What style of music best exhibits 'audiophile'

So firstly - I get that we all like / enjoy / appreciate different styles of music.

For me its Beatles + solo, and quite a lot of prog rock (Yes, Tull, Rush), classic 70's rock (Queen), slightly more esoteric prog/art rock (Oldfield) and electric folk (Steeleye Span).

The question is - if we are talking 'audiophile' (I can't afford to do it properly), where do we get the best gains? Is it in hearing the 'in the room' quality of a folk recording, or the clear separation of an early 70's rock/prog track? Or a true appreciation of the quality of a truly great 60's production, ahead of its time compared to it's contemporaries?

I might assume that for these purposes 'audiophile' is best appreciated by 'classical' but I suspect that may not be true. I get that hard rock (limiting arguments aside) may not best exemplify a good quality audio representation, but I'm sure that there are plenty of loud rock records out there that can really shine from a 'clarity of sound' point of view.

And is it about clarity? Or warmth? Or proximity?

Interested to hear views.

 

Charlie Byrd (g) solo on a direct to disc recording.
Superbe audiophile sound.

 

I was recently amazed how well acouatic guitars come out on vinyl. So I would go with unplugged albums.

 

Classical or jazz.

 

OK, fair - I didn't mention jazz - in the sense of three to five musicians on a stage together, playing one instrument each - I can see good separation and clarity is appreciated there.

Or am I wrong - s separation and clarity not the be-all and end-all? Does a warm, analogue mono sound trump all if done well? Even id the overall sound is a little 'muddied' / 'blended'?

 

Im confused about the premise of this thread. Are you asking what styles benefit the most from “audiophile” sound or what styles are most likely to exhibit it naturally? Because the obvious answer to the second is classical or jazz. well recorded usually few mix sources and mixed naturally with little or no processing. That will give you the most accurate and natural representation which rock and folk music can never touch by their nature

 

I love a good acoustic guitar heard on it's own, or heard clearly alongside other instruments, but I also love a clear separation of Hammond B-3, Gibson ES-175, and Rickenbacker 4001 (for example - can't think of a particular instance of that, there are surely many, but hopefully you get my point) each instrument has its own tone, character, voice, and I want to hear what the performer was doing with it.

 

Actually, I think that folk music CAN be done with the same audiophile qualities.....The Weavers Reunion at Carnegie Hall being a well known example. Also, albums by Joan Baez, Peter, Paul and Mary etc.

 

Why not folk? Many folk records have only a handful of performers, only tracked once, maybe live, so few individual sounds to separate / or 'blend' if that's what's needed. I'd point to Span's first LP 'Hark, The Village Wait', recorded at the legendary Sound Techniques, Chelsea - high cred, low-fi (perhaps) - I can hear each and every element, and where it is in the sound collage, although perhaps not with the warmth and clarity that I would expect from a modern recording (separate discussion - is 'modern' 'better'?).

Note: I'm not saying folk is my favourite, although I do love some of that ilk, I think I am a prog-head first and foremost, but the same applies to early Yes, Tull..

 

I am not sure if there is a "best" genre or style for audiophile potential to be honest - I can think of immediate examples in any genre I can think of where the audio is amazing and the audio is poorly mixed/mastered. I would say it depends more on presentation and methodology of recording rather than genre.

 

What I’m saying is folk/rock/pop are almost always recorded with close miked sources using overdubs and processing like compression/reverb after the fact. I’m not claiming this sounds bad, just that this style of recording strays from the typical “audiophile” qualities well recorded classical and jazz exhibit. As I said I still don’t understand your premise or what you’re trying to figure out

 

I think I'll accept your premise with pop, and rock, classic 70's prog and folk less so - the stuff that I listen to is pretty naked I think, at least pre '75 - I suspect that once the techno-producers got involved things changed - I suppose I'm thinking Reinhold Mack, Trevor Horn, Mike Batt, adding processing, effects, echo, compression, room, etc

Sorry if that sounds naïve, I'm trying to speak from the viewpoint of the stuff that I appreciate - I like to hear the skill of the individual musician..

 

70s prog is usually very well produced and sounds good. However it was definitely primarily recorded on 24 track machines with lots of close miking, overdubs and effects processing which is my only point here.

 

Jazz for sure, on average.

 

Any genre. And like this person says, I can think of examples across all the different styles of music that I listen to that benefit from being "audiophile" recordings, mixed, and mastered. I.e., well recorded, mixed, and mastered.

 

I have to strongly concur. It's one of fairly few things were the style of music has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I do see the point of favoring natural instruments with few effects, but I'm sure others think of Dark Side of the Moon or The Orb or their favorite metal album.

 

At first I thought the question was rather simplistic and the answer would be classical music. However on reflection I can think of certain very artificial recordings that sound sonically excellent for example Billy Idol's Rebel Yell LP.

I think we would agree more readily on what is not audiophile: unbalanced frequency range, mic distortion, sounds panned hard right and left and glued to the speakers, heavy use of soundboard to modify or tweak the sounds such as direct input (DI). So recordings with a good tonal balance from treble to bass, clear soundstage right to left and front to back with instruments arranged logically by function in the music are going to sound more audiophile.

In the case of amplified instruments we cannot be sure what they sound like in the studio or the stage. With acoustic instruments we do. I think that's why fewer corners are cut with classical music sonics because people can go to a concert and know how an orchestra or string quartet or opera singer is going to sound.

I agree that acoustic folk music should be just as likely to have great sonics but with certain exceptions that is less the case. I'm not sure why though. However Audioquest put out a few very natural acoustic blues LPs/CDs in the 90s.

 

Well-produced and recorded music.

 

Yacht Rock, obviously.

 

Great guitar sound