"Real audiophiles only listen to classical and jazz"?! Thank god those alienated times are (almost) behind us .
Well, back then there was a crossover between the people who were concerned with high fidelity reproduction and the people making and listening to classical music in particular (jazz wasn't even so much part of the mix, it was pretty much classical). If you were listening to pop music, especially in the rock era, the recordings weren't always being made with fidelity in mind, the listeners were listening on AM radio. I have to say, honestly today, if mostly what someone is listening to is contemporary rock and pop and hip hop, where aree the recordings are being made close mic'ed, in isolation, often at home, direct, and then layered on with effects, mixed incredibly narrowly with no image or space, and then compressed within an inch of its life, I don't know what you'd get out of that as an audiophile. I have found that a lot of the time when I listen to that music I don't even bring it up on my big hifi rig. It's also not the sort of music I find I generally sit quietly and listen to without doing anything else, the way I would with classical or jazz. In any event, it's certainly not a rare exception -- audiophiles who listen mostly to classical music and other kinds of music more likely to be considered with recording performances that sound like whole, untouched performances in their original acoustic spaces.
i have learned to power through and now find him someone who i respect with regards audio. and i do manage to listen to his you tube videos. it took a while but i came around .
You need to 'get out more' if you think that all rock/pop/any-other-genre-than-classical&jazz/... sounds like that . But you make a good example of a very narrow minded 'music-lover' (to put it mildly), I'll give you that.
I've been listening to all kind of music in all kinds of recordings -- rock, pop, country, gospel, blues, gamelean music, raga, Bollywood soundtrack music, bhangra, maqam, traditional Zulu songs, musique concrete; I listen to recordings from the 1920s to the 2020s. I'd venture to guess that I have if not the widest ranging musical tastes and interests of anyone on this board, at least as wide as anyone else. I go from Aka pygmy field recordings to Taylor Swift, from Princess Magogo to Helmut Lachenmann. I've also performed and recorded lots of music in genres like rock and R&B over my life. But when it comes to audio, and sound reproduction, the kinds of recordings that most interest me and that I find most compelling are those that try to capture a performance in its moment in its space and reproduce that, and I don't find that kind of approach or intent is common in most musical genres today, and hasn't been, outside of things like jazz and classical, in the last 30 or 40 years, maybe longer. And I'm not sure one needs the qualities and characteristics of an audiophiles playback system to listen to the recordings of Coldplay or The Weeknd.
That’s pretty wide. I get plenty of calls from customers who say “l listen to a wide range of music, 60’s to 70’s rock and 50’s to 60’s jazz.”
Ha! Yeah, I see that kind of thing. Me, I love music, all kinds of music, and especially music from outside my culture, new music experiences for me to encounter. Just the other day I was listening to the mid-20s recordings of Sexteto Habanero, as I was reading about the impact of recording of of Cuban in that period on the development of Congolese rumba from Gary Stewart's great book, Rumba on the River. Then later in the day I was playing Boulez's Second Piano Sonata and thinking about the heyday of "total serialism" in the DG recording on Paavali Jumppanen, which got me thinking about Schoenberg's first serial piece, the Wind Quintet, which I jumped back to on a great 1960s Decca recording. Then the next day was Sunday morning and I like to listen to gospel of the golden age on Sunday mornings, and I've been thinking about the songs of WH Brewster a lot so that got me thinking about the Ward Singer's 1950 breakthrough hit on Brewster's "Surely, God Is Able" with the great second lead by Marion Williams. That's kind of the way I listen to music. All the music was great, but the one super distinguished recording was the early '70s Decca recording of the London Sinfonietta playing the Schoenberg recorded at All Saints Church Petersham.
I know your taste is eclectic (like mine) which is why it surprises me that you need to paint such a black&white picture of more 'modern' (pop/rock/...) music recordings. Because it's never black&white! And for every Coldplay & The Weeknd there is a well recorded pop/rock artist out there. I get it that you don't like the close-mic'ed studio recordings, but there's no need, just because you don't like it, to call every modern and close-mic'ed studio recording 'compressed to within an inch of its life', because it isn't!
