Article: What is an audiophile?

[smark21]

Based on the posts by hardcore audiophiles here, I totally agree with this author.


http://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/audiophile.htm

[soulster]

Bullshit! Total, and utter bullshit! REAL audiophiles get into sound quality because we love music, and we want it to sound its best. Ken Rockwell's an idiot. he has no clue as to what he's talking about. And, he has his timeline wrong.

There are wealthy assholes who buy and sell audio gear for the status and don't care about music at all. Those people are a tiny percentage of us real audiophiles. Hell, we don't even consider them audiophiles.

If you want to know what a REAL audiophile likes and thinks, as a real one, not some jerk who claims to know. And, FYI, most of the big-name mastering engineers that master the music you listen to are also audiophiles. That makes sense because they are the last person to tweak the music before it's manufactured and sold to you. That's why I keep saying that once a mix is completed, it isn't done. A master two-track recording, fresh out of the mixing room, is not finished. That's why the same song on several CDs all sound different.

So, anyway, find a better way to bash us. No, don't. Ralph will just delete it.

BTW, I posted that article on a couple audiophile websites and they all skeward it and the author.

[jillfoster]

The only thing he said that I agree with is that the room and the acoustics make as much or more of a difference than the equipment. I'm not really an audiophile, but a really picky music lover that pays attention to detail, and will know when a song doesn't sound right. I have a friend that listened to the original Russ Terrana mix of High Energy, and then the one that got released, and didn't hear any difference. If this guy is writing about THOSE kind of people, I'm damn glad I'm not one of them.

[soulster]

Just because you can't hear a difference doesn't mean that it isn't there. You just have to know what to listen for. Train your ears.

[Roberta75]

Just because you can't hear a difference doesn't mean that it isn't there. You just have to know what to listen for. Train your ears.

My audiologist and ear doctor at kaiser in panorama city told me three years ago that Im 80% deaf in my right ear so Im real curious could I be a audiophile only using my left ear?

Fondly,

Roberta

[soulster]

My audiologist and ear doctor at kaiser in panorama city told me three years ago that Im 80% deaf in my right ear so Im real curious could I be a audiophile only using my left ear?

Fondly,

Roberta

Sure! Obviously, a lot of people have no clue as to what an audiophile is. An audiophile appreciates, and quests for accurate reproduction. That does involve the quality of the stereo equipment and the room, but also the ability for the listener to hear into the music, to hear the small details that help define the sonic space and qualities in the music.

[Roberta75]

Sure! Obviously, a lot of people have no clue as to what an audiophile is. An audiophile appreciates, and quests for accurate reproduction. That does involve the quality of the stereo equipment and the room, but also the ability for the listener to hear into the music, to hear the small details that help define the sonic space and qualities in the music.

Thank you. Im going to listen to The First Lady of Motown Dr Martha Reeves holiday album tonight and pay real close attention to every note of music.

Fondly,

Roberta

[calvin]

I guess the initial post of this thread is directed at me as well, since smark writes “audiophiles” [[plural) and I've been asking for lossless instead of lossy downloads.

I'm not an audiophile and I've written that in this forum. My home “system” is a pc with a good sound card and speakers. I haven't bought a high resolution download [[yet), I'm pretty happy with cd-quality audio. I'm just stating this as a fact, not trying to distance myself from audiophiles. There's nothing wrong with wanting your music to have good sound.

The linked article is ridiculously exaggerated, to say the least.

But I don't think the article even applies to the disappointment some of us have with lossy downloads. We're asking for the music to be digitally encoded in the manner [[44.1 kHz, 16 bit) developed back in 1980 for mass markets! It's sad that some have become so accustomed to lossy downloads that people who want to listen to cds [[or cd-quality downloads) are now considered audiophiles!

Clearly many things from the recording to the playback are important for good sound quality. If you have a camera with poor optics, having a lot of pixels can't make up for that. But if a camera has great optics, it would be a shame to compromise the images by using so few pixels that they're discernible without magnification.

I'm willing to bet that the engineers who remastered “Funny Girl” and BIM are not thrilled that their work is only being issued in this format.

It seems that most in this forum are happy with the iTunes release format. As I've written before, that's fine, I'm happy for you. But there's no need to slag off on those who want cd quality.

I've bought lossy downloads before [[eg the “Motown Unreleased” sets) and I have my share of bootlegs. To what extent I'm willing to accept inferior sound quality depends on how much I like the music. Which would you rather listen to – the Eddie Holland cd from Marginal, or the official release from Ace? The quality does enhance the listening pleasure.

