Music Lover vs. Audiophile

[DrWho]

As the system you describe would sound bad on the majority of recordings it's pointless.

 

 

And yet that is the reality today..... most recordings have the negative of the recording system imprinted on them.

 

I'd posit that is why you prefer minimalist recording setups because the system non-linearity from the studio is not imprinted onto the source itself - apart from non-linearities of the microphones themselves of course. Your own system has all of its non-linearities, but you've grown accustomed to them so you won't notice them as much. That's actually one of the really cool things about how our hearing works. Ironically, removing an accustomed non-linearity actually throws people off enough that they don't want it removed....they're too accustomed to filtering it out.

 

Recently I attended an AES meeting covering the production quality of the broadcast industry. It's amazing how many different alterations happen to the signal along the way - and every single correction was at some point based on very sound logic. Did you know the Grammy Awards has sound engineers all over the country listening to the live mix to inform various submix decisions? And yet it's still crap half the time thanks to overlapping or non-existent correction factors due to various market factors and business decisions. At another AES meeting we learned about how the film industry usually has more than 20 down mixes of the same content, and some films may have more than 100. They are all intended to address the realities of the various playback chains. Radio, car audio, cell phones, portable media devices - algorithm after algorithm of various intentionally injected non-linearities to improve the 90th percentile listening experience. It's simply too expensive to put the correction factors in the mass production (low cost) equipment, so you do it on the transmission or source side instead. At least that was the paradigm from the analog transmission era. Digital allows that to be different, but the old practices are still in place because drop-in replacements are mandatory. Dolby Atmos is actually the first step in a better digital direction - I think/hope it's just a matter of time until that rolls out into the music side of things too.

 

Right now the exact same thing is happening in the 'normal' music industry with the Vinyl and CDs. If the recording was at all adjusted by listening through speakers, then the negative imprint of those speakers ends up on the recording. This is why it's important to mix on crap speakers like the NS-10. Usually multiple speakers are used so you end up with a way more complicated sum of negative imprints - with the ultimate goal of a recording where the majority set of negative imprints results in the desired outcome. Again, mixing to the 90th percentile listener and this time intentionally placing the correction factor onto the source directly.

 

 

I don't think people realize just how bad speakers are at reproducing signals, so this idea of negative imprint of non-linearity is totally lost on those who's understanding is based entirely on marketing material. Technically you're still compensating for your monitoring non-linearity when picking microphone type and location for even the most minimalist of recording methods, but there are simply less knobs to turn so the potential damage is limited. On the flip side, those minimalist recordings don't sound "good" on the 90th percentile systems (think tv speakers or car stereos)...I'm sure many here will disagree with that, but you don't listen the way the 90th percentile does.

 

 

I'm not at all trying to be obtuse, or just argue for arguments sake (which is too often the case, but not this time). As I move along my professional career, I'm realizing more and more why there is so much bad sound everywhere. It is the nature of non-standardized systems and it will continue to be that way until people start to agree on standardization. I think another generation or two needs to die off before the market will desire that though - the younger generations today would appreciate those changes, but all the old cats be stuck in their ways - and for really good reasons. As standardization starts to creep in, we're going to see things sounded better more often - not saying every system will be identical, but the standards will control the intentional correction factors in such a way as to allow for a repeatable outcome.

 

 

Anyways, that's a lot of context surrounding a very simple point I was trying to make. The majority of music is not intended to be played back on an "accurate" system. And this gets back around to the circular logic of how "betterness" is determined. I don't think "accuracy" is the correct measure of "better" - especially especially especially not in the light of the realities of the "correction factors" intentionally injected for the 90th percentile listeners. And these factors exist because the utopic view of "accuracy" is a myth in the first place.

 

 

Btw, should we be looking for source material that sounds good on our system, or should we be changing our sound system to maximize our source material? For me that's the core difference between audiophile and music lover...and my point is that a true music lover (one looking to maximize enjoyment of the source material) will predominantly not be interested in this idea of "accuracy". And true accuracy (if it could be defined) will not be an objective constant across the already existing source material.

