[royalcrown]

After getting a nice pair of headphones and a respectable headphone amp, I've been revisiting a lot of old tracks, only to notice MUCH more detail in the tracks. I don't necessarily mean being able to hear, say, the texture in a guitar strum (though that's there for sure), but I'm specifically referring to pieces of the music that I couldn't even come close to discerning before. For instance, in Coheed and Cambria's most recent album, No World For Tomorrow, I've been hearing many guitar riffs that would be impossible to hear without high-end headphones that reach well beyond the spending limitations of most people (and my rig is nothing compared to most people on this forum). Given that audiophiles, or even audio enthusiasts in general, are far and few between, why is music written to add in those subtle nuances? Of important note is the bass guitar sections in a lot of bands. The bass-play is very complex in many songs that I listen to, but with cheap headphones the bass is either nonexistent or so muddled that the individual notes are completely lost. Why try so hard? I don't think that the majority of people will even notice, much less appreciate the effort put into the songs. And yet its those people who make up the overwhelming majority of album sales. Is it a matter of artistic integrity? Personal satisfaction? Why do bands that tailor to the mainstream put so much detail that the mainstream will never notice?

 

[ZepFloyd]

I dont think artists are trying extra hard to add subtle things in their music...they play music that sounds good to them, more than likely on pretty decent equipment. It's just that the cd gets mixed and compressed and all that other junk that your crappy pair of headphones wont be able to pick up a lot of it.

 

[Brian loves music]

really interesting thread.

i think it depends on the album/artist

a lot of music is meant to sound good live, that is it was recorded quick while the sound was fresh and not over produced - radiohead HTOT for example

other albums are meant for headphones and i know the producers have audiophiles in mind - bjorks vespertine, radiohead kid a for example

 

[ken36]

We hear what we want to hear. IMO.

 

[lan]

Some people use good enough equipment to catch all those nuances. In those cases, I don't think they are doing it intentionally. Also some people care about what they hear and don't really consider how other people are reproducing it.

 

[FalconP]

Music is good in itself; a good playback system just brings out more of its goodness.

While for most albums, you can derive some enjoyment listening to even the shoddiest equipment, there are a few albums that really require very good rigs -- the artist communicate with subtle instrumental nuances and colors, and if your system is not up to it, then all point is lost. My favorite example is Visual by Oystein Sevag and Patey Lakki: listening it on an average rig, all you hear are strumming guitars playing hardly any melody, and nondescript electronic whirls. You'll likely get bored or exasperated, wondering what on earth is this whole business. But put on a pair of good headphones, and you'll discover an ambient music masterpiece, where the different timbres of the acoustic guitar intermingle and interact with subtle electronics in very beautiful ways.

 

[chiizu]

I wouldn't say that most music is geared towards audiophiles. A lot of pop music is probably geared towards an adolescent audience listening to their music out of their ibuds and bundled desktop speakers. The quality of the recording could be ridiculously compressed and have tons of clipping/distortion, but they would still continue listen to it because there's a catchy tune.

 

[Piffles]

I don't think music can be made in an audiophile or not audiophile way.

Music (or most of it anyway) comes from the analogue world with people strumming, plucking, blowing, hitting on things. Whether it is intentional or not, the resulting sound contains millions of little nuances which are captured by the microphone and, even after mixing, are present, for the most part, on the final recording.

Also, I disagree with the idea that audiophile equipment only makes high quality music sound better. Everthing, be it synthetic sounds, dynamically compressed sound or very low bitrate mp3s, sounds better on an audiophile system. The audiophile system will reproduce the source very accurately. If the source is crap, the result in your ears will be a very accurate copy of that crap, which will always be better than the original crap + the additional crap/distortion introduced by the rubbish system.

 

[infinitesymphony]

The best mixing and mastering engineers tend to be audiophiles. When the band is in the recording studio, they can hear all of the flaws and empty spaces in tracks, and often, they'll come up with new ideas to flesh out and add depth to songs. Sometimes these are the producer's ideas, especially if he likes to add "ear candy." These are the little bits and pieces that you'll probably only hear over decent equipment. Nigel Godrich (Radiohead, Beck, Travis) is one producer/mixer who tends to add a lot of subtle details. He loves to mess with reverb times and tail panning, delay times and amounts, pitch, etc. in real-time.

IMO, this is what separates good recordings from okay recordings. The amount of effort spent on the recording is what will differentiate it from a live performance of the same material. Budget playback equipment is getting better and better, so as an artist, why not improve the general fidelity and complexity of a mix?

 

[Luminette]

coheed and cambria isn't the poppiest band ever

not to say they are underground or are artists known for technicality / being progressive... but it would be expected that they offer more than what's on mtv. definitely shoot me if coheed is on mtv.

"why try so hard" is an ugly question \=

 

[royalcrown]

Well I mean, even Panic at the Disco has details that take decently priced (i.e. out of the reach for 90% of the population) equipment to reveal. I'm not talking about nuances either - I'm specifically referring to things such as riffs, basslines, and other pieces of actual music that become totally obscured. The idea of the mixroom having high quality playback devices certainly makes sense, but it seems kind of a pointless practice. I mean sure I appreciate it from where I'm standing, and I probably wouldn't be purchasing all of this expensive equipment if I didn't love the details, but I dunno what motivates the bands, especially the pop ones that target the mainstream, to put all of that effort into producing something that only a select few people will be able to appreciate. I guess artistic merit is the answer, but it seems unsatisfying to me.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Could be why there's so much demand to see acts live. You get 100% of the music on stage, which is probably amazing for someone only getting 65% of a recording.

 

[bhjazz]

Details have always been available in music. You're just getting closer to it, and likely closer to what the artist (and/or engineer) intended for the recording. Enjoy!