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

Exactly! We “audiophiles” (frankly, I hate the term) need to stop getting so defensive at the suggestion that very expensive audio equipment and the obsession with all its trappings are necessary for the appreciation of the music. It is not. It sure as hell is a lot of fun to have a great sounding system and play with its setup, but whether we want to admit it or not the obsessive pursuit of highest end sound can also be a major distraction from focusing on the music and all of its nuances and riches. I believe that is all that Parsons meant with his comment. No need to get bent out of shape over it.

Years ago I performed a series of music/spoken-word concerts with a local symphony orchestra. The conductor walked me through the music on a boom box. At the time I thought it odd that a musician wouldn’t have a nice stereo, but then I realized that 1) his peripatetic lifestyle probably wouldn’t have room for such a thing and 2) why would you bother with an expensive stereo when you stood in front of 60-plus live musicians every day? ;-)

If it’s not Karajan, forget about it. This from a jazz guy!

This is the difference between an Audiophile and a music lover. Music first for me. Now I can't take most bootlegs shows that used to be at so many record shows. Anyone who refuses to listen to a concert because it's subpar quality is more in love with his rig then the music it's supposed to reproduce.

@soix  I agree. Lots of musicians know very little about quality home audio. Audiophiles comprise a very small fraction of consumers of music. Most are casual listeners. My friends think I’m nuts for spending a significant amount of money on a system. 

parsons sure did know how to produce a record though

Except Parsons knows about gear and sound way more than any audiophile. Or even whole bunch if them.

@mikhailark You have no idea what he knows about high-end home audio gear, systems, or audiophiles. You just assume because he records/plays music he knows about being an audiophile, but in practice they’re very different disciplines and ironically often worlds apart. I know a couple recording engineers and many musicians, and they mostly don’t know squat about home audio and even less about audiophiles. Parsons probably knows far, far more musicians than he does true audiophiles, and his comment is more inline with what a musician who’s clueless about home audio or audiophiles would say. IME audiophiles care much more about music than the ordinary person, so much so that we spend great sums on systems to experience it at a significantly higher level. You don’t become an audiophile unless you love and greatly appreciate music — period — which is why Parsons’ comment is overgeneralized, off base, and frankly a bit insulting.

Some of the best songs in the world are very poorly recorded. Eg: The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face by Roberta Flack. It still touches your heart and soul. So recording quality is not a must for me. I listen a lot of ordinary songs if recording is spectacular just to hear how well system presents the song. Recording quality definitely matters but if song is good it is not a deal breaker.

Unless the music has some special meaning for me l focus very heavily on music that is recorded at high-quality. One of the great things about this era is that the streaming services make an almost unlimited supply of music available at your fingertips, so there is plenty of high-quality recordings from which to choose. Alan Parsons is actually a pretty good example of how this works for me. I really enjoy Al Stewart, But in my estimation, the albums that Alan Parsons produced for him are so far superior to the others that I find myself listening only to them.

like so much of this, this is something that will certainly vary from person to person and I don’t think there is a right or wrong, just what brings you the most enjoyment

Come on guys, you might just be taking this out of context or taking it a wee bit too seriously. It could be a compliment.

His CV (not resume) permits him to say WETFHW (IMHO).

cheers!

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

Except Parsons knows about gear and sound way more than any audiophile. Or even whole bunch if them.

*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.”

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.

Great question. Over the years there have been several LPS I've listened to less and less simply because they don't sound that good. If I can't locate or a Ford a better quality pressing, that I usually will just listen to that via streaming.

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

To answer RVP’s question. No, assuming the car is bad. Otherwise nothing sounds bad to me in my system and even SXM radio is pretty good these days.

But I would not sit down to a dedicated listening session and listen to a mediocre recording.

Music is on a lot in our house, and always in the cars, so don’t think I’m missing out on anything, quite the opposite really. Very fortunate.

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.”

"Well, I guess it was good to get all those opinions off your chest.  If only they had the least bit connection to what I actually said."

I took your comment for what it appeared to be saying.  It's certainly good to have some clarification. ;-)

Yes, you have to make the best of what you have, and recognize that not all recordings are created equal.

I share frogman's POV, especially as set forth in his 2d paragraph.

FWIW I've found good recordings are nothing much more than validation of the effectiveness of the audio set up I have worked on for many years, i.e. that it fairly represents the contents of my recordings. I find that it does. Could be better or worse, who knows, but it meets my needs. Done! Onto the music. :-)

There are good to bad recordings, nothing we can do.

