Jump to content

What percentage of time do you spend listening to "audiophile" worthy content?


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Rosco8 said:

 

 

More recently Invested in digital and mainly listen to Tidal nowadays, and enjoy good MQA recordings.  ........

.

 

 But the ease and quality digital content available is very attractive and gets a serious workout most days.  5 days a week at least 2 hours.

 

That is soo me-high consumption ,5Days/2 hours.

 

Because of this always on the look out for new(even if its old) music that ticks my mostly critical ,but not fully understood preferences.

 

So not SQ dependant nowadays but I get those people that are .

 

Bob ludwig Masterdisk.

 

I have chased the Dragon ?

 

I have a system that has  some components that were around for the golden dawn of LP with its up and down Audio quality

and feel this allows long periods of listening to music without the dreaded Fatigue setting in.

 

Tone is everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



21 hours ago, aussievintage said:

I just realised that I spend the majority of time listening to good, but not true "audiophile" musical content.

 

Of course I will totally discount the time I spend listening to old 78s :) 

 

However, for example, yesterday I listened to 4 LPs, all with wonderfully enjoyable music, but  2 were RCA Red seal mono, one was a CBS purple mono, and one was a Record Society Melbourne mono - all 120g vinyl, guessing from 50s, maybe one from the 60s.  The quality is excellent, don't get me wrong.  The labels produced well recorded and engineered stuff, but it's not  modern pressing,remastered,  half speed mastered, direct to disc, direct metal master, 45 rpm, 180g vinyl, or any of the things we pay more and more money for in seeking audio nirvana.

 

and I don't care :)    Played on my old Rek-o-kut 16" TT using a lowly AT3600L cartridge with elliptical stylus upgrade.  Valve amplification (preamp, and SET power amp) with class D  biamping to my Osborn  Eclipse speakers, the music just sings throughout my house.


 

Hello, I’ve never been a big fan of the term ‘audiophile’ either for people or vinyl albums for that matter, so I guess it comes down to your definition of ‘audiophile’.

I still have a lot of vinyl around 120 - 130g I bought back in the early ‘70s and these nearly all sound dead quiet,  are dynamic, sound great and they’re all flat!!?...........unlike most of the 180 or 200g vinyl that is associated with the so called ‘audiophile’ pressings you can buy today.

There are several very good labels that consistently turn out better pressings and these labels just spend more time on their QA and it really shows, but I wouldn’t be calling them ‘audiophile’ pressings. You should be getting a great sound from pretty much all your vinyl albums, not just the ‘audiophile’ pressings?
 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, audiofeline said:

Not that I will accept anything, there have been some CDs of recordings sourced from 78's that have been so processed by No-Noise/Cedar/etc that I couldn't listen to them. 

 

Yes, I can't understand why they do it.  I have a lot of experience myself now, reproducing old 78s and tweaking them using my 'Cockie' digital phono,  and it just isn't necessary. A couple of filters and tweaking the eq gets you a very nice sounding recording.

7 hours ago, audiofeline said:

And I'm sure I would struggle with an audiophile release of a modern recording with the vocalist heavily auto-tuned.  It's such a turn-off.

 

and how.    I hate that yodel they get as the auto-tune tries to decide which note to shift to.  Heard it being used live the other night, and it actually sounded like a modern CD instead of a live performance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, cheekyboy said:

Hello, I’ve never been a big fan of the term ‘audiophile’ either for people or vinyl albums for that matter, so I guess it comes down to your definition of ‘audiophile’.

I still have a lot of vinyl around 120 - 130g I bought back in the early ‘70s and these nearly all sound dead quiet,  are dynamic, sound great and they’re all flat!!?...........unlike most of the 180 or 200g vinyl that is associated with the so called ‘audiophile’ pressings you can buy today.

 

Agree.   I see no real value in 180g pressing.  Definitely do not sound any better.

 

33 minutes ago, cheekyboy said:

There are several very good labels that consistently turn out better pressings and these labels just spend more time on their QA and it really shows, but I wouldn’t be calling them ‘audiophile’ pressings. You should be getting a great sound from pretty much all your vinyl albums, not just the ‘audiophile’ pressings?

 

Agree again.     The special techniques I listed, like D2D, DMM, half speed master, 45 rpm, etc, and high price, pretty much defines what I meant by audiophile.      But there are definitely lots of recordings with superb sound.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



29 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

Agree.   I see no real value in 180g pressing.  Definitely do not sound any better.

 Yep, a marketing ****/ploy that makes no real sense SQ wise. Very hard to buy new vinyl these days though that is not pressed on 180g vinyl. 

 

Quote

Agree again.     The special techniques I listed, like D2D, DMM, half speed master, 45 rpm, etc, and high price, pretty much defines what I meant by audiophile.      But there are definitely lots of recordings with superb sound.

