[Dusty Chalk]

I have to defend "audiophile" CD's. Yes, they just plain sound better -- that would be my definition.

And when one is listening on headphones, it just plain follows that one would want a higher fidelity recording. I really don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion. There's just so much more detail. When listening to speakers, things get lost in the room before they get to you.

Especially in classical music -- there often isn't that much variance from one performance to another, contrary to some reviews. There often is, too, I'll be the first to admit that. So what's wrong with finding the highest fidelity recording one can? I actually know some people who will listen to anything, as long as it's recorded well. What's wrong with that? They get more pleasure out of more music -- bully for them (Strokes notwithstanding).

You want to hear some really good fidelity quirky pop? Rupert Hine recently released his music from the 80's -- it is simply amazing. I haven't heard redbook CD sound so good, it actually re-established my faith in the medium.

Hey, Nattapong -- MHO, and this isn't meant as a slam, just an explanation -- I do think you're looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place, but what's cool about this place is that you can change it. Start posting about music (I notice you already did -- good for you!), and you will find a lot of people coming out of the woodwork.

I think I post more about music than I do about equipment, but I'm not sure...will have to do a self-survey...

Oh, and about musicians -- I think most of us are too poor to be audiophiles.

 

[zowie]

Quote:

Originally posted by gloco I find it rather interesting (or maybe downright odd) that the many "audiophiles" seem to listen to jazz, blues or classical because the sound quality is superior compared to many other more popular genres.

It's not odd, you've got it backwards. Many of the "more popular genres" don't benefit that much from a high-end system, either because they mostly use electronic instruments or because the CDs are mastered to sound best on cheaper equipment and/or are overly compressed and eq'd to appeal to teenagers. Plus there is no natural sound for one to seek to recreate for some of this music: some is only heard live through loud distored p.a. systems; some is concocted electronically in studios and never existed in real time in the first place. Generalizations of course, but quite frequently true.

With jazz and classical music, there is a real live musical event played on mostly accoustic instruments that one can compare the recordng against, and an audiophile system/CD can really reveal nuances and layers in this music that are otherwise lost. So the audiophiles don't listen to jazz and classical _because_ it sounds better -- not any of the audiophiles I know -- but rather, listening to that type of music provides one with more of an incentive to get a better system and HQ recordings.

One might also draw certain correlations about the relative income levels of people who listen to different types of music as well. That probably is a contributing factor.

I get kind of tired of reading on boards all these ridiculous generalizations about the supposed stupid preferences and practices of "audiophiles." How many of the audiophile-bashers actually know people who fit those stereotypes. Except for a very few nuts out there with test tone collections, stereotypes is all they are (no pun intended). Hrumph.

 

[KR...]

that's true, zowie!

Also, to drive it home even harder

Hi-Fi means High Fidelity, High Fidelity means true to life, this can't be done with amped or processed music. It can however be done with musicual styles like Classical and Jazz and the like. This doesn't mean that amped or processed music will sound like ****, hell it can even sound better, but it can never sound realistic. It can never be Hi-Fi.

Spending $10,000's of dollars on a high end speaker system to try to make your pop CDs sound real, is stupid and silly, since they don't and they never will, if anything they will sound a whole lot worst on a high end system! As a matter of fact, many pop albums are MEANT to be played on the radio, cheap portables, and boomboxes, they were mastered with these in mind.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by zowie It's not odd, you've got it backwards.

Really.....

Quote:

Originally posted by zowie So the audiophiles don't listen to jazz and classical _because_ it sounds better -- not any of the audiophiles I know -- but rather, listening to that type of music provides one with more of an incentive to get a better system and HQ recordings.

Sounds like your saying people who listen to jazz and classical have more of an "incentive" to spend more money to enjoy those HQ recordings (like many people on these boards, no?).

I listen to many different genres and have come across hard rock and metal cds that sound very nice, quality-wise but are also great albums to listen to.

Quote:

Originally posted by zowie I get kind of tired of reading on boards all these ridiculous generalizations about the supposed stupid preferences and practices of "audiophiles." How many of the audiophile-bashers actually know people who fit those stereotypes. Except for a very few nuts out there with test tone collections, stereotypes is all they are (no pun intended). Hrumph.

No offense, but i tend to look at peoples music preferences and i see lots and lots of jazz and classical listeners. Does this mean i think less of them? Heck no. I like classical and jazz, but i also listen to 80's pop, rock, metal and so on. I don't block out certain genres because the sound quality might not be up to snuff with another genre's releases. Test tone collections? Heh, you might be surprised by how many folks here have a stack of these sitting around....