So why am I not buying lossy downloads of “Funny Girl” and BIM? I'm not saying that I won't, eventually. For now I'm waiting - all the other download-only Motown titles were offered in lossless format, and I'm still hoping that these will be. But no one from Universal is saying anything. Poor customer service.

I'm very disappointed with Universal. When Andy [[or whoever it was) says that it was only possible to issue BIM in this format, what do you think this means?

It doesn't mean that a physical cd release wouldn't sell well enough to be profitable. Ok, I mentioned the new Bob Dylan release, which isn't a fair comparison [[because it's Bob Dylan!). But just take a look at the website The Second Disc to see what's being released. Who says that back titles aren't being issued on cd anymore?

Or how about a lossless download? If you're going to issue something as a download-only title, it takes a trivial amount of extra effort to make it available lossless. They did it for "Mary Wells Live on Stage", "A Pocket Full of Miracles", etc - why not "Funny Girl" and BIM [[with all bonus tracks)?

So what does it mean, only possible in this format? It means that some business school graduates at Universal, who probably don't care about music at all, decided that the company could make more money cutting a deal with iTunes and restricting [[at least initially) customers' choice to an inferior product [[compared to a cd). These guys - and I'm not talking about Harry and his team here - don't give a cr*p what their customers want. Why should I support that for anything other than what I consider the most indispensable titles?

[calvin]

And as a postscript to my above post, since smark is saying the article applies to some in this forum, and I believe he includes me:

The author mentions "non technical" people "who don't have the education to understand..." I have an undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering and postgraduate degrees in physics and mathematics [[from MIT). Out of my own interest, I read a couple of papers and I do understand the theory behind encoding audio digitally - the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, quantization of the amplitude, dithering to avoid errors which are correlated with the signal, etc. I'm not claiming to be an expert, my knowledge is limited to the basic underlying theory, but the author of that article is clearly not an expert himself.

The author mentions double-blind tests. In another thread long ago, I mentioned the inherent biases in determining what "sounds better" and I advocated double-blind testing. One can try this with foobar.

[soulster]

And as a postscript to my above post, since smark is saying the article applies to some in this forum, and I believe he includes me:

The author mentions "non technical" people "who don't have the education to understand..." I have an undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering and postgraduate degrees in physics and mathematics [[from MIT). Out of my own interest, I read a couple of papers and I do understand the theory behind encoding audio digitally - the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem, quantization of the amplitude, dithering to avoid errors which are correlated with the signal, etc.

The author mentions double-blind tests. In another thread long ago, I mentioned the inherent biases in determining what "sounds better" and I advocated double-blind testing. One can try this with foobar.

The author is an idiot. I understand the science behind digital audio. Why can't he?

It should be noted that the author doesn't have any respect in the photography world he claims to know about.

To me, it seems that smark doesn't like me, or talk of audio on this forum, and is seeking to discredit and ridicule audiophiles. He had to look for that blog, and he did it deliberately.

[skooldem1]

This is a bait thread. Don't fall for it.

[smark21]

Based on the posts in the Baby it's Me threads, it seems the audiophile types here are more into gear and talking in tedious detail about tech and posting screen shots of their files rather than discussing the album itself as a piece of music/art.

I did another google search and found this discussion board thread/debate on the topic "Do Audiophiles like music?". Interesting range of opinions.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/do-audiophiles-music

[soulster]

Based on the posts in the Baby it's Me threads, it seems the audiophile types here are more into gear and talking in tedious detail about tech and posting screen shots of their files rather than discussing the album itself as a piece of music/art.

OK. I'll play this game. You tell us what specific posts led you to believe such a thing. Discussing the technical aspects of a recording is discussing the album. What do you think the mastering engineer and/or producer discuss when they are in the mastering room? They sure as hell aren't talking about the way the artist smiles. They are talking about giving this frequency a half-decibel boost here, eliminating a strange electrical buzz there, if that click is an electrical pickup on the guitar or an electrical anomaly, stuff like that. They think of whether that piano is placed too far left, or if the drums should be centered. That's audiophile stuff, man, and they wouldn't care about any of it if they didn't care about the MUSIC! Non audiophiles are always trying to set up a dichotomy between audiophiles and music lovers, and it never works out.

Granted, there are a few wealthy assholes who own three recordings and have their gear for show, but there are not true audiophiles. Quit trying to that microscopic percentage of jerks to define all audiophiles.

