A no-taking-sides, no judgment classification of the 4 types of Audiophile. "The audiophile bestiary".

[MattHooper]

I don't believe all audiophiles are music lovers. I don't think all people who have sound systems are music lovers. I think they want to fill the house with something just like they fill all the space in their closets. I especially don't think that people with home theaters are necessarily music lovers. I would go even further and suggest that people who listen to a limited number of performers and recordings from a specific period of the life, and do that for the rest of their life, are not much music lovers. Some of this greed and drive for better and best equipment, I think, is culturally determined predominantly male behavior associated with male focus on performance. I can imagine a female who likes music and who wants a decent music player, but I have a hard time imagining many women getting into 'audiophile' equipment, and especially expensive and showy equipment. I suspect most women are perplexed by audiophiles. I have said this before, I have never seen a woman at a meeting of the Minnesota Audio Society....well maybe one woman once. Sound perception itself can be fascinating, interesting, meaningful in itself regardless of whether it is music. It would be swell to have machines that made orchestral complexes of odors. Are people who buy 'sports cars' that cost greater than $100,000 driving and sports car enthusiasts?

I know that is meant as insight, but for me it has the whiff of audiophile virtue signalling. It's a common theme among audiophiles to use the criticism "you are only in to the gear...I'm in to the MUSIC!" (Note how regularly this "they don't really care about The Music!" critique is launched at ASR. It's seen as the ultimate taboo and insult. The virtuous audiophile is all about the music!)

Personally, having known and met now countless audiophiles over many decades, I've never met the mythical audiophile who doesn't really love music.
And I don't care to try to tell anyone else they "don't love music" (unless they tell me they don't).


(Now...if you find someone with only Kenny G albums...then you have a case )

That's precisely why find "audiophilia" packed with connotations I despise. Is Venom's Black Metal a good source? To most audiophiles, no. But that is absolutely irrelevant for the fidelity of it's reproduction.

But...if you are not seeking Good Quality Sound.....what is the relevancy of your "high fidelity reproduction"? Are you only performing a science experiment, in which the pleasingness of the sound is irrelevant? Aside from being rather unusual, that would conform to the stereotype of ASR's most ardent critics.

It does not have to sound good to you, it has to sound true to the source.

I think you are misjudging the situation. "High Fidelity" and "Sound Quality" are separable. Everyone knows this. That is why we can talk about "poor quality source material." It's why if you had a High Fidelity stereo system, and you played the original recording of Steely Dan's Goucho back to back with a version of the recording that had been EQ'd to sound horribly thin and also had distortion added, making it sound like a bad old flip-phone recording...everyone would be able to rate the latter as "bad" or "worse" sound quality than the original. Despite that you are playing each back with Perfect Fidelity!

You really do care about sound quality as the underlying goal. Insofar as you seek higher quality equipment, which to you will be accurate equipment, yes you accept that some recordings will be revealed as poor sound quality...but the promise of better equipment is Better Sound Quality for many recordings. Otherwise...you wouldn't really care. (Or otherwise you are doing science experiments, rather than music appreciation - which is fine of course if that's what you are seeking. But I suggest it would be unlikely/unusual). And, again, since "Sound Quality" and "High Fidelity" are not one and the same, you can't conflate them, and should realize which is your actual goal

This has all been solved by the various Harman curves, I thought?

Yes! In one sense that is just what the Harman (and other research) sought to do: determine what most people think of as "good" sound quality.

Though ultimately it's best understood regarding the "sound quality" of speakers, not "sound quality" in general. Because otherwise there is a conundrum involved. To even perform the tests they had to already have some criteria of "Good Sound Quality" for selecting the recordings used in the tests!

In other words, they weren't going to use "Poor Recordings" through the speakers to establish what people thought was the highest sound quality.
They wouldn't have selected some scratchy, tinny old recording someone made on an old mono snuck-in-to-the-grateful-dead-concert tape deck.
That's why they used tracks like Tracy Chapman's Fast Car (IIRC) among others - tracks known for "High Sound Quality." So, strictly speaking in regard to the Harman tests, you have the chicken/egg problem there in regards to any grand conclusion about Sound Quality.

 

[Vacceo]

I know that is meant as insight, but for me it has the whiff of audiophile virtue signalling. It's a common theme among audiophiles to use the criticism "you are only in to the gear...I'm in to the MUSIC!" (Note how regularly this "they don't really care about The Music!" critique is launched at ASR. It's seen as the ultimate taboo and insult. The virtuous audiophile is all about the music!)