 

[gloco]

I'm not necessarily bashing audiophile cd's. I've listened to a GNR appetite for destruction gold cd and it did sound much crisper. I do agree that many pop or "radio friendly" music is geared towards cheap setups since that's what that music is aimed at. I still find it interesting that many folks here tend to use classical or jazz/blues to review a headphone. That's all i'm saying and thats what i'm sticking to!

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by KR... Hi-Fi means High Fidelity, High Fidelity means true to life, this can't be done with amped or processed music. It can however be done with musicual styles like Classical and Jazz and the like. This doesn't mean that amped or processed music will sound like ****, hell it can even sound better, but it can never sound realistic. It can never be Hi-Fi.

So, i should start throwing away all my Metallica, Megadeth cds?

LOL...i'm kidding!

However based on that statement, think about it, does that mean that are folks here who will refuse (or maybe turned off?) to listen to anything thats amped because it wont sound great on their $500 IC's, Melos, HD600's, etc?

I'm expecting a pair of Stax sometime next week, when i post my review you may only see ONE Jazz and ONE classical piece listed, with Madonna, Megadeth, New Age, etc. Do you think this is the wrong way to go about reviewing a can like the Stax or stick with 10 different classical pieces?

 

[Dusty Chalk]

I have to disagree with this pop audiophile bashing. A good system will make good music sound better. The end. I know a lot of albums are made sure they also sound better on cheaper systems, but...I am not talking about those. Realism? Who cares about realism, I'm just talking about just plain sounding good -- full frequency response, dynamic range, slam, fuzz, whatever...I listen to a lot of music that is heavily drenched in very fake reverb. It still sounds good to me -- ethereal, like another world which I will never fully understand. Toss off, the lot of you!

 

[BenG]

Classical and jazz are harder to reproduce form a scientific perspective. There is simply greater dynamic range & frequency response to deal with. I think that's why there are more fans of that music that happen to be audio enthusiasts. The recording quality is also generally better in those genres, with a relative lack of gimickry or production compromising like compression, eq, and what not.

I find this original question silly. Isn't this site primarily an audio equipment site? It makes perfect sense that most threads are related to audio.

 

[pigmode]

I have a bunch of DCC gold discs (mostly rock) that sound fantastic. Are they audiophile discs? I'm not sure. They are remastered in an attempt to get the best sound out of the master tape. Such discs respond well with better systems. My copy of Empire should be in shortly.

I also have the Bach Brandeberg Concertos/ Telarc (among others) which is definitely an audio disc, but what can I say--I like it. The Chesky Ultimate Demostration Disc is audiophile, but there is good music there with great sonics as well. The rich tones of the acoustic instruments on such recordings are rewarding to say the least.



Beware of stuff performed by the Barstow Philharmonic, though.

 

[gloco]

Quote:

Originally posted by pigmode I have a bunch of DCC gold discs (mostly rock) that sound fantastic. Are they audiophile discs? I'm not sure. They are remastered in an attempt to get the best sound out of the master tape. Such discs respond well with better systems. My copy of Empire should be in shortly.

i figured these were the audiophile cds in question? I wouldn't mind grabbing the Doors "LA Woman" on DCC though, i'm curious to hear how much of a difference there may be.

 

[pigmode]

The DCC Doors issues are all great! I'd send you a CDR but I lost your addy.

 

[KR...]

Quote:

However based on that statement, think about it, does that mean that are folks here who will refuse (or maybe turned off?) to listen to anything thats amped because it wont sound great on their $500 IC's, Melos, HD600's, etc?

I suppose there might be, big world we live in and all. But, if there are they are extremeists.

Quote:

I'm expecting a pair of Stax sometime next week, when i post my review you may only see ONE Jazz and ONE classical piece listed, with Madonna, Megadeth, New Age, etc. Do you think this is the wrong way to go about reviewing a can like the Stax or stick with 10 different classical pieces?

The best music to test your system with is whatever music you listen to the most. Of course, you will see what they can really are capable of doing with that "ONE Jazz and ONE classical piece". But, that said if you listen to mostly "Madonna, Megadeth, New Age, etc." then it better sound great with those as well, or you are better off with a different pair of headphones.

Quote:

I have to disagree with this pop audiophile bashing. A good system will make good music sound better. The end. I know a lot of albums are made sure they also sound better on cheaper systems, but...I am not talking about those. Realism? Who cares about realism, I'm just talking about just plain sounding good -- full frequency response, dynamic range, slam, fuzz, whatever...I listen to a lot of music that is heavily drenched in very fake reverb. It still sounds good to me -- ethereal, like another world which I will never fully understand. Toss off, the lot of you!

