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

Ebor posted:

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

 

Good he didn't know about this forum then...

I get much more joy out of listening to music, if the sound is good. Otherwise my brain begins to interfere by pointing out the things it percieves as unnatural/flawed. That is why I bought a fine HiFi-system,  including some black boxes from Naim. You could say that I bought the system that makes my music sound good, so I can listen to a lot of it.

This does not cure hopelessly bad recordings, though. I am simply unable to listen to more than a few minutes of compressed-to-death noise.

For myself, I play only the music I love (or at least like), or else I'm listening to new music and trying to see if I love it or might get to love it.

Occasionally I'll play something I love which is also extremely well recorded - I might choose to play this when "showing off" the system to anyone who's interested in hearing a good system.

How can music you don't love sound good? If you don't like the music it doesn't matter what it's played on. I have occasionally listened to something I don't like played as a demo which sounded amazing through the system but would not generally buy it. In the rare case where I have bought it I have only listened to it very rarely. There is enough music which I love which sounds brilliant on Naim anyway.

Bananahead posted:

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.

 

To me, that whole line of reasoning is pretty much a non-sequitur.

My factory system in my Mazda is nothing special (it fact, it rather sucks compared to what is out there), but I can enjoy music there as much (albeit is a somewhat different way) as on my home system. If I don't like the music, increased fidelity will never change that.

As with anything like this, there is a law of diminishing returns where a reproduction system is so poor it ruins listening to the music. But that doesn't make the music bad. And conversely, a Statement system won't make bad music good.

DrMark posted:

Bananahead posted:

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.

 

To me, that whole line of reasoning is pretty much a non-sequitur.

My factory system in my Mazda is nothing special (it fact, it rather sucks compared to what is out there), but I can enjoy music there as much (albeit is a somewhat different way) as on my home system. If I don't like the music, increased fidelity will never change that.

As with anything like this, there is a law of diminishing returns where a reproduction system is so poor it ruins listening to the music. But that doesn't make the music bad. And conversely, a Statement system won't make bad music good.

Funny I was just about to post a similar comment. I also drive a Mazda and guess what? Just about any music played on my local rock station sounds good in it. Some of those same tunes sound terrible when played at home on my Naim system.

Low-fi for low quality recordings, hi-fi for high quality recordings? Whatever, I doubt mastering or cables being used at the radio station have anything to do with it.

Car acoustics also play a positive role as well as the fact you're not critically listening while driving.

BTW - while I can appreciate good recordings I avoid audiophile drivel at all costs.

Hungryhalibut posted:

 

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

A good system should provide us with a faithful sound reproduction of a recording, no better no worse. In my view, extra embellishments beyond what is on the master-tape are signs of an inferior music system.  

People who are more into the music as whole and are not interested in cherry-picking the 'juicy' pieces are the ones who can live without a remote. They just put the disc on and let it play.

DrMark posted:

Bananahead posted:

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.

 

To me, that whole line of reasoning is pretty much a non-sequitur.

My factory system in my Mazda is nothing special (it fact, it rather sucks compared to what is out there), but I can enjoy music there as much (albeit is a somewhat different way) as on my home system. If I don't like the music, increased fidelity will never change that.

As with anything like this, there is a law of diminishing returns where a reproduction system is so poor it ruins listening to the music. But that doesn't make the music bad. And conversely, a Statement system won't make bad music good.

That's more along the lines of a reply to the question:

"Do you need a top level system to enjoy music?"

To which the answer is, of course, no.

If I didn't love music I wouldn't listen to it anywhere.

DrMark posted:

Bananahead posted:

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.

 

To me, that whole line of reasoning is pretty much a non-sequitur.

My factory system in my Mazda is nothing special (it fact, it rather sucks compared to what is out there), but I can enjoy music there as much (albeit is a somewhat different way) as on my home system. If I don't like the music, increased fidelity will never change that.

As with anything like this, there is a law of diminishing returns where a reproduction system is so poor it ruins listening to the music. But that doesn't make the music bad. And conversely, a Statement system won't make bad music good.

Define:Flippant

There are a number of recordings that some people rave about that just leave me cold. I assume that my system is not good enough for me to appreciate them.

Bananahead posted:

DrMark posted:

Bananahead posted:

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.

 

To me, that whole line of reasoning is pretty much a non-sequitur.

My factory system in my Mazda is nothing special (it fact, it rather sucks compared to what is out there), but I can enjoy music there as much (albeit is a somewhat different way) as on my home system. If I don't like the music, increased fidelity will never change that.

As with anything like this, there is a law of diminishing returns where a reproduction system is so poor it ruins listening to the music. But that doesn't make the music bad. And conversely, a Statement system won't make bad music good.

Define:Flippant

 

There are a number of recordings that some people rave about that just leave me cold. I assume that my system is not good enough for me to appreciate them.

It's a good excuse for an upgrade, Doc.  

