How important is sound quality?

Sound quality is fairly significant in my listening, I suppose, though so much of what I listen to is studio confection with no live 'reference', so 'fidelity' has a slightly different meaning here to the one familiar to most audiophiles (i.e. "does it sound 'real'?" What, Ilpo Vaisanen? Not really, no.)

If there's a problem with any recordings, it's not the 'low-fi' kind where people have made the best of what they've got to work with, it's the super-slick kind where the mastering engineers have used every trick in the book to make the mix as 'hot' or as 'bright' as possible (I understand this is typically a result of record company pressure wrt mainstream/alt rock and radio-friendliness), thereby squashing all the dynamics from the music and scooping out the midrange. Great in the car, I imagine.

I don't get anymore pleasure from music now that I have a fancy separates system (Copland/Michell/Audiolab/Heybrook) than I did from my 1978 Crown music-centre - but I do know I couldn't go back...

These two seem to be the factors that matter to Reynolds. Not information per se, but rather foregrounding of information, and production of physical effects when sounds actually resonate through your body. On the other hand, I can find that I can enjoy listening to trance on small-scale speakers -- however when I imagine actually dancing to it, the music then seems absurd. But you can hear within it the grandeur it tries to achieve, and which huge amounts of volume can substitute for.

creative lo-fi sound engineering is a greatness.

I've also never understood mixing albums on "reference speakers". Why would anyone mix on something that nobody listens to the music on? Like Yamaha NS10s. Talk about ear fatigue! I know the technical answer to that question, but I'm still not convinced that doing things "technically correct" will make an album sound good.

Anyway, I'd just like to insert a plug here for Grado headphones. If you listen to music on headphones and they are not Grados, you probablly either paid too much for decent sound, or they don't sound very good and you're missing a lot of music and hurting your ears to boot. You would be amazed at how good the SR60s sound for $70. The best piece of Hi-Fi gear I own, hands down. I ordered mine online from the Listening Station (http://listeningstation.safeshopper.com/index.htm?88) if you're interested. I cannot recommend these highly enough.

Typically high-end gear isn't really tweakable in that way - no tone controls on reference pre-amps and so forth. You're stuck with what you've got - a (hopefully) transparent rendering of the master tape plus the characteristics of your own speakers/room acoustic. I'm all for catering for the majority of the intended audience, but some of the folks on the pro-audio NGs seem to be concerned that the trend for 'hot' mastering has really got out of hand; the second Oasis LP and the most recent Red Hot Chili Peppers album are frequently cited as examples of mainstream records that are practically intolerable on a revealing hi-fi (I can't claim first-hand experience here; I suspect I'd find the latter unlistenable for reasons other than sound quality).

"I've also never understood mixing albums on "reference speakers". Why would anyone mix on something that nobody listens to the music on?"

Because no two models of domestic speaker sound alike? Also, if something's fine and dandy on some 'fatiguing' over-analytical studio monitor, it should be positively ear-caressing on a more restrained home system, yes? Mix something to sound balanced on (say) Castles and it might sound glassy and brash on ProAcs. (Not that all 'reference' monitors are alike, of course...).

"If you listen to music on headphones and they are not Grados, you probablly either paid too much for decent sound, or they don't sound very good and you're missing a lot of music and hurting your ears to boot."

Um, can I just say 'other headphones are available'? I own Grados too, but I've heard wonderful results from Sennheiser, Stax, etc.

However, I don't think I have had the shivers tingle with greater intensity than when I used to listen to New Order on my 40 pounds Sony Walkman.

Much like watching a movie a few months or years later will make you see it in a new way, listening to a favorite recording on a variety of gear both low and hi-fi will yield a different experience. Don't assume the best looking girl in the class is the best lay, often the average looking girl will rock your world a whole lot better.

Love, Jeff

i often meet annoying people who whine about how unbearable 128kbps mp3 files are and how they won't listen to anything below 192kbps (but, oh, really they prefer 320kbps). i feel like sodomizing them with rusty tire irons till they... well, change their opinion to basically reflect mine. (j/k lolz!)

You won't hear me whine about it, but I can detect 128kbps MP3s easily and their limitations bug me. But if it's the only source for that obscure b-side, so be it. I rip my own whenever possible to 192 VBR. I've been to too many shows to hear a difference beyond that.

Hmmm.

Oh look, there's me going on about squashing dynamic range six years ago.

it was called "hot mastering" then - hot!

It still is! Jonesy, you should've brought it to the attention of the masses earlier. You'd have saved me so much work.

nowadays you don't hear the "scooping out the midrange" as much though

I still like AM, but it doesn't offer the same level of programming that it did even a few years ago. At the same time, hearing great music on a fabulous stereo system leaves everything else in the dust. And don't forget to get enough juice to wake the neighbors.

From the NY Times "Year in Ideas" feature:

In February, a music professor at Stanford, Jonathan Berger, revealed that he has found evidence that younger listeners have come to prefer lo-fi versions of rock songs to hi-fi ones. For six years, Berger played different versions of the same rock songs to his students and asked them to say which ones they liked best. Each year, more students said that they liked what they heard from MP3s better than what came from CDs. To a new generation of iPod listeners, rock music is supposed to sound lo-fi. Good enough is now better than great.

http://www.nytimes.com/projects/magazine/ideas/2009/#g-2

This doesn't surprise me at all. A lot of rock does sound better on a reasonably high bit-rate MP3 than on CD.

man this bums me out

Wonder what vinyl purists will make of this?

