The Computer Audiophile Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 1 minute ago, mansr said: And many audiophiles want high DR numbers, artistic choices be damned. See that other thread for proof. I agree on that point. But that point isn’t relevant to reproducing the product that’s purchased or streamed with a high degree of accuracy. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post semente Posted November 22, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2017 lucretius, The Computer Audiophile and Shadders 1 2 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 I still think the definition would need some form of obsession as compared to "average", and not sure accuracy would even need to be in the definition....and I "think" it would include continually strives for? Would someone be considered an audiophile if they were content with no future plans to ever tweak or upgrade, but just to listen? Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: I still think the definition would need some form of obsession as compared to "average", and not sure accuracy would even need to be in the definition....and I "think" it would include continually strives for? Would someone be considered an audiophile if they were content with no future plans to ever tweak or upgrade, but just to listen? What are these people obsessing over? Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 either SQ or confirmation bias, depending Link to comment
Speed Racer Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I think people should get out of the house and talk to others who consider themselves audiophiles. You may be surprised at how inaccurate and condescending your descriptions are. 1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I never mentioned you. Perhaps you see yourself in what I said. So the "you" in the first quoted post is a specific person? I took it as the "proverbial" you since you quoted no specific person and mentioned no specific person. I think the second quote is you playing games and being disingenuous. Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 I started googling....think i have it....very vague but to the point. An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the quality of the reproduction of music. In this definition, the music can be colored, the quality can be whatever is important to the individual, and even "really gives a damn" is relative but suggest more-so than the average. Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: What are these people obsessing over? obsessing over what the average person would consider "normal". Obsessing could be something as simple as spending more than an hour a day listening to music. Obsessing could be buying new gear all the time. Obsessing could be trying new things.... Just something more than average. Obsession is relative, and can be anything from "a slight obsession" to a whack job (wink). now you are going to make me google definition of obsession (grin). EDITED TO ADD AFTER GOOGLE SEARCH of Definition of obsession..... i am using the synonym of "passion" The Computer Audiophile 1 Link to comment
semente Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: I started googling....think i have it....very vague but to the point. An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the quality of the music. In this definition the music can be colored, the quality can be whatever is important to the individual, and even "really gives a damn" is relative but suggest moreso than the average. I would correct it to "An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the quality of the SOUND. mansr 1 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 8 minutes ago, semente said: I would correct it to "An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the quality of the SOUND. nah, i don't like that choice of words..... i really like the sound of a train whistle....not sure how that relates to audiophiles. i modified above to: An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the quality of the reproduction of music. Link to comment
semente Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 6 minutes ago, beerandmusic said: nah, i don't like that choice of words..... i really like the sound of a train whistle....not sure how that relates to audiophiles. i modified above to: An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the quality of the reproduction of music. It's sound alright. Sound of a harpsichord, sound of a suspended cymbal... "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 sound of a cannon, sound of a wah-wah pedal, sound of a .. whatever New Order used on the tracks I'm listening to now... Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 12 minutes ago, semente said: It's sound alright. Sound of a harpsichord, sound of a suspended cymbal... The word "Sound" certainly could be a part of the definition, but in the context and ambiguity of your proposed definition.....uh....lacks.....but if you like it, then it's fine (wink)... YOU>>An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the quality of the SOUND. maybe a compromise... An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the quality of the SOUND of Music Reproduction.. (wink) Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted November 22, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2017 You may have to use the word sound because sound quality is distinct from music quality. I usually consider the first to be a mix of objective and subjective while music quality is always purely subjective. Teresa and DaQi 2 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: You may have to use the word sound because sound quality is distinct from music quality. I usually consider the first to be a mix of objective and subjective while music quality is always purely subjective. I edited above to state... maybe a compromise... An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the quality of the SOUND of Music Reproduction.. (wink) But I don't think i can let that stand either....sounds wordy.... Quality of sound doesn't imply music and can mean anything....e.g a train whistle.....and is too vague.... something in between....i will let it stand for at least 5 minutes while i think on it some more (grin). The Computer Audiophile 1 Link to comment