In my profile I list my interests as:

1. Music

2. Guitar playing 

3. Running

4. Cycling

Nowhere do I mention hi-fi, although I do seem to have spent rather a lot of money on it. But that's all about getting closer to the sound heard by the artist in the mixing room. 

Can be difficult to really separate the two unless you are sure the Hi-Fi provides a reference.  For years I enjoyed some early Cocteau Twins albums but was always put off by excess sibilant,splashy and congested distortion going on in the mix.   After upgrading somewhat over the years I now know that those albums contained a lot of high frequency energy that the system just didn't know how to handle.    Difficult sounding material can be challenging to listen to in a good way, I imagine what could be done to improve it with other Hi-Fi or more probable in the way to learn how to listen with what I've got. Some material sounds difficult to listen to but is intrinsic to understanding what's being put across.

Of all the replies I have the most sympathy with Ebor's:

"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."

I'm sure nobody listens to outright bad music, just because it's well recorded, but I think when it comes to the choice of what to play next, I reckon I do look for a balance between the music and the sound. A few examples:

There are recordings of Rachmaninov himself playing his Piano Concertos. In fact, the sound quality is actually pretty good considering the era. Who's could be a better interpretation than the composer himself, who was also a very highly renowned concert pianist? And yet I've not listened to them more than a couple of times, even though I'll listen often to Ashkenazy or Zimerman play these concertos in preference because the recording quality makes their performances a much better 'event' when I sit down to listen to my system.

Leonard Cohen's 'Popular Problems' is a fine album. Extremely original, emotive and a work of a unique talent. But, I really don't think I'd be playing it as much as I am if it didn't sound as stunning as it does ( it's a real system demonstration/test disc if you don't know it!)

A few folk in the Music Room have highlighted the new album by Yello. I haven't heard it, but I have their old stuff. They are a very clever band, again very original, but I'm sure that most who are enjoying the new album revel in the sonic experience. Not solely the sonics, but it surely wouldn't be as popular if it didn't knock your socks off when you play it !

I think it has to be a balance between the sound and the music. Surely that's not surprising if your sample set is spending above and beyond on their systems ? 

Yes.

Yello's music does not really touch my emotions as does most (all) of the music that I really love.  But it is very pleasing, possibly in a physical way.  And certainly it is music that is much more enjoyable on a really good system than on a poor one.  The sheer pleasure in hearing the sorts of sounds they produce is considerably lessened when you can't hear all of them.  I enjoy listening to Yello on a general level, but also love hearing what my system can produce.  So in a way their's is music that falls somewhere near the boundary of liking the music for itself, and liking it because it sounds so impressive on my system.  But I don't listen to a whole lot of it.

Mickey Hart's Supralingua, particularly the Bonus Disc (if you have that version) also makes the system sound good - and again it doesn't really get me emotionally, but I do love listening to it.

The way I understand the original question would be restated (reinterpreted) as follows:

Listening to the music you love vs. the expectation (and pleasure) of receiving a wonderful aural experience.

I see in above responses that many have gone the route of verifying they are in the play music you love regardless of the sound camp.  This is not a bad thing, however, for myself personally I have over my lifetime evolved to have the position that music and sound cannot be split down the middle in to an either / or choice.  Music and sound are intrinsically connected.

I understand the fact that there are many many wonderful performances from the past that are rightly hailed as among the best interpretations but may or may not deliver the best (most ideal) sound replay.  This has not stopped me from listening to these from time to time as I do find them very interesting.  I listen to classical music almost exclusively so this may explain my position on this.  There is no such thing as one definitive interpretation in classical music and so I have multiple versions of all the music I love.  The truth is that the interpretations I listen to most will be the ones that give me the most true to life clarity and realism (aka - the sound).  The goal is to be as close as possible in sound quality to fool yourself in to believing you are at the live event or in my case believing that it is me at the instrument playing myself.  Once you realize that this "fantasy world" is possible then there is no going back to the superficial world of separating music and sound.  

Let me state this another way.  What professional musician plays on the poorest quality of instrument by choice?  A top violinist will usually end up playing on a Stradivarius (or similar) despite the fact that you could say his 'interpretation' is the same whether he plays on a cardboard instrument that sounds like gravel or a rare miracle of workmanship that brings heaven a little closer to earth.  It seems that this is what many people believe when they say sound does not matter.  

Lastly, I always get the sense that many believe that only a great interpretation is valid only if it sounds poor.  Maybe they believe that this adds character?  Anything that sounds great automatically gets assigned to some audiophile putdown bin.

Sure, it is pure idealism on my part to essentially want my cake and to eat it too.  Nothing is perfect but I see no reason to not want to aim in the direction where music and sound coexist.  I personally have the option to make choices in my listening habits where in the majority of the time I get to listen to how wonderful my replay is (ie. .the sound quality).  In any case, 100% of the time, I only listen to music I love.

