[FullRangeMan]

I have a lot of Sheffields and Direct-to-Disc LPs from the 70s and 80s.  The Sheffields sound fantastic but have a reputation for very conservative/and or dated performances and I'm sure they bored some people to death after a while.

This is correct, I think audiophile music that the title refers had great SQ and medriocre performance, as this from Sheffield labs-a classic audiophile album from Larry Mcneely(bluegrass):
http://www.amazon.com/Confederation-Larry-McNeely-Geoff-Skinner/dp/B001ND93MO:

[jimdgoulding]

Shoot, FRM, that album is a heap of fun!  Plus, there is "Sweet Evening", a just plain beautiful track.  Oh, shucks, after a second look, the album I am talking about is self titled . 

[FullRangeMan]

Sorry I mean say bad songs/compositions, not performance.

[thunderbrick]

Would take someone playing Pink Floyd or ELP over waif women any day.   

Ditto!  I want a woman's voice to have BODY!

Yeah, that's it!   

[GT Audio Works]

I agree, if a system cannot do well with a wide variety of music, then it's an overall poor system.  I had to unsubscribe to the Bryston forum because of all the idiots that would post "I got a Bryston, which is SO REVEALING that I can hear how BAD most of the recordings in my collection are".  Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

May I interject my observations on this subject... there is too much unfounded opinion on both sides of this equation.
People jump to conclusions too quickly...just inserting an amp in a playback chain and forming an opinion on its performance in a short time frame is not really accomplishing anything. Components can sound diversely different with seemingly slight changes in ones setup.
For instance, my Bryston 4b sounds great with a power cord...without one ...not so great..it sounds great if the upstream components are getting their juice through a power conditioner...but plug the 4b into the power conditioner and again, not so good. Add to this mix the fact that incorrect absolute phase of the recording can skew the sound to the softer side, making people think the issue is correctable elsewhere in the playback chain, illustrates just how daunting this task of component evaluation can be. Just like a few digits on a combination lock will yield a number of possibilities but only one will be the correct or best one.

 As far as the quote "My bryston is so revealing..." again the perception comes from unfounded opinion.
Revealing comes from the ability to present the recording with a low noise floor from the electronics , speaker and room acoustics.
People say...listen to that guy cough in the 12th row..the truth is, the top end is so etched that the leading edge of the cough comes through quite noticeably, but listen to that same cough on a well sorted system and you will hear a balance of the upper and lower register as well as the decay of the room as the cough trails off to inaudibility.
 
 For the record, my 4b has been up against some pricey competition,, it has held its own quite well considering its price. Sure,  maybe a $10k amp has a wonderful smooth and airy top end, or a tubed unit has that certain je ne sais quoi.
But for visceral impact and across the board performance, it makes a very good every day driver.
                          Greg

[nnck]

I agree, if a system cannot do well with a wide variety of music, then it's an overall poor system.  I had to unsubscribe to the Bryston forum because of all the idiots that would post "I got a Bryston, which is SO REVEALING that I can hear how BAD most of the recordings in my collection are".  Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

Didnt particularly want to get into a conversation about the gear, but I tend to agree with Tyson on this.

However, my take on this subject is that AC is a fantastic place to learn about particular pieces of equipment, their compatibility, theories on how it all works, etc. But a place to learn about interesting music....errhh...not so much. I've tried myself to start threads to get people talking on the subject, but I'm left with the feeling I'm speaking to an audience of one. I guess it's not so surprising, everyone's taste in music is just their own, and there simply isn't any right from wrong. But I scoff at the comments I see from time to time when people start in on how terrible music is these days, can't find anything new to listen to that sounds good, blah, blah, blah. There's a tremendous amount of great music out there to be heard and discovered. But the lack of interest in diverse forms of music HERE is just a little surprising given the rest of the subject matter.

[thunderbrick]

Good point, Greg.  I've had amps in my system that were underwhelming, even after a long night of critical listening, yet sounded spectacular (in the right way) after being left on for 2-3 days.

[mix4fix]

Bro, if you start a thread against Heavy Metal and others satanic music styles I will support you, but audiophile music!!

You are allowed to pick and choose what Heavy Metal you can like. There are all kinds of Heavy Metal to fit everyone's needs.

Here's your satanic music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYjHOLNZUMM

 

[AJinFLA]

I am constantly amazed when I slip out and cruise audio shows to listen to other rooms, only hear music that might better produce a coma, than remotely stretch a loudspeakers legs.
I do my best to play music that is both well recorded and dynamic. OTOH, there is plenty of "non-boring" music that has horrendous sound quality. Exactly what that tells a listener about the sound quality and high performance capability of a system, is beyond my comprehension.
To me, the (my) goal is a semblance of what I hear at a symphony or jazz club. Not what I hear from a stack of Peaveys in mono at a fairground. YMMV.

cheers,

AJ

[HsvHeelFan]

As the owner of a Bryston 4B-ST, I'll almost always choose the recording's "performance" over the pristine recording.

I have a great example...

