Why do people with good taste in music usually have crap stereo systems?

a vacation

many, many good nights out drinking with your friends

half of an engagement ring (nb this might just be me)

an entire wardrobe

etc.

I don't understand the reasoning, which is why I have a crap stereo system (it consists of my computer, Ramon's sister's ghetto blaster, and an ex's broken stereo).

I also see some of Ally's finer points, tho. I really could use a new engagement ring.

And by the way: $1000??? Are you (a) well-off or (b) fucking mad? My less-than-$300 arrangement suits me just fine and leaves the theoretical other $700 for actual music to play on it.

g

That extra $650 can probably buy you the Merzbox.

Nitsuh is on the money about why people with shit taste often have amazing systems.

g

g

I *do* admit to having a few nasty lingering audiophile habits. There's a record shop 5 minutes' walk from where I live which occasionally gets in good consignments of cheap 'cut-out' CDs from the US and Japan; most recently they seem to have scored almost every original Miles Davis and Ornette Coleman re-issue and a few from the first Impulse CD campaign - nothing over a fiver. Of course, I turn my nose up at these bargains 'cos they're not the SuperBitMapped 24/96 remasters from '97 onwards. What a tit.

Sean: $16k and you've got Linn/Naim gear? Couldn't you have got something *good* for that money? ;)

Wouldn't having a super sound listening room, w/ proper acoustics make a bigger difference in you ear? Or do you just listen through the best headphones that money can buy?

Wahey! My situation exactly. Thus the Raggettstacks, as Clarke put it.

I never turned the volume up past 1/4, and it was pretty loud at 1/10.

Marianna; actually, the "source" (CD player, turntable, etc.) is the most important aspect of your hifi, the speakers the least important. Basically it's "garbage in, garbage out". If this concept is new to you, you'll probaby not believe me, you'll need to hear it for yourself.

No, there's not much to choose between read accuracy between a $150 mass-market CD player and its high-end cousin (they may very well be sporting the same generic transport mech under the cover anyhow, and Reed-Solomon error correction provides for near-perfect reads regardless of the cost of the componentry), but how that data is translated into an analogue signal is where the money talks (to a *certain extent*). Good D/A convertors are pretty cheap now, but ultra-linear reconstruction filters aren't, they there's yr power supply regulation and design, yr clock circuitry, the analogue stage itself, yada, yada.

If I was starting from scratch, I don't think I'd spend more than $600 on a CD player.

Spoken like a true Linnie! Yep, this school of thought has certainly had its adherents over the years (it was certainly the Linn party line in the 70s and 80s), but I don't really agree.

Which component introduces the greatest degrees of distortion and colouration? Which involves the most costly manufacturing processes, and the greatest shipping overheads? It's got to be the speakers, which is why I think the law of diminishing returns takes effect much higher up the price ladder with speakers than with source components.

I know GIGO is an appealing idea, but I think it was at its most compelling when most folks' sources were turntables. Since the advent of CD, the quality gap between an affordable mid-fi source and a state-of-the-art one has shrunk somewhat.

FWIW, I've heard wonderful sounds from a cheap Pioneer running through Chord amps and Wilson Benesch speakers. Replace the Pioneer with a fancy Teac/Theta combo, and the WBs with a $400 pair of Charios and the magic promptly vanishes (along with what seems like half the signal). Total value of system remains the same though.

This is one of the oldest arguments in audio - shall we agree to disagree in advance?

But wait, Sean, we're talking about CDs, right? In which case we are talking about binary data, just like a hard drive. I know lower-end systems do the conversion and send out an analog signal, but it was always my understanding that most higher-end systems will output a digital signal for out-board conversion. Is that the argument, that an independent conversion (or really good conversion on-board high-end players) gives you better sound quality?

I totally don't get it why people w/ good taste in feet don't all have hi-end shoes. I mean, don't they realize that they would get so much more out of them? They don't know what walking is! Poor soles.

marianna: all music can benefit from better sound. It's basically just trying to get a system that can most acurately recreate what was recorded. Even with low fi music, you can hear more of the performance (maybe more thatn the artist actually intended in some cases). Also, there is lots of highly produced & well recorded stuff out there that is way better than rush, off the top of my head i am thinking spiritualized and the new sodastream record that really deserve to be heard on a good system. As for the jump from 1k to 16K, well the way this stuff works is, once you have got to a certain point, 10% improvement costs 100% more. Law of diminshing returns etc.

