Home audio and classical recording evaluation

[Daverz]

I don't want to instigate a forum section dedicated to how the quality of posters home audio systems dictates the validity of critiques given here but there are a few simple questions I'd like to ask.

1: Do posters think the equipment they listen to music on at home influences their ability to detect the emotional content of recorded music?
2: Do posters think accurate observations of recording quality can be made with something like a mobile ( cell phone in the US) through ear buds?
3: Should we accept evaluations of something like the tonal richness, dryness, sharpness etc of a recording without knowing how it was heard?
4: Does any of this matter to any of you?

I usually don't think about what they are listening on when people give their opinions on recordings.  I even think it's a bit rude to ask, and tends to be to exclude people from the conversation.

That said, it's not expensive to put together a really excellent head/ear phone system.  You could start by replacing your earbuds with IEMs.  If you don't like sticking things in your ears, look for a combined DAC/headphone amp with bluetooth and good headphones or consider also replacing the phone with a different source.  A good site with reviews is ASR:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/master-index-of-audio-hardware-reviews.8184/

[André]

I remember years ago when I first started to post here, I argued that I could get a lot out of historical recordings because I could listen imaginatively, I could imagine what sort of sound the musician was making, I was talking about Cortot I think, and suggesting that the 1950s  recordings helped me to use my imagination when I listened to the 1930s recordings. Someone immediately jumped down my throat and started barking, saying this isn't possible.


I don't know whether this is along the lines of what you meant.

Music is sound. You can either hear it or use your imagination. I don't see that there's another way.

Yes.

[Mirror Image]

1: Do posters think the equipment they listen to music on at home influences their ability to detect the emotional content of recorded music?

Absolutely not. Equipment doesn't truly hinder your enjoyment of a piece of music unless you have two speakers that are out.

2: Do posters think accurate observations of recording quality can be made with something like a mobile ( cell phone in the US) through ear buds?

I don't know really. I don't use ear buds. I do think, with the right headphones, and if the quality of audio is good, then the music can be enjoyed on a cellphone.

3: Should we accept evaluations of something like the tonal richness, dryness, sharpness etc of a recording without knowing how it was heard?

I think the music is of utmost importance. Everything else is mere icing on the cake.

4: Does any of this matter to any of you?

I do think audio quality is important, but it's not so important that it dictates how I feel about whatever piece of music I'm listening to.

[Irons]

Music is sound.

And there is good sound and bad sound which is influenced by recording engineers and what you are listening on.

[Madiel]

I'm fascinated by all these people who essentially say sound quality makes no difference to them. I know we're talking about the quality of the equipment rather than the recordings, but still. Having bought a new CD player this year it was painfully obvious to me in the shops that there are real differences between units (and also that the middle has virtually fallen out of the market). I took a cluster of discs with me to the shops so that I could try them out, and reproduction varied considerably.

Sound quality definitely does make a difference to me. I have a supposedly fabled recording of Gieseking playing Debussy preludes, and I just could not warm to it because of the sound. Until I did a common trick of mine, which is listening from around the corner in my kitchen. This got rid of enough of the background distraction that I could get a bit more out of the recording. But I still didn't love it.

Certainly with popular music, it can be extremely obvious when a recording has been poorly produced and the life and energy of the performance has been sucked out of it. For me I don't think classical is any different. Emotion can only be conveyed by the sounds you can actually hear being reproduced, and if for whatever reasons (including age) the recording did not capture as much then to me it's inevitable it can't convey as much, even if one is not entirely conscious of this. And if it's the equipment that isn't capable of reproducing the sound, similar things will happen. Turning the sound up high can show up differences between units' ability to cope for example.

The CD player I ended up buying, one of the things it keeps surprising me with is it's good reproduction of bass. I'm hearing things low down in recordings, including classical ones, that I haven't noticed before.

[aukhawk]

I always get the best seat.

If I did that I'd be chafing too much about the money I'd spent, to even hear the music !   

[aukhawk]

When you are listening to a live performance the music is coming to you unfiltered by any electronic device(s).  All recordings are filtered and degraded to some degree by the process of recording the sound and its later reproduction (difference in kind).  While higher quality audio equipment tends to diminish the distortion, there is still a filtering of the sound, both at the front end (during the recording) and the back end during the playback (difference in degree).

This is all true but I'd replace your word 'degraded' with 'altered'. 
Certainly any alteration means you are not getting the highest of fidelity - but in most cases perfect fidelity would not be a good thing - for example  an accurate reproduction of a concert grand in my living room would be completely intolerable.  Most good sound engineers know this, although they also know it is bad PR to discuss it with audiophiles.

[Mandryka]

My suspicion is that some people just listen for the tunes, if they can hear all the tunes then they think they're listening to all that matters, and that's all they need from their hifi.  Linn used to sell hifi like this, they priced themselves on the idea that their equipment would let the listener follow all the tunes, the salesman called this Tune Dem.

https://www.linn.co.uk/tunedem

[Mandryka]

This is all true but I'd replace your word 'degraded' with 'altered'. 
Certainly any alteration means you are not getting the highest of fidelity - but in most cases perfect fidelity would not be a good thing - for example  an accurate reproduction of a concert grand in my living room would be completely intolerable.  Most good sound engineers know this, although they also know it is bad PR to discuss it with audiophiles.