I have several recordings of selections from Robert Russell Bennett's "Victory At Sea".   One is the Cincinnati Pops recoreded on Telarc. It's a very good "recording", but the performance just lays there.  It's very uninspired, no emotion is conveyed and no feeling.

My other recording was recorded in the late 50's by RCA. I believe it's an RCA "Red Seal" recording with the NBC Symphony orchestra.   The orchestra performance is outstanding!  It pulls you in and grabs you.

Which one do I choose to listen to?  It's always the RCA tracks.   I've used the Telarc recording as an example of a great recording but not a great performance a couple of times.

An example of what I consider to be a very poor recording is Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass "The Lonely Bull".   Now, this was the Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass's first single and it sounds like it was recorded in a garage (because it was).   I still like it and listen to it a lot.  I've been on a bit of a Mexican/Latin music kick here lately.

I'm not real picky about the recording quality of what I listen to.  I listen to what I want to listen to, regardless of recording quality and I tend to always choose performance over recording quality.

Some prefer tubes, some soild state.  Some believe in different cables, others don't.  Some believe vinyl is the only way to go.  Some prefer open baffle or electrostatic over a classic multiple driver speaker.

There is more than one way to audio nirvana and each of us is different. 

Trust your ears!

HsvHeelFan

[Early B.]

What's the point of purchasing "high fidelity" components if you're not interested in listening to high fidelity recordings?

Yes, the majority of commercial music is not well recorded, so I don't listen to it (unless I'm in my car). And yeah, most "audiophile" music IMO is pretty boring. So like everything else in audio, you gotta make some tradeoffs, and that includes choosing which music gets played more often on your expensive hi-fi system. It could be one of my favorite artists, but if it is poorly recorded, I won't even buy it or I'll get rid of it.  As a result, I choose to listen to a narrow selection of high quality recordings.

And one more thing -- audiophiles listen to gear, not music. Don't let anyone on this forum convince you otherwise.    The music is a necessary evil. 

[HsvHeelFan]

Ha!  Getting there "musically" speaking is what's driving my audio changes (when I make them).

For me, it's all about the music rather than the system.

Next up will probably be a different pre-amp.  That's if my subwoofer amp doesn't go first.

HsvHeelFan

[RDavidson]

And one more thing -- audiophiles listen to gear, not music. Don't let anyone on this forum convince you otherwise.    The music is a necessary evil. 

........and hence the spawn of audiophile music, or stuff that only "sounds" good on one's system but is otherwise not the kind of music the same person actually enjoys listening to.

I wish ALL music, including stuff I don't even chose to listen to, was recorded / produced well, so the whole idea of audiophile music wouldn't even really exist. A lot of stuff I listen to isn't recorded / produced well, but it's the music I like. I won't stop listening to it because it doesn't sound great on my system. Luckily I like a pretty wide range of music, so there's other stuff I enjoy that IS well recorded / produced out there.

Now........back to streaking through the quad!

[jimdgoulding]

I am constantly amazed when I slip out and cruise audio shows to listen to other rooms, only hear music that might better produce a coma, than remotely stretch a loudspeakers legs.
I do my best to play music that is both well recorded and dynamic. OTOH, there is plenty of "non-boring" music that has horrendous sound quality. Exactly what that tells a listener about the sound quality and high performance capability of a system, is beyond my comprehension.
To me, the (my) goal is a semblance of what I hear at a symphony or jazz club. Not what I hear from a stack of Peaveys in mono at a fairground. YMMV.

cheers,

AJ

and for Early B's post. 

[pbui44]

I thought that being an audiophile meant being loyal to a audio format, like SACD, DVD-Audio, Vinyl...

[FullRangeMan]

I thought that being an audiophile meant being loyal to a audio format, like SACD, DVD-Audio, Vinyl...

If all equips were perfect and inexpensive it would help too.
In this case its OK if you wanna dance.

[skunark]

Being an Audiophile is being loyal to a quality recording, and nothing more.   --Jim

[dingus]

There is no such thing as "audiophile music" to rebel against.  I guarantee that no musician ever writes and records music with the intent of making "audiophile music".

but unfortunately, i cant tell you how many "audiophile" listening sessions and gatherings have been ruined because of an odd insistence on repeatedly playing something by Diana Krall.  i guess if you really, really like heavy breathing, but she looks like a dude to me, but what do i know?

[Diamond Dog]

In this case its OK if you wanna dance.

I wanna dance to "heavy metal and other Satanic music styles". Still OK by you? 

but unfortunately, i cant tell you how many "audiophile" listening sessions and gatherings have been ruined because of an odd insistence on repeatedly playing something by Diana Krall.  i guess if you really, really like heavy breathing, but she looks like a dude to me, but what do i know?

There. Nailed it. Being an audiophile is really about fetishism. As is being a Diana Krall fan, apparently... Explains a lot, don't it ? 

D.D.

[dflee]

I've actually grown to like some music that was performed well and recorded well that I would have missed otherwise. Musicians seek out those who have a reputation of mastering a recording so in a way they are concerned about Audiophile music. Krall is a case of people trying to play something that the others have already heard and can compare with other equipment (even tho it is getting old at least to me).

Don