The Audiophile Debate

[LKB]

Having read the various points of view, I've been tempted to jump in here from a number of directions, having been a  professional musician via synthesizer, vocalist, oboist and composer. But after some thought, l realized that l have neither the energy nor the motivation to set forth anything which would add significantly to what has already been posted.

Therefore, I shall limit my efforts and merely offer what seems to me the most important ( if obvious ) consideration:

Nobody who prefers their recordings to reside on vinyl is in any way injured by those who prefer a digital source.

Likewise, nobody who prefers digital media is in any way injured by those enjoying life at 33&1/3 RPM.

There is ample room for both. 

[Valentino]

I'm quite impressed how good well engineered analog can sound, and that includes the stereo LP. E. g. the Deutsche Grammophon Original Source series:



Of course cutting the laquer so close to the label is a challenge, especially for exotic high end vinyl playback equipment. I avoid those. I also digitize to 24/48 after the phono amplifier. If I didn't I could not play vinyl records with my main stereo, which would be a pity. So much for the purity of the analog audio signal 'round here.

[San Antone]

I listen to a lot of records from the 1920s and 1930s (jazz, blues, old time, opera) that have been collected and transferred to CD. 

A few years back there was a PBS documentary called American Epic which told the story of early recording technology: The Acoustic Era (1877–1925) (singing into a horn) then The Electrical Era (1925–1945) (Western Electric  microphone and amplifiers) which marked a huge improvement.

As an adjunct to the documentary Jack White and T-Bone Burnett got some musicians together to record 20 songs using the same equipment that was available in the 20s:

THE AMERICAN EPIC SESSIONS Starring: Alabama Shakes, The Americans, Ana Gabriel, Ashley Monroe, The Avett Brothers, Beck, Bettye LaVette, Bobby Ingano, Elton John, Frank Fairfield, Jerron "Blind Boy" Paxton, Los Lobos, Lost Bayou Ramblers, Nas, Pokey LaFarge, Raphael Saadiq, Rhiannon Giddens, Steve Martin and Edie Brickell, Taj Mahal, Jack White, and Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard.

I found this project fascinating and very enjoyable to listen to.

These technologies could be seen as crude but the music on these CDs I find easily appreciated; the singing, playing, comes across amazingly natural sounding.  I prefer it to how recordings are made today, in which separate parts are isolated onto individual tracks, vocals overdubbed to an backing track, editing the performance, using multiple takes and creating a compilation final track from various performances.  The recording process went from being musician driven to engineer driven but a new culture formed during the late 60s and beyond in which songwriters began using the studio as another instrument, and become expert at using technology as an extension of the songwriting process.  A new art form was created, "the musical recording" which is distinct from a live musical performance and often impossible to recreate live without a lot of time, expense, people, and rehearsal.

In the desire to achieve perfection in sound reproduction, engineers created an unnatural environment for musicians, and simultaneously an unnatural sound landscape for the audience - all of which they attempted to mitigate with signal processing and effects.

So these debates about audio quality completely miss the point, IMO.  I am less interested in audio quality than I am in musical performance quality since , for me at least, I can hear through audio quality and appreciate the performance in an old recording.  But with new recordings, using state of the art technology and processing, what I often hear are pristine unnatural performances.

[DavidW]

I also digitize to 24/48 after the phono amplifier. If I didn't I could not play vinyl records with my main stereo, which would be a pity. So much for the purity of the analog audio signal 'round here.

Haha making both parties in the analog/digital debate wince!!  

[Valentino]

@San Antone I think it was old Knappertsbusch who called studio recordings with all their splicing together of "the best bits" a fraud.
A long time ago now.

[Todd]

The recording process went from being musician driven to engineer driven

It is possible to get direct to disc recordings even today.  Emile Berliner Studios releases limited edition sets from time to time.  Simon Rattle and the BPO released a Brahms symphony cycle in this manner a few years back.  Paavali Jumppanen released a disc of Chopin, Kuusisto, and Boulez.  There's the below Dvorak Ninth.  And others.  (Bernard Roberts' first LvB sonata cycle is direct to disc.)  Perhaps these are all musician driven, or perhaps these and the Jack White project are luxury product gimmicks.  Whether they better or worse musically than standard live recordings, 78s era live recordings, or modern studio recordings is all up to the listener.  I listen to recordings made between 1903 and yesterday.  Some sound awful, some great, and all sound like recordings - ie, none sound real.  But surely the intent of recording is to get something out to everyone who wants to hear it.  Except limited run gimmicks.

[Fëanor]

This is exactly the case. You've driven a Yugo and you try to convince the owner of an Aston Martin that all cars drive the same way because they all have four wheels.

