Audiophile VS Musiphile - Your Thoughts?

[gbryant]

The answer is simple....  if you have heard a really good system, some of us can't go back.. Audiophile.

 

If you have never heard a good system, you don't know... so it doesn't matter to you.

[AudioDoctor]

47 minutes ago, gbryant said:

The answer is simple....  if you have heard a really good system, some of us can't go back.. Audiophile.

 

If you have never heard a good system, you don't know... so it doesn't matter to you.

 

That's quite arrogant, don't you think? 

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, ARQuint said:

I can't be the only person to have thought of this, but I've never seen it at anybody else's wedding, bar mitzvah, or prison-release party.

 

hahaha, you go to a lot of Prison-Release Parties?

[gbryant]

2 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

That's quite arrogant, don't you think? 

No. Its fact... how can you miss what you've never heard?

[AudioDoctor]

Just now, gbryant said:

No. Its fact... how can you miss what you've never heard?

 

Who says I haven't heard it? 

[gbryant]

You are so right... what was I thinking!

[sdolezalek]

On 11/18/2018 at 1:17 AM, Blackmorec said:

I’m addicted to the emotional responses...the more perfectly my system plays the music, the more powerful and intense the emotions.  I enjoy listening to music on my car stereo but I wouldn’t expect the music to move me to tears which is something that can and does happen when the music is  reproduced full range and accurately and sounds utterly gorgeous. 

 

I'm completely with you on this and I would love it if my car system (even with its 14 speakers and Burmester electronics) could deliver me there; but it can't.  Nor can my headphones.  But, after many years of work, I can say that my main system can, but does not always, get me there.  But getting there requires a combination of the recording and the system, a failure of either and the magic is gone.  Maybe its a case of sensory deprivation, but I can't label myself a "melophile" as I find it really hard to reach that emotional state on even the most toe-tapping or melodic pieces if the quality just isn't there.  

 

But, I have also discovered that I can sometimes put myself into the emotionally captivated state with a sound that isn't accurate.  Over time, it gets irritating and I go back to preferring a more accurate representation, but it shows that accuracy isn't the only way to trigger the emotions.  

 

I ultimately draw the line at the point where I can no longer tell a difference.  Even if you can mathematically prove to me that equipment A is better than B, if I can't hear a difference between them, then I won't pay more for the "supposedly" better and "really" more expensive item.

[Rexp]

52 minutes ago, sdolezalek said:

 

I'm completely with you on this and I would love it if my car system (even with its 14 speakers and Burmester electronics) could deliver me there; but it can't.  Nor can my headphones.  But, after many years of work, I can say that my main system can, but does not always, get me there.  But getting there requires a combination of the recording and the system, a failure of either and the magic is gone.  Maybe its a case of sensory deprivation, but I can't label myself a "melophile" as I find it really hard to reach that emotional state on even the most toe-tapping or melodic pieces if the quality just isn't there.  

 

But, I have also discovered that I can sometimes put myself into the emotionally captivated state with a sound that isn't accurate.  Over time, it gets irritating and I go back to preferring a more accurate representation, but it shows that accuracy isn't the only way to trigger the emotions.  

 

I ultimately draw the line at the point where I can no longer tell a difference.  Even if you can mathematically prove to me that equipment A is better than B, if I can't hear a difference between them, then I won't pay more for the "supposedly" better and "really" more expensive item.

Do you get an emotional connection when listening to Tidal, if so how was this acheived/playback chain? Thanks! 

[The_K-Man]

6 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

I'm proud of myself for thinking of, and acting on, the following approach—and I attribute the idea to my devotion to multichannel music.

 

A few years ago, my daughter had her wedding reception in a way cool warehouse space in NYC. For the party, she had a friend who would DJ but was happy to let me supply the sound system. Instead of two of those tripod-mounted Pro Sound monstrosities, I rented four—and had them positioned at the four corners of the dance floor, facing inward. They were played at a volume that was invigorating to the dancers but not conversation-obliterating out in the room. Everyone was happy, especially the guy who paid for it.

 

I can't be the only person to have thought of this, but I've never seen it at anybody else's wedding, bar mitzvah, or prison-release party.

 

It's the same thing with multichannel playback in a typical domestic listening space: Because you have all those additional drivers moving all that additional air, plus a natural representation of space, it's not necessary to listen as loud to get an emotional connection to the music.