[ZAKO]

And that is why I go to the concert halls every week end to listen to St.Louis Symphony..... Or fly to England to listen "live" to the London Symphony orch... Reproduced music at home has never been a enjoyment to me,,,,,, Now lets not get into Hall sound or seat location...   I don't care,,,

[Paducah Home Theater]

 

I liken audiophiles to classic Mustang guys who are restoration fans. They want the original factory parts if at all possible. New-old stock is what they strive for. If it has original factory markings, that's like a wet dream to them. They will even go so far as to get period-correct batteries. Meaning, it's more about reproducing what the car was originally intended to be rather than the actual enjoyment of the finished car.

Me personally, I'd rather have Ken Block's Hoonicorn. I have about the same mindset when it comes to music reproduction.

 

Based on this I am both, as I would want to redo the car to stock, then use it as an everyday driver until it needed to be redone again,or I got bored of driving it.

 

 

Google "hoonicorn".  You wouldn't get bored.  

[ZAKO]

That's why I got a good pair of shoes...You can walk away from it...

[Mallette]

Awesome post, Mike.  I will respond in detail later today...SO much good meat in there!

 

Dave

[Don Richard]

Someone listening to music on a good system may be a music lover.

 

Someone listening to rap on any system is definitely not a music lover.

[Schu]

I'm a music loving audiophile...

[Paducah Home Theater]

Someone listening to music on a good system may be a music lover.

 

Someone listening to rap on any system is definitely not a music lover.

 

I don't agree with that, 90's rap is fun, I listen to it all the time.  

[Paducah Home Theater]

Someone listening to rap on any system is definitely not a music lover.

This is kind of bugging me. I’ve heard similar anti-rap comments many times. I mean, I have played guitar, bass guitar for 20+ years, French horn, harmonica, piano for 10 years, took drum lessons, alto / baritone / tenor saxophone for 8 years, studied all kinds of scales and the math behind music and how the math differs in Eastern music, went to college trying to be a sound guy for concerts, I go to as many acoustic performances as I can including bluegrass, flamenco, coffee shop type of stuff, new age jam sessions, etc., been in multiple bar bands, high school band, church band in front of a couple hundred people on a weekly basis, performed at funerals, seen Tony Rice, Peter Rowan, James Taylor, Rodrigo y Gabriela, and many others live, lifelong hero is Flea from the Chili Peppers, I’m a fan of Jim Creeggan of the Barenaked Ladies due to being a trained double-bass symphony player…

And somebody is going to say I don’t like music because I really like rap? I don’t get it.

Some rap is pretty intelligent. Just because somebody can't appreciate anything outside of their comfort zone shouldn't mean they should blindly dismiss not just an entire genre, but anybody who enjoys it, in an outstandingly vague and all-emcompassing way. Perhaps you're just joking but this isn't the first comment I've heard along such lines.

Edited September 16, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Thaddeus Smith]

Rap > Circus Calliope

[Paducah Home Theater]

Some rap doesn't even have bass if you can believe that.

[ZEUS121996]

I'm into the music. Why else would I sell the pristine Mc gear I picked up? The speakers and recording can make the music sound great to me. The signal can improve the sound but it's just not that important to me.

Now for you guys (and ladies) who record live music, I'm seeing Mark Knoppfler from the 11th row center at the Chicago theatre in a couple weeks. It's a great sounding place, how can I record it so it sounds halfway decent? If it's at all possible

 

TY

 

Mark

[Deang]

I didn't read everything, but I couldn't help but read all of Mike's (Dr. Who) posts - that was a lot of good stuff.

"I'm a music loving audiophile."

Good one. I feel the same way.

I'm sure this perspective has been covered in the past. Live music, whether amplified or acoustic, is capable of producing something that may sound unpleasant to us - whether it be in the form of distortion, something related to poor acoustics, or even something normal or naturally generated by the instrument itself. Once in the listening room, we battle much of the same, but now must also deal with the recording, most of which just aren't nearly as good as they used to be. If the recording is good, we are still left with the others.

An audiophile is someone who is on a journey, preoccupied with the things found in that extra mile needed to create the most pleasurable musical experience. Since people pick up different things along the way, we can see that this is personal and subjective.