Of course, every recording is not necessarily compressed like that, but it's also not necessarily a type of recording that's made with the intent of the sort of thing that's in contention seemingly in this thread -- an attempt to present a lifelike representation of performed music in its original acoustic space. Which is fine of course. There are all kinds of music and all kinds of recordings. But the one of the beefs about the video that has been much discussed in this thread is the notion that somehow that a recording of the traditionally audiophile type -- a high fidelity reproduction of a performance in an acoustic space -- is not what audiophiles care about, or is a rare interest among audiophiles. (And, FWIW, there are plenty of certainly jazz recordings in the contemporary era that aren't so much of that type either). So, there are two things here -- first, that historically over the last 50 years that representation of a real sound has been an audiophile standard, though clearly things have changed a lot in the world of audiophilia turning a focus not only to other kinds of recordings not made with that intent but also personal values that favor euphonic colors any one of us might enjoy over transparency; and second, my own personal preference for recordings make according to the traditional audiophile notion. Not that I don't like music recorded all kinds of ways, but when it comes to enjoying the recordings, that's a different kettle of fish.
Sometimes I feel like "audiophiles" can either be completely delusional (almost on an imbecilic level), and/or the most arrogant crowd anywhere- I don't understand why we can't just enjoy our sound system for what it is. Personally, I don't want to reproduce a live production with my stereo, because at a live production I don't have control over the volume, and usually I can't shoot pool, talk about other things to whoever I'm with, throw darts, etc. I'm sure that might ruffle some feathers but here's an example... a guy I know knew I was big into stereos, I actually build speakers quite often. He kept raving about his stereo and asking me to come over and listen to it, finally one day I was able to. His system was set up in his basement, it was a decent Denon HT receiver powering some newer Klipsch towers, Klipsch center and surround speakers, and 15" subwoofer. He played some Dire Straits (per my request), and it was loud... but in my opinion it was muffled and terrible sounding. I can pinpoint why it was muffled, I can also pinpoint why I thought it didn't sound very good- but I sat there and listened and kept my opinions to myself and just enjoyed the fact that he was super happy with his stereo because that's what really matters, and aside from "what do you think?", he never asked me what he should fix or if I would change anything. Eventually the same guy came to my place and listened to my stereo. He was completely blown away by the clarity, the depth, and the realistic 3 dimensional soundstage that only 2 channels presented, but he asked me why I don't run a subwoofer. I just explained in my own mildly douchey way that I don't like subs on that system because it's a purist 2 channel system, a sub would kind of ruin it in my opinion. Yeah, it doesn't have an f3 of 28 Hz and won't play at 120 dB, but it plays all the music I listen to almost perfectly and still surprisingly loudly. 2 different opinions, and both of us are right. While there is (very obviously) a lot of science involved in electronic design, speaker design, and recordings, it is basically art to all of us. I don't expect my sound system to put me in the center of an actual live performance any more than I expect a painting to transfer me to whatever that picture represents. But I still enjoy paintings and pictures, and I have a lot of fun tweaking, replacing, and modifying my stereo. Not because I expect it to eventually save my soul, but because it brings me joy whenever I turn it on. One more little story for my long winded post... This other guy I know is VERY hung up on measurements, and one year we were both at Axpona and he mentioned how much he enjoyed the Kaiser Kawero speakers. A few years later I built some speakers for him, and when I got the xovers done and the speakers all assembled he listened and told me he loved them. A couple days later I (jokingly) sent him a screenshot of the Kaiser Kawero measurements and asked him what he thought, told him that was the frequency response from the speakers I'd done for him. It was pretty hilarious, all of a sudden the speakers I built didn't sound so good and (based on the measurements he saw) he mentioned a few areas he hoped I could improve. I told him I was kidding, then sent him the actual response and he was pretty dumbfounded. He had to come back, listen again and did decide they were great sounding, nothing needed changed. Hopefully I left a mark, because sometimes you do just need to enjoy the sound for whatever moves you, regardless of what a microphone plugged into a computer says. For the record I agree, the Kaisers do sound amazing. To sum that up, the only time I think audiophiles are BS-ing themselves is if they actually think they're going to find "perfection". Enjoy your stereo and have fun listening to music.