Personally, having known and met now countless audiophiles over many decades, I've never met the mythical audiophile who doesn't really love music.
And I don't care to try to diagnose anyone else as "not loving music" (unless they tell me they don't).


(Now...if you find someone with only Kenny G albums...then you have a case )



But...if you are not seeking Good Quality Sound.....what is the relevancy of your "high fidelity reproduction"? Are you only performing a science experiment, in which the pleasingness of the sound is irrelevant? Aside from being rather unusual, that would conform to the stereotype of ASR's most ardent critics.



I think you are misjudging the situation. "High Fidelity" and "Sound Quality" are separable. Everyone knows this. That is why we can talk about "poor quality source material." It's why if you had a High Fidelity stereo system, and you played the original recording of Steely Dan's Goucho back to back with a version of the recording that had been EQ'd to sound horribly thin and also had distortion added, making it sound like a bad old flip-phone recording...everyone would be able to rate the latter as "bad" or "worse" sound quality than the original. Despite that you are playing each back with Perfect Fidelity!

You really do care about sound quality as the underlying goal. Insofar as you seek higher quality equipment, which to you will be accurate equipment, yes you accept that some recordings will be revealed as poor sound quality...but the promise of better equipment is Better Sound Quality for many recordings. Otherwise...you wouldn't really care. (Or otherwise you are doing science experiments, rather than music appreciation). And, again, since "Sound Quality" and "High Fidelity" are not one and the same, you can't conflate them, and should realize which is your actual goal



Yes! In one sense that is just what the Harman (and other research) sought to do: determine what most people think of as "good" sound quality.

Though ultimately it's best understood regarding the "sound quality" of speakers, not "sound quality" in general. Because otherwise there is a conundrum involved. To even perform the tests they had to already have some criteria of "Good Sound Quality" for selecting the recordings used in the tests!

In other words, they weren't going to use "Poor Recordings" through the speakers to establish what people thought was the highest sound quality.
They wouldn't have selected some scratchy, tinny old recording someone made on an old mono snuck-in-to-the-grateful-dead-concert tape deck.
That's why they used tracks like Tracy Chapman's Fast Car (IIRC) among others - tracks known for "High Sound Quality." So, strictly speaking in regard to the Harman tests, you have the chicken/egg problem there in regards to any grand conclusion about Sound Quality.

I have been incredibly clear: I'm interesed in getting the source. Calling it good or not is a matter of aesthetics, not engineering. Do I like music with massive distortion and noise? Yes. Absolutely. Do I want the system to add extras? No.

That's why I listen to Blasphemy instead of Diana Krall. However, I like to use a system where Diana Krall could be played true to the recording, I just happen to find her incredibly dull and boring. Aesthetics, not engineering as you see.

Conversly, there is equally harsh music as the one you find in Blasphemy that I equally like and it's well recorded and mastered. That is precisely the point of using transparent gear: Cryptopsy will sound as what they delivered in Whisper Supremacy.

 

[MattHooper]

I have been incredibly clear: I'm interesed in getting the source. Calling it good or not is a matter of aesthetics, not engineering.

Yes I know. I'm looking at the deeper reason you (in all likelihood, like everyone else) would care about the source.

Surely "recreating the source accurately" is a means to an end, not the end itself, right?

Otherwise your concern in playing music tracks would only be in the service of engineering or a science experiment. But that's clearly not your only goal; you've indicated you like the music.

And you no doubt appreciate when your music source is of Good Sound Quality (at least by your lights).

Do I like music with massive distortion and noise? Yes. Absolutely.

But in talking about rock/metal music, we can all still recognize "Better vs Worse" sound quality, right? The fact the artist may use distortion (e.g. guitar) doesn't obviate these differences. Surely you still have discernment in regards to recognizing this, even if it might be with a favorite band like Blasphemy.

If for instance there was a Blasphemy live recording available, and the choice was between that concert recorded on an old flip phone, or recorded professionally through the board, which recording would you choose? We both know the answer. It's because the latter would be higher sound quality than the former. Sound Quality still matters - it's the deciding factor, not mere "accuracy" (because you could play back either the flip-phone recording or the professional recording accurately on your system, but you'd likely prefer the Good Quality recording).

I think you can't really escape this fundamental issue of Good Sound quality being a motivation. One can only put some arbitrary blinders on and pretend to oneself "I Just Care About Accuracy." ;-)

 

[Vacceo]

Yes I know. I'm looking at the deeper reason you (in all likelihood, like everyone else) would care about the source.

