Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

100% of the time. All music to me is audiophile worthy. Being an audiophile is surely no more than loving the reproduction of music. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The last thing I do is buy music for its " audiophile cred ".  I would quickly off myself if all I played was Diana Krall and alike music.😉     I buy lots of new releases on vinyl and never

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 vin

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  

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 post
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 post
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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites


19 hours ago, Winno said:

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. 

 

Define Audiophile

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@bob_m_54  this one's my favourite

"After they stopped kissing, Jenny felt something touch her ear. She sighed. Why did she always end up with the audiophiles?"

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Winno said:

Hmm, define audiophile. 

 

 

Well, I am not sure I need to, as I just used it "in the vernacular" as seen all over this place :)   I actually don't care what you name it, my point (and question) still stands.  I see lots of clamouring for top dollar, best of breed presentation of content, but myself, I am feeling the need for it less and less, or at least finding it well enough in the more common/cheaper sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Audiophile worthy music does not have to be from an ‘audiophile label’. There are some beautiful mainstream recordings that are absolutely top notch, for example, Tracey Chapman original self titled album (with Fast Car, Mountains of Things), Eric Clapton Unplugged, KD Lang Ingenue, Suzanne Vega Solitude Standing, Little River Band, Joe Cocker Sheffield Steel and Angus and Julia Stone Down the Way to name a few. All of these superb recordings sound fantastic whether played on vinyl, CD or digital download and quality is not determined by label, price or format.
 

In comparison, some audiophile labels actually sound over produced, dull and congested to me, for example some CD/SACDs by the Chesky label.

 

 

.

Edited by Steve M
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites


On 24/10/2020 at 7:23 PM, Bisguittin said:

. I am perturbed by the ever increasing cost of vinyl both new and used. IMO, Discogs is unwittingly predicating the 2nd hand vinyl market. Typically, I am finding record stores in Adelaide selling albums for exactly the Discogs best listed sale price, regardless of the specific record's condition.

I know what you mean. I was passing through Mogo yesterday and happened upon a shop that had quite a bunch of second hand vinyl, but some of it was so expensive. Would you pay $10 for a Donny Osmond LP, the one with Sweet and Innocent on it? I was thinking of buying it as a joke/gift for a friend of mine, but not for $10 for an album that sold to teeny-boppers when I was young and (tragically not) hip almost fifty years ago. Ye gads!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/10/2020 at 5:38 PM, metal beat said:

I would quickly off myself if all I played was Diana Krall and alike music.😉

 

 If only a small % of your music is enjoyable on your system, time to get a new system imo.

 

 

 

Agreed 100%. We're in this to better enjoy our favourite music (or so I'd hope!). Not to try and force ourselves to enjoy recordings just because theyr'e high quality. Although I will say a couple of my former favourite albums have slipped a little down the list for being almost unforgiveably bad...Fortuantely they're in the vast minority

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/10/2020 at 5:38 PM, metal beat said:

 

Personally I think its important you voice your system to be able to play and enjoy almost all your albums so you can continue to be encouraged to listen to and find new music

 

cheers

 

 

Or have 2 systems. 😁😁🍺

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Irek said:

Or have 2 systems. 😁😁🍺

 

that's where multiple turntables or even EQ helps you enjoy almost all your music.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, Steve M said:

Audiophile worthy music does not have to be from an ‘audiophile label’.

 

Certainly not.  There's even old mono recordings on labels like Westminster that deserve to be worthy.  Just Playing a 1951 record, Festival Australia pressing of a Westminster label.  Wl 5107 Sinfonia Concertante - Mozart.  Astoundingly good sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steve M said:

Audiophile worthy music does not have to be from an ‘audiophile label’. 

 

You made me buy new CD. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably ZERO,

Diana Crawl, the Ellington Woof Jazz trio? If that's 'audiophile' music? No thanks.

    I made my system for me to enjoy my music, That ranges from Motorhead, Pink Floyd, ELP, to Annie Lennox, Tina Turner, Mike Oldfield through to 60/70's pop and Classical.

  To my mind the modern equipment is so focussed on 'detail' most of it is very forward in presentation.  What I want is a system that if I wish (and sometimes do) I can sit in front of for 5-6 hrs without ear fatigue, and come away from the session feeling that I enjoyed it.

  I may be 'old fashioned' but I am at a loss when people say XYZ brand speaker/amp is (example) wonderful for 'audiophile/classical' but useless for 'horrible' rock heads. When I first started on my 'hifi' journey,  the local shop was owned by an 'elderly' (to me then) Father and his son. Their sage advice, and something I have always believed is 100% correct was, a good system has two simple but main critical factors, No1, YOU enjoy your music when you listen to it (not what others think it should sound like), and 2nd, it should reproduce all music well.

 classical music is 'multi layered' so if your system can reproduce that well and enjoyably? Then  surely it is doing it's job correctly; to have a system that focusses on the human voice range of frequency (mids) is surely as 'flawed' as one that has 15inch sub woofers and reproduces lower frequencies at an exaggerated level?

