Sizing up the average listener

Not infrequently, someone posts on this forum about how the average person has no taste, likes crappy music, likes modern mastering techniques, has no interest in sound quality, and listens on a boombox or car radio. Now, while I'm sure the people doing such posting have their thumbs right on the pulse of the average consumer across various socioeconomic strata in the U.S., I'm going to point out a couple of things here.

Remember the whole "compressed waveform" thing I posted some time back that regretably turned into another bandwagoning effort? You'll notice I never responded to anything on that thread. In hindsight, I wished I hadn't posted it.

The point I was really trying to make is that a King's X fan, out of the blue, had e-mailed me about the level of compression on the new Dream Theater CD. He does not work in the music industry or anything, and I didn't say, "Hey, whadda ya think about the sonics on the new DT?" I just happened to be looking at the waveform myself, because I was chopping up that file and making short mp3s from it.

Well, tonight I noticed another thread on the King's X ng, re-created here in part:

Now, in my totally non-scientific sample here with n=2, "average" folks have independently expressed dissatisfaction with how things are done.

So, Patrick, what's your point?

I don't think it's fair to label the "average" consumer, or pretend that we know what's going on with the average consumer in terms of taste and satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the way things are in the music industry. If you work in marketing research, you can contradict me here. There are always alternative explanations that you may not have considered. Example: not everyone can afford gold CDs or high-end turntables, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't care about sound. Maybe they don't have the time to track down 8 versions of a favorite title and A/B/... them. If they're living in a studio apartment in NYC, they don't have the space for enormous speakers. Etc.

Also, I don't see what's the use in idle complaining about these issues. Activism may or may not work, but it couldn't hurt to try.

Now, please don't turn this thread into another "compression/NR/bad EQ sucks" thread.

 

I do think what you say is true. Long before I was an "audiophile" (which, to be honest, I'm not sure that I really am", I listend to music mostly on a boombox, on tapes made form LPs. But you know, I was pretty picky even back then. And I was defiintely an "average american" when it came to taste - in my youth I listened to top 40 exclusively. I have a boatload of 45's to prove it, from Creedence's "Green River" to Tommy James & the Shondell's "Mony Mony". I look back on those songs from my youth with fondness. But I'm sure at the time my Dad, who liked jazz/swing thought it was crap, that I had no taste.

Hmm... I'm starting to ramble. Ok... before I go too far off topic, I'd like to point out something that I've observed that's the counterpart to Patrick's observation, with maybe a sample size n=50: on band fan list I maintain, which is defiintely not an audiophile list, the band's records are being remastered and rereleased one by one right now.

Everyone is praising the remasters - "Man, they are SOOOO much better!" "clearer treble!" "more exciting".

Well, I've carefully compared them to the original CDs I have, and they have the bass and treble goosed, and are more compressed. I really don't think they sound better. Matter of fact, before I even did a direct comparison, when I popped the first one in I groaned - I could easily tell that this was going wear my ears out pretty quickly.

Well, I honestly think that if I brought people in and did an A/B comparison, most would pick the old mastering.

What's my point?

So why is everyone praising the new masters? I think it's psychology, pure and simple. It's new. It's remastered. It *should* sound better! And then you have 50 other people saying the same thing, and there you are.

It's not that I think they don't care. I think they do! And it's not that they can't hear it - I'm sure they could. It just kinda happens... it's human nature to assume that new is better, and it's easy to follow the crowd - to jump on that bandwagon.

 

That's really a great point there about the power of suggestion.

Also, in the interest of fairness, I'll relate this story:

The one Elton John Rocket remaster I've heard (GYBR) sucked. Just for kicks, I did a deja search on the Rocket remasters, and the vast majority of people seemed to like them.

A nice explanation to my original post might be that King's X fans have great taste, or are exquisite connoisseurs. Or both!

Or maybe it's just hard to classify how the average person feels about this issue, or whether they care enough to have an opinion. At any rate, it's clear to me that not everyone out there is oblivious to the issue of sound. Another example would be the many, many posts on the KX ng about sloppy production, particularly on the last album.

 

Similiar story - when Rush's "Presto" came out, the fans HATED it. Not the songs... the production. They knew. See - I guess years of hearing Rush recorded on analog tape with the same producer (Terry Brown) taught them what Rush can sound like.

It's a shame too - Rush fans seem to hate Rupert Hine as a result, a guy who made his name by the great sound he got with The Fixx, Saga, Howard Jones, more recently Duncan Sheik, Susanne Vega.

Wow... I'm really off topic. I'll shut up now.

 

Patrick,

Policians will kill for results from a pollster like you.

It would be an understatement to say that your poll is highly unscientific. Not only is the sample size so small - two , you are polling from serverely biased groups - one checks the level of compression and the other knows about different versions of ZZ Top records and both are interested in King X's.