[smark21]

What is lacking in many of your posts reacting to music is emotion. You seem so focused on audiophile issues like mastering, production, sound equalization, etc., etc, but you don’t discuss how the song makes you feel. Does it give you joy, or make you sad? If so, what is it about that song that evokes such a response? Or do you hate the song? If so, why? A song can be impeccable from a recording/mastering/engineering perspective, but it can still suck due to a treacly melody, or awful lyrics and no amount of state of the art mastering will improve the song if you don’t like it. The pros who master the recording are just that, pros. They’re hired to bring their professional expertise to do the best job they can to a project, regardless if it’s a classical recording, or a jazz album, or the latest destined to be a smash hit for Taylor Swift, or an anti-gay Christian rock song.
I would hope you would prefer a recording of a classic soul song that may be a highly compressed itunes file over an impeccably mastered racist hate song celebrating the KKK in a lossless file, or whatever it is you’ve been advocating here.

[soulster]

What is lacking in many of your posts reacting to music is emotion.

What you don't seem to get is that the better the sound is, the more emotion we feel from the music. The good mastering brings the music alive. What I don't understand is why you are so annoyed by audiophiles. So all music lovers don't listen to the same things in music, or give priority to the same elements of music. If I hear a hyper-compressed CD/file, I feel stressed out. I physically feel uncomfortable and can't enjoy the music no matter how good it may be. Not to mention, the sound is terrible when it's hyper-compressed.

To totally focus on the sound means one has to suspend all emotion. I can do that, but if I, say, am doing a needledrop of a song that reminds me of an ex-girlfriend, I just have to ignore it and focus on the sound. It's not always easy, but it's a mental trick. I allow some feeling for the music itself because it helps me shape the sound i'm looking for. Maybe you can't do that.

Listening to music comes in dimensions. It seems like you only listen in the emotional dimension. Musicians listen in the technical dimension. Engineers listen in the technical dimension. And, many of us listen in different combinations. None of them are wrong. I have listened to music on a technical level ever since I was a little kid. It just comes naturally. I can't really turn it off. Ask most engineers. They will tell you something similar. It's just natural. And, of course, none of us would care if we didn't love music. many of us are musicians. I am. I also collect music. Not to brag, but I probably have more music than most people on this forum.

You seem so focused on audiophile issues like mastering, production, sound equalization, etc., etc, but you don’t discuss how the song makes you feel.

The sound is an integral part of the music. I like dense, lush music. That makes me emotional, depending on the song. I just got through listening to "I Want Your Love" by Chic. It's a good example of what I mean. I can feel the emotion of the woman singing, but that wouldn't happen if the production wasn't so elaborate, and it sounds elaborate because of the way it was mixed. If I hear the song on a cellphone speaker, all I hear is tinny noise.

A song can be impeccable from a recording/mastering/engineering perspective, but it can still suck due to a treacly melody, or awful lyrics and no amount of state of the art mastering will improve the song if you don’t like it.

I don't like perfect recordings.

It's simple: everyone's brains are wired differently. Music doesn't hit you in the same way it hits me, and there really is no way I can get you to understand how I perceive it any more than you can get me to understand how you perceive it. We all experience music in our own way. I would not be happy if I didn't hear the sound quality. I can't just be happy listening to the words or the singing. I'm also a musician, so I listen to the way the music is played. Just accept that there are technical types. The technical types make it possible for you to feel that music.

The pros who master the recording are just that, pros. They’re hired to bring their professional expertise to do the best job they can to a project, regardless if it’s a classical recording, or a jazz album, or the latest destined to be a smash hit for Taylor Swift, or an anti-gay Christian rock song.

The writers write their thoughts and feelings, or tell a story. The singer and musicians interpret it and convey it. The engineers capture it and add body to it. The playback gear reproduces it so we can all enjoy the various aspects of it. You see, they ALL work together. Your attempt to demonize audiophiles is silly.

I would hope you would prefer a recording of a classic soul song that may be a highly compressed itunes file over an impeccably mastered racist hate song celebrating the KKK in a lossless file, or whatever it is you’ve been advocating here.

What if I told you I would not prefer either one? My older sister didn't properly care for her records back in the 60s. Even even when I was a four-year-old, the noise from accumulated dust, the crackle, the turntable rumble, all annoyed me. You can't imagine how I felt in 1984 when I first heard a CD. The moment I heard it, my goal was to buy a CD player. I bought CDs before I ever owned a player! For a few years, until 1990, I didn't even meet anyone else who was into CDs. It was far from perfect, but the sound was so clean and the background was so silent you could hear and feel the the crash cymbal vibrate and move when hit. Today, you can pick out the various types of reverb on a vocal.

[soulster]

One more thing: why is it necessary to feel anything when listening to music? I mostly listen to music cerebrally. Music hits the analytical part of my brain far more than the emotional part. Of course, it also stimulates the production of dopamine. You are obviously different.