Does it have to sound good for you to like it?

I am a "music first audiophile". I would be hard pressed to not listen to a recording where I thought the music was great, but the recording, not so much.

Lucky for me, the 3 genres (classical, prog, jazz) and their various subgenres I listen to, tend to be recorded better than average.

So, I have very few bad recordings. But, for me, the music is more important, so I will listen to bad recordings, for the musical content.

I do tend to give a bit more priority to good sounding recordings, however. But not for the reasons most stereotypes of audiophiles would describe*, but because I find it easier to become more emotionally and/or intellectually involved with the music.

Let me add, that I do tend to disagree a bit with @rvpiano concerning the sound quality of classical recordings. I tend to find the majority of them to be quite good. I find it easier to find good sounding classical recordings, that band ones. Especially with regards to soundstage and imaging, the natural ambience of the acoustic space where the musicians were playing, and other spatial cues.

But then, the vast majority of the classical music I listen to, is from the 1950's up though the current era. So, I have the advantage of a very high percentage of it being recorded on good gear, with modern miking techniques.  

*the quote attributed to Alan Parsons is what I am referring to: “Audiophiles don’t use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment.”

@macg19

Great quote. That is exactly what I do, sometimes.

 

I actually think it is not a great quote.

First of all, it seems to lump all audiophiles as one monolithic block of listeners, who care much more about their gear, than the music. Which I believe describes a minority of audiophiles.

I have actually met Alan Parsons several times. A great friend of mine was one of the leading experts in the world on analog synthesizers. When he worked at Moog toward the end of his life, he met Alan and they became good friends.

I actually confronted Alan on this quote while at my friend’s house, and he literally used the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on me. He said if I love music more than my gear, I am not an audiophile.

He is a great guy. And a really good musician. But he is simply wrong.

As far as using my gear to listen music, or listen to music to listen to my gear. I do both.

For the vast majority of time, I listen to music, and pay almost no attention to how my gear is performing. I am a music first audiophile.

But that doesn’t, every couple of weeks, for several hours, I can’t also have loads of fun by just paying attention to my gear, and maybe making changes to speaker placement, adjusting room treatment, changing out a piece of gear. I am temporarily a "gear first audiophile".

I don’t give a crap about Parson’s resume, he doesn’t get to lump all audiophiles into one overgeneralized group like that. That’s just a stupid and ill-informed statement IMHO.

Some audiophiles probably do that but I believe most don’t. Arrogant statement indeed.

I agree.

I believe he is describing a minority of audiophiles, not the majority.

His quote also seems a bit of a false dichotomy.

As if a music first audiophile, at times, I can also be a gear first audiophile. It’s not an either/or situation.