Probably true with digital cables, HOWEVER, if you think of a hifi from an engineering/electrical perspective, the thinner the cable the more electrical resistance. When you then think about the amount of electricity your amp is pumping out to drive the magnet on your speaker, the more current disapearing via electrical resistance, the more distortion introduced to the sound.

BUT, these differences will be small, and cable I would argue makes BY FAR the smallest difference to sound (unless your using something really crappy like telephone wire)

EQs are almost always the worst thing you can introduce into a signal path IMHO.

Also, what rooms are you people listening to stuff in? Most of us don't have the dough to buy the system AND build an appropriate room to listen in. Most rooms in most houses are theoretically terrible places to listen to music, so why waste the $$ on an extravagant system?

This is a very good point, but from my viewpoint I think we're probably talking about the differences between a midi-system and a decent set of mid-priced separates in this debate, the sort of differences which are going to be very noticible whatever the room you have your set-up in. £200 vs £1000 CD/AMP/SPEAKER combo.

'the better the sound system I think the better you will appreciate music.'

I don't quite see how one follows the other.

Sorry, that was very clumsily worded. What I mean by this, is that listening to some music on a better stereo will allow you to hear greater nuances in the sound, rather than some kind of "The bigger your stereo, the better the music fan, the bigger your dick is, kind-of argument."

My mid-range Sony receiver/amp has 4 or 5 bands of EQ (parametric, not graphic), and I use it to acceptably tune my $300 speakers within the crappy room.

I also play a lot of tunes off of my laptop on Monsoon powered speakers that I've mounted to the wall in another room, and I use Winamp's 10-band graphic eq to acceptably tune out some horrific low-mid resonance that is caused by the combination of speaker, placement, and room.

Neither of these eqs are particularly 'pro', but it's something that has helped me get decent performance out of run-of-the-mill equipment. Make no mistake - it doesn't sound as pristine as the really expensive stuff, but it's a lot better than out-of-the-box.

But we'll have to agree to disagree about the merits of calibration using the EQs contained within home amps! From my experience they are adequate for fucking up the sound (especially in a creative way) but are so limited in their selection of frequency bands that they are next to useless and any attempts of iron out one more inevitably brings in others. Much better to damp your room better and position yourself and your speakers in more suitable positions. Of course, in the real world...

Anyway, I'm turning into a bit of a bore (my fault for working for a year in an independent hi-fi separates shop) so I'll quit on this subject!

An example to be found at MusicTap - an SACD/DVD-A-phile site masquerading as music criticism.

I agree that for audiophiles - the ability to reproduce sound realistically is more important that the music (i.e. sound over music).
So you do get audiophiles who listen primarily to classical, jazz and perhaps prog...and shite at that... due to the great mastering of crappy music

However this doesnt automatically translate into "hey dont buy good equipment because you will no longer be listening to the music" - that is just carazee.

If anything, you are in a better position of listening to the MUSIC as intended by the artist.

It is sad that nowadays musicians/producers 'test' masters by seeing how they play on shitty ass boomboxes- being that is how it is going to be listened to.

Secondly, I feel that the comments arguing against at least decent audio equipment have never heard music on it.. there is a difference..

Baudrillard and anyone who says something along the lines of 'audiophiles have crappy taste in music b/c they only care about how good the sound reproduction is' is participating in a sweeping generalization. (although Baudrillard may have had something if he had talked about the fetishization of the recording studio, at least w/r/t pop/rock) When, after years of listening to music, I started to purchase better stereo components, my tastes didn't change (any more than they had for the rest of my life, and for the same reasons, too -- primarily, discovering new bands). I like Wire on headphones, on computer speakers, on a car stereo -- I like them even better when I can hear each part, even the ones mixed in low, and understand the vocals, etc. on my Vandersteens.