Popular Post beerandmusic Posted November 22, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2017 ^^^^ found this on reddit... audio·phile - a person with love for, affinity towards or obsession with high-quality playback of sound and music. But i like the idea of "someone who "really gives a damn".... So maybe i can live with this.... An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the high-quality playback of sound and music.... Teresa and DaQi 2 Link to comment
Popular Post #Yoda# Posted November 22, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted November 22, 2017 In my perception, an audiophile is someone who want to listen to his beloved music in the best available quality, individually dependent on his personal experience and budget. DaQi and esldude 1 1 Link to comment
gmgraves Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 5 hours ago, Summit said: Obviously everyone cares about how good a movie or recording sound, even my mom can grumble if a recording has bad sound. To me an audiophile is a person that not only believe sound quality is very important but that also is willing to go the extra mile to get superior sound. The extra mile can be buying special recordings or pay extra for a hifi streaming service, constantly purchase and exchanging audio gear, buys PSUs, tubes or cables that cost more than many peoples stereo or that gets preoccupied how to ground the switch SMPS, won’t listen before the stereo has warmed up or keep them on 24/7, furnishings the living room to get best SQ, talk, read and thinking a lot about how different audio gear sound, use the polarity button almost daily. Audiophile is also a mindset making us not able to listen to music for long without thinking about the sound quality and how the music would have sounded if only I had this audio gear or a bigger room so I could place my speakers….. What about someone who cares so much about the "fi" of the music to which he listens that he "rolls his own". I.E. he buys a plethora of good quality recording equipment and goes looking for things to record HIS WAY so as to obtain those aspects of capturing acoustic instruments played in a real space that he believes are crucial to good sound; aspects that few commercial recordings ever capture, or even try to capture. If it isn't on the recording, all the high-end playback equipment in the world isn't going to retrieve it! esldude 1 George Link to comment
mansr Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, gmgraves said: What about someone who cares so much about the "fi" of the music to which he listens that he "rolls his own". I.E. he buys a plethora of good quality recording equipment and goes looking for things to record HIS WAY so as to obtain those aspects of capturing acoustic instruments played in a real space that he believes are crucial to good sound How do you find things to record and get permission to do so? Link to comment
sandyk Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 1 hour ago, beerandmusic said: maybe a compromise... An audiophile is someone who really gives a damn about the quality of the SOUND of Music Reproduction.. (wink) +1 How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file. PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020 Link to comment
fas42 Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 46 minutes ago, gmgraves said: What about someone who cares so much about the "fi" of the music to which he listens that he "rolls his own". I.E. he buys a plethora of good quality recording equipment and goes looking for things to record HIS WAY so as to obtain those aspects of capturing acoustic instruments played in a real space that he believes are crucial to good sound; aspects that few commercial recordings ever capture, or even try to capture. If it isn't on the recording, all the high-end playback equipment in the world isn't going to retrieve it! There's some very, very good news in this regard - the 'miracle' that happens when the playback is of high enough quality is that even the most tawdry of commercial recordings yields great riches - the truth is that microphones are very, very clever devices , far better than most people grant them, in picking up subtle sounds in the recording space. Whether the individual, or company wanted spatial aspects to be captured or not, or couldn't be bothered, is irrelevant - it is on the recording! Most playback is not capable of revealing these clues - but reach the standard necessary, and it all emerges. One can go crazy in listening for all the 'Easter eggs' that are there ... So, step 1: regard the recording as having the data there, which you may not be aware of as yet; step2: do whatever is needed so that the information can come forth, in a 'clean' form. Link to comment
gmgraves Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 1 hour ago, mansr said: How do you find things to record and get permission to do so? That's not as hard as it might sound. I moved from the SF Bay area to the Reno Nevada area about 2 years ago. Not knowing anyone up here, I just started frequenting local watering holes that advertised live jazz (as is my interest). I would then visit these bars on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights (generally the days when live music is featured at such places) and wait around until between sets, and introduce myself to the band or group during their breaks. I would propose that I record their performance sometime in exchange for CDs of that performance. You'd be surprised how many groups are happy to let you record them for a free CD of their performance. Sometime, they will just let you record while they are working at whatever night-spot they are appearing, but often, they'll ask you to record them at one of the musician's homes or some other venue where it is quiet and you don't have to fight the crowd noise like you have to do in a bar or night club environment (on the other hand, the audiophile recording called "Live at the Pawnshop" is recorded with audience noise, and it didn't seem to dampen anyone's enthusiasm for that title!). Another avenue to getting to record is to find a local orchestra or wind ensemble (symphonic band) and approach the leader. If he isn't already being recording, you can sometimes contract with the group to record all their concert performances for an actual fee. The bottom line is that most musicians WANT to be recorded; all you have to do is ask. The worst that can happen is that they say no, and in my experience that rarely occurs unless somebody else beats you to it. George Link to comment