Surely "recreating the source accurately" is a means to an end, not the end itself, right?

Otherwise your concern in playing music tracks would only be in the service of engineering or a science experiment. But that's clearly not your only goal; you've indicated you like the music.

And you no doubt appreciate when your music source is of Good Sound Quality (at least by your lights).




But in talking about rock/metal music, we can all still recognize "Better vs Worse" sound quality, right? The fact the artist may use distortion (e.g. guitar) doesn't obviate these differences. Surely you still have discernment in regards to recognizing this, even if it might be with a favorite band like Blasphemy.

If for instance there was a Blasphemy live recording available, and the choice was between that concert recorded on an old flip phone, or recorded professionally through the board, which recording would you choose? We both know the answer. It's because the latter would be higher sound quality than the former. Sound Quality still matters - it's the deciding factor, not mere "accuracy" (because you could play back either the flip-phone recording or the professional recording accurately on your system, but you'd likely prefer the Good Quality recording).

I think you can't really escape this fundamental issue of Good Sound quality being a motivation. One can only put some arbitrary blinders on and pretend to oneself "I Just Care About Accuracy." ;-)

It may sound weird to you, but I prefeer Sepultura´s Bestial Devastation over Chaos AD. The difference in sound quality is lightyears away in favor of Chaos AD. I can come up with many more cases such as Sodom´s In the Sign of Evil vs. Final Sign of Evil (I prefeer the first one). Taking from Crytptopsy (the other example I posted before), I also prefeer the demo version of Mutant Christ (same for Abigor) found in Ungentle Exhumation over the one far better recorded and played in Blasphemy Made Flesh.
There are several Blasphemy live records, here are a couple examples:

I prefeer the first one even when the recording (and performance) quality is lower. This clearly ilustrates that in my preferences, sound quality is just another factor, but not even necessarily the first one.

Is this taste universal? Not really. Emperor offers a good example on the contrary, I prefeer I Am the Black Wizards in its In the Nightside Eclipse version than in the Emperor EP version.

How is this all relevant to the quality of reproduction? Not relevant at all. A transparent system will bring me the enjoyment of the music, no doubt, and also the capacity to critically listen to the differences and choose what I like best for whatever aesthetic reasons I may consider. On the other hand, a transparent system is simple peace of mind, it allows you to not second guess what you´re listening to and actually concentrate exactly in the pleasure of listening to the source.

And with this post, I summon @VintageFlanker, another Trve Kultist on this little section of the music art, to provide his weird choices, because I am sure he also has several counter intuitive (to audiophiles) choices.

 

[MattHooper]

It may sound weird to you, but I prefeer Sepultura´s Bestial Devastation over Chaos AD. The difference in sound quality is lightyears away in favor of Chaos AD. I can come up with many more cases such as Sodom´s In the Sign of Evil vs. Final Sign of Evil (I prefeer the first one). Taking from Crytptopsy (the other example I posted before), I also prefeer the demo version of Mutant Christ (same for Abigor) found in Ungentle Exhumation over the one far better recorded and played in Blasphemy Made Flesh.
There are several Blasphemy live records, here are a couple examples:

I prefeer the first one even when the recording (and performance) quality is lower. This clearly ilustrates that in my preferences, sound quality is just another factor, but not even necessarily the first one.

These are edge-cases, though. It seems like looking for exceptions to avoid the rule. I mean, I can certainly cite "worse" recordings of music that I prefer over "better sound quality" recordings. But, again, that doesn't entail that one has no discernment between "poorer" and "better" sound quality, through listening.

And it seems to avoid the choice I gave, which concerned recordings of the same live concert: If before-hand you were offered the choice of a Blasphemy Concert recorded on an old flip phone vs having been recorded with professional microphones, in a standard professional manner...which one would you roll the dice on choosing? It seems pretty obvious, right? You'd choose the professional recording, because it holds the far better chances of better sound quality. That's because "sound quality" is an underlying concern, not merely "accuracy to the particular recording." So edge cases in which we may prefer "lesser quality" recordings of different performances, or which contain different production choices, don't really get around the wider fundamental desire we have for Sound Quality. And the fact this can be adjudicated independently of "accuracy."

Another thought experiment. You are, like Harman Kardon - or any number of similar research projects - studying what speakers people will percieve as having the best sound quality. For your music selection, do you choose "bad quality sound recordings" (thin, distorted etc) or "high quality recordings" for your tests. If not the low quality recordings...why not?