 

Andrew Quint

 

Senior Writer

The Absolute Sound

 

Distributed sound definitely negates the need for ridiculous volume levels.

 

Just realize that in a domestic multi-channel system, those extra speakers are typicallly for surround material.  Although a few receivers might have an "All channel" mode to send the stereo content typical of music to all 5.1/6.1 etc speakers in such setups.

[Foggie]

Attach whatever name, classifications you want and then dissect it to ad nauseam.  Which then will then put everyone into their respective silos, with name calling etc..  

 

Its not hard folks ? and at a minimum I would think most are after the same end result.  Who the (*%$ cares how you get there.  it means something different to each.

[AudioDoctor]

12 hours ago, sdolezalek said:

I ultimately draw the line at the point where I can no longer tell a difference.  Even if you can mathematically prove to me that equipment A is better than B, if I can't hear a difference between them, then I won't pay more for the "supposedly" better and "really" more expensive item.

 

Precisely. There is a definite point where the benefit is academic rather than real. And if I can get the same result I am after for less, why not stop there.

[KeenObserver]

Sounds like some people sit there and go: " Wow! This is beautiful music."

 

And some people sit there and go: "Wow!  It sounds like one of the cables is installed with the flow going in the wrong direction."

[Ralf11]

some people sit there and go: "I just need bigger 12 foot tall Maggies"

[AudioDoctor]

3 hours ago, KeenObserver said:

Sounds like some people sit there and go: " Wow! This is beautiful music."

 

And some people sit there and go: "Wow!  It sounds like one of the cables is installed with the flow going in the wrong direction."

 

I bet that reaction informs our choice of equipment as well.

[sdolezalek]

19 hours ago, Rexp said:

Do you get an emotional connection when listening to Tidal, if so how was this acheived/playback chain? Thanks! 

At first I worked really hard to convince myself that I could hear enough difference between Tidal and 24/192 recordings such that I just couldn't get enough "emotional connection" out of Tidal.  But then I did three things: 1) I used REW to identify a couple of below 250Hz bumps in my frequency response curve and used Roon to address those, 2) I used HQPlayer to upsample everything to DSD128 and carefully selected my preferred filters; and 3) got rid of as much noise in the chain between computer and DAC as possible.  Note, I had previously carefully chosen my cable modem, switch, router and NAS.  Do I still prefer 24/192 or DSD128+ original material? Maybe.  But Tidal has so much more content and with these changes I do get the emotional connection on Tidal material.  Unfortunately for HDTracks/ProStudioMasters/etc. that has meant significantly fewer high res purchases in recent months.    ?

[Teresa]

On 11/18/2018 at 10:17 AM, Samuel T Cogley said:

 ...I would jettison all my gear and give up music completely if all I was allowed to listen to was Diana Krall, Shelby Lynne, and classic jazz...

 

Me too.

 

On 11/18/2018 at 10:38 AM, rodrigaj said:

This should be given its own genre: "Audio Show" music.

 

I agree, call them "Audio Show" music, they aren't recorded by audiophile labels. Diana Krall and Shelby Lynne are recorded by major commercial labels. Same can be said for classic jazz. Actual real audiophile labels include Chesky, Reference Recordings, Groove Note, Stockfisch Records, etc. See my older posts for a list of my favorite audiophile labels.

 

IMHO the major labels used to make more natural sounding recordings between the mid-1950's to mid-1970's. Since then sonically it's been downhill. I personally believe that audiophile labels (who make their own recordings, not remaster labels) exist as they are a revolt against the unnatural modern recording practices such as EQ, compression and studio tricks which produce highly compressed, overloaded, distorted modern major label recordings.

 

I don't like something just because it is on an audiophile label, I have to like the music as well. I like at most 20% of audiophile recordings I've sampled. That compares to less than 5% of golden age major label recordings (mid-1950's to mid-1970's) as remastered by audiophile labels. And almost zero percent of modern major label recordings I've heard.

 

I'm not a fan of CDs, however I would prefer to listen to an audiophile CD over most major label high resolution downloads. But I don't have to as I have a nice collection of audiophile high resolution downloads and SACDs.