I was under the impression records have always been mixed/mastered using speakers that the approximate the average listener's system. And thus ads that many speaker companies put out for "studio monitors" as the ultimate in hi-fi ("what the pros use!") are laughable.

Also, fetishing the process of assembling an inexpensive hi-fi system is different than fetishing the hi-fi system.

The most popular studio monitors, Yamaha NS-10s, are godawful, the thinking being if it sounds good on NS-10s, it will sound good anywhere.

The most popular studio monitors, Yamaha NS-10s, are godawful, the thinking being if it sounds good on NS-10s, it will sound good anywhere.

Absolutely OTM - NS10s give me a headache, which is why I don't mix on them. That brings us to another quandary, being that a LOT of pro or semi-pro studio techies have crappy home sound systems - I have:

a) a Panasonic boombox
and
b) a Rio Volt MP3 CD player....

The last CD I worked on sounded great played loud on expensive speakers, but when played on a CD walkman sounded like shit. I didn't want to put out a CD that you couldn't listen to on a CD walkman.

I also have Event Powered Monitors, 20/20bas in my home studio and love them dearly. My speakers in my living room are hand-me-downs I got for free. My old housemate's father was into hi-fi n the 70s, must've been the bigger the better years, I have 2 giant round grilled wooden Ohm speakers sitting on top of giant Dahlquist subs. All in all, they look really fantastic. I don't have a crossover or anything, just send the same signal to both sets of speakers and it sounds really good, really good for free, and most importantly, it looks cool as fuck. My stereo is an old component thing, a Denon receiver I got for my Bar Mitzvah, I think, etc. And no hi-fi turntable or preamps, just 2 1200's and a rane mixer, but that's because if I had to choose between buying a DJ set-up or a hi-fi audiophile set-up, I had to go with the former.

I now have a Sony boombox and am quite happy.

That is EXACTLY my point. Plus Monster Cables are grossly overpriced. I buy ProCo directly from them--for much heavier and better wound cable stock than anything OTC.

About the "computer output"...As I started my commentary, it was intended for "low end" users wishing to "move up". The average computer listener thinks the internal headphone jack or a Sound Blaster card is fantastic. They have never heard of MOTU or Apogee.

COMMENT: (pertaining to eveness of sonic quality and having full/clear headroom) Does this actually even mean anything?

RESPONSE: Actually it means a lot. A lot of current "money saving" productions are cramming too much info through limited resolutions. (Tascam/Korg/budget ProTools workstations. Doesn't anyone notice the amount of raspy cymbals and pianos, etc.?). Example: Billy Joel's "Nylon Curtain".....the original CD release is quite a bit different than the currently remastered tracks appearing on the Columbia "Essential" collection. Quiet to loud passages have about a 4 to 8db range in output--the original CD has from 4 to 20db range between loud and soft passages. Why does this matter? When you crank it up, the original CD does not sound grossly overcompressed and flat. The instrumentation maintains their tonality as opposed to maintaining an extremely high output level, it becomes shrill. And...overly flattened productions only become more flat when bumped to an iPod, for example. A more lifeless compression.

Point being, overcompression seems like a current trend. There are a handful of obscure artists who recognize this and it has helped another trend of analog mixing. Even Phish tracks their drums and bass (some Trey guitar parts) analog because of the flatness of digital. Drums and bass are at opposite ends of the audio spectrum (with lots'o'tones in the middle) and demand some dynamic range and headroom to sound like real instruments.

My opinion? Tracking, mixing and mastering should be left to the professionals--the "do it yourself" recording community will never rise above the "homemade" sound. If you like that, that is okay too because it still means people are trying to do something new--which is always good for the music. And hey, that's what it is all about.

Alex in Manhattan's point is great (I am guessing "good music" means properly recorded): Good music sounds good on any stereo system. if you like crap music you need a good expensive stereo to make the shi**y music you listen to better than it actually is.

Yeah, every electronic musician ever to thread (except for the mastering part, usually). If your whole recording is digital, there's no reason you can't make it sound great through the whole process as long as you spend the time and have good ears.

I do remember when I bought them the conventional wisdom was that for the money, they were the best speakers you could buy but were considered just below the cut-off point of what would be considered actually usable/professional recommended studio monitors, below Genelecs or Tannoys or even the Mackies that had just come out.

