Do you listen mainly to Audiophile CDs and records?

To add to that,
How much does the sound of disc, as opposed to being musically great but not so hot sonically, influence your descision on what to play?

My "listening ears" are stuck hearing period only records-particularly R&R.

Reissue R&R and those "audio presses" always have me going back to my sometimes stitch/tick ridden originals. Many seem to have punched up bass and sound like a CD.

Classical and Jazz sometime,  force me to succumb to a ceedee or RI record. I'm 
not with the times. My listening is record,FM tuner and CD. Perhaps at some point, I will get with the times and play files through a fancy DAC.

In the end, great music prevails over the delivery system being used.

To be clearer, Do you avoid listening to music you like, or love because it doesn’t sound good?

If you find your system is limiting what you can listen too it’s a sign the system is weak in some area. Well configured systems will bring out the merits in even poorly recorded material. 

I agree with folkfreak. 
Inline with my listening habits. Paramount for me, is to have a period press, and listen to it through best possible system setup(to your own ears)

there is some music I prefer to listen to on second system, some I actually prefer in car, but sound quality doesn't stop me from listening to music I like...

No, not at all. The great majority of my time listening to music is very casual. I stream music from internet radio, Pandora, and Amazon Music all at very un-audiophile quality (it's great for discovery!). For more critical listening I have a nice library of music (mostly jazz & rock) in uncompressed flac consisting of standard Redbook and hi-res files. For me, it's all about the music.

folkfreak:

There are wonderful, powerful historic recordings of great artists from the 30’s, 40s  and 50’s in mono, and certainly less than high quality sound that I would not want to be without, but sometimes avoid because I’d rather listen to my “system.”

Also, as we know, there are “audiophile” pressings that sound better than run-of- the-mill recordings that many in this forum would get greater satisfaction from.

@rvpiano exactly. Which is why I run a second tonearm and cartridge in my system set up specifically for mono. The sound quality of fifties mono classical is astounding and is some of the best I have. I also revel in listening to Casals for example in Japanese pressings bringing out the best from the 20s and 30s

The same is also true of pop recordings, I have a soft spot for the Chordettes for example. 

I don’t think many would count these as audiophile but they knock the socks off many of the clean but souless modern classical recordings

I listen to what I like, not with regard to recording quality. That said, I don't understand why artists like Chris Isaak and Tracy Chapman can get great sound every time, and other artists either can't or don't try.

Rvpiano 11-4-2017
I listen mainly to classical music, and the quality of sound varies greatly from disc to disc.
I was wondering if that’s the case with rock, pop and the like.
Do you tend to listen mainly mostly audiophile media?

... Do you avoid listening to music you like, or love because it doesn’t sound good?

I too listen mainly to classical music, which probably comprises around 90% of my listening. But I also enjoy rock, pop, folk, Broadway, and other genres, within the other 10% or so.

And yes, I find that among all genres recording quality varies greatly from disc to disc. I would say also that while my listening tends to gravitate toward better sounding recordings, and they comprise a somewhat disproportionately high percentage of my collection, I don’t particularly avoid listening to poor quality recordings if I enjoy the music.

Regarding the perennial question of whether a higher quality system makes poor recordings more objectionable or less objectionable than when listened to on a lesser quality system, or even via computer speakers or in a car, I find that it can go either way depending on the particular recording. But more often than not I would have to say that a system that is more resolving of fine detail will make a poor recording less objectionable than a lesser system. For example, on an overly bright orchestral recording the sound of massed strings will often tend to be much more listenable when it is resolved into an approximation of the sound of massed strings, albeit with some added brightness, rather than being reproduced as a homogenized blob of sound.

And it depends to a great extent on the nature of the flaws in the recording. As a general rule of thumb, heavy multi-mic’ing and/or a lot of electronic post-processing of a classical (or other) recording will result in sonics that I find to be more objectionable than a simply mic’d (or even monophonic) recording from the pre-hifi days. For example, Toscanini’s 1940 performance of Brahms’ First is one of my favorite recordings of probably my favorite symphony, as played on my main system via a CD I burned it to, despite its very primitive sonics.

Regards,
-- Al

http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/forgiving-resolving/12570/

The blog, "Forgiving or resolving" by Paul McGowan (PS Audio) at the above link might be of interest. It definitely relates to the OP’s question.

From it, comes the quote below:
"If you want your system to provide extraordinary performance levels you need one that’s highly resolving: capturing the best and the worst of every recording. The more forgiving your system, the more you’re trading extraordinary for middle of the road."