 

So, in short how a recording is made is as important to me as how much I like the music. People tell me I'm not an audiophile as I'm happy with my affordable audio / video system and don't lust after superior equipment. If they would change the name of "audiophile recordings" to a more correct name such as "natural realistic recordings" I could say I'm a lover of natural music recordings. ?

[firedog]

On 11/19/2018 at 5:00 PM, Kal Rubinson said:

I went to a wedding where they provided ear-plugs at each table setting!  How is that for an admission of intent?  Between courses, sound levels were in excess of 95dB so we had to spend those intervals outside the ballroom.  

 

 

What amazes me at events like weddings with such (totally unnecessary) db levels: parents who don't care that they are exposing their children to ear damaging levels of sound. The parents have a choice to what they are exposed. The kids don't. 

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Me too.

 

 

I agree, call them "Audio Show" music, they aren't recorded by audiophile labels. Diana Krall and Shelby Lynne are recorded by major commercial labels. Same can be said for classic jazz. Actual real audiophile labels include Chesky, Reference Recordings, Groove Note, Stockfisch Records, etc. See my older posts for a list of my favorite audiophile labels.

 

IMHO the major labels used to make more natural sounding recordings between the mid-1950's to mid-1970's. Since then sonically it's been downhill. I personally believe that audiophile labels (who make their own recordings, not remaster labels) exist as they are a revolt against the unnatural modern recording practices such as EQ, compression and studio tricks which produce highly compressed, overloaded, distorted modern major label recordings.

 

I don't like something just because it is on an audiophile label, I have to like the music as well. I like at most 20% of audiophile recordings I've sampled. That compares to less than 5% of golden age major label recordings (mid-1950's to mid-1970's) as remastered by audiophile labels. And almost zero percent of modern major label recordings I've heard.

 

I'm not a fan of CDs, however I would prefer to listen to an audiophile CD over most major label high resolution downloads. But I don't have to as I have a nice collection of audiophile high resolution downloads and SACDs.

 

So, in short how a recording is made is as important to me as how much I like the music. People tell me I'm not an audiophile as I'm happy with my affordable audio / video system and don't lust after superior equipment. If they would change the name of "audiophile recordings" to a more correct name such as "natural realistic recordings" I could say I'm a lover of natural music recordings. ?

 I like Shelby Lynne. She is nothing like Diana Krall, other than being female. Her recording approach is totally different. BTW, she has been on her own label for years now, in order to record how and what she wants. 

The non audiophile labels do sometimes put out good sounding recordings. But it isn't the norm these days. 

[The_K-Man]

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Me too.

 

 

I agree, call them "Audio Show" music, they aren't recorded by audiophile labels. Diana Krall and Shelby Lynne are recorded by major commercial labels. Same can be said for classic jazz. Actual real audiophile labels include Chesky, Reference Recordings, Groove Note, Stockfisch Records, etc. See my older posts for a list of my favorite audiophile labels.

 

IMHO the major labels used to make more natural sounding recordings between the mid-1950's to mid-1970's. Since then sonically it's been downhill. I personally believe that audiophile labels (who make their own recordings, not remaster labels) exist as they are a revolt against the unnatural modern recording practices such as EQ, compression and studio tricks which produce highly compressed, overloaded, distorted modern major label recordings.

 

I don't like something just because it is on an audiophile label, I have to like the music as well. I like at most 20% of audiophile recordings I've sampled. That compares to less than 5% of golden age major label recordings (mid-1950's to mid-1970's) as remastered by audiophile labels. And almost zero percent of modern major label recordings I've heard.

 

I'm not a fan of CDs, however I would prefer to listen to an audiophile CD over most major label high resolution downloads. But I don't have to as I have a nice collection of audiophile high resolution downloads and SACDs.

 

So, in short how a recording is made is as important to me as how much I like the music. People tell me I'm not an audiophile as I'm happy with my affordable audio / video system and don't lust after superior equipment. If they would change the name of "audiophile recordings" to a more correct name such as "natural realistic recordings" I could say I'm a lover of natural music recordings. ?

 

 

"I don't like something just because it is on

an audiophile label, I have to like the music

as well. I like at most 20% of audiophile

recordings I've sampled. That compares to

less than 5% of golden age major label recordings

(mid-1950's to mid-1970's) as remastered by

audiophile labels. And almost zero percent of

modern major label recordings I've heard."

