imply that Norah Jones or Diana Krall were substandard in any way, just that they seem to have become objects of scorn because of the high end audio embrace of their recordings.

 

 

That's OK.

I know what you mean!

post #248 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post
 

 

That's OK.

I know what you mean!

 

roll back the clock to 1985, I got bored rigid by people playing "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits to show off their new CD player...

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the album, it was just a victim of being one of the first popular albums on the medium...

post #249 of 345
LOL.
Reminds me of that "No Stairway to Heaven" sign they used to have at guitar shops.
post #250 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurochin View Post

LOL.
Reminds me of that "No Stairway to Heaven" sign they used to have at guitar shops.

that's the one...

 

if they ever remade Abigails Party set in suburban 1985, the Dire Straits CD would replace the Demis Roussos LP...

post #251 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc-k View Post
 

 

roll back the clock to 1985, I got bored rigid by people playing "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits to show off their new CD player...

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the album, it was just a victim of being one of the first popular albums on the medium...

 

add in the 1812 overture, too, please!

post #252 of 345
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc-k View Post
 

 

roll back the clock to 1985, I got bored rigid by people playing "Brothers in Arms" by Dire Straits to show off their new CD player...

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with the album, it was just a victim of being one of the first popular albums on the medium...

 

add in the 1812 overture, too, please!

and Vivaldi's four seasons (except for the "on hold" cut, which I could do without...)

post #253 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline View Post
....

 

By "dreck" I am referring to the fantastically well recorded LPs/CDs/downloads that feature music, which had it been not so well recorded would be completely forgotten. For example the highly praised dreck that is "Jazz at the Pawn Shop". It's dreck because it spite of the loveliness of the "sound" the "music" does not stir one's emotions. Sorry but I don't know any other way to phrase things.

 

.... At present the high end audio press only exists to keep their advertisers happy.

ref. Jazz At the Pawnshop :

Obviously Jazz isn't your favorite style of music, that makes it rather difficult to appreciate an atmospheric recording like that. For me it is foot stomping and finger snapping good. Everyone his own, if you don't like, that's fine, just calling it "dreck" seems a little intolerant, just my $0.02. But if it makes you feel good ... ;-)).

 

ref. current state of audio review magazines :

I completely agree. There is not a single review where the corresponding full page add is not included in the same issue.

post #254 of 345

This is a fun thread, for sure. The point of my earlier post BTW was it really is difficult to enjoy the music when the obsession is to probe the SQ. I also think some here have had too much Kool Aid. That's to say, some here it appears have bought  into the psychobabble claims from audio marketers without actually letting what science there is in it help them come to their senses. But, as it has been said, it's all good! Spend your disposable income on what ever moves you.

post #255 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post

ref. Jazz At the Pawnshop :
Obviously Jazz isn't your favorite style of music, that makes it rather difficult to appreciate an atmospheric recording like that. For me it is foot stomping and finger snapping good. Everyone his own, if you don't like, that's fine, just calling it "dreck" seems a little intolerant, just my $0.02. But if it makes you feel good ... ;-)).

ref. current state of audio review magazines :
I completely agree. There is not a single review where the corresponding full page add is not included in the same issue.

Sad to have to say this but you could not be more incorrect. Jazz is by far my favorite style of music and I've been a jazz fan and listener for over 40 years. JATPS is dreck in spite of it being so well recorded. I would take any Louie Armstrong recording, regardless of sound quality, over JATPS any day of the week. As a matter of fact JATPS is about the most perfect example there is for everything wrong with audiophile recordings: really substandard performances really well recorded. In other words, music that sounds great on a mega-buck audio system but has zero ability to move the listener emotionally.

Hey but at least we about the audio magazines - completely worthless and entirely dishonest.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Do audiophiles "like" music?