Therefore, I choose to avoid the half glass empty- expecting/hoping for high sonics and when unsatisfactory leads to disappointment. Instead, I strive to appreciate when I find great recorded music, grateful when I find it like a successful treasure hunt. Also, there seems to be a lot of current classical recordings being released in high quality sonics- another point for being gratified.

As an old rock and roll boomer I mostly enjoy the music even though there are some so so recordings. There are some exceptions of CD's recorded so badly that they are unlistenable. I have a CD of the Who's Who's Next which I love the songs on that is so poor that I cringe if I try to listen to it. I have no idea how they screwed it up so badly. Some of the Dead's soundboard releases also grate on me even though I love the Dead's music because I have better recordings of the same tunes.

Of course what is best is well recorded and well played music. 

Jim S.

@dogearedaudio:

As a classical music lover, I too would take issue with the notion that it's "just the same music played over and over by different ensembles." 

I meant they all play the Classical repertoire.  I did not mean to imply all performances were equal.

Cheers

Well, I guess it was good to get all those opinions off your chest.  If only they had the least bit connection to what I actually said.

1. It's the same music.  All written down on paper.   Everyone plays the repertoire.

2. Don't presume what I meant.  I said what I meant.  A better 'recording' is always avaiulable.  Did not mention performance.

3. Beethoven would have made  a poor conductor.  The man was deaf.  With due respect to Mr. Schoenberg.  But all of the major ones made it to the modern age of recording tech.

One man's opinion:  This 'performance' thing in classical music has become a sort of snob thing.  Good and bad performances are like night and day.  Obvious to everyone.

Just to get on the same ground.  EVERYONE owns Beethoven's 9th.  Which is your favorite.  Mine are,  / Böhm Vienna(the slow one), Karajan-77, Gardiner(the fast one).  Yours?

Thanks for the response.

Cheers

@frogman

You got me! How could you not?
I’ve been conflicted for years on the subject.
What I’ve found is that listening for sound only (as I’ve often done) is a dead end. It can go just so far in fulfillment.
I continue to write these observations for my own edification, but also to provoke thought, so that others who are also conflicted may question their actual beliefs and come to some helpful conclusions to enhance their listening habits.

@rok2id 

As a classical music lover, I too would take issue with the notion that it's "just the same music played over and over by different ensembles."  This is no more true of classical music than it is of any other genre.  It's rather like saying, "I've heard Jazz at the Pawnshop so who needs Louis Armstrong or Johnny Hodges?"  While it's certainly true that there are many fine classical performances available in excellent sound, as you point out, it's also true that some soloists, conductors and orchestras bring qualities to the music that others don't.  Zoltan Kocsis' Rachmaninov 3rd is very nice.  Horowitz and Ormandy playing the same music are positively electric and unforgettable.  Both are in nice sound, but it would be a grave mistake to put both performances in the same category on that basis alone.

rok2id: "Please take the statements I made one by one and point out the ignorance of each." Funny; I was originally going to do just that.

1. "Classical is unique in that it’s the same music played over and over by different ensembles." The same score (usually), but not the same music. If this were true, there would surely be no point in listening to more than one performance of a given piece, nor would it make sense to have preferences for certain performances, nor to have preferences for certain performers. To suppose what you wrote is like saying that all beers are just the same beer over and over again, or that there can only be one interpretation of "Hamlet," or... etc.

2. "You should not have to put up with bad recordings because there is always a better one available." Again, begs the same question by presuming that all performances are just "the same music being played over and over by different ensembles," and that therefore only the sound quality distinguishes one recording from another. The interpretive differences between different pianists, or cellists, or conductors is, musically speaking, far more significant than the differences in sound quality between primitive and SOTA recordings.

3. "Fortunately, the recording technology seems to have peaked at the same time as the great conductors and orchestras." jfrmusic addresses this above with his remark about early Decca stereo recordings. There are SACD re-issues of orchestral recordings from the early 1950s that sound as good as well-made recordings from last year. And when, please, did "the great conductors and orchestras" "peak"? Read Harold Schoenberg’s book "The Great Conductors." I wish we had good recordings of Mahler conducting premieres of his own symphonies—or of Beethoven conducting his!