I get the point being made and happily disqualify myself from Audiophile-dom as defined by those terms. The system exists to facilitate the enjoyment of music. Reasonable compromises that provide a good measure of resolution yet still allow a wide range of recording quality to be enjoyed seem worth pursuing.

For classical I like Telarc, Naxos, Chandos, Hyperion and Mercury Livinvg Presence.

Like all forms of music jazz, pop or rock, the performer is key - I like Benjamin Zander, Lorin Maazel and Sir Chris Hogwood in particular.

wtf 
+1 I listen to every possible  source to find new and exciting music and then play it on my good sound.  I look for every genre and every style .

I think the post “forgiving vs resolving” misses the point. At this level (let’s presume a well put together six figure system) resolving is a given. The choice is between resolving in an analytic versus musical sense. The former will render your poor recordings “warts and all” and what you focus on is the wart. The latter lets you hear beyond the problems and focus on the essence of the performance. If you want to test what sort of system you have try playing a noisy LP pressing. Do the crackles and pops lift out and separate from the music, or are they all you can hear?

Al:

I, too, have found that as I have made improvements to my system, overly bright recordings (especially with high strings) have been made more listenable.

I don’t think record companies go out of their way to make a poor sounding recording. After all, we can assume they have engineers with ears.
Generally, they have a philosophy which varies from other companies.
I feel the better resolution my system displays, the closer to the philosophy of each individual company is revealed.

Also, the philosophy of particular engineers within a company are similarly revealed.

I tend to listen to performance before recording, although sometimes they go together (e.g. Solti's Ring on Telefunken vinyl). Still it can be fun to have a sound spectacular.

I didn’t know the Solti Ring was released on Telefunken.  I thought it was only on London.
You are right though, when the two come together it’s bliss!

If we are entertaining guests  we use the CD player or the music channel on cable.
If I am in a listening mood the turn table / records. (They require more attention)

I think when you're working with audiophile records more than regular dreck, you're listening to the equipment more than music itself.
I would love my rig to produce all the sonic tricks it can do with everything I play, but most times I just want to hear an album.
That said, there are actually a few great artists that (to me) were recorded so badly that I'm hesitant to play them on the main rig. A good system makes really shtty records unbearable and I get the heebie-jeebies when crap is crackling through my speakers.

Now that I think about it I actually tend to avoid audiophile CDs and recordings like the plague. The only exception would probably be for testing purposes.

No.

Hell no! I’m a music lover, not as much an equipment sound lover. Way to eclectic tastes for the run-of-the-mill and very likely overplayed stuff. Sufficed to say, it is of course, a bonus when the performance is captured well, the transfer is engineered skillfully, and someone takes the time and pride in creating a nice pressing.

And another thing...  I listen to a lot of music on Youtube.  What's that, 320 kps at best?  I don't care.  There's more great music out there than I can afford.  And, again, on my system, it doesn't sound too bad.

I listen to music rather than audiophilia. With classical music the story is quite easy. Here I prefer modern recordings of good audio quality, for the audio quality and for the more modern interpretations, based on often extensive research into authentic perfomance practice. However, even here some of those recording are already quite old, and from the analogue days. A case in point would be N. Harnoncourt’s Bach Cantata cycle. On the other hand, I am also an admirer of Maria Callas, and those recordings often suffer atrocious audio quality. And yet....
With jazz and modern pop the story is different. Here, the original recording is the authentic performance, even if badly recorded. Kind of Blue is only Kind of Blue if it is the original Miles Davis, of course.
With the pop repertoire of the 1960’s and 1970’s that many here seem to like (I do too) the situation is horrible, of course. Recordings were often awful, and a high end system will only show that in its ugly nudity. I sometimes wonder if a PA system would not make the music sound ’better’.... What is gone is gone, and it is gone forever, unfortunately. I recently bought the Bluray of the Doors live at the Hollywood Bowl. Clearly the potential sound quality of the Bluray format was completely wasted on this recording.

With so-called "classical" the reading , not pressing quality, is my thing. Brahms symphonies under Bohm are in constant rotation on my Naim CDS3. Wish I had extra $500 for DG D2D LPs but do not care that much about Simon Rattle reading.  Wish I had that cash though... If there is no decent recording of Brahms 2nd under Mravinsky with Richter, what can you do about that? Stop listening?!?
with pop its a similar dilemma: just because Imagine Dragons are soo overcompressed, should I switch to Norah Jones instead? No, sorry!!