  So no, guess I am not an 'audiophile' and I'd actually say, "thank goodness".

  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Graywulf said:

No1, YOU enjoy your music when you listen to it (not what others think it should sound like), and 2nd, it should reproduce all music well.

 classical music is 'multi layered' so if your system can reproduce that well and enjoyably?

  

Great objectives 🙂🙂🙂

 

I have multiple systems and they all meet these objectives including the lowly car stereo 😁😁 which makes long distance road trips enjoyable.

 

I do get frustrated by poorly produced music, which is maybe more to do with having played in bands and always striving for a great sound stage.  Also accepting that it is difficult to reproduce that feeling of being part of the music and especially the power when playing live, though less now that most of the world has moved to small amps including myself.  Laying into a 100w Marshall amp was just brutal 😄😄😄  my replacement a little 18w just about gets there tonally but i don't feel the air of the speakers blasting me and the unbelievable power at ones control.  Still being in the audience such as the mosh pit at Bluesfest connecting with the band and dancing with the surrounding fans is an amazing experience and the next best thing.

 

Audiophile, if it means that i can reproduce these experiences then i fail. I have listened to a few high end systems that technically are amazing, but to me a bit clinical.  As per nos 1 objective; i have to enjoy it .. and without fatigue settling in ...

 

As i sit late morning still wearing my night clothes,  in a chair fit for a King, well it was a Royal chair out of an original Royal railway carriage, with one of my girls for company, listening to my bedroom system typing this, prophetically listening to 'reeling in the years' i am amazed on how this system of left overs from too many upgrades can give me so much enjoyment, but then again at some point they were my ultimate components. Listening for hours each week to multiple Tidal playlists i have put together on some of my other systems. Crystal clear, so musical and purely enjoyable 😊  Guess I am not an audiophile after all so therefore cannot listen to audiophile worthy recordings, just plain good recordings.

 

Postscript .. shifted systems to my nos 2 system, an Acoustic Alchemy album is a worthy album to bring out the detail perfectly, this system is more demanding to listen to but very nice,  different to the bedroom system which has less detail, less dynamic reproduction, but is so smooth and beckoning for a morning half asleep listening session.  Still the worthwhile listening goes on, fantastic music to fill the house and soothe the soul.

20201027_114451_DxO.jpg

Edited by Rosco8
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it goes without saying that you should buy audio/music that you yourself "phile" for whatever the reason (vocal, melody, bass, cymbal, whatever), rather than buy "audiophile music" - which is just what someone else "phile"ed, for their particular interests.

 

That said, there are many popular tracks that the "industry" or hobbyists tend to use to evaluate equipment. Although personally, I prefer to use tracks I myself am familiar with, even in that regard.

Edited by Jinster
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

I'm not sure. I only have 2 or three that I'm aware are "audiophile worthy" and to one of those I only listened once because the music wasn't what I considered "worthy". I'm sure there must be more (I have a reasonably large collection) but I can't be bothered focussing on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Graywulf said:

To my mind the modern equipment is so focussed on 'detail' most of it is very forward in presentation...

  I may be 'old fashioned' but I am at a loss when people say XYZ brand speaker/amp is (example) wonderful for 'audiophile/classical' but useless [for x]...
 So no, guess I am not an 'audiophile' and I'd actually say, "thank goodness".

  

Several comments here. firstly, I don’t agree most modern equipment is focused on detail only. I think it has better detail. But only because it’s better gear: it sounds better because it retrieves more from the recording. I can better hear every instrument and every vocalist, with better separation. The sound stage is more pronounced and the image is more delineated. I enjoy this. Detail helps this but didn’t override it (but if this isn’t what you like, no stress! We all like different things)

 

i do agree however that good systems don’t care about genre. They make good music sound like great. Your system should let you mostly have fun. Enjoyment should be first and foremost. I don’t consider myself an audiophile for this same reason. I just want to enjoy my music. I want it to sound great. I want each guitar to be separate and distinct, but only because that helps me better enjoy what I already love: great musicians making awesome tunes

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the system can't make average recording sounds good then the system is not good enough. Any recording can be "audiophile" worthy content if the system is good

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mloutfie said:

If the system can't make average recording sounds good then the system is not good enough. Any recording can be "audiophile" worthy content if the system is good

A good or even great system can only reproduce what is in those tiny grooves, or in the 0s and 1s, if the source is bad no system is able to produce audiophile worthy music.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mloutfie said:

If the system can't make average recording sounds good then the system is not good enough. Any recording can be "audiophile" worthy content if the system is good

 

 

hi mate - I would have to disagree.  I have several albums that are compressed / crap recordings and difficult to sit through for SQ qualities - but the music is why I play them.  They do not get anywhere near a decent pressing on my system. Nor any other system I've tried them on (and there are several of us in Sydney with Circa $50k systems). They are a bit of a laugh for us as low-fi candidates.

