2. misc-audio
  3. 193276-2248

Do you agree with John Atkinson (and me)?

 

Point 1: In the recent thread entitled ’How much is too much to spend on a system?’, I contributed this comment: "The hi-fi shouldn’t be worth more than one’s music library." I said that half-jokingly, a wisecrack that I knew might be disagreed with.

Point 2: In the 1990’s I became a regular customer at the Tower Records Classical Music Annex store in Sherman Oaks, California. The store manager knew a LOT about Classical music, but also made no secret of his distain for audiophiles, whom he viewed as caring more about the sound quality of recordings than their musical quality.

Point 3: In the early days of The Absolute Sound magazine, the writers occasionally mocked audiophiles who had a serious high end system, but whose record collections merely consisted of a small number of "demo" discs. Those audiophiles collect records that make their systems sound good, rather than assemble a system that makes their records sound good.

 

I make the above points as a preamble to the following:

In the past few months I have fallen behind in my reading of the monthly issues of Stereophile that arrive in my mailbox. Yesterday I finally got around to reading the editorial in the January issue, written by John Atkinson (filling in for current editor Jim Austin, who is recuperating from surgery, I believe). The final two paragraphs of the editorial read as follows:

 

"Back in the day, I did an analysis of Stereophile reviewers’ systems. The common factor was that all the reviewers’ collections of LPs and CDs cost a lot more than their systems. The same is true of me, even in these days of streaming."

"Isn’t that the way it should be for all music-loving audiophiles?"

 

Well, is it?

 

bdp24

Showing 2 responses by snilf

snilf's avatar
snilf
218 posts
 

This is an audiophile site, not a music site. Other than occasional lists of favorite albums or bands, there is essentially no discussion of music on this site. And that’s fine. Music reproduction provides a thrill of its own, which is not necessarily a musical thrill. Good recordings of thunder storms or trains can sound thrilling on a good system. As the OP (or someone above) put it, no shame in that.

Moreover, just comparing the size of one’s music library as an indicator of one’s love of music rather than audio reproduction misses the mark. There are libraries and there are libraries. Used book stores often sell books by the yard for interior decorating. Owning a lot of books doesn’t mean you’ve read them. And even if you have, there are books worth reading and books for decorating.

Get over it. On this site, we share a passion for music reproduction technology. Stereophile is read by people with that passion. With all due respect to John Atkinson, asking whether or not a Streophile reader has a music library that cost more than his system is not just beside the point, it is potentially insulting, and it begs all these other questions as well.

snilf's avatar
snilf
218 posts
 

@bdp24 As you subsequently note, music reviews on Audiogon, and in Stereophile, TAS, etc., are mostly about sound quality. But you're right: I'd forgotten that there's a "music" discussion topic on this forum. 

Be that as it may, my comment was addressed to this discussion topic, and in fact this particular thread. And I do very much believe there's an issue here (I've posted about it several times before). Literally none of my most musical friends care at all about audio sound quality. Thom Yorke of Radiohead, and Alan Parsons—just for example—have both expressly repudiated audiophilia. The thrill of music reproduction is not the same thing as the thrill of music.

More to discover