Do you play the music you love or the stuff that makes the Naim system sound good?

99.99% is the former. I've bought a couple of those 'audiophile favourites', played them a couple of times and then forgotten them. Surely people - other than the few who buy expensive stuff as a status symbol - only buy an expensive stereo because they love music, therefore the music has to come first? If the music is feeding the stereo rather than vice versa, something has gone wrong. 

I've moved this to the Music Room as it seems most appropriate there.

Thanks Nigel.

As to the actual question, given the same music on different formats and even different mastering, I will usually choose the one that sounds best on the system. For example, an early first press of the B-52's sounds incredible compared to pretty much any later issue so that's what I invariably reach for if I want to hear that album. Not quite the same thing, I know, but I usually go for the music I want to hear first, in the best sound possible, second.

It would never ocurr to me to listen to things I don't actually like just because they sounded good on my system. By extension I would always choose to listen to a bad recording (or indeed a bad system), with great music than the converse.

This question maybe encpasulates the difference between having HiFi as your hobby vs music? I am not interested in analysing my system, only experiencing the music. I do though understand that this is not the same for all, and for many on the Forum (especially the HIFI section) the process is a more  analytical and technical one, and no less enjoyable.

bruce

Interesting question. I have no idea what the 'audiophile favourites' to which HH refers are, but I do know which albums in my collection sound most impressive on my system. There are occasions when I pick one of these because I want to remind myself just how wonderful my system can sound. There are, without doubt, some pieces of fantastic music which suffer from poor recordings - I do sometimes feel less inclined to play these.

Jazz at the Pawnshop by Arne Domnerus is an example of an 'audiophile favourite' with stunning sound quality. The music is pretty good too but somehow the fact that I bought it for the sound detracts from the music rather than adds. On the other hand, some live Art Pepper albums, bought only because I love Art Pepper, are enhanced by the fact that they sound wonderful. Those of a certain age will recall Brothers in Arms being used for what seemed like every demonstration, and some dealers weren't happy when I insisted on playing The Clash. 

A good system must make an ordinary recording sound great - if it doesn't, it's not a good system. 

I play the music i love - that's what the Hi-Fi is for. If it's well recorded / produced then that's a bonus. 

I do listen to the music I love. But I would say that the quality of the system has opened me up to music I beforehand wouldn't have looked at. 

And like others of course I also bought music in expectation of awe and never listen to it again...

I don't really understand the question - why would I play music I don't like, other than an initial listen to find out if I do like something?

This sounds very much like the definition of hi-fi as a hobby rather than of the means to the mediation of music.

I am in the process of upgrading from a 20 year old Rega system that I have loved listening to vinyl on, to my first Naim system, all because the streaming options now open up such a huge new realm to embrace my addiction for new music. I can't imagine how I could justify spending such a significant amount of money without it being the means to an end. 

When I went into the dealer for a few hours to try an ND5 XS with a Rega Elicit Vs Naim Nait XS with Rega RX5's vs ProAc Studio 140Mk2's (I now know how most of you will be able to tell straight away what I decided to buy from that little lot) They had Statement playing from an NDS with other stuff that was over my head, through Naim speakers. It sounded good but it didn't leave me thinking it was even 10x's as good as what I demo'd. It did leave me thinking I obviously didn't enjoy it because it wasn't playing music I liked! 

I play music I love. I have found that down the years, with the exception of really badly recorded stuff (like brick walled loud stuff) that my improving system gave me more insight into how the music was arranged, played, recorded and produced.

I have more admiration now than ever for the care and skill which went into even the simplest sounding recordings. I have also found that, perhaps because of this insight, I tend to distinguish less between good and not so good recordings because the musical information is getting through and if it sounds a bit flat, or scratchy, or washed out, well, that's because it does.  Can't change that now.

My system doesn't really sound like anything nowadays. It is more transparent as it has ever been.  It just lets the music through. So there is no music that will make it sound better. It's just the music that sounds better. 

Or to put the question another way:  Do you love music that sounds good on your Naim system?

I'd never heard of Diana Krall before visiting here. So I looked her up on YouTube.  And sure enough, very closely miked recordings, always going to sound good through a system.

Agree with most of the posters above...although nowhere did the OP indicate that you would play something you don't like for the purpose of hearing the sound quality. There should be a huge overlap of both qualities in any music collection. There isn't too much in my collection I don't like (although I am sure most of us have a few of those), and plenty of that sounds exceptional in sound quality.