As has been pointed out, this topic has been beaten to death many times and not just on this forum. On this forum, the OP has asked what is essentially the same question many times over the years; in a variety of different ways and approached from different angles. Not to personalize things, but he seems conflicted in the matter and I hope he finds resolution at some point as this seems to get in the way of his enjoyment.

Personally, I make absolutely zero judgement of hobbyists who value sound quality more than the music, or that are kept from enjoyment of a great performance because the recorded sound is not up to (their) par. To each their own! Doesn’t bother me one wit and God knows, I Iike my ear candy as much as anyone. However, FOR ME, the idea that the pursuit of great (subjective) sound quality as the end-all is worthy of anywhere near the level of concern or attention as does the appreciation of the vast artistic riches found in a great performance of great music strikes me as odd. FOR ME and others audio is a hobby while music is much more than that.

So, those who don’t share this view should simply be confident in their approach to this hobby and instead of feeling defensive allow others their point of view and passion for the music as the end-all.  I would suggest that the two approaches can live side by side and that the key is to find the right balance of the two.

@snilf 

Please take the statements I made one by one and point out the ignorance of each.

"But then, there's this (from rok2kid above): "Classical is unique in that it's the same music played over and over by different ensembles.  You should not have to put up with bad recordings because there is always a better one available.  Fortunately, the recording technology seems to have peaked at the same time as the great conductors and orchestras." This is just ignorant. All three of those sentences show a failure to understand anything about so-called "classical" music."

Thanks

I’m a big fan of historical recordings, both jazz and classical, so sound quality has always been a secondary consideration for me. That said, even I have my limits, which stop somewhere well short of Edison cylinders. ;-) But my musical life would be considerably poorer if I’d never heard Furtwangler’s 1949 Brahms 4th from Wiesbaden, or Walter Gieseking and Guido Cantelli in one of the greatest Mozart concerto performances I’ve ever heard. Ditto with some marvelous Charlie Parker broadcasts, Lester Young, Artie Shaw, etc. I’d certainly rather listen to a tinny Stan Hasselgard aircheck than the clumsy playing on "Jazz at the Pawnshop". I suppose a lot depends on your musical tastes, and I don’t necessarily blame people who have a low tolerance for poor recordings. And I suppose that, in some respects, my system choices are somewhat geared toward making historical recordings sound tolerable. For me the performance comes first. Good sound is a bonus, and can be enjoyable in its own right.

It’s interesting to note who values the music and who values their system more.

Agreed! What’s more interesting to me is that the ones who value music more tend to make generalizing statements such as, "It’s all about the music" as if this was one of the 10 Commandments rather than personal preference. So many people call this hobby "subjective" and then make universal, objective claims about its overall purpose. Kinda wild.

It is the rhetorical force of those objective claims that makes people feel guilty or shy to admit that the sound quality matters to them, and maybe more than the music. There's a worry that someone will come back with a playground taunt in the form of, "Oh, so you don't even care about the music? That's sad."

It’s interesting to note that some value the music and some value their system more.

Post results, much like a cable post. Will you or won’t you listen, can you or can’t you hear…lol

Cheers 

No. It's about the music, not the recording. 

For you. Not for everyone. 

No. It's about the music, not the recording. If it wasn't about the music most people would never go to a concert unless they were able to find the best seat for sound quality and were able to get it each time. 

For me recorded quality is paramount. I can't listen to poor recordings regardless of the performance especially now that I have a very resolving system. And yes Classical recordings are extremely variable in quality. Even with current methods and HIGH RESOLUTION  recordings. There are some HiRes recordings that can't compete with older CD quality issues. I've even heard Hires issues that were inferior to their standard CD quality issues. Recording large orchestral works is dependent on the miking arrangement and the location. I really don't like close miked Classical. I need to hear the ambience of the hall. Recording Classical is both a science and and art. If you are interested in Opera listen to some of the Decca early Stereo recordings. They surpass most modern Opera recordings. Perfectly miked in a wonderful acoustic.

This post provokes answers to one of the perennial questions on this forum, implied by a snide remark attributed to Alan Parsons: "Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment."

Sometimes, I listen to the equipment. Then the recording quality takes precedence, since it is the most important determinant of the listening pleasure.

Other times, I listen to the music. I still love the Furtwängler performance of Brahms's first symphony best, for instance (monaural and not much above AM radio sound quality). 