 

Just to use the word, I would consider such '70s-'80s era albums as "Rumours", "DSOTM", "Thriller", and even some of Madonna's albums from then to be 'audiophile' quality compared to stuff that occupies the Top-40 or Hot 100 nowadays!

 

"I'm not a fan of CDs, however I would prefer

to listen to an audiophile CD over most major

label high resolution downloads. But I don't

have to as I have a nice collection of audiophile

high resolution downloads and SACDs."

 

Just remember: The audible difference between all of those formats you mentioned  is miniscule compared to the differences in the mastering of, for example, the same album on all of them.

 

For example:  The high-res release of Nirvana's 'Nevermind' for its twentieth anniversary was so compressed and brickwall limited in 'remastering'(kinda like my avatar) that it was just a loudened up mess compared to the original CD - which I own.  So of course to the masses of fans buying that download: "If it's  louder surely it must be better"!  lol

[Kal Rubinson]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

 

What amazes me at events like weddings with such (totally unnecessary) db levels: parents who don't care that they are exposing their children to ear damaging levels of sound. The parents have a choice to what they are exposed. The kids don't. 

Fortunately, neither of my children were at that wedding.  OTOH, the noise levels were considerably lower and tolerable (but still loud) at my granddaughter's wedding.  Glad I was not forced to leave that one!

[christopher3393]

On 11/20/2018 at 6:06 AM, Foggie said:

Attach whatever name, classifications you want and then dissect it to ad nauseam.  Which then will then put everyone into their respective silos, with name calling etc..  

 

Its not hard folks ? and at a minimum I would think most are after the same end result.  Who the (*%$ cares how you get there.  it means something different to each.

 

Is that an objective or subjective statement?  ?

 

If we got rid of names, classifications, and analyses, wouldn't that make everything foggie ?

 

p.s.: Seriously, thanks for this interesting and challenging post. If someone were to write an article called "Crushing the Categories" for this forum, I wonder what would be up for destruction (or, more positively, bursting free of or breaking through))  and how it would be done. I also wonder if it is practically possible.

 

To address the OP. I've never fit in this dichotomy so it is a little difficult to fully comprehend. But it does at least seem to apply to the experience of others so I want to respect that.

 

 

[vmartell22]

On 11/19/2018 at 8:55 PM, gbryant said:

The answer is simple....  if you have heard a really good system, some of us can't go back.. Audiophile.

 

If you have never heard a good system, you don't know... so it doesn't matter to you.

 

Good sound is desirable of course, otherwise why are we here?

 

But, I completely disagree -  because: 

 

"IT" is not in the sound. "IT" is not in the "detail" -  "IT" is in the music making as I said before.

 

But statements like this are feeding the prejudice against audiophiles - the perception is that in reality they do not and might be incapable of getting "IT". They just want to wallow in the sound...

 

Not saying is true or trying to pick on  gbryant - he just happened to bring it up... I bet many agree... and many disagree!

 

v

[crenca]

1 hour ago, vmartell22 said:

 

"IT" is not in the sound. "IT" is not in the "detail" -  "IT" is in the music making as I said before.

 

 

I disagree.  ??

 

"IT" is in all 3....the first 2 are not opposed to the latter.  Indeed even non audiophiles have their limits. In other words they require a certain amount of detail and quality even if it does not what your average audiophile expects.

 

 

[fas42]

What there is in high quality playback is emotional energy - but because the industry overall has never really understood the importance of this, we now have the dire situation where 'energy' is injected into the situation by "pumping up the volume!" ... a disaster, in every sense.

 

Why I am so revved at getting my message out, is because it sickens me that it is almost impossible for anyone to experience decent playback of music in public settings anymore. This is unacceptable!!! There is absolutely no reason that reproduction of recordings is typically so badly done, mutilating all the inherent emotional impact of what was recorded; because of the imbecilic, thick headed attitudes of the majority in the industry.

[Summit]

On 11/21/2018 at 10:06 PM, crenca said:

 

I disagree.  ??

 

"IT" is in all 3....the first 2 are not opposed to the latter.  Indeed even non audiophiles have their limits. In other words they require a certain amount of detail and quality even if it does not what your average audiophile expects.

 

 

 

Yep, concerning about SQ is not something only audiophiles does. The fixation regarding SQ is of course on a total different level for audiophiles compared to the rest of the population.