[RDavidson]

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

I'm not certain I'd even know who Diana Krall is if it wasn't for all the equipment reviews over at least the past 10 years mentioning her albums. Her work has become one of the audiophile standards. It'd be interesting to understand how many hobbyists bought her album(s) just to hear the sound quality, not necessarily the music.

[JohnR]

I'm wondering if I read correctly, but was Pink Floyd defined (or at least implied) in this thread as being both audiophile music and not audiophile music?

[oskar]

I was trying to get into THE WALL the other night after many a year. It sounded rather murky and thats the latest remaster. Also found the most of the songs kinda tedious. I have plenty of iffy recordings in regular rotation and I think Ms Krall is a major talent.

[thunderbrick]

I think Ms Krall is a major talent.

Yeah, but can she sing?   

[HAL]

I would say Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon is one of the audiophile standards that is good music.  I have it in about every format except tape. 

[AJinFLA]

I would say Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon is one of the audiophile standards that is good music.

Which is why I finally succumbed, acquired and put it on my show hard drive HAL.
I have a pretty good memory of the plink of a piano key and the vibrating string of a violin etc having been exposed to them for 40+ years, both from near and afar.
I have no clue what Pink Floyd is supposed to sound like. The one time I heard them, it sounded like a mono stack of Turbosounds(?) or something similar.
General question. What is (something like) DSOTM supposed to sound like, so I can verify whether my speaker designs have some semblance of "High fidelity" for Audiophiles?

cheers,

AJ

[BobRex]

In regard to the actual title of this thread - why?

Even if someone exists whose sole music diet is audiopphile releases, so what?  I may take pity on that person, but I'm not going to deny, or eliminate his/her preferences.  How about we rebel against all the overprocessed pop/pap that's made?  Or maybe all of the really awful country music - I mean c'mon, how may horses / dogs have to die, girlfriends done wrong, or tributes to pick up trucks do we need?

See, it works for any genre.

[SoCalWJS]

Which is why I finally succumbed, acquired and put it on my show hard drive HAL.
I have a pretty good memory of the plink of a piano key and the vibrating string of a violin etc having been exposed to them for 40+ years, both from near and afar.
I have no clue what Pink Floyd is supposed to sound like. The one time I heard them, it sounded like a mono stack of Turbosounds(?) or something similar.
General question. What is (something like) DSOTM supposed to sound like, so I can verify whether my speaker designs have some semblance of "High fidelity" for Audiophiles?

cheers,

AJ

I was just going over this very thought last night...... I am a fan of the Floyd and think that their music is well recorded - for what it is.

The 20th Anniversary Box set for Division Bell arrived yesterday and I was anxious to listen to the 5.1 mix, so I threw it in for a quick listen (Blu ray). First of all, there are multiple choices on the disc and I chose PCM over the other (can't remember if it was Dolby True HD or DTS-MA).

While it was enjoyable and I was impressed and happy with the purchase, I kept asking myself "Just what is this supposed to sound like?" - Everything is different from the 2 channel mix and there is a lot of panning/steering going on with the various effects. Let's face it, a very large portion of their music is processed through various means and I honestly do not know what it is intended to sound like.

 

(but as I said, I like it and it is well recorded  )

[S Clark]

I usually think that if a system can create a realistic piano (all 88 keys) and female vocals, it can do most anything.
To paraphrase AJ, what is an electric guitar supposed to sound like?????  How can you evaluate a system based on that?   But listening and enjoying music is not the same as evaluating a system.  I like DSOTM as much as the next guy, but I want to hear piano, large orchestra, acoustic guitar, a drum set, and female vocals in a good recording to evaluate a system.
Hmmm, sounds like Ms. Costello to me, even though she gets limited play at home.

[HAL]

What does any recording really sound like if you did not hear the mic feed at the recording session?  Monitored over which speakers/headphones in what recording studio? Then throw in the listening room acoustics which did not exist in the recording session and now it becomes a personal decision.  Now add recording mastering and what do you have?  One persons idea of what is should sound like.  None of that is limited to Rock recordings.

And Pink Floyd used HIWATT guitar amps and speakers similar to The Who back in those days.  Sounds much different than Peavey's.   