It is not either ... or ...

music I love + great SQ = I'll listen

music I love + poor SQ = I'll listen

music I don't love + great SQ = I'll listen

Music I don't love + poor SQ = I won't listen

Trouble is we are often not listening to the music but rather the producer/engineer/mixer - particularly on pop records they fiddle the sound so it sounds good on poorer equipment that then sounds very "misshaped" on good HiFi.

Allan

Florestan posted:

The way I understand the original question would be restated (reinterpreted) as follows:

Listening to the music you love vs. the expectation (and pleasure) of receiving a wonderful aural experience.

I see in above responses that many have gone the route of verifying they are in the play music you love regardless of the sound camp.  This is not a bad thing, however, for myself personally I have over my lifetime evolved to have the position that music and sound cannot be split down the middle in to an either / or choice.  Music and sound are intrinsically connected.

I understand the fact that there are many many wonderful performances from the past that are rightly hailed as among the best interpretations but may or may not deliver the best (most ideal) sound replay.  This has not stopped me from listening to these from time to time as I do find them very interesting.  I listen to classical music almost exclusively so this may explain my position on this.  There is no such thing as one definitive interpretation in classical music and so I have multiple versions of all the music I love.  The truth is that the interpretations I listen to most will be the ones that give me the most true to life clarity and realism (aka - the sound).  The goal is to be as close as possible in sound quality to fool yourself in to believing you are at the live event or in my case believing that it is me at the instrument playing myself.  Once you realize that this "fantasy world" is possible then there is no going back to the superficial world of separating music and sound.  

Let me state this another way.  What professional musician plays on the poorest quality of instrument by choice?  A top violinist will usually end up playing on a Stradivarius (or similar) despite the fact that you could say his 'interpretation' is the same whether he plays on a cardboard instrument that sounds like gravel or a rare miracle of workmanship that brings heaven a little closer to earth.  It seems that this is what many people believe when they say sound does not matter.  

Lastly, I always get the sense that many believe that only a great interpretation is valid only if it sounds poor.  Maybe they believe that this adds character?  Anything that sounds great automatically gets assigned to some audiophile putdown bin.

Sure, it is pure idealism on my part to essentially want my cake and to eat it too.  Nothing is perfect but I see no reason to not want to aim in the direction where music and sound coexist.  I personally have the option to make choices in my listening habits where in the majority of the time I get to listen to how wonderful my replay is (ie. .the sound quality).  In any case, 100% of the time, I only listen to music I love.

Florestan, as often, we are singing from the same hymn sheet.............. 

Florestan posted:

Let me state this another way.  What professional musician plays on the poorest quality of instrument by choice?  A top violinist will usually end up playing on a Stradivarius (or similar) despite the fact that you could say his 'interpretation' is the same whether he plays on a cardboard instrument that sounds like gravel or a rare miracle of workmanship that brings heaven a little closer to earth.  It seems that this is what many people believe when they say sound does not matter.  

 

Doug,

It is surprising how many musicians 'confess' of having very elementary music systems despite the fact that the sound plays a major role in their art. I wonder why? The one exception I know is Charlie Haden. I had to rush to the Chicago Naim Dealer to hear the first 555 player in North America before it was being taken to Haden who couldn't wait for his to arrive from the UK.

Perhaps sound counts only up to a point and beyond that lies la-la land with its fancy toys ownership pride and infinite upgrades. In my mind, anyone who spends three times (or more) on his gear than the cost of his music resides in that land. 

Regards,

Haim

Unless of course the music collection grows at a pace to re-ballance the equation

Adam Zielinski posted:

Unless of course the music collection grows at a pace to re-ballance the equation

Investing for the future?  There is always the risk of not finding enough music you love to reach the balance and then you are left with very long explanations you have to utter to a demanding wife

Haim Ronen posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

Unless of course the music collection grows at a pace to re-ballance the equation

Investing for the future?  There is always the risk of not finding enough music you love to reach the balance and then you are left with very long explanations you have to utter to a demanding wife

Luckily not that bad

Haim Ronen wrote:

"Perhaps sound counts only up to a point and beyond that lies la-la land with its fancy toys ownership pride and infinite upgrades. In my mind, anyone who spends three times (or more) on his gear than the cost of his music resides in that land. "

I know where you are coming from Haim, but anyone fortunate enough to be able to move into the Stratosphere of Naimdom a 3x rule might be tough to keep up with. Anyone who owns a Statement level system for extreme instance would have to own about 25,000 CDs to comply!

I own about 3500 CD's (and about 1500 LP's that I never play anymore) so I wouldn't qualify for the 3x rule at full cost replacement value of my current system either.

But I do know what you mean; Music should of course be the object of this HiFi exercise, whatever you choose to spend on your system. 

Kevin - I will be happy to take those LPs of you to re-ballance my ratio of music to black boxes

I listen to the stuff I want to listen to.