Didn't audiophile start out meaning a lover of music? It has come to mean widely these days to mean an audio enthusiast who is very discerning about how the music is reproduced...............correct me if I'm wrong please?:lol: I think the marketing has gone way too far and many of these labels will claim 'audiophile quality' purely to try and sell more copies. I find that nearly all the albums I have sound good and are reproduced well, but there are pressings from many different labels that are obviously better pressings and these will jump from good/very good to simply stunning:winky:........................these latter albums I would prefer to refer to them as simply exceptionally good pressings.:thumb:

 

The alternative of course, is to take a step backward in SQ and just listen to only CD or digital.:lol:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good example of something borderline is spinning here this morning.

 

I am playing a copy of Van Cliburn's Tchaikovsky Concerto No.1 from 1958,  on RCA Living Stereo no less SL16142 (aussie pressing).    A few problems.  I would rate the copy as VG+ only - mostly due to some surface noise mostly near the start.  It has a worse problem though.  Some slight eccentricity of the grooves - but only audible on a few occasions.

 

Not a good start, but it is a recording at a point in history where he won the Tchaikovsky International Piano Competition in Moscow.  So interesting historically, and I think I like his playing :) 

 

The general sound of the recording though, is a bit flat and unexciting.  Not sure why.  Anyway, here we have an example of something borderline in audiophileness.  Some might say, not at all audiophile, but Living Stereo recordings are generally well respected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

Wouldn't that be a musicophile? :) 

 

 

 

Yep, I guess technically that would be correct, but I've always thought 'audiophile' was a 'wanky' term anyway and perhaps it's a generational thing too, so I just pulled out a handful of old Sheffield Lab D2D albums and had a quick browse through the jackets of these albums and I can't find one reference to the term 'audiophile' in any of them. These were Dave Gruisin 'Discoverd Again', Larry McNeely 'Confederation', Rosie Grady's Good Time Dixie Band, Lincoln Mayorga Vol III, Charlie Bird [ST], Thelma Houston 'I've Got The Music In Me and Harry James 'Coming From A Good Place'.

 

I always thought the suffix 'phile' meant lover of, or someone who was at least very fond of something or someone. and if that was what 'audiophile' still meant these days, I could probably live with that, but I think it has come to mean something completely different and is a term that I'm pretty sure wasn't in common use for at least the first couple of decades that I've been involved in the hobby/addiction!:lol:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cheekyboy said:

These were Dave Gruisin 'Discoverd Again', Larry McNeely 'Confederation', Rosie Grady's Good Time Dixie Band, Lincoln Mayorga Vol III, Charlie Bird [ST], Thelma Houston 'I've Got The Music In Me and Harry James 'Coming From A Good Place'.

 

I have the last three of them, another one with Amanda Broome, and a 3 record set - not D2D, but just as nice sounding) from Sheffield, The Moscow Sessions.  So, yeah, I do buy some "audiophile" records from time to time.

 

12 minutes ago, cheekyboy said:

I always thought the suffix 'phile' meant lover of, or someone who was at least very fond of something or someone. and if that was what 'audiophile' still meant these days, I could probably live with that, but I think it has come to mean something completely different

 

Yeah, it now seems to add the rider  "to the point of near insanity" :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



41 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

I have the last three of them, another one with Amanda Broome, and a 3 record set - not D2D, but just as nice sounding) from Sheffield, The Moscow Sessions.  So, yeah, I do buy some "audiophile" records from time to time.

 

Yep, those D2D albums were just the first 5 or 6 that I got hold of but they'll do as a sample of those albums that were mostly pressed in the late '60s to mid '70s. You say that you do buy some 'audiophile' records, but that is exactly the point I was trying to make, that with regard to these D2D albums, I would certainly put them in the very good pressings category, but I wouldn't call them 'audiophile' records. I could not find that term written anywhere on the inside and back cover of the album jackets and I think if I pulled out all those old D2D albums that I have here and read through those jackets too, I don't think I would find the term 'audiophile' in any of them.:ohmy: If you're saying these D2D albums I mentioned are 'audiophile' records, than over 90% of my my record collection would be 'audiophile' records..................but I know that's not the case.:lol:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, cheekyboy said:

but I wouldn't call them 'audiophile' records.

Fair enough, and I sympathise with the dislike of the new uses for the term.  I was just browsing an online musician's store and found this with the word "Audiophile" on it  :) 

 

 

Behringer Tube Ultragain MIC500USB Audiophile Vacuum Tube Preamplifier 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

Fair enough, and I sympathise with the dislike of the new uses for the term.  I was just browsing an online musician's store and found this with the word "Audiophile" on it  :) 

 

 

Behringer Tube Ultragain MIC500USB Audiophile Vacuum Tube Preamplifier 

 

I rest my case!!........................what a wankk!:lol: Trouble is though, that so many in this hobby will buy on brand and the 'bragging rights' that entails and I guess calling it an audiophile preamplifier, sets it apart or above other preamplifiers that are not 'audiophile'. I'm in trouble too, because not one component I own in the couple of systems I have here are branded 'audiophile.:ohmy:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, aussievintage said:

A good example of something borderline is spinning here this morning.