I haven't had as much luck over the years meeting people who care about sound quality. I think I can count them using one hand with a couple fingers to spare. Most people I know either can't hear the difference, don't think it matters or don't know what sounds good. Well, my sample size (> 2) is no that big, either.

Once I had some friends over for a party. While I wasn't looking one guy turned the bass knob of my integrated amp to max. and the treble to min. I noticed right away that my stereo never sounded so bad and found out the ridiculous tone control settings. When I asked who'd done it the culprit answered sheepishly, "I just wanna hear the bass." A side note: that guy tried to change major area of graduate study from computer engineering to digital signal processing with no avail. We should all be grateful he failed to make the transfer.

 

We should all be grateful he failed to make the transfer.

I'll say Paul!
I've had the same results as you have and it's not from my lack of talking about it either.

 

Wow - Paul, I'd think that being in sillycon valley (as I am) you'd bump into tons of audio nuts. There sure are plenty where I work. Althought I'll be the first to admit that there are even more home theater nuts.

 

Paul, I'm not trying to make a scientific study here. I realize all the information is anecdotal, the sample biased, etc. Results will not be published anytime soon.

What I'm trying to do is dispel the notion that we, on this forum, are some gifted elite bunch with superior skills of perception, and everyone else is the unwashed and uninformed. To demonstrate that, I'm pretty sure I only need a sample size of one.

BTW, just to be clear, the first person didn't pull up the DT song in a digital editor or anything -- his comments were just based on listening.

 

Then there is the issue of personal taste. Despite whether or not a certain CD sounds good, and remember that the word "good" is a subjective term, there just may be something about a new and improved master that a person may like. Some may like added frequency boosts or the effects of compression. And, God knows there are those that like the sound that Ceadar's no-noise can give something. We have all been saying these things are bad. Are they? Or do they just go against what many of us believe (or have been told, power of suggestion!) recordings should sound like. Many think everything should sound like it's being played in a concert hall. What of all the pop/rock/dance music that have artificially created sonics for effect? Now i'm going off on a tangent.

Back to our topic.

I don't normally knowingly deal with musical people in my life, and if they are, they aren't into sound quality. The ones that are into music are candidates for Miracle Ear spokespeople or really can't tell the difference. They just want to enjoy the music , whether it be on CD, cassettes, mp3s or wax cylindars! I have more of an engineer-type mind when it comes to music so it frustrates me when I spend days, weeks on something, only for someone not to care or notice. Then they throw it on their stereo with the treble at full tilt and the loudness button engaged, enough to make one run from the room in ear pain! BUT, they are enjoying the music itself. Maybe WE could learn something from the avarage listener.

I have a "mid-fi" system, so I am in the middle somewhere. Perhaps all you with mega-buck rigs should spend a month listening to a boombox or a cheap Pioneer, Kenwood, or (gasp!) Sony stereo, maybe with Cerwin Vega speakers, and learn how to listen to just the music again.

I'm rambling again. But think about my idea. Could YOU do it????

 

Your Zness,

I know a few silly con men in the Valley. I think they are more evil than silly.

You're right about HT nuts outnumbering audio nuts. I've never failed to find parking at The Analog Room but almost had to park on the street one time at Laser Land, if you know what I mean. And I'm sure it's not because Brian smokes cigars.

 

Patrick M. It's inevitable. This thread WILL turn into another "this is good, this is bad" thread.

 

It's important to note that I put the word "average" in quotes w.r.t. King's X fans. Scientific studies have shown, in fact, that KX fans are possessed of excellent taste and a high IQ, and are very sexy as well.

Right, HZ?

 

So who's unclean?

I agree with this notion -- but the fact is, the only thing that matters is the enjoyment one derives from the music-- and to some people they don't care how something is mastered. It's all relative, Patrick. I remember a great post made by someone on another forum a few years ago (maybe that person is here now-- I dunno). he told the story of standing in line at Circuit City behind some young lady who was buying a portable boombox. She had paint all over her and he struck up a conversation. She was just buying something to play music on while she painted her house. He looked at her, this lady oblivious to all things technical and realized that she was going to go home and get more enjoyment out of that $49 boombox than most of the rich old farts with their expensive gear (sitting in the other room while they sat on their computers whining about the latest big thing on that forum).

It's all about perspective, that lady would probably think we're all nuts.

 

Damn straight.

 

Re: So who's unclean?

Damn straight.

 

Re: So who's unclean?

This just reminded me of a realization I had a little while ago.

We have this dorky little boombox in the kitchen that my wife, Elizabeth, listens to music on. Has a cd player. A couple weeks ago it dawned on me that everytime she puts on a cd, she immediately starts to dance in the kitchen. My first thought is always "god that sounds bad".

So there I am analyzing the sound coming out of this lame boombox, and there she is dancing. Who's enjoying the music more? That was my realization.

