Dynamic is Preferred over Electrostatic

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
You make the point. Instead of listening to music you really like you spend your time looking for well recorded music that is similar to you what you like. Maybe you get lucky and find something that hit both, certainly I have, but ultimately you end up with a lot of music you really used to enjoy but now find intolerable to listen to as you graduated from a Best Buys special to a state of the art system.

It's true that I don't listen to some of my CDs nearly as much now that I can tell how bad certain ones are. Sometimes there are great and poor CDs from the same band. For example, Danzig II sounds great, while Danzig I and Danzig III are both meh. Live Mental Jewelry is fantastic while Throwing Copper isn't particularly good quality.

However, the magic of music is fragile whether you're and audiophile or not.

I love Dutoit's take on Danse Macabre on Decca. Kunzel did Danse Macabre in (slightly) better quality on Telarc, but with the tempos he chose, the magic is gone for me. Classical music fans will search through dozens of recordings of the same piece to find the one that moves them the most, due to the particular take of the conductor and capability of the musicians. For me, sound quality is another important dimension to that search. However, my search is still quite similar to that of other people.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
For me there are more than two pleasures. Whilst audiophilia is often considered a solo activity I get most pleasure listening with my wife. Music at a tribal level is a shared experience after all.

My listening is a very much a solo experience, but I have the time and space to do it which is good. My room actually isn't that friendly for anything but solo listening. I do enjoy listening with friends, my wife I think mostly tolerates what I listen to. She has commented that my stereo has made her wretchedly aware of the flaws of most sound systems she encounters on a day to day basis.

On the music thing I've really tried to design a system that will play anything reasonably well. I have moderately wide range of tastes and recordings that run the gamut quality wise.
 
Ben, I couldn't disagree more.

Would you disagree less if instead of "even the most over-cooked unnatural pop music, even rock music with intentional distortion added, can sound better on cleaner systems"..... I had posted,

"excepting the products of really cynical record producers who aim for the car audio listener, the sound may not be clean on a great audio system, but it will be closer to what the studio intended even with their intentional distortions of all sorts"

B.
 
"excepting the products of really cynical record producers who aim for the car audio listener, the sound may not be clean on a great audio system, but it will be closer to what the studio intended even with their intentional distortions of all sorts"
I can't speak for them Ben, I can only tell you my experience is that if the recording is bad, it sounds worse on a good system, and that a really good recording can make a bad system palatable.
 
I vividly remember a friend asking me in 1975 when I had my first good rig - "will the Yardbirds sound better on my rig (little portable thing) or yours?" I said - yours. Because I had already hear "Shapes of Things" and said to myself - nope, that won't do.


My wife has heard my former $30k+ rig and fancy headphones, and she's happy with her 1st gen apple, and a meh car stereo and professes to hear no difference. I think she does, but she doesn't give a fig.


I can listen to concerts in poor audio settings, listen to Jimi on my Advent radio, no problem.


But when I plug in to THE stereo - it's got to sound great or at least great given its limitations. If it doesn't it gets consigned to the great discogs list in the sky.


Snob? Yes



Only enjoy certain recordings? Yes



Experience awe, wonder, and a whole very wide set of feelings and thoughts? Yes


I'll drink Oban, Macallan, Zyme Amarone, and whatever suits me. I'm an old man, and I get to make my own rules - recordings have to be good if I'm going to commit my time.
 
It gets us nowhere to bloviate about vague "good" and "bad". I often listen to "bad" old recordings of noteworthy but dead conductors, some of whom may have known the composer or premiered the piece. Or others may listen to genuine recordings of the Beatles or Elvis.

Some aspects will always be better on a fine system, such as S/N and minimal crap will be added like distortion or ringing in the bass or elsewhere. Good systems have the least character of their own to add to the recording.

Other aspects like tone colour may actually fit better with OEM car systems where fat upper bass EQ on a recording sounds just right. Ditto for pre-RIAA phono equalization (yes, I had LPs from that era). Discerning listeners will know that all pop recordings are over-cooked and female singers all but lisp as the recording engineer strives to make breathy sexy sound. Not saying that isn't welcome pop music and just what listeners want; but it certainly isn't "good" to the original in a music club.

Whatever was captured in 1953 recordings of Furtwangler doing Beethoven sounds better as my systems get better.... esp with electrostats.

B.
 
Last edited:
It gets us nowhere to bloviate about vague "good" and "bad". I often listen to "bad" old recordings of noteworthy but dead conductors, some of whom may have known the composer or premiered the piece. Or others may listen to genuine recordings of the Beatles or Elvis.