ricodale Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 A curious thought, is someone working in a music industry can consider himself an audiophile? Link to comment
beerandmusic Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, ricodale said: A curious thought, is someone working in a music industry can consider himself an audiophile? anyone can consider themselves anything they want...in all likelihood, anyone that would suggest they are an audiophile, probably is.... Link to comment
Popular Post gmgraves Posted November 23, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted November 23, 2017 53 minutes ago, fas42 said: There's some very, very good news in this regard - the 'miracle' that happens when the playback is of high enough quality is that even the most tawdry of commercial recordings yields great riches - the truth is that microphones are very, very clever devices , far better than most people grant them, in picking up subtle sounds in the recording space. Whether the individual, or company wanted spatial aspects to be captured or not, or couldn't be bothered, is irrelevant - it is on the recording! Most playback is not capable of revealing these clues - but reach the standard necessary, and it all emerges. One can go crazy in listening for all the 'Easter eggs' that are there ... So, step 1: regard the recording as having the data there, which you may not be aware of as yet; step2: do whatever is needed so that the information can come forth, in a 'clean' form. I'm sorry. No, it isn't there. On most commercial recordings, there is no soundstage per se. Most recordings are multi-miked and multi channel. There is no real placement of instruments in space. It is all "synthesized" in the mix. Channel's 1, 2, and three, for instance, is the piano. It has been captured to three separate tracks on the recorder (whether tape or digital HDD) by a piano mike kit where three mikes are mounted on a pole (that works like one of those 1950's pole lamps that is spring-loaded and wedged between the floor and the ceiling. I the case of the piano the pole is wedged between the sides of the instruments and the mikes are inside the piano inches from the strings. standard arrangement is one mike over the bass strings, one mike over the middle strings and one over the treble strings, When mixed to stereo each piano channel is usually pan-potted (using a control that can place any instrument's channel anywhere from far left to far right that the mixing engineer wants to put it) so that the bass end of the piano is in the left channel, the middle of the piano's range is in the phantom center channel and the treble end of the piano is in the far right channel. What's wrong with that you ask? Nothing if you want a piano that's as wide as your listening room! Drum Kits? Each element has it's own microphone and it's own channel on the recorder. There's one for the kick-bass, there's a mike for the snare, one for the tom-tom, one for the high-hat and one for the triangle and one for any other drum accessory that might exist in any given session. Again these disparate percussion parts are spread across the room by the mixing engineer. Other instruments like saxes, trumpets, bass fiddles, night be contact microphone'd. That is to say, the movement of air that produces the music we listen to is not capture at all. Instead a small transducer is physically attached to the body of the instrument and the vibrations of the instrument itself are what is recorded. What's wrong with that? Musical instruments are meant to be heard at some distance, and ensembles are meant for the sound waves to mingle on their way from the instruments to our ears. And believe me, instruments sound far different when you are close-up on the stage with them than they do when the listening audience experiences them! I want to be in that latter group and not the former one. Microphones might be able to pick up subtle sounds when instruments are close miked, but then the question becomes: Is the listener supposed to hear those particular subtle sounds? Therein lies the different philosophic debate about recording technique. Should the listener be up on the stage with musicians, hearing every sound from squeak of their chairs to the turning of the pages of their music, or should the listener be in the audience as if listening to an actual performance of real acoustic instruments blending in real space to produce real music? You might think that "Whether the individual, or company wanted spatial aspects to be captured or not, or couldn't be bothered, is irrelevant", but it certainly isn't to me. I hate grand pianos as wide as the listening room, I despise drum kits that wander all over the room, depending upon which drum or percussive sound is being played at that moment. I can't stand instruments that pop in and the out of sound field as if they are appearing or disappearing in and out of thin air. That might be your idea of what constitutes "high-fidelity" but I must tell you that it sure isn't mine! By the way, I can hear those annoyance on a cheap pair of earbuds connected to a smart phone, or on car radio, or a multi-ten thousand dollar high-end stare-of-the-art stereo system! esldude, Summit, semente and 2 others 3 2 George Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now