I always seek out best pressing of what I listen to, however at times even the best pressing doesn’t sound good, to put it mildly, so I have to live with that. It happens that at times I am in a particular mood for a good sound, then I listen to what sounds best but still it is the music I like.
I listen to a lot on youtube too thru Grado $200 phones plugged in the computer. Sound quality varies wildly and there are many performances that were never released. I don’t expect it to sound good and have no disappointment. Still, in time I am going to improve this computer/youtube playback system, but I feel no urge.

I am like most of the replyees here in that music prevails over sound quallity
Although spinning a superbly recorded CD can be very entertaining. That said one of my most played discs is Claudio Arrau playing Bach's Goldberg Variations from 1941 and I still find it musically gripping. Another thing that I like to do is catch up on concerts over the BBC I Player. These concerts are broadcast as MP3's at 320 kbs, but there are MP3's and and MP3's though.

I’m happy and somewhat surprised to hear that the overwhelming majority in this thread deny that sound is a prime factor in determining what they listen to.
After all, this is an audiophile forum.  One would expect sound to play a more important part than most people admit.

I am similarly pleased to see that, but not that surprised. If you look at the genre that many seem to be listening to, it is often 60’s and 70’s rock. Sadly, that music was rarely recorded very well, and never on modern gear.
With classical music you also have the great interpretations from the past, but these are only interpretations - they are not originals. We don’t have Bach himself playing the organ, etc. So the older interpretations have to compete with more recent ones that may have been recorded better, but are perhaps also based on better musicological research as in the case of more authentic recordings of baroque music.

My priority is always the music first. I have everything from bootlegs to MQA. I would hate to think I missed a great performance or great music because I wouldn't listen to it. Sure I love sound quality but, I have listened to poor quality boots to hear a stellar performance!

RV, I expect that the Telefunken set is rather rare. I bought mine at the Ring Festival in Seattle, where it was recommended in hushed tones. And at the cost, it should have been. Even so, it's been a good bargain; 35 years and still quiet as a Seattle Ring audience.

@willemj 

And yet sometimes the old recordings are just magically better. I'm thinking of the first complete major piece recorded in stereo, Beethoven's Emperor, performed by Gieseking in 1944 (sic, 1944), released by Varese. 

The performance is just qualitatively superior to any other, including subsequent recordings by Gieseking himself. There's something about hearing anti-aircraft cannon as a counterpoint, that brings the whole Emperor thing into perspective.

At home particularly in the evening I listen to a lot of Bosa Nova, Henry Mancini and similar artist. The audio quality of these recordings sound really good to me. During the day whether on vinyl at home or on satellite radio in the car or work, I rock out with the the likes of the Seeds, Ramons, Zep, JD Mcphearson ETC. 

I guess for me it does have to have a certain level of audio quaility, but I do half the time turn off the audiophile ears and just groove to the performance.

Cheers
JP

Geoffkait     11-06-2017
"Now that I think about it I actually tend to avoid audiophile CDs and recordings like the plague. The only exception would probably be for testing purposes."

What kind of testing do you do with a bad CD?  How well they fly?  🤔

By testing I meant product development or testing of some tweak or another. Bad CDs I carry on me to maybe use as weapons, you know, like those Ninja throwing stars. Better safe than sorry. 😛

I tend to listen to better recordings of good music more often than good music recorded poorly; but I've found some real jewels among my old LPs once they are cleaned up and played on the system I have now vs. the one I had in 1980.
Similar experience with CDs and SACDs. I also discovered some of my old CDs were HDCS, once they were introduced to a proper UDP.

For great performances in classical music I sometimes cannot listen to them on my main system. The Toscanini Pastoral on EMI or Callas and Di Stefano in Tosca live from Mexico City on Melodram are really as good as it gets but no way could I listen to them on this very resolving system.  I have a good second system for that.

Old classical recordings that sound great on my main system are the Reiner RCA box or the Karajan Decca box. The Deccas are better in terms of sound than his later DG recordings.

I listen to music I like. My collection consists of rock, pop, blues, country, bluegrass, indie, jazz, classical, odds n ends.  I like to rate my albums on sound quality, class A-class D. Approximate percentages are:
Class A- 5%
Class B-35%
Class C-50%
Class D-10%
Actually, I own a couple albums  I consider A+, which are Roger Waters Amused to Death (on DVD-A), and Patricia Barbers Cafe Blue Un-Mastered (on SACD).
The majority of what I listen to is SQ B and C.

Tom