Didn't I write "This doesn't mean that amped or processed music will sound like ****, hell it can even sound better, but it can never sound realistic. It can never be Hi-Fi."

Hi-Fi is about realism, that's the whole bloody point! Of course, I am aware that this is pretty silly topic in a headphone site

Unless you are listening to BINAURAL CDS, there is just no way to get true Hi-Fi sound from a headphone system.

Quote:

I find this original question silly. Isn't this site primarily an audio equipment site? It makes perfect sense that most threads are related to audio.

I know, next thing you know, someone will make a thread about how we can't stop writing about headphones or how come there aren't a lot of speaker threads

 

[Tuberoller]

You would be absolutely amazed at what can be done with an audiophile recording when that recording is produced from the master source.I recently purchased Aretha Franklin's "I never loved a Man..."remasted (on 180g vinyl)by a label called Four Men with Beards.The sound qualty is amazing even with the master tape artifacts left intact.I have never heard this music in such vivid detail.this is one of those recordings that deserved such treatment.reading the jacket story about the quest to obtain the original masters for this session is as much fun as listening to the record.I also have some MoFi stuff and eagerly await the return of that label.Most of the Mofi releases were mastered from original session tapes as well and remastered using modern analog technology.I think audiophile recordings,vinyl in particular,are worthwhile additions to a music lover's collection.I would not recommend them to anyone who does not have the equipment to fully enjoy them.

 

[Wes]

Nattapong,

I'm afraid that I may have offended you by overdoing the rhetoric in my response. I'm sorry to seem grouchy or unfriendly and don't intend to do so. Please chalk it up to my lack of control. I enjoyed your question, which is why I responded to it.

I think what you said about apparently inadvertent inclusions in classical and jazz recordings, mechanical and musician sounds, adding life is important and very relevant to the discussion here.

Is realism the standard by which we should judge recorded music? I'm not so sure. If realism means the creation of the most plausible illusion of the original live performance, an illusion that could deceive us into thinking we were in the concert hall or club, then I think we are overlooking something, although I am not sure just what.

At live performances we tolerate things that would seem far too boring when recorded. We sit in one spot with just one perspective on things at a concert, play, or musical and enjoy ourselves wildly if the show is a good one. Would we accept, or even be interested in, a recording of that show with a camera limited to one position (even if it were allowed to zoom in order to mimic the way our attention enlarges and excludes things)? I think not.

There is something, I'm not sure what, about live performances that does not get (perhaps cannot in principle get) onto recorded media. And gradually the recorded media, which usually begin (as film did and TV recapped) by regarding themselves as making duplicates of (or substitutes for) live performances, change their tactics and try to record with some kind of enhancement that overcomes the--what shall we call in?--deadness, inertness, passivity of anything recorded compared to anything live.

So films start cutting among various images impossible for the spectator of a play to duplicate. They add music as if every story is an opera. There's nothing realistic about a sound track, and even films we regard as very realistic almost all have them.

With audio, it's a little less obvious, but an analogous process did occur. Recordings are multi-tracked to highlight things in ways we can never duplicate from even the best seats. They are processed a lot just by deciding where to place the mikes and how many there should be, and audiophile discs are not always exceptions to these practices.

Is this good? I'm not sure. I sometimes wish for minimally processed two-mike or serious binaural recordings, and I do very much enjoy those that appear to be made this way. However, I also enjoy a lot of recordings made with a totally different philosophy. In the end, I'm for anything that keeps us from being bored. Variety of approach helps, and I think hearing things not as in the concert situation may also help, even apart from its adding to the variety of recordings available. I go back and forth about this.

Maybe a lot of us are going back and forth about this too, thinking that realism is a simple goal. I think its not that simple. I would suggest that instead of realism, we talk about, maybe, involvement. If the recording involves us, then it's a good one whether or not it adheres to canons of realism or uses audiophile technical apparatus. (Whether it can involve us will, of course, not be totally separate from whether it sounds plausibly realistic to us in many cases.)

Replace the quest for realistic recordings with the broader one of a search for all kinds of involving recordings, of which realistic ones (whatever that may mean to each of us) will be one kind.

Forgive yet another soapbox sermon, please.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by KR... Didn't I write "This doesn't mean that amped or processed music will sound like ****, hell it can even sound better, but it can never sound realistic. It can never be Hi-Fi." Hi-Fi is about realism, that's the whole bloody point!

Yes, but you'd be wrong. That's like saying the only good art is "realistic" art -- to say that all modernism, cubism, impressionism, etc. is rubbish. And that would be wrong, too.

Hi-Fi means sounding good, not "realistic".