Or if you were to demonstrate you High Fidelity system to someone, to show why a High Fidelity system might be worthwhile, would you choose the "worst quality" recordings you have, or Good Sound Quality recordings? The former would pretty much leave your subject scratching their head, wondering why anyone would spend money to hear bad sound. Right? Generally speaking, I'm quite sure you are just like this person. Like me, you'll be ok with the fact recordings span a gamut of sound quality....but the promise of spending that extra money (and adding a subwoofer or whatever) is in sometimes, or often enough, hearing more thrilling sound quality. Otherwise one may just stick with hearing music through a laptop.

Accuracy is a means to an end; not the end itself.

Is this taste universal? Not really.

On the contrary: I'm sure it would be a cinch to play different recordings (on an accurate system) that you and virtually anyone else will rate as "worse" or "better." Will there be gray areas of taste or perception? Sure. But one can easily render a difference between the "poor recording" and the "good sound quality recording" where there would be virtual universal agreement on which is which.

In my job we creatives, and the clients, constantly shape the sound due to mutually understood notions of "poor" vs "better" sound quality.

How is this all relevant to the quality of reproduction? Not relevant at all. A transparent system will bring me the enjoyment of the music, no doubt,

There is nothing about a "transparent system" that entails one will enjoy any particular piece of music or recording through that system. Those are two separate things.

and also the capacity to critically listen to the differences and choose what I like best for whatever aesthetic reasons I may consider. On the other hand, a transparent system is simple peace of mind, it allows you to not second guess what you´re listening to and actually concentrate exactly in the pleasure of listening to the source.

Oh I totally get that part - how, if you have certain goal of accuracy, once you achieve those objective goals you can sit back and relax, and just take whatever comes through the system. That makes sense.

But...I still argue that's in the wider context that we care about sound quality as the base driver for all this, and if you had no expectations of "higher sound quality" from the extra money and time you've spent on your Hi-Fi System, then it makes the effort moot (unless you are only doing engineering/science experiments). Nobody really says about audio gear here "Who cares about the sound quality; it's accurate!" That would be the strawman caricature people have of places like ASR.

Rather, the case is made that accurate sound quality can offer Better Sound. (Where the whole point of measurments and accuracy are correlated to their subjective qualities!)

 

[dualazmak]

Interesting thread, but I myself do not like to be categorized in such a way.

At least in my case, I had about 3-year intensive journey/exploration in building multichannel active stereo audio system mainly on objective approach and listening to "sounds", and after the (almost) completion of the audio setup, I am now gradually going back to the enjoyment/listening of my favorite "music" as shared here and discussed here.

It is one of the great features of ASR Forum that we can have nice places/threads on "both emphases" with comfort and wonderful participations even simultaneously (I shall continue so). I always thank you, all the organizers, especially amirm, for keeping ASR vividly alive.

 

[Axo1989]

It may sound weird to you, but I prefeer Sepultura´s Bestial Devastation over Chaos AD. The difference in sound quality is lightyears away in favor of Chaos AD. I can come up with many more cases such as Sodom´s In the Sign of Evil vs. Final Sign of Evil (I prefeer the first one). Taking from Crytptopsy (the other example I posted before), I also prefeer the demo version of Mutant Christ (same for Abigor) found in Ungentle Exhumation over the one far better recorded and played in Blasphemy Made Flesh.
There are several Blasphemy live records, here are a couple examples:

I prefeer the first one even when the recording (and performance) quality is lower. This clearly ilustrates that in my preferences, sound quality is just another factor, but not even necessarily the first one.

Is this taste universal? Not really. Emperor offers a good example on the contrary, I prefeer I Am the Black Wizards in its In the Nightside Eclipse version than in the Emperor EP version.

How is this all relevant to the quality of reproduction? Not relevant at all. A transparent system will bring me the enjoyment of the music, no doubt, and also the capacity to critically listen to the differences and choose what I like best for whatever aesthetic reasons I may consider. On the other hand, a transparent system is simple peace of mind, it allows you to not second guess what you´re listening to and actually concentrate exactly in the pleasure of listening to the source.

And with this post, I summon @VintageFlanker, another Trve Kultist on this little section of the music art, to provide his weird choices, because I am sure he also has several counter intuitive (to audiophiles) choices.

Yes the first recording is pretty sh*t quality. The performance is surely fun though.

Aesthetics vary of course, but I'd be surprised if others don't also have tracks/albums they enjoy in spite of their production values.