Perhaps the only time I let that factor into my music selection decision is if I am demoing my system for a friend who has never heard what a Naim system can do. Beyond that, it is what I want to hear or play along with on guitar. (And in the second scenario SQ becomes almost superfluous because I am merely trying to get a good "mix" between my instrument and the system so I can hear both.)

Hifi exists for music. Music does not exist for hifi.

No easy answer but I would say that I usually play the music I love with two caveats; some music I love sounds awful and that can put me off playing it as much and, there is music that I have no appreciated in the past, or that I would not usually listen to (classical for example) that now sounds so good I will listen to and enjoy.  I will try a broader range of music now because I find I hear more to appreciate

I play music I love - even really poor quality, re-taped, recordings of music from the radio.  But I do find that sometimes I enjoy listening to something on my system which, on a much lesser system, I wouldn't bother with. 

One thing I find interesting is the way that recordings have changed over the years.  When I was a young lad, and knew no better, my favorite group was The Shadows.  I bought most of their LPs, until towards the end when they just seemed to be going through the motions.  not listened to them for years, then recently played some and was surprised at how good the recordings are - full fat, with good bass, clear treble.  Recent recordings of groups (where the engineer hasn't just shoved everything up to 11 throughout) also tend to be good recordings.  But during the late 70s, 80s and 90s things were very variable - some superbly engineered records (Supertramp for instance) and some horrible things.  I think things have improved on the whole, though.

I play music I love, generally. Sometimes I play new stuff and don't love it or take a while to warm up to it. Have I bought and played stuff because it sounds good? Of course. But it only gets played again if I like the music. 

Maybe if I spent more of my limited funds on hi-fi instead of music then I might like more of the music that I don't like much because it would sound better.

Generally (99% of the time) I buy muysic I love.

Good example is the original Irish Boys' Band - U2. Their early albums were an example of how not to record and produce the music.. Even the recent re-master did not manage to improve too much on that. But I love it.

I just listen and concentrate on the music. Most of the time I forget the system is actually there doing what it's supposed to, in the background. I'm only perturbed if the recording is really atrocious. If I buy an album and, at first listen,  the recording sounds bad to my ears, I just return it for a refund. Simples.

An excellent question, which I suspect at least a few people round here would like to answer one way but, like someone with food issues, might find that the equivalent of a food diary (or a FitBit) might show up a different reality. I know I'd like to say 'only the music I love', but I am often tempted more towards music that I know sounds especially good on my system.

The always excellent Alex Petrides wrote a very perceptive and funny piece about audiophiles in Esquire a couple of years ago which, amongst other things, dealt with this exact issue:

http://www.esquire.co.uk/cultu...-something-were-not/

Mark

My general answer would be that  music comes first. 

But, when it comes to Classical music, things become less clear and it boils down to 'it depends'.

Sometimes I want to hear the greatest (to my ears) performances no matter the sound quality - i.e. Mravinsky/ Tchaikovsky, Rubenstein/Chopin etc. etc. 

But on other occasions I want to hear high quality sound, even if the performances are not up to the standard of the best. These discs bring me closer to the experience of hearing this music live. After all, I spent a lot of my life in the 80's listening to concerts at Sheffield City Hall - and the Halle Orchestra didn't sound like the Berlin Philhamonic Orchestra, the violinists weren't like Heifetz, and the pianists weren't Horowitz. BUT, the experience was always absolutely fantastic.

We are spoilt nowadays in that we can play the greatest performances on our systems at the drop of a hat. But, a great deal of joy can be gained by trying to recreate as much as possible the 'live performance experience', where the performers do not need to be the very best - so called audiophile discs can help you get closer to this. 

Life is too short for sitting around not crying, gasping, laughing romancing and soaring away to other places with the music you really love.

I have done so many dealer and exhibition demos over 40+ years that they tend to blur. But the few that do stick all to well in the memory was when I had to sit and listen to bloody awful music that had been selected to show off the equipment. Pah!

Ebor posted:

The always excellent Alex Petrides wrote a very perceptive and funny piece about audiophiles in Esquire a couple of years ago which, amongst other things, dealt with this exact issue:

http://www.esquire.co.uk/cultu...-something-were-not 

Well, with my system that cost a "mere" £14k in total (value £23k as much secondhand), and with  no cable costing as much as £100 nor ever likely to, I am clearly not an audiophile... But I love listening and immersing myself in music.

That is a great question.  In my case, music comes first then a good production.  If I find music I love that also sounds great, I can listen for hours.  The problem with old records in a very resolving system is that they could be fatiguing.  So many poorly remastered productions, and the original are so noisy many times.  But, above all, I only listen to music that I enjoy.  It could be a combination of factors, including mood, occasion,...  

Because I love it.