But then, there's this (from rok2kid above): "Classical is unique in that it's the same music played over and over by different ensembles.  You should not have to put up with bad recordings because there is always a better one available.  Fortunately, the recording technology seems to have peaked at the same time as the great conductors and orchestras." This is just ignorant. All three of those sentences show a failure to understand anything about so-called "classical" music.

Being music driven, could listen to my favorite tunes on a transitor radio (almost). 

A good composition well performed is far more important than the recording quality, IMO. 

This thread gives me some insight as to why some people are always "upgrading" and why they have such strong sonic preferences.  I wish them luck.

I have plenty of Classical recordings that I listen to that sound less than immaculate.  I subscribe to Pristine Audio streaming service and most of their catalog is the pre stereo era

Yup has to sound good or it will grate on me enough to the point where I will get rid of it. 

I crossed that divide a long time ago. It's the music, not the static.

For 6 years, I tape traded with a couple guys in the UK. 

Mostly demo tapes, NWOBHM stuff, and port radio garage recordings

napalm death

tank

samson

venom

mercyful fate

Spartan warrior

crossfire

satan jokers

lots stuff still boxed in basement, 

sound wuality is important,  sometimes it’s overlooked for the vocal and musical energy of live and garage recordings. 

With literally millions of songs to access, I would find it mind boggling why I would listen to poorly recorded music. If your tastes are limited, I could see it. Not an issue for me.

Like almost everything, it depends. If it's background or on the go music, then I'm not so critical. If it's a set down and listen, then yes it has to sound very good, or I feel I'm basically wasting my time. 

Yes and no. For example, the recordings of Robert Johnson or Feruccio Busoni are not easy to listen to.  But for seminal recordings like those, or bootlegs of of extraordinary performances (e.g., Hendrix, SRV, Parker) or rare, or even unique recordings, sometimes there’s no other choice.  

then there’s the problem of live performances vs studio.    

Charlie Parker can be rough to listen to on many poorly recorded outings. But he is so phenomenal you can't avoid appreciating and enjoying his playing even on the worst recorded records. 

My latest favorite rockers, Band-Maid (from Japan) have several mediocre recordings on CD of otherwise great material. Their excellent youtube videos make up for this however, so it's not a total loss. If you haven't listened to them already  pull up their songs "Hate?" and  "Play"  on youtube. You won't be disappointed. After a month of stumbling across Band-Maid, I'm starting to think they're the best rock band to come around since the Stones. High praise indeed. Don't miss out.

Mike

Here is a good low cost example one of the guys put on the forum last night that works . See link way below.

Myself interpret a very good performance is not only the composition but 

for sure the sound quality. If it is lifeless and or bright ,I consider this a failure 

and avoid , Thst being said if you stream and are willing to spend sa6 $5 k 

You can  make even less then average recordings sound very respectable with the correct Ethernet cables ,highquality hub ,for sure a decent LPS at the router 

and at least a $4-6k dac to truly make a significant difference ,

if not then you can buy decent digital filters that plug into the streamer from the hub 

to improve the sound  ,since digital is not grounded and Carrie’s noise house to house you absolutely have to start at square one of the weak links in the chain 

for sure Never have a old separate router modem for starters .

I had and call your cable company a all in one ,I bought a Motorola 2802 I think the # is around #$230 it has a docsis 3.1 , much faster processor and buffer ,even your tv picture will improve . It’s use a decent after market  Ethernet cable , at least $400

and your best at your end point Sablon from the U.K excellent for the $$.then go to Linesr tube audio great LPS power supply to your router , and comes with a great Dc cable , buy a low cost $200 Pangea sig mk2  awg14 power cord for the router.

LHY SW-8 Ethernet hub excellent value for $600 buy the same Pangea power cord ,then there are several Ethernet filters , this is a economical setup ,a major upgrade at least a $3500 Ethernet hub to complement everything else mentioned 

only then wil you hear a much more musical analog streaming playback .and your dac needs to be respectable as well as streamer . Just like a good turntable 

your talking at least $12-$15 k to get a nice setup .it takes time but essential to remove every weak link in the audio chain.

Does it have to taste good for you to eat it?

Not a fair analogy because you have to eat.

But sometimes I really need to listen to music.

So sound doesn't always matter.

There are two quite clearly divided camps here.

Besides, that's when true audiophile rig shows real class - when it achieves an impossible task of making poor recordings sound tolerable.