Well, preferring vinyl over CDs is basically another case of preferring lo-fi. While I do think vinyl often sounds better than either CDs or MP3s, part of the reason it sounds better is the same reason MP3s sound better than CDs, ie., roll-off at higher-frequencies muffles harsh trebley artifacts like cymbal-crashes, feedback, etc. that distract the ear.

I suspect vinyl sounds better because more care was taken to produce a flattering sound from vinyl at their peak than for their CD counterparts made at the same time. I do notice that newer vinyl sounds about as bad or worse than their CD versions, but haven't noticed newer CDs in general sounding much better or worse than older ones except for reissues.

The kids have been clueless for 25 years anyway. And the more clueless they get.
If they get used to it, they will prefer hi-fi over lo-fi though.

And, well, of course, most of today's hipper music doesn't really pay much attention to dynamics anyway. But I would suspect those who get into Porcupine Tree, Opeth, Mars Volta, Dream Theater or similar increasingly popular proggish acts would prefer a hi-fi sound. Because they play a genre of music where dynamic variation is indeed important.

What little Mars Volta I've heard was NOT hi-fi.

http://compstore.gmu.edu/products/skullcandy/images/scLogo.jpg

Or alternatively ipod headphones (+ overpowering subway/traffic/etc. noise). Most people I see listening to ipods or whathaveyou are doing it in conditions where, unless you're using noise canceling headphones or listening at ear-splitting levels (in which case you're not going to be able to tell the difference between hi-fi and laptop speakers by the time you're 30), any music is just ruined. Shit, I'll take mp3's in a quiet room over a pair of $1000 Grado's on a busy street.

and it didn't occur to me that people who listen to dream theatre or the mars volta had an indication of music quality in the first place (interesting sub-thread topic: the correlation between audiophilic pedantry and music taste).

Yeah, interesting study and not too surprising.

On the subject of sound quality (and becuase I don't know where else to put this)

Recently my left speaker has evidenced distortion at certain frequencies (usually strong mid tones) when I play records. It's not the turntables, needles, or speakers (although the left speaker has given me similar but unrelated problems in the past), which leads me to believe it's my mixer. What can I do (without buying a new mixer).

check the speaker cable?

I did try a different cable, I don't know how reliable it was given it didn't look to be in great shape, it'd be fantastic if that was the issue, since I can't just up and buy a new mixer because one side is distorted, but it's not like it's not really annoying as is, either. I suppose I'll try a new cable (I do tend to pull out/put in the cables very often, I don't know about that though). Should I try cleaning out the inside of the mixer? Take it somewhere to be checked?

Then again, according the Allen and Heath Xone:32 manual I shouldn't be using RCA cables for my outputs anyhow (I seem to recall when I used the proper 1/4 inch cable hook up the filter and crossfader didn't work, though. Sigh, I guess I'll spending $10+ on cables to find they don't work.

Sorry to derail this thread, I'll remove myself promptly.

how old is your mixer? if it's from the 70s, it's possible the caps on the board have decayed/are about to explode

would also go over the speaker contacts on everything with some sandpaper to remove oxidization etc.

nah it's I got it second hand but it can't be more than 7 or 8 year and was in fine condition when I received it.

lol geir constantly confusing "things i like" with "hi fi"

And, well, of course, most of today's hipper music doesn't really pay much attention to dynamics anyway. But I would suspect those who get into Porcupine Tree, Opeth, Mars Volta, Dream Theater or similar increasingly popular proggish acts would prefer a hi-fi sound. Because they play a genre of music where dynamic variation is indeed important.

― Tied Up In Geir (Geir Hongro), Friday, December 11, 2009 7:23 PM

geir? tell me about today's hipper music again *curls up in lap*

I think songs that arent totally amazing get hurt more by sound quality. With more information you will likely be lire inclined to persevere with it than disregard it so quickly. I've actually started burning CDs from flac files to listen to stuff I like rather than go to spotify, though that's also as spotify makes me impatient and want to skip.

*less inclined

Totally agree, especially when you have a system that resolves well. Like watching old VHS tapes on a 4k TV.

Argh, I meant with less info you will be less inclined to preservere with it as it sounds crap. Was listening to a beck b side on YouTube and thought it was shit then found my CD of it and thought its actually pretty good, if not amazing. The song itself wasnt great, but everything else about it was. Streaming is only good for songs that can push through shit quality, but bad for sonic details. No wonder so many modern records are nothing special in the production department.

I’ve done trials of most the “HD/HiFi” streaming services—because audio quality is important to me, and YouTube Music (my paid default) does not sound great. Some of them sound really good. Especially 4m4z0n Music (I know...) and its “Ultra HD” songs in particular. They sound so good, fam.

I've been happy with Qobuz for hi def streaming

> I think songs that arent totally amazing get hurt more by sound quality

I'm not so sure what equipment reviews are on about in this regard, but thousands of dollars for something "very revealing" of "flaws" in a recording is a humongous nope. Some decent clean, neutral gear and call it a day.

Getting mixing/mastering mixed up with resolution here but whatever. There is something to that but hi res does my ears no good.