I have heard many "warts and all" systems. I have even owned a few. I do not like them. Being assured of their high level of "accuracy" didn't make me feel any better about what I was hearing. There are others who probably feel and think completely differently about this, but it makes them no less of an audiophile -- as they are still on the same journey, looking for the pieces they need to get the sound that brings them the most amount of pleasure.

For me; "sounds" which cause physical discomfort -- need to go. I just can't relate to spending large sums of money on something that either hurts my ears or has some odd low level resonance or distortion which detracts from the experience.

If you're not turning your system on as much as you used to, or just plain wish you aren't hearing what you're hearing -- then you have taken a wrong turn

With this in mind, we should be able to agree that all audiophiles are music lovers. If not, then what is the point?

Edited September 16, 2015 by Crankysoldermeister

[Mallette]

With this in mind, we should be able to agree that all audiophiles are music lovers. If not, then what is the point?

 

I do not agree.  Many are very limited in listening to various genre that represent only a fraction of human musical heritage.  My sense is that the true music lover may have preferences, but is open and appreciative of almost any form of music in any form, format, or medium.  It is that which drives them to quality equipment. 

 

When the hifi craze hit in the 50s owners blasted people with steam engine recordings and Command ping pong LPs...they weren't listening to music, they were demonstrating their equipment.  Now PLEASE don't take this wrong as no value judgment of any kind is implied or intended.  Those who are rolling tubes, capacitors, speaker wires, power cords and supplies and such are listening to and for those things.  I've been there when it was going on.  I was completely out of place because if the music is good it takes something pretty seriously amiss to distract me. 

 

Someone mentioned above about restoring old cars.  I think it was a good comparison.  Some love the car itself and want it precisely as it rolled out of the factory.  Others don't really want to drive it at all but want to turn it into a work of art.  Different strokes! 
 

I am into 78s...but I have no interest in spending time restoring a vintage acoustic player or any of that.  No nostalgia involved.  It's about musical experiences that cannot be duplicated by any other means. 

 

Dave

 

[Mallette]

 

As the system you describe would sound bad on the majority of recordings it's pointless.

 

And yet that is the reality today..... most recordings have the negative of the recording system imprinted on them.

 

I'd posit that is why you prefer minimalist recording setups because the system non-linearity from the studio is not imprinted onto the source itself - apart from non-linearities of the microphones themselves of course.

 

Spot on.  To use a science analogy I am making every effort to eliminate the observer effect.

 

Your own system has all of its non-linearities, but you've grown accustomed to them so you won't notice them as much. That's actually one of the really cool things about how our hearing works. Ironically, removing an accustomed non-linearity actually throws people off enough that they don't want it removed....they're too accustomed to filtering it out.

 

Agreed that one gets used to them, like we learn to appreciate a totally unnatural effect like 2 channel stereo.  But when I playback a recording I've made I immediately hear those issues as not belonging to the acoustic space/time event I've captured.  If egregious, I troubleshoot.  Obviously, some things like the fact of 2 channel can't be fixed...so I resume being used to it and filling in the missing information with my brain.

 

Recently I attended an AES meeting covering the production quality of the broadcast industry. It's amazing how many different alterations happen to the signal along the way - and every single correction was at some point based on very sound logic. Did you know the Grammy Awards has sound engineers all over the country listening to the live mix to inform various submix decisions? And yet it's still crap half the time thanks to overlapping or non-existent correction factors due to various market factors and business decisions. At another AES meeting we learned about how the film industry usually has more than 20 down mixes of the same content, and some films may have more than 100. They are all intended to address the realities of the various playback chains. Radio, car audio, cell phones, portable media devices - algorithm after algorithm of various intentionally injected non-linearities to improve the 90th percentile listening experience. It's simply too expensive to put the correction factors in the mass production (low cost) equipment, so you do it on the transmission or source side instead. At least that was the paradigm from the analog transmission era. Digital allows that to be different, but the old practices are still in place because drop-in replacements are mandatory. Dolby Atmos is actually the first step in a better digital direction - I think/hope it's just a matter of time until that rolls out into the music side of things too.