You can also, of course, recall the laws of physics and say something about wheel traction, friction or Newton's laws. All this is solemn true, but Yugo and Aston Martin are not the same thing, whatever the holder of universal objective knowledge Todd may claim... Lets talk about self-delusion now :-)

Ah! AnotherSpin, there we are.  "You poor folks can't appreciated gigabuck equipment so just be quite and leave us rich folk to our superior insights."

Thus are us poor folk nonplussed.

(... Just revising this interminable thread after a long while.)

[AnotherSpin]

Ah! AnotherSpin, there we are.  "You poor folks can't appreciated gigabuck equipment so just be quite and leave us rich folk to our superior insights."

Thus are us poor folk nonplussed.

(... Just revising this interminable thread after a long while.)

As has been said many times, it's not about the cost of the components at all. There are good budget components, and there are not particularly well-designed expensive components.

[Daverz]

Ah! AnotherSpin, there we are.  "You poor folks can't appreciated gigabuck equipment so just be quite and leave us rich folk to our superior insights."

Thus are us poor folk nonplussed.

(... Just revising this interminable thread after a long while.)

"High-end" audio is mostly about snobbery and magical thinking.

[AnotherSpin]

If magical thinking sees reality as something beyond the world strictly encompassed by the relation of physical bodies, as something beyond phenomena, then I am in favour of such a high end  

Unlike the world of becoming, the world of being is metaphysical and is described not by theory from textbooks, but by knowledge. The high-end is a manifestation of the endless pursuit of the eternal in the realm of disposable things. Those who reduce the high end to cost are missing the point, unable to break free from the material.

[Florestan]

The high-end is a manifestation of the endless pursuit of the eternal in the realm of disposable things.

In other words, a wild goose chase. 

[AnotherSpin]

In other words, a wild goose chase. 

The same can be said for many, if not all, idealistic endeavours. But do they not, more than anything else, raise man above the mundane?

[Florestan]

The same can be said for many, if not all, idealistic endeavours. But do they not, more than anything else, raise man above the mundane?

Granted, but I'm not sure that never-ending accumulation and replacement of material things is a sign that someone has raised above the mundane...

[AnotherSpin]

Granted, but I'm not sure that never-ending accumulation and replacement of material things is a sign that someone has raised above the mundane...

Right. However, no one says that the ideal exists in separation from the material. It's good to know the balance.

[Fëanor]

As has been said many times, it's not about the cost of the components at all. There are good budget components, and there are not particularly well-designed expensive components.

There a great budget components.  In fact today these often surpass luxury components in objective performance and in everyway excepting esthetics and sometimes ergonomics.

This is where objective performance measurement provides us peons with some leverage.  But plutocrat audiophiles tend to dismiss objective evidence because it doesn't support their subjectivist bias ... and it's seriously challenging to their  spending habits.

What I hear 'way too often is that expensive components inevitably sound better if carefully chosen ... that it's too bad for folks like me that they can't appreciated the fact.  Snobbery is only a cm. beneath the surface.

[AnotherSpin]

There a great budget components.  In fact today these often surpass luxury components in objective performance and in everyway excepting esthetics and sometimes ergonomics.

This is where objective performance measurement provides us peons with some leverage.  But plutocrat audiophiles tend to dismiss objective evidence because it doesn't support their subjectivist bias ... and it's seriously challenging to their  spending habits.

What I hear 'way too often is that expensive components inevitably sound better if carefully chosen ... that it's too bad for folks like me that they can't appreciated the fact.  Snobbery is only a cm. beneath the surface.

No problem. You can hear whatever you want to hear and convince yourself that you thought you heard it  

My audio system these days is quite simple, and very far from your dreams of plutocrat audiophile choices (marvellous wording, by the way). But that doesn't stop me at all from knowing that different audio components sound different, and our perception of music is far from corresponding directly to instrument measurements.

[Todd]

You can hear whatever you want to hear and convince yourself that you thought you heard it

Audiophilia in a nutshell.

[DavidW]

Granted, but I'm not sure that never-ending accumulation and replacement of material things is a sign that someone has raised above the mundane...

Yeah it sounds very mundane.  The true transcendent experience would be using cheap earbuds and being happy with the music.

[AnotherSpin]

Yeah it sounds very mundane.  The true transcendent experience would be using cheap earbuds and being happy with the music.

In theory. You also need a device to connect the headphones to. And cheap headphones break quickly, so you have to buy new ones time after time.

[DavidW]

In theory. You also need a device to connect the headphones to. And cheap headphones break quickly, so you have to buy new ones time after time.

Actually I have $10 headphones from when I was a kid that still work!  You just have to take care of your things.  Also my Sony boombox from back then also still works as well as my radio alarm clock.