Some are and some aren't. Who cares what someone wants to believe. Audiophilic folks are like religious sects. I prefer measurements and I just want a pure sound with no coloration. I won't force ---won't try to force my view on it unless someone debates me. I'm a card carrying member of Audio Science Review and follow their gospel. ha
Yes, understood. That's why I mentioned there is obviously a range of what audiophiles are seeking. I get your goals, totally. But my other point was that the "using reality as a reference" is more nuanced than it's often given credit for, from people who reject the idea. As I said, the touchstone of "real sounds" may be out of reach, but that doesn't mean the expectations are unrealistic. So for instance this idea of "chasing the illusion of the real thing" might suggest the audiophile is perpetually unsatisfied because he can never reach it. On the contrary, many such audiophiles HAVE reached their goal and "experience" what they were seeking from their system, as I do. I don't expect my system to sound indistinguishable from the real thing; I just seek that it reproduce, or at least mimic, some of the characteristics I hear in real sounds, especially when appropriate in a recording. So for instance when I play my acoustic guitar, or listen to others play an acoustic guitar, I am always away of a richness of harmonic complexity from the strings, supported by a warm "woody glow" of the resonating guitar body. If that's not there when I hear acoustic guitar on a sound system, it isn't ever going to be there, and I am less compelled to listen. However that IS there on my system, so I luxuriate in listening to acoustic guitar (or many other acoustic instruments) on my system. Same goes for horns and woodwinds - I grew up with a Jazz musician/teacher father so heard these instruments every day in my home (and played some myself). If those don't sound fundamentally "right" in a system, that's a bummer. Fortunately, they can sound "right" to me on the right system. It's just taking cues from nature, not unrealistic goals. Likewise someone may feel they are getting that snap and presence in their system they were seeking for drums, etc. It's not a hopeless goal, approached realistically. Secondly, I live in an area where, during warm months, there is almost always live music being played - corner gatherings of small jazz bands, folk, rock, live music coming out of bars and clubs with open windows etc. I often close my eyes and note the characteristics that differentiate it from most reproduced sound. It's always: Bigger, bolder, warmer, clearer, more harmonically rich, and with a sense of density. These are aspects I have sought in my system building and set up. The result isn't just that acoustic instruments and voices sound more "right" and "there" to me. Electronic instruments benefit as well. I'm a keyboard player and love electronica. Anyone who has played their keyboards using a decent pair of monitors, cabinet or earphones knows how much richer the sounds are than often end up in a recording. They loose something just like acoustic instruments loose something. And I find all the things I'm trying for - a sense of body, richness, harmonic/timbral complexity, density etc - benefit electronic instruments just as they do acoustic. Synth-based music engages me more when it too has those characteristics. And, finally, this isn't just a journey towards pleasing coloration, which would homogenize the sound. I view every recording as a quality in of itself (as you do) so I want the different characteristics of recordings maximized. So it's a balancing act, which I feel for my purposes I've mostly achieved. Cheers
Of course. But I wonder who actually fits your example of "delusional." I mean, once you agree we should all enjoy our system for what it is, on what grounds are you calling someone "delusional" for enjoying their system, on whatever grounds? For instance, even taking someone looking for more realism in their system. We all know stereo is an illusion, and we are bringing our own psychology to that illusion. If a person has set up a system that is successful in tweaking their own sense of "live," what's wrong with that, even if it doesn't work for you the same way? Sure...but, again, who fits that stereotype? Do you imagine anyone on this forum thinks that "perfection" is possible? That's certainly not what I see (here ore elsewhere).
Obviously you missed it, but the people that are delusional are the ones saying we need to get to "live performance perfection" from our systems, and the arrogant crowd are the ones saying someone is wrong for enjoying their system. That's my only point. Anyone enjoying their system is doing perfectly fine, keep enjoying your system. And please keep sharing your experiences here, I enjoy reading about other people's experiences- not because we're all the same, but we all enjoy music and the diversity is what makes this fun.
Once the the sound reaches the microphone(s) it's distorted from reality. From that point on there is probably no way to totally make it sound like a real live sound ever again. Especially when you consider you have to hear it via another transducer (loudspeaker) which also introduces distortion you don't hear with live acoustic sound. Some recordings do a remarkably good job but still not the same as real live sound. Sometimes the best performance doesn't have the greatest sound anyway. Such is life.
The best stereo I've ever owned or heard... was a Magnavox "all in one" front end, hooked up to a pair of speakers that were in a box I made that if I recall had 12" Sony woofers that came out of a pair of my dad's old speakers, with Lord only knows what midrange and tweeter, and a generic Radio Shack 3 way xover. Most definitely would've been the worst measuring speakers of all time, and the "front end" was a pathetic joke, but when I was in 6th grade it played the crap out of some Motley Crue or GNR cassette tapes . At the time I was trying to get what my dad had in the living room... ever since then I've been trying to find whatever I had at that moment when I was in 6th grade
That can hold true with some enthusiasts of most any hobby. Ever deal with someone in a Corvette owner's club? Especially one who owns the car, yet would never be qualified to do even the simplest repair to it.
Haha, yes, I own a Corvette so I can definitely relate . I don't go to car shows with it for that reason, I just have fun beating on it every now and then.