 

I am playing a copy of Van Cliburn's Tchaikovsky Concerto No.1 from 1958,  on RCA Living Stereo no less SL16142 (aussie pressing).    A few problems.  I would rate the copy as VG+ only - mostly due to some surface noise mostly near the start.  It has a worse problem though.  Some slight eccentricity of the grooves - but only audible on a few occasions.

 

Not a good start, but it is a recording at a point in history where he won the Tchaikovsky International Piano Competition in Moscow.  So interesting historically, and I think I like his playing :) 

 

The general sound of the recording though, is a bit flat and unexciting.  Not sure why.  Anyway, here we have an example of something borderline in audiophileness.  Some might say, not at all audiophile, but Living Stereo recordings are generally well respected.

The RCA Living Stereo (like the contemporary Mercury Living Presence) records are very highly regarded by audiophiles.  They were very carefully recorded live using two (or three) microphones, which is why they are regarded as having good imaging.  Classical music recording later moved to close-microphone multi-track techniques, which gives a very different sound.  So the Living Stereo recordings are a representation of being in the concert hall audience, which is why you might feel it's a bit unexciting in comparison to the more modern technique which is more of a representation of sitting on the stage with the conductor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, define audiophile. 
 

I only listen to music which appeals to my personal tastes. If it’s well recorded stuff I just don’t like, I don’t waste my time. I’d rather be listening to music than equipment. 

Edited by Winno
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, deviltoob said:

None. That's what my HomePod is for.

Sorry, I am somewhat confused here. Perhaps you can assist my understanding.

May I ask what a Home Pod has to do with being an audio enthusiast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, cheekyboy said:

Hello, I’ve never been a big fan of the term ‘audiophile’ either for people or vinyl albums for that matter, so I guess it comes down to your definition of ‘audiophile’.

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

 

I'm with you Keith.

Can't stand the "audiophile" term. So anyone that buys hi fi and puts together a system can consider themselves an audiophile? That makes me laugh, as does all the marketing hype in regards to audiophile quality sound.

 

As a lot of experienced "physical" music buyers will attest to, there are more than a few great labels (or pressing plants in regards to vinyl) out there that release excellent sounding product.

But at the end of the day, I buy music for the music, every time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early records never used the term audiophile because back in the day, the term used was High Fidelity, and this term was used very prominantly by the labels with better sound. Unfortunately, so many manufacturers used the term High Fidelity, or Hi-Fi, for products that were anything but. Enter the word audiophile as a replacement. Nonetheless, originally High Fidelity was represented as having the same meaning as the modern audiophile, **** or not.

 

 

As for me, I listen to the music I like, and if it is available in a better SQ release at a reasonable price, happy days. I won't listen to music I find unappealing regardless of SQ, that would be like drinking foul whiskey because the bottle is pretty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



16 hours ago, audiofeline said:

The RCA Living Stereo (like the contemporary Mercury Living Presence) records are very highly regarded by audiophiles.  They were very carefully recorded live using two (or three) microphones, which is why they are regarded as having good imaging.  Classical music recording later moved to close-microphone multi-track techniques, which gives a very different sound.  So the Living Stereo recordings are a representation of being in the concert hall audience, which is why you might feel it's a bit unexciting in comparison to the more modern technique which is more of a representation of sitting on the stage with the conductor. 

 

 

Actually, I find that the reverse is usually true.   Sorry, but I have heaps of Living Presence and Stereo stuff.   I think the early 3 mike techniques result in great sound.  It's just this particular record doesn't stand out.  Maybe the less than pristine grooves and slight eccentricity,  although masked by my brain (mostly),  are still distracting.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, t_mike said:

Early records never used the term audiophile because back in the day, the term used was High Fidelity, and this term was used very prominantly by the labels with better sound. Unfortunately, so many manufacturers used the term High Fidelity, or Hi-Fi, for products that were anything but. Enter the word audiophile as a replacement. Nonetheless, originally High Fidelity was represented as having the same meaning as the modern audiophile, **** or not.

 

Originally High Fidelity was used to describe a particular quality in audio equipment and also recordings as you say and that was later shortened to just Hi-Fi which was also used to describe audio equipment. I thought it was strange when someone would describe their equipment as 'their Hi-Fi', but it has come to be a generic term for audio gear in general. So you're saying someone can say for example, "I was listening to my Hi-Fi" or they can also say, "I was listening to my audiophile."?O.o:lol:

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

Edited by cheekyboy
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top