You have a volume control, I don't see what's intolerable about having the sound of a concert grand in your living room if you can adjust the volume.

I've heard of said that piano is particularly hard for hifi because of the percussive attack, I'm not sure this is true, but I have heard it said (apparently Yamaha speakers, their top of the range, are successful with piano, if I cared more about piano I'd check it out.)

[Irons]

I'm fascinated by all these people who essentially say sound quality makes no difference to them. I know we're talking about the quality of the equipment rather than the recordings, but still. Having bought a new CD player this year it was painfully obvious to me in the shops that there are real differences between units (and also that the middle has virtually fallen out of the market). I took a cluster of discs with me to the shops so that I could try them out, and reproduction varied considerably.

Sound quality definitely does make a difference to me. I have a supposedly fabled recording of Gieseking playing Debussy preludes, and I just could not warm to it because of the sound. Until I did a common trick of mine, which is listening from around the corner in my kitchen. This got rid of enough of the background distraction that I could get a bit more out of the recording. But I still didn't love it.

Certainly with popular music, it can be extremely obvious when a recording has been poorly produced and the life and energy of the performance has been sucked out of it. For me I don't think classical is any different. Emotion can only be conveyed by the sounds you can actually hear being reproduced, and if for whatever reasons (including age) the recording did not capture as much then to me it's inevitable it can't convey as much, even if one is not entirely conscious of this. And if it's the equipment that isn't capable of reproducing the sound, similar things will happen. Turning the sound up high can show up differences between units' ability to cope for example.

The CD player I ended up buying, one of the things it keeps surprising me with is it's good reproduction of bass. I'm hearing things low down in recordings, including classical ones, that I haven't noticed before.

I agree with this. As my priority is vinyl I owned a CD player (Denon) purchased second-hand on eBay believing the mantra - all CD players sound the same. That can be put to bed, because they most certainly do not! Since upgrading (Quad) the leap in quality of sound over the old player is astonishing.

[mc ukrneal]

I'm fascinated by all these people who essentially say sound quality makes no difference to them.

I don't think that is what they are saying. Is there a particular post that gives you this impression?

[ChopinBroccoli]

I don't think that is what they are saying. Is there a particular post that gives you this impression?

Exactly.  Nobody said it doesn't matter at all

[Madiel]

I don't think that is what they are saying. Is there a particular post that gives you this impression?

I won't bother requoting all the people that said no to question 1.

[ChopinBroccoli]

It's a weird question, frankly

[Madiel]

It's a weird question, frankly

Why? I think it's quite interesting that there are differences in the way different listeners cope / don't cope with variations in sound.

Not just sound. I can think of another context or two where my parents and I are completely different in terms of what we require for enjoyment.

[ChopinBroccoli]

It's the idea that "emotion" is more detectable in high definition sound... just seems like an odd adjective

[André]

It's the idea that "emotion" is more detectable in high definition sound... just seems like an odd adjective

Spot on.

[mc ukrneal]

I won't bother requoting all the people that said no to question 1.

The question does not ask about general quality making a difference, rather it is more specific in asking if it "influences their ability to detect the emotional content of recorded music." Aren't these two totally different things?

[Ratliff]

1: Do posters think the equipment they listen to music on at home influences their ability to detect the emotional content of recorded music?

A very loaded question, with all the assumptions about "detecting" "emotional content" of music. When I listen to music enjoyment is contingent on me being able to ignore the technical artifacts and feel as though I am listening to a actual performance, rather than a recording per se. I don't require perfect equipment or a perfect recording, but something good enough that I can imagine I am there. It is just as much a matter of the recording engineer's craft as of the technical quality of the equipment. There are old mono recordings that sound great. Good equipment certainly helps. The issue is whether there is enough there for my imagination to latch on to.

2: Do posters think accurate observations of recording quality can be made with something like a mobile ( cell phone in the US) through ear buds?

The earbuds that came with my phone certainly have poor frequency response and are not particularly satisfying for listening to music. I can't imagine that I'd be able to judge recording quality with them. My phone sound just fine when I use it with appropriate headphones.

3: Should we accept evaluations of something like the tonal richness, dryness, sharpness etc of a recording without knowing how it was heard?

Probably not. I often don't agree with views I see expressed about recording quality. I see recordings I consider superb trashed, and recordings that I don't like praised. People have different criteria for what constitutes a good recording.

4: Does any of this matter to any of you?

No.

[Madiel]

The question does not ask about general quality making a difference, rather it is more specific in asking if it "influences their ability to detect the emotional content of recorded music." Aren't these two totally different things?

I don't think so, no. It's fairly obvious that unless one is listening through tin cans, hearing the correct notes played is not going to be an issue.

Mind you, I'm not sure I want to get into another one of those conversations where we end up debating what the entire point of listening to music actually is and whether we're actually hearing "emotional content" when all that a sound system can literally do is reproduce frequencies.