advertisement


Audiophiles: Are They Hearing Something We're Not?

Yeah, bit of fun :). I like the bit where he writes that record companies are trying to shill us better quality - presumably he meant to write sell (though perhaps not :)). I'm not sure about his ascertion that no new format has been sold on better sound quality though; CD was sold as being durable but improved sound quality was also one of its (supposed) primary selling features.
 
Alex Petrides is the Guardian's rock and pop reviewer.
I thought it was a very nice article, and clearly Mr Petrides was amazed at hearing stuff he'd never heard before in music that he thought he knew very well.
I think he is saying that CD was marketed (in the UK) more for it's convenience than its sonic qualities. I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with that, but it helps to tell the story better to say it like that.
 
I like the remark: "The old line about great hi-fi making it feel like the band’s in the room with you isn’t quite right. It doesn’t sound like live music: it sounds better"

It rings true with me - I'd rather sit in comfort and hear the music at my preferred level than have it imposed on me at whatever (usually ridiculously high) volume the artists think suitable !
 
Good read. A balanced article about audiophiles is a rare thing.
 
chrisletts said:
I like the remark: "The old line about great hi-fi making it feel like the band’s in the room with you isn’t quite right. It doesn’t sound like live music: it sounds better"

It rings true with me - I'd rather sit in comfort and hear the music at my preferred level than have it imposed on me at whatever (usually ridiculously high) volume the artists think suitable !
Click to expand...

I came to this conclusion ages ago, but I AM very lazy !:)
 
John Peel used an portable cassette player to evaluate what would go on his show, he said that's all you need to decide if the music's good or not.
 
Peel may have been right, for him, but even if you can generalise in those terms, it doesn't mean things won't be massively better through a good system.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Peel may have been right, for him, but even if you can generalise in those terms, it doesn't mean things won't be massively better through a good system.
Click to expand...

Much depends on the quality of the source material. Poor material will often sound less agreeable when played on a wide bandwidth system. On the other hand, a decent mono loudspeaker in a large radio or tape machine should provide enough masking and enough quality to make the good, bad and ugly sound acceptable. I'm talking about audio quality here, because no system will rescue poor music.

TBH I find many supposedly good hi-fi systems sound pretty poor on all but carefully mastered material.

This situation has worsened with the passing of years what with the loudness wars and the loss of basic skills in evidence in the recording studio.
It's unlikely to improve any time soon.
 
Robert said:
TBH I find many supposedly good hi-fi systems sound pretty poor on all but carefully mastered material.
Click to expand...

Agreed

But often I see the mastering being blamed when it's the system that is struggling

I tend to find that better systems let more out of what are supposedly "bad" recordings. To these ears there are fewer bad recordings on a better system. And the better system better reveals the content of the musically congested part of any recording, good or bad
 
I don't see how systems can particularly struggle with bad recordings yet be fine with good ones. It's the listener who struggles with the output. All systems process a bunch of signals within fairly well defined dynamic range and response limits.

The old example of a low resolution image looking more pleasing that the same image at x10 magnification holds IMO.
 
chrisletts said:
I like the remark:
It rings true with me - I'd rather sit in comfort and hear the music at my preferred level than have it imposed on me at whatever (usually ridiculously high) volume the artists think suitable !
Click to expand...

It's really a shame that I mostly agree with the above. To give credit to the artists though they are often are dealing with jive sound techs and/or venues that you couldn't make sound good if you tried. Most live performances today are, I think, about 'location' regardless of the sound because most people really don't give a **** about the sound as much as 'seeing' the performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top