Hacker News Reader

Comment by PaulDavisThe1st | Hacker News Reader

The thing that I find most amusing (and also distressing) about audiophiles is that they rarely seem aware of the conditions or equipment used during the creation of the recordings they work so hard to perfect the playback of.

The system described in TFA costs substantially more than the gear used to record, mix and master probably at least half of the record collection. There are studios with insanely "high end" playback systems, but they are not common - the gear in most recording studios is very good, but any audiophile would find faults with it (whether they exist or not, heh).

And then there's Ye Olde RIAA equalization curve for vinyl, which is a complete abomination if you're going to view things through the lens "I want to hear exactly what was recorded" - you just never can, because the curve was applied when the vinyl master was created.

View on HN

Record producer here. I can confirm that while audio fidelity is an important consideration to us, the gear we use ranges from insanely pricey to utter trash and both are equally valued. Everything is fair game. More often than not the gear that is compelling was specifically designed to impart sonic color and vibe. To distort the audio in a way that is pleasing. A ruler-flat frequency response is rarely what's called for. Most music is far more colored than people realize. Even the recordings that sound "natural".

Fidelity often comes second to simply sounding cool. Sources recorded on $6k microphones will often get overloaded, distorted, and then re-amped through a tin can because the sound is compelling. If it sounds good it is good.

In my experience the place that fidelity is most important is in the monitoring. An accurate listening environment is critical to ensure that the choices we're making will translate to listeners at home. If our listening environment is flawed we will have to fight much harder to realize our intentions.

What are your thoughts on using studio monitors for home listening? It seems like you'd want the playback at home to impart the least color possible, so that it does match what the recording engineer wanted it to be.

I'm all for it. I own several pairs of studio monitors and use them around my home for casual listening, but I don't know that I'd recommend a non-audio professional purchase a pair as a replacement for a home stereo, if that's your question. There's no problem with it, but it's probably more expensive than you'd need to spend.

Try it. I personally prefer a bit of "warmth".

It's easier to add warmth to neutral speakers than it is to correct them back.

> In my experience the place that fidelity is most important is in the monitoring.

Some high-end headphones are marketed as "studio" headphones. Meaning for professionals such as you when doing the monitoring at the recording studio, and not for the consumer at home.

I never managed to understand why what's good for the pro is not good for the consumer. Might you be able to help explain?

V curve https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/2ilust/i_person...

Playing audio on a $1mill system, recorded with $100 Shure SM58's (or 57's)!

yes! there are two tracks i love to play at the speaker store / audiophile's house:

Korn's "Freak on a Leash", to test the low end

Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song", to watch the implementer's reaction to source hiss

imo "Stairway to Heaven" is one of the dirtiest recordings of all time w.r.t. airtime; maybe that 'noise' is what actually made it so successful...?

Billie Eilish's No Time To Die revealed a whole bunch of issues with my theater room rattling :)

I figure as long as I haven't sorted those out, the Monoprice Monolith speakers I'm using are totally fine

Yeah, some of Billie's tracks are eye(ear?)-opening.

I like so use Aja by Steely Dan, the album is just so precise and delicate

> yes! there are two tracks i love to play at the speaker store / audiophile's house

A normal person uses their sound system to listen to music. An audiophile uses music to listen to their sound system.

It makes sense to listen to the sound system when making a buying decision though!

Dazed and Confused has the bass playing a descending scale, 8 notes. If you turn off the mains, it's useful to tell how well the subwoofer works.

For vocals -- Paul Simon's Graceland or Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions.

I worked at the hi fi shop in the late 70s. Aja was the best sounding demo record. The Cars record sound like trash. We had speakers with 5 plus drivers. Playing a Beatles record, McCartney’s voice was emanating from a single driver. It was not great imagining Paul inhabiting the speaker cabinet.

Going to a further degree, one would hope that they are testing to make sure the recordings sound good on middle ground equipment.

What good is a record that requires a $50k system to enjoy?

As they say, and audiophile is someone who spends more on his stereo system than his records. For a music lover, it's the opposite.

And if you're talking about any popular music mastered (or "remastered") in the last 20 years, you're utterly wasting your time because it has been crushed into a wall of grating noise with dynamic compression.

I’m nowhere near audiophile level but I’m slowly upgrading my stuff

one thing I learned is to appreciate a lot of new music by how good it was mastered.

I mean yes, there’s a lot of good but badly recorded music, you don’t upgrade for those.

the album Folk Singer by Muddy Waters was an ear opener for me. (1964!)

I had always thought Clapton Unplugged was really nicely mastered and then after I heard Folk Singer, I realized they were trying to replicate it almost in its entirety.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com