Hi-Fi findings on different music

This may not really be an answer to the question but I think that, probably, we mostly appreciate the musical qualities of forms of music that we dislike.

In fact, I sometimes think that music I dislike might be more useful for me in hi-fi dems than music I like. The idea is that, with no "emotional investment" in the music, I am more likely to be able to compare my emotional reactions to the effects of equipment changes in a dispassionate way. I'm not sure this will make sense to anyone...

Regarding other people's findings, I don't really understand why one report seems to convey a lot to me and another almost nothing - the type of music used doesn't really seem to be a significant factor - nor even the amount of text used to describe the music or the sound. Maybe others have clearer ideas?

Both above make good points.
In theory it would be a good idea to have a set number of demo tracks that everyone knows etc, but trying to decide on the list would create anarchy.
I tend to use a mix of familiar and unfamiliar tunes. Familiar 'cos they show differances up easily IMO, and unfamiliar for the same reason!

I think it's personal preferance, and that where the problems are....

Perhaps music used for testing should not be to our liking. I found myself several times actually thinking the music beautiful, when it wasn't exactly my taste. I think it is easier to tell the difference between various systems that way.
Although using music you know and are practically able to dream has advantages as well. You can easily tell changes from your system at home.

Both have advantages, but the first one does make sense in a way. If a system can get your foot tapping to music you dislike, it must be a good system. And I must say. a good system plays all kinds of music. Not just one or two styles. At least, that's my thought .

quote:

---

pop, folk, jazz, classical, opera.

---

A truly competent HiFi allows the listener to enjoy them all equally.

I'm not sure if this exacly relates to the topic, but I wanted to post something and introduce myself of the forum. I have recently purchased a Nait 5 (one of the last in the US warehouse), and plan to add a CD5 to it. As part of the buying process, I auditioned other manufacturers equipment, and found that while various pieces of gear were able to reveal aspects of recording with detail I was previously unaccustomed to, it also made things sound too "clinical". I was listening to "sounds", not music. When I listened to the Naim rig, I almost got too drawn into the music to properly analyze it. However, since enjoyment of music is what it's supposed to be about, I figure I made the right choice. The salesman at the non-naim shop was telling me that the CDs I brought were not recorded well enough to sound good on his equipment, but I certainly don't want my choice in music to be imprisoned by my gear. The Naim dealer told me that the Naim guys often hang out at they shows and listed to Zepplin. Why? Because they like it. Anyhow, I'm planning to get my integrated and CD5 next week and hook it up to my Dynaudio Contour 1.1s.

How long do I need to give the amp to burn in, anyhow? Any other break-in advice?

I'm far too selfish to audition objectively - at least as suggested here. I find it hard to audition equipment with music that I don't know well. Of course, there comes a time in every listening session when the dealer says "hey! listen to this..." and I always do. I can appreciate a good recording of anything, played on a well sorted system. But, to take my last demo session as an exapmle, I didn't put my hand in my pocket because Nat King Cole was in the room with me. I was very impressed that he was, but it was when I heard Geddy Lee thumbing and plucking both ends of a bass at the same time - for the first time, on a track I *thought* I knew every note of, that the cash register started ringing in the shop. That's how my brain works and I'm stuck with it. Happily, I might add.

None of us are qualified to say what's good and what's not. Nobody should take such recommendations at face value, but the outpourings here do provide a very good yard stick. If certain people say they like something, it's safe to assume (from what they've said before) that it's worth investigating. Likewise, when others don't like something it means I might. But it's only a guide. I think we all forget that sometimes. But it's fun.

Cheers

Harry

Thank you for your remarks while I don’t feel we’ve gone too far. Some IMHOs to them.

JEREMY
> The idea is that, with no "emotional investment" in the music...
It’s a well-known logic but I think it does not moel reality because every day music listening has absolutely no sense without us emotionally involved.

BOEKSTER
> And I must say. a good system plays all kinds of music. Not just one or two styles.
BASIL
> pop, folk, jazz, classical, opera – A truly competent HiFi allows the listener to enjoy them all equally
Very few of us should have good let alone truly competent systems. I think all our systems have their merits and limitations. My one is tuned to classic and opera music. It plays a rather good jazz but were I a jazz fan I’d have a different system insted.

SM
Sorry, you represent the listener type my original qeury refers. Judging from your list your listening attitudes fall as far from mine as possible. Mentioning Beethoven’s 9th that way show unmistakable for my kind that you belong to an other camp. Does it mean your observations can’t be of use for me? I wonder. Actually, that’s why I started present topic.

HTK
> None of us are qualified to say what's good and what's not... But it's only a guide.
Yes Harry, but how seriously this guide can be taken?

Cheers
graphoman