 

Perhaps you're assessment is correct, in terms of my system isn't good enough, but I would like to know of a System good enough that does this for low-fi albums..  I've not come across one and that would mean a lot of ppl in my circle don't have a good enough system either.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mloutfie said:

If the system can't make average recording sounds good then the system is not good enough. Any recording can be "audiophile" worthy content if the system is good

 

My experience as I have upgraded my system is the opposite.

 

Recordings that I thought were previously okay now don't sound so great as my system is more revealing. It is much easier to hear that a recording is flat both in dynamics and soundstage.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mloutfie said:

If the system can't make average recording sounds good then the system is not good enough. Any recording can be "audiophile" worthy content if the system is good

 

How on earth do you figure this?

 

A great audio rig is supposed to reveal whatever is delivered from the source component ( whatever format it may be ) as faithfully and accurately as possible and is not designed to alter the signal in order to create to create euphoria.

The old saying is G.I.G.O, so if the recorded music sounds horrible from the get-go, a megabuck system won't editorialise the music to your tastes. That is not its' purpose at all, in any way, ever.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience is definitely opposite that. Sure bad recording or compressed recording will always be worse than a great recording is not compressed but after recent upgrades all I can say I have been enjoying more and more less quality files that in the past I deemed unlistenable and can see enough details in those recording/files to have the illusion of "real" albeit in a more noisy environment. But hey that's just me

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Whites said:

 

My experience as I have upgraded my system is the opposite.

 

Recordings that I thought were previously okay now don't sound so great as my system is more revealing. It is much easier to hear that a recording is flat both in dynamics and soundstage.

 

In my experience it comes down to what you upgraded to, and how harmonious the system is  ... the term sympathetic to poor recordings or it brings out all the detail, and poor recordings sound awful seem to reflect the two positions. 

 

In one of my systems I upgraded the power amp and speakers to 25+ year old components that sound wonderful and are quite sympathetic to poor recordings, the system works magic on the mids, good bass but doesn't have that detail in the higher frequencies my other systems have.  A while back I brought newer speakers, Dyna's C2 Plats and found that they were are a lot less sympathetic to poor recordings,  especially in the higher frequencies on some recordings, and it was quite harsh.  I had to do  a lot of googling to find harmonious amps to tame them and have since upgraded both the pre and power amps a couple of times, and the speakers just kept getting better and better and now will play poorer recordings okay, not brilliant, but okay, but not as well as my 25+ old system.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/10/2020 at 2:19 PM, mloutfie said:

If the system can't make average recording sounds good then the system is not good enough.

 

The average recording is good or "good enough" so if the end result doesn't sound good or "good enough" then yes the system is at fault. 👍

Edited by Satanica
Link to post
Share on other sites

I seek it out within the artists I want to listen to. (Tidal) If it isn't there I listen anyway.

 

I have a Tidal subscription though because there definitely seems to be a lift in quality on those Master tracks - Apple doesn't compare to those. I even notice the difference in our car via bluetooth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably too much, but

 

- if I love an album, and it is available in an “audiophile” version (MoFi, AP, CR etc), I grab it

- I’ll listen in 24/192 on Qobuz, and that usually negates the above

- I’ll still listen to the best version of something I can get my hands on.

- Plenty of times, things are available in AAA audiophile/1st press etc, but the CD version on Qobuz is perfectly fine given the price and how much I like the album.

 

Essentially, if 192k MP3 is the best I can get of a great album, I’ll listen to that... but I’ll always go for the best (that I can afford) version of anything.

 

Its also mostly about the mastering, I’ll take a great CD master over a terrible brickwalled LP.

 

TL;DR: Its all about the music, but I’ll definitely get the best version I can justifiably afford.

Edited by Billy Shears
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic.

I don't puposely spend time seeking or listening to "audiophile" only  recordings or artists.  There seems to be many if you want to look it up though.  As a matter of fact a lot of my preferred musical style is far removed from what would be considered audiophile level recordings or in some cases tasteful even hahaha

...however, I will say that what this hobby has brought me is an appreciation for genres that I would otherwise never have listened too and some of those genres do boast the types of recordings that are labelled or directed to the audiophile fraternity.

So I guess you could in a round-a-bout way say I listen to some recordings that are well regarded or deemed audiophile but that is as much about gaining exposure to artists and genres I would not have normally seeked out letalone thought I would ultimately enjoy.

 

If I was guilty of anything it would be having favourite tracks that to me tick all the boxes of how I like my system to sound, but again, I doubt any of these would be what many would call an audiophile recording.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last 18 months, none.

 

Hell - I am happy listening to 3MP and MAGIC on DAB+ these days and am happy.  God I am getting old...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Red MacKay said:

In the last 18 months, none.

 

Hell - I am happy listening to 3MP and MAGIC on DAB+ these days and am happy.  God I am getting old...

Old is: “inter-what? That’ll never take off...”.

Edited by Billy Shears
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Red MacKay said:

In the last 18 months, none.

 

Hell - I am happy listening to 3MP and MAGIC on DAB+ these days and am happy.  God I am getting old...

 

Yes, you are Red!  :P

 

How about 3PBS?

 

Andy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...