As an example, I can make a pretty accurate recording of my Laney Supergroup amp, with correct mics and effects like Black Sabbath used in the '70s.  If it plays back the same as the mic feed, then it is an accurate reproduction.  Can also use a classical and steel string guitar to check as well.   

What I am saying is that at shows, if all the demo's are only with very simple recordings that do not tax the system, then the demo is not complete.  I would prefer to hear music with more complexity.  I am also saying that there is nothing wrong with using Rock music to demo.  If the system will not play loud enough cleanly, it is not for me as well. 

I also really do not want to listen to and measure test signals at shows at well.  Hopefully that was all done well at the beginning of the design of the system. 

[Folsom]

The big problem is a lot of youngsters these days (not me included obviously) think just doing something is cool, and no care for how it's done. It's somewhat of a feminized issue, where the idea is important but the product is not. There's a fair amount of more indie bands that are gravitating towards decent recordings so I have some hope. Part of it is the obsession to be an aficionado is coming back around and hitting them in the ass, as they get deeper into all the fluff they bought into, they're becoming insecurely judgmental on the subjects now.  It's ironic you might say, that an interest in superficial community comradery in mediocrity, or idea based behavior, has by nature needed to dig deeper in order to maintain a non-status-quo perception.

Frankly as long as it doesn't sound like shit, I'm all good with it. But of course I love good quality and it increases playback numbers. Frankly some audiophile specific albums are stuff I couldn't care about listening too. There's some legends in the industry for being high quality and not associated with boring, yes like DSOTM, or NIN.

A lot of MOFI albums are a snooze for me as well. They're way dry for that matter.

I listen to Superwolf by Bonnie Prince Billy and Matt Sweeney pretty regularly because it's such a beautiful album. It's on a typical flimsy vinyl, and the quality of recording is what they were aiming for, so it's rather good, but couldn't pass for the dry clinical sound of MOFI. (I don't think I like anything else by BPB yet, sometimes guys just have one good album).

There are albums that only play in a car/garage setting for me. They're good music, piss poor recording, mixing, and mastering that's a chore to deal with. It's the only way I can enjoy them, because otherwise it's flatter than a ticker under hammer strike.

I'm sure I miss out on some albums by gravitating towards the ones that give me some kind of emotional stimulus because they're done decent, otherwise there isn't a point in having the stereo if I'm not stimulated. 

[Larkston Zinaspic]

I once brought "I Can't Quit You Babe" by Led Zeppelin immediately followed with "Cat Food" by King Crimson to an audio club meeting. It didn't go over very well, but I wasn't interested in Japanese drum music that evening. I wasn't trying to be a rebel...turns out I was just bored.

[simoon]

Some random thoughts...

As a measuring bar, when evaluating an unknown system or piece of gear, I think it is good to start the process with so called 'audiophile recordings' in order to get the most accurate representation of what the equipment can do given the best recorded material.

Once that bar is set, then I will reach for music that I am much more likely to listen to for enjoyment, because I understand what the system is capable of, and will be able to tell if the average studio recorded, multi-track, engineer manipulated, compressed, noise gated,  recording sounds close to what was intended.

If you start with a typical commercial studio recording, how are you supposed to tell if problems that you hear are due to the recording or the unknown equipment? For example, if you want to hear the ability of the unfamiliar system to reproduce dynamics, wouldn't it be better to use an uncompressed audiophile recording to tell (even if you don't particularly like the music), instead of a typically compressed commercial recording by an artist that you like?

I don't believe that if a system can't reproduce all music well, it is by definition, a bad system. I am a big fan of progressive metal and technical metal, but the recording quality of most of it does not sound good on any system. If I played audiophile classical and jazz recordings on a system, and they sounded great, I would not downgrade the quality of the system if it did not sound good when I popped in a 'Prymary' CD.

In fact, if a system sounded good with a typical prog-metal recording, I would question the system's accuracy. It would probably sound bad on well recorded, acoustic music.