Some aspects will always be better on a fine system, such as S/N and minimal crap will be added like distortion or ringing in the bass or elsewhere. Good systems have the least character of their own to add to the recording.

Other aspects like tone colour may actually fit better with OEM car systems where fat upper bass EQ on a recording sounds just right. Ditto for pre-RIAA phono equalization (yes, I had LPs from that era). Discerning listeners will know that all pop recordings are over-cooked and female singers all but lisp as the recording engineer strives to make breathy sexy sound. Not saying that isn't welcome pop music and just what listeners want; but it certainly isn't "good" to the original in a music club.

Whatever was captured in 1953 recordings of Furtwangler doing Beethoven sounds better as my systems get better.... esp with electrostats.

B.


Obviously "bad" is a subjective term that applies to a general reaction to some recordings on my system(s) at various times. It's certainly a valid term to initiate conversations - whereas "bloviate" tends not to be a term that invites interaction.



I could certainly use far more descriptive language that syncs technical realities of my systems with subjective impressions.



The point of the thread seems to be "audiophiles" altering choices in listening using how pleasing or not pleasing recordings are to that listener as a gating factor.
 
..whereas "bloviate" tends not to be a term that invites interaction..
You complain about one word but overlook that I provided four paragraphs of audio substance for others to consider. Can you try to achieve as good a ratio in your next reply and we can move this thread forward.

Actually, it's interesting: we usually talk about what speakers play good recordings well... so perhaps enlightening to think about consequences of playing bad recordings on good systems. But only if commenters are clear on what parameter is good or bad they are talking about.

B.
 
May as well get my $.02 in.... Personally, a truly great playback system leaves the impression you are hearing all there is to hear, the great, good, questionable and the ugly. And I find many poor recordings contain interesting and positive aspects not found elsewhere. It comes down to how much resolution can you afford and or tolerate. Oh yeah, there is always the music there to enjoy if you choose to.https://files.diyaudio.com/forums/images/smilies/nod.gif
 
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Hi,
My 2 cents too...
What matter the most to me is the message within the music.
If the playback system is neutral in rendering it should display the flaws which exist in every recording ( as this is art there is choices made and these are questionable, always. Even more when they imply technical choice and related issues too).

Does that make the music unlistenable? If the message is poor or uninteresting maybe yes.

If there is a message and you skip the track... you have loose objectivity about all that and you are listening to gear rather than music in my view.

Maybe it is time to change hobby, or an overall better way to spend money.
 
I don't listen critically to every instant of every recording. In music as in life one can find fault with many things. If you have as good a playback system as you can afford, and then find fault and dwell on those it will debase your enjoyment of the proceedings unless you find interest only in critique. That is not to say that you should suspend critical listening always - just that it can't be the North Star unless you want to be in upgrade mode all the time.



In my 46 years focused on music played back I've encountered lots of visions of what is proper playback. Tubes vs SS, analog vs digital, MM vs MC, panels vs dynamic.


My summit stereo was: Verity Parsifals, Pass P, Pass X-150, Pass Ono, Koetsu Rosewood Sig, Clearaudio TQ-1 linear track, VPI Mk IV, O2 free cables (no mega buck stuff); Very revealing and very pleasing. Only thing I avoided was vinyls with skips, pops, etc, to spare the cartridge. Easily lose yourself in that rig. That got broken up in '06.


Came back recently with a headphone based sys. Hifiman HE-500 w/ fuzzor mod, MrSpeakers Ether C angled pad; Schiit Ragnarok running XLR, Schitt Gungnir (also XLR, got me off of vinyl for good), Sony 555ES player. Different then the old sys, but, enough fidelity and lack of unpleasantness.


I tried a lot of headphones (critically):


Audeze LCD-2 '14 - very inaccurate voicing (downslope treble, upper mids reticent, too much bass)

HFM 560 (brutal treble spike)
Senn 650 (dark/thick in mid bass-> low mids, reticent treble)
Senn HD-600 (great voicing, lacks bass kick, definition first sound, but def well short of the HE-500).

Fostex FH500 (treble lacking def, bass lacking w/o mods)
MD X00 (grainy treble, vague soundstage, too much bass).


The HE-500 was the best affordable can i found ($340 used w/ the fuzzor mod). The Ether pads give a sound that is flat re frequency response, seems to focus details better, and still retains the lively pacing these are known for.



This winter more cans in a higher price range will get checked over. The first was the HFM HEX V2 which sounds like a Senn 800 done by a planar, very good. I don't like the Senn 800 - great soundstage, but definition over everything, gestalt of the music seems lacking. I don't count the Audeze LCD w/ fuzzor '14 model which does not sound anything like music.


I can't imagine not listening both for pleasure and accuracy - at different times.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.