[so that you can envision her dancing in the kitchen to a boombox, here's a pic of Elizabeth.. umm.... several years ago ]

 

She is enjoying the music, not the sound

HZ, your wife is soo cute! If I were you I'd tune out the sound and soak up this moment of your wife's happiness. Then, call her to you, look lovingly into her eyes, and ask her to take the trash out, it's stinkin' up the place.

Ok. So I'm a romantic.

 

Not a problem. If things get ugly, I'll ask HZ to lock the thread. Or he'll figure it out before I ask.

Interesting viewpoints so far. Why don't these types of discussions happen more often?

 

Patrick, I think the tricky part about this topic is figuring a way to educate the average listener about good-sounding remasters like Steve's work without condescending or appearing too snobby. Many of the hardcore audiophiles that we all know are highly opinionated and aren't afraid to share their attitudes about "the great unwashed". I generally find that A/B comparisons of recordings where the audiophile is able to easily demonstrate what "breath of life" quality is versus headache-inducing screechers is the most effective way to get the point across!

 

In the repair shop part of my place of employment, they do have a Magnavox clock radio and that sounds like crap compared to a boombox and really, it does sound like crap. Even my RCA minisystem in my bedroom sounds better than that clock radio. It makes me appreciate stereo equipment a whole lot better.

 

Snipity_Snip.

Well I have one question for you all, barring looking up in a Websters Dictionary, when would you concider that "y'all" turned into audiophiles? What was it? Was it a major purchase in an amp and speakers? Was it the 1st time you bought an MFSL CD or LP and "woke up" that 3rd ear?

I think the only thing I enjoy about "beating adjectives" on average listener is taking a rant out for a walk about what's bugging me. Not like the average listener can't be brainy, cute and an attentive music listener like Jeff's wife. (Hubba, hubba, ect)... Was that photo planned to look old-fashoned and romantic? Yeah, possibly so. But did most of you think =wow what a cutie= or =wow, it looks like they meant the photo to look like 1932 or something=.

Maybe a few of you didn't think Jeff's wife was a Demi-Moore- scale cutie pie, short hair and a curious stare. Maybe you did.

And even if I was Jeff (or his wife) should I be dissapointed if no one saw the hidden subtle art behind the photo? Right down to the choice of shoes she's wearing?

Don't forget Patrick; a lot of listeners who concider themselves audiophiles don't think a recording's any good unless its a DCC or MFSL. Some of them think vinyl sucks, SACD is a joke and nothing in MONO is worth listening to. It's why I don't stick my head into Phonygram. It's a running humanitarian joke.

Something in life for many of us opened our minds. Suddenly some of us appreciated a mokingbird singing outside our window 1st thing in the morning was pleasant. How our significant other looks so "hot" when she's back from the gym (and we say so). Why some red wine tastes absolutely wonderful with the choice of a certain cheese. Some of us take a lot for granted... Even a Wendy's burger. Right Patrick?

It's more than music. It really dissapoints me when people don't stop to smell the roses. Open your mind. Love life. Care. It just kicks ass. Problem is I thinks, it's easy for some people, hard for others... and that's when we think it's so simple to growl 'bout it.

 

Hi,

I think there is no such thing as an "average" listener b/c there is no such thing as an "average" person. We're all unique and we all dig different things. Some people dig music, got some money and start to spend a lot of time trying to chase the best sound. Kinda like many people on this Forum. Does that make us better than others, of course not, that just brings us together for this scene. Whatever people dig, they have a tendancy to follow/chase (sports, music, travel, sex, etc. etc.) and ultimately become rather knowledgeable about. That's why I dig this Forum.

I strongly appreciate the points that I believe that Patrick is trying to make. I'm better than nobody, and nobody is better than me. As a matter of fact come the next Presidential election, I'm gonna be nobody's campaign manager. Maybe you will endorse nobody b/c nobody is always honest, nobody is always ethical, and nobody is the best person to have making the sole decision on whether to push the big red button and blow up the whole world.

Drifting to far from the shore,
Jeffrey

 

And that's why they will keep "re-mastering" forever.

The stickers proclaiming "DIGITALLY REMASTERED!!!!" are about as useful as the message "No Cholesterol" on a bag of potato chips or "NOW better tasting" on a bag of cookies. It's just a buzzword.

People used to lousy sound will eventually hear great sound then they will realize what they are missing, assuming the music moves them enough to appreciate it. Things go in cycles. But if people are not taking music seriously enough to do serious listening then they may not have any use for "better sound". If they just listen in the car while they are rushing to get somewhere, or casually listening while they diddle with their computer or watch TV or read or talk with their friends, then great sound is not really a priority. I think a lot of people simply don't take the time or have the time to sit down and focus on the music alone. And that is a shame.

 

since the thumb has its own pulse, you should never take a persons pulse with your thumb. the forefinger is prefered.

cool thread, BTW.

later, chris