Music Banter - View Single Post

Guybrush · 06-13-2013, 02:22 AM

I would say don't become an audiophile

I believe that when you're already listening to high fidelity stuff, having your enjoyment of the music reduced because the sound quality could be just a tad better is basically nocebo (like placebo, only it does you harm rather than good). I've read tests and studies that check if people are able to discern which of two sources of sound have higher quality and when the quality is quite good, people are just not good at it. People who are good at it often have exceptional ears and have learned exactly what it is they should listen for, f.ex near-imperceptible compression artifacts. Either way, those who let it get in the way of their enjoyment of listening to music are making up a problem for themselves which needn't be there. The passion some audiophiles claim quality is important with reminds me of passionate believers of homeopathy. I think it's only as relevant and important as you make it.

CD is a digital medium and an analogue medium can have the potential of higher quality sound than digitals. The reason is the way the sound is recorded onto the medium. Analogue mediums can capture more of the sound information while digital mediums are by nature lossy, meaning they lose something, but this difference is generally not audible. Besides, an analogue medium like an LP needs to play on a very good sound system (or preferably good headphones) on a very good record player under very good conditions for this superiority to be apparent. After all, an LP playing has a stylus scratching the surface, picking up the sound information. That's a step where sound information will be lost and where "noise" will be introduced.

Today, music is generally recorded digitally in the studio and then pressed onto vinyl so then of course the whole superior LP quality thing is a fantasy (but LP sleeves are still awesome).

As for the loudness wars, it's really about getting the volume as high as possible on the recording (rather than during playback) by compression. Think of a classical piece which starts of very lightly and the becomes very dramatic with big changes in volume. Then think of a pop song which has a similar intensity throughout with little changes in volume. Super-compressing the classical piece and making the volume more uniform throughout would ruin a lot of the drama of the music, but the pop song might handle it just fine. That's pretty much how I think of it. Compressed music makes for a simpler listening experience because you don't have to adjust the volume as much f.ex (remains more stable), but on the other hand you lose dynamics. I am generally in favour of dynamics, but I also listen to a lot of long prog songs so I guess that's why. How much of a problem it really is definitely depends on what sort of music you're talking about.

06-13-2013, 02:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	I would say don't become an audiophile I believe that when you're already listening to high fidelity stuff, having your enjoyment of the music reduced because the sound quality could be just a tad better is basically nocebo (like placebo, only it does you harm rather than good). I've read tests and studies that check if people are able to discern which of two sources of sound have higher quality and when the quality is quite good, people are just not good at it. People who are good at it often have exceptional ears and have learned exactly what it is they should listen for, f.ex near-imperceptible compression artifacts. Either way, those who let it get in the way of their enjoyment of listening to music are making up a problem for themselves which needn't be there. The passion some audiophiles claim quality is important with reminds me of passionate believers of homeopathy. I think it's only as relevant and important as you make it. CD is a digital medium and an analogue medium can have the potential of higher quality sound than digitals. The reason is the way the sound is recorded onto the medium. Analogue mediums can capture more of the sound information while digital mediums are by nature lossy, meaning they lose something, but this difference is generally not audible. Besides, an analogue medium like an LP needs to play on a very good sound system (or preferably good headphones) on a very good record player under very good conditions for this superiority to be apparent. After all, an LP playing has a stylus scratching the surface, picking up the sound information. That's a step where sound information will be lost and where "noise" will be introduced. Today, music is generally recorded digitally in the studio and then pressed onto vinyl so then of course the whole superior LP quality thing is a fantasy (but LP sleeves are still awesome). As for the loudness wars, it's really about getting the volume as high as possible on the recording (rather than during playback) by compression. Think of a classical piece which starts of very lightly and the becomes very dramatic with big changes in volume. Then think of a pop song which has a similar intensity throughout with little changes in volume. Super-compressing the classical piece and making the volume more uniform throughout would ruin a lot of the drama of the music, but the pop song might handle it just fine. That's pretty much how I think of it. Compressed music makes for a simpler listening experience because you don't have to adjust the volume as much f.ex (remains more stable), but on the other hand you lose dynamics. I am generally in favour of dynamics, but I also listen to a lot of long prog songs so I guess that's why. How much of a problem it really is definitely depends on what sort of music you're talking about. __________________ Something Completely Different Last edited by Guybrush; 06-13-2013 at 02:32 AM.