I consider myself an audiophile, yet for me, the music comes first. But that is not to say, that one some days, I might be more into tweaking my system, and using audiophile recordings (some of which I may not like the music) to do so, instead of listening for pure musical enjoyment. I have no problems at all forgetting the equipment. These different ways of enjoying my system are not mutually exclusive.

I have plenty of recordings that are not defined as audiophile, or on audiophile labels, that are amazing recordings. For example, most of the Nonesuch 20th century avant-garde classical vinyl that came out in the late 60's through mid 70's. Even if you don't like the music (most don't), there's no arguing with the incredible 3d imaging on most of these.

[Bob2]

After reading the posts in this thread I know that I am not an "audiophile".
I listen to the music that I can connect with.

Most of what I like I don't see being discussed here. I enjoy well recorded music as much as anyone but if the tune is something that means something to me I can overlook the recording issues and enjoy the performance.

I do read what others here listen to and purchase some. Have found some music I really like and an equal amount of stinkers. This is only MY opinion and certainly does not matter to anyone else by the way...

If I had to listen only to music defined as "Audiophile Music" then I would probably only listen to audio books.

Everyone has those things that matter to them. I can respect that but I'm not much on prima donna's that think only their ideas are relevant.
I deal with enough of that everyday.

Something I learned a long time ago.. I only have to impress me. I like what I like but remain open to what others like and sometimes I'm onboard.

Rebel never! Respect and muddle through is my mantra.

When was the last time an "audiophile' enjoyed Rocky Mountain Breakdown?

[simoon]

After reading the posts in this thread I know that I am not an "audiophile".
I listen to the music that I can connect with.

I do consider myself an audiophile, yet I almost exclusively listen to music I connect with.

The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

[mix4fix]

........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.

That's my point. Lets play the stuff you actually enjoy listening to everyday because it sounds like many of you think Audiophile music sucks.

[jarcher]

And by "rebelling against audiophile music" perhaps we can agree by that to mean BAD or OVERPLAYED "audiophile" music.  You know - that dreck on some sampler disk, or something that's played to death at an audio show or dealer because it plays to expectations or is easy to reproduce to a decent standard on just about any system.  We shouldn't have to listen to lame music, or be subject to Brubeck's Take 5 for the 5,000th take……I counted 44 covers on wikipedia…….4 just last year…….enough already!

At shows exhibitors need to take more risks, even if the recording is not pristine.  I'll bet you fill a room faster even playing Billy Idol's "Rebel Yell" (which surprisingly sounds good on vinyl) then some no name small jazz / vocal combo.  And maybe actually have some fun in the process - what a concept!

[JohnR]

I dunno, the fact is that different people like different music, there seems to be an assumption here that because "you" like something then other people will too...

I mean, how is a vendor supposed to know what any particular person walking into their room likes? They may as well play it safe. If people want to play their own music, then fine, but I don't see how vendors can be lambasted for not doing it in advance.

[jarcher]

I think playing it safe may have the opposite effect.  Note how often in show reviews those few willing to venture beyond the "audiophile warhorses" are revered.  In one case I can think of and have personal experience with, that fact alone I think actually masks the fact that in my opinion the gear is actually ugly, ridiculously over priced, and sounds bad!  And yet people always remark positively about this person's room. 

Yeah - tastes varies, and you're not always going to please everyone, which is a good argument for why you shouldn't try.  Play whatever floats YOUR boat at a show, so long as it meets a minimal sound quality standard.  Think that should go for both exhibitors and guests.  Playing real world music and recordings for me is actually an important and key trial of gear. 

[RDavidson]

I dunno, the fact is that different people like different music, there seems to be an assumption here that because "you" like something then other people will too...

I mean, how is a vendor supposed to know what any particular person walking into their room likes? They may as well play it safe. If people want to play their own music, then fine, but I don't see how vendors can be lambasted for not doing it in advance.

Here's a revelatory thought : Why don't vendors use social media to poll attendees regarding what they'd like to hear? And if this doesn't pan out or doesn't result in gathering at least a few decided artists/albums/ recordings, then the vendor should fall back to plan B (ie play whatever they normally play)........or plan C (play a mix of both stuff they normally play and a few requested artists/albums/recordings).