 

Listening to these people explain why they feel compelled to do this is like listening to Microsoft justify idiocy like Vista or Win8.  They are often believed...but not by me.  Back in the 40s concerts broadcast from a single microphone down class A lines to a fine amplifier and loudspeaker produced legendary results with only a bit of gain riding or not even that. 

 

Right now the exact same thing is happening in the 'normal' music industry with the Vinyl and CDs. If the recording was at all adjusted by listening through speakers, then the negative imprint of those speakers ends up on the recording. This is why it's important to mix on crap speakers like the NS-10. Usually multiple speakers are used so you end up with a way more complicated sum of negative imprints - with the ultimate goal of a recording where the majority set of negative imprints results in the desired outcome. Again, mixing to the 90th percentile listener and this time intentionally placing the correction factor onto the source directly.

 

I've said before I have heard wonderful things produced by such methods...but only a tiny fraction of the output.  I've never had a mixer in line for my work and never will.  They are used too often to attempt corrections due to poor microphone plans or other recording errors.  Some have mentioned, especially on my "Spankers" recordings, that the vocalist should have been boosted.  No way.  They didn't use a microphone so that is the sound they wanted.  Nobody in the crowd complained and my job wasn't to editorialize what I thought it should sound like. 

 

I don't think people realize just how bad speakers are at reproducing signals, so this idea of negative imprint of non-linearity is totally lost on those who's understanding is based entirely on marketing material. Technically you're still compensating for your monitoring non-linearity when picking microphone type and location for even the most minimalist of recording methods, but there are simply less knobs to turn so the potential damage is limited. On the flip side, those minimalist recordings don't sound "good" on the 90th percentile systems (think tv speakers or car stereos)...I'm sure many here will disagree with that, but you don't listen the way the 90th percentile does.

 

Beg to disagree that minimalist recordings don't sound good on a car radio.  This was brought home to me a bit over a decade ago.  I'd apparently been listening to one of my own piano recordings on the way to my church.  I worked there a couple of hours and was totally absorbed thinking about the organ we were putting in when I got back into the car.  The CD autostarted and my attention was immediately drawn to the sound.  I only heard a couple of notes and then thought "I gotta find out who made this as it is very, very real sounding..."  Within a couple of seconds more I suddenly realized what had happened.  This was no surprise as I'd discovered the principle that the worse the system, the more important the quality of the source material becomes a couple of decades before.  I was hired as Director of Sound Production for a company that produced synchronized cassette/filmstrips for the schools.  Those old enough may remember seeing these and hearing the "bump" when the 50hz tone was used to advance the filmstrip.  The company was unhappy with the quality of the sound of the cassettes and I was tasked with fixing it.  I did so by acquiring top of the line microphones, a Gates mixer, and a couple of Crown 800 tape decks.  I had a "Little Dipper" high pass filter that was completely passive and did an incredibly good job of starting a slope on the sound tracks to ensure that the low end was below that which would trigger the advance mechanism.  I experimented for quite some time to find the absolute minimum slope that would do the job.  That done, the Wollensak cassette decks never sounded so good.  Voices were clean in clear, music and sound effects nice.  High fidelity?  Of course not...but good as it could be.  I did only the absolutely necessary processing to meet the specs, no more.  No bumping the mid range or whatever. 

 

 

I'm not at all trying to be obtuse, or just argue for arguments sake (which is too often the case, but not this time). As I move along my professional career, I'm realizing more and more why there is so much bad sound everywhere. It is the nature of non-standardized systems and it will continue to be that way until people start to agree on standardization. I think another generation or two needs to die off before the market will desire that though - the younger generations today would appreciate those changes, but all the old cats be stuck in their ways - and for really good reasons. As standardization starts to creep in, we're going to see things sounded better more often - not saying every system will be identical, but the standards will control the intentional correction factors in such a way as to allow for a repeatable outcome.

 

Hearing the negative issues is your job...and you are obviously good at it.  However, don't be one of those who loses their love of their work by learning about all the problems it has.  Fix what you can, then try to turn of your analysis and enjoy the music.

 

 

Anyways, that's a lot of context surrounding a very simple point I was trying to make. The majority of music is not intended to be played back on an "accurate" system. And this gets back around to the circular logic of how "betterness" is determined. I don't think "accuracy" is the correct measure of "better" - especially especially especially not in the light of the realities of the "correction factors" intentionally injected for the 90th percentile listeners. And these factors exist because the utopic view of "accuracy" is a myth in the first place.