I sent a buncha tracks to an American label last year and he said, 'Er, how come they're all so linear and non-dynamic and simple' and I said, 'er, the sound systems in Sydney clubs'.

All digital? What about the microphones? Not too many people can afford the Neuman digital mic--plus own the preamps and console to bring it to life. If everyone who records is an anal retentive engineer (with fully transparent recording "tools"), all things digital would be wonderful.

And to reinforce your point (the most subjective, yet most crucial)--the need for "good ears". That's why Geoff Emerick makes the big bucks!

http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/photos/649.jpg

(x-post, yep)

(unless you're talking about stereo equipment, which I still hardly know anything about)

YES this is an important point, especially nowadays. This article does a pretty good job of explaining why it's such a growing problem (despite being written by yet another Rush-loving audiophile)

this thread rules btw.

I don't think it was that simple a generalization, and not necessarily critical; just an observation.

Obviously getting a nice sound system doesn't turn you into a Dave Matthews Band fan zombie. I guess the point of the quote is that the art of sound reproduction is an artform unto itself, not necessarily invovled directly with the art of the music coming out of the speakers. So in terms of the thread's original question, there's no reason for a connection between taste and stereo systems to be there. If sound quality was a prerequisite to appreciation then why the nostalgia with record scratches and vinyl, etc...

OTOH, I remember my roommate getting "professional quality" studio monitors a few years ago and being utterly blown away by the sound quality. I had never heard the music I loved sound that good, and I was addicted to it. That said, I wasn't appreciating what "the artist intended" or anything, I was just loving how those awesome speakers sounded. What the artist intended is for you to go to their live show and pay the real bucks$$ and hear the music as it can't be reproduced- in full.

I find it hard to believe that someone who is not tone-deaf or otherwise impaired would not enjoy their favorite recordings more on a "better" system -- but not impossible. There are always exceptions, contrarianism, etc.

What the artist intended is for you to go to their live show and pay the real bucks$$ and hear the music as it can't be reproduced- in full.

What about artists who don't perform live? Also, this sorta implies that the intent of recording should be to reproduce a live experience, which *may* be true with most classical or jazz, but certainly not most rock. I can't remember who said that with rock music, the recording IS the original performance.

And in a larger sense, who knows or can know what the artist's intention is? Or care?

in New York i have an NAD amp, Technics SL-1210s, Stanton mixer.. going out to two $30 Kenwood speakers that were being used as floor displays at Circuit City

BUT, these differences will be small, and cable I would argue makes BY FAR the smallest difference to sound (unless your using something really crappy like telephone wire)

Which electrical engineering college did you go to?

God I wish Lynskey had the internet at the moment.

Ha ha, my mate loves his lo-fi and works for Linn (paperwork though, rather than anything technical). He spent £200 on a stylus and proceeded to play early Sebadoh 7"s with it. His set up wasn't Linn, but it did sound really good - crisp and clear. But then he's got a decent sized, high ceiling Glasgow flat, which adds a lot of ambience.

Ha ha, my mate loves his lo-fi and works for Linn (paperwork though, rather than anything technical). He spent £200 on a stylus and proceeded to play early Sebadoh 7"s with it. His set up wasn't Linn, but it did sound really good - crisp and clear. But then he's got a decent sized, high ceiling Glasgow flat, which adds a lot of ambience.

Myself, I've now got hundreds of CDs and vinyl and really should upgrade from crappy to decent. If I had money I'd get myself down to Richer Sounds but I don't. :(

My cabling is thick-ish, interconnects decent, TEAC cassette deck still fine, record player dubious but recently acquired & free. Nabbed myself some of these http://www.hifistore.co.uk/product.php?qsProd=AELITEONE for a third of the price, and will sort out the CD deck tomorrow (suggestions welcome).

However. The amp is this - http://www.steveshifi.co.uk/used-hifi-amplifiers-5.html (Sony STR-VX2L ) and I'll probably be sticking with it for a while, but is it a safe combination? I don't really understand wattage & Hz specifications stuff *at all* but I've blown speakers/amps before, so if anyone can see a danger here... let me know!