 

For me, accuracy is attainable...but you have to define it reasonably.  Accuracy is delivering as close to as possible the signal that left the microphone to the loudspeaker.  That can be done.

 

Btw, should we be looking for source material that sounds good on our system, or should we be changing our sound system to maximize our source material? For me that's the core difference between audiophile and music lover...and my point is that a true music lover (one looking to maximize enjoyment of the source material) will predominantly not be interested in this idea of "accuracy". And true accuracy (if it could be defined) will not be an objective constant across the already existing source material.

 

Any recording that doesn't sound good on my system I dispose of and any of my recordings that I consider to be of quality (I am talking about commercial releases here) sound good to me on any quality system.  One golden ear I had over one time wandered out into the hall while I was playing a particularly accurate piano recording.  When he returned I couldn't help but ask why he'd wandered off.  He said he'd determined that the best way to judge a piano recording was to leave the room and see if it sounded like someone playing a recording, or a piano. 

 

 

Great and thoughtful piece, Doc!

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

 

I don't think people realize just how bad speakers are at reproducing signals,

 

I do.

 

There are hundreds of speakers, all very different from each other, and all having a fan base that says they are the best speaker to use. That includes everything from a little bookshelf two-way (or even one way!) up to massive, titanic assemblages costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Everyone is right! And the funny part is...that's a true statement.

[Max2]

I think you could fall into a negative trap on either side. Once again, there are too many variables to say or call someone out as being a "lessor" either way. Some people just chase what is new like the extreme levels and various flavors of $50K + uber towers being offered. I have a friend that comes over which is a Cornwall owner and asks me where is the bass?  I tell him, my K's don't have that hit in the chest like his Corns have, which are hooked up to a $250 dollar AVR with the internal EQ boosted so much you cant hear any details and you would think you were listening to PA speakers at a 5 dollar entry Rap contest. This dude has multiple, multiple diplomas on his wall and has an IQ higher than the majority at MIT.  He loves music, he's just not interested in accurate music. I don't see him as an audiophile, be he loves music and all kinds. I on the other hand cant stand to fire my SVS sub up along side my K's, for the additional boom or even just a mild extension where my K's fall off.  For me, accuracy is found in just two speakers and that's the beauty in it. Is it a mindset for me? Is it an arrogance in an audiophile direction?  Ignorance is bliss and intelligence or thought of intelligence can be a curse, we all just have to fill our void and move along.

 

 

 

What about the man sitting in front of the mixing board creating the final levels for an album? What is his playback coming through? Is he a music lover or is he pissed that his "high resolution" 11" tall recording monitor's are just not getting it done? Can he hear all the details during that recording coming through a heavily treated room per instrument and vocalist and if so what if his speakers are glossing over or not replicating fully what's coming out?  How many key players in the recording industry are missing out because that 5" cone and dome tweeter isn't reproducing the most important aspect of a recording, which is the midrange. I see it all the time, and sadly with many of my favorite artists.

[Deang]

Just because a person doesn't like a certain type of music doesn't mean they are aren't a music lover. I've heard some stuff that just doesn't sound like music to me - that doesn't mean I don't like music.

Audiophiles are just trying to make the music they enjoy sound as good as possible.

What are we to make of a "music lover" who doesn't care anything about how the music sounds?

[jimjimbo]

Here's what is telling, statistically:

 

Distribution by sex of audio forum regulars:

95% men, 5% women

 

Distribution by sex of concert attendees (music lovers)

50% men, 50% women

and you got these stats where?  I have been to many concerts in the last 5 years, and the men far, far, outnumber women.  I think it's highly dependent on the performer.

[Mallette]

What are we to make of a "music lover" who doesn't care anything about how the music sounds?

 

Fer shure...  JimJimbos mention of the neighbor with the bass boosted Cornwalls being a "music lover" made me cringe.  The image of the string basses starting the last movement of the Beethoven 9th came to mind.  It would sound HORRIBLE with boosted bass! 

 

Dave