I also think it's an overgeneralisation when people argue (not referring to your posts) that a better reproduction system always makes low production value stuff sound worse. Sometime flaws are obscured, sure, but I usually prefer a system with better sonics (separate issue from euphonics, EQ etc obviously) even if the production is less stellar.

That said, the argument that music may be best enjoyed on systems similar to those used in itsproduction has some merit.

 

[MattHooper]

I also think it's an overgeneralisation when people argue (not referring to your posts) that a better reproduction system always makes low production value stuff sound worse. Sometime flaws are obscured, sure, but I usually prefer a system with better sonics (separate issue from euphonics, EQ etc obviously) even if the production is less stellar.

I agree.

And I actually like the variation in production quality. I don't really want everything to sound the same, and I'm ok with odd sounding production many rate as "poor sound quality." It can be part of the aesthetic. I'm not trying to get everything to have the same sound quality or sound "equally great" on my system; but I do want to be able to ENJOY pretty much anything I play through my system. And that...I have

(And I think a generally neutral system, without added edge, likely does that for many listeners).

 

[dshreter]

For me, I see music playback ontologically as the performance of music and it is fundamentally distinct from the source and the recording. The lived experience of listening to music is inseparably connected to the room, the acoustics, the system, the moment, the ambience, your state of mind, processed by the ears and brain, all of it.

The listening experience therefore cannot be meaningfully compared to the source quantitatively, simply because a two dimensional wave form goes through a transfer function to materialize in three dimensions in your room and further due to all the variables that actually compromise the performance.

 

[CapMan]

I would propose a fifth category - The Music Lover. Their most important outcome is to hear the music as it was recorded and will use a combination of measurements, listening and others opinion (often in that order) to guide their journey.

The biggest challenge we face as humans interacting on a forum is the fact that we are not designed for this type of interaction. 70% to 90% of communication is non-verbal so that leaves a very wide margin for error. I do however strongly agree with the spirit of the sentiment.

I like this category, but I’d define it differently - I think the Music Lover listens to the performance and musicians irrespective of the equipment. Fidelity is secondary to musicality. They enjoy music in the car , on an iPhone, Bluetooth speaker or on a ‘big rig’. They don’t need audiophilia to get pleasure from the musical performance …. Just my 10c

 

[solderdude]

I like this category, but I’d define it differently - I think the Music Lover listens to the performance and musicians irrespective of the equipment. Fidelity is secondary to musicality. They enjoy music in the car , on an iPhone, Bluetooth speaker or on a ‘big rig’. They don’t need audiophilia to get pleasure from the musical performance …. Just my 10c

But they might or might not be an audiophile. Audiophiles, by definition, care about sound quality/fidelity. So music lover does not seem to be a subset but rather a requirement to be an audiophile.

Someone that enjoys music just as much on a cheap BT speaker as on a high-end system may well be an audiophile or even audiophool but at the time he listens to the crappy BT speaker just lowers his 'audiophility standards'. I think that most audiophiles do this on occasion when they do not have access to high-end gear.

 

[CapMan]

So music lover does not seem to be a subset but rather a requirement to be an audiophile.

I hope this is true but I sometimes wonder if music is just the input ‘data’ for a system to a few people out there.

In the bad old days (I call it BASR = Before Audiosicience Review) I know I used to curate my music and play the well produced tracks that sounded best on the system.

My eyes were opened to this when I recently changed speakers to a small pair of bookshelf stand mounts . I loved them - I could let Roon radio run and run with previously unheard tracks without any urge to skip. Being an idiot I bought into the new is always better idea and swapped out my speakers for the latest reworked version. I no longer enjoyed the Roon radio experience and the advice from the dealer was to give them time and feed them high quality recordings because they were ‘more revealing and less forgiving ‘. To me the idea of curating the albums didn’t serve the objective of enjoying listening to music and I returned them.

Thankfully I was able to get a pair of the older model and I am again enjoying music in the way I used to.

 

[CapMan]

I was trying to think of a car analogy to this

I can drive through the beautiful English Lake district - my music lover would appreciate the scenery on a bicycle, bus or car - they might be more comfortable in a Bentley, but it would be secondary to the scenery.

The absolute / extreme audiophile might be more concerned with how the car felt on the road , responsiveness of the engine , suspension setup, grip. The scenery is secondary to driving the car.

The objectivist might be interested in how the car measures , the subjectavist in how driving the car made them feel.

As I’m writing this it’s starting to feel like a lame analogy

 

[solderdude]

Could be that the reworked speaker was performing (technically) less well or even better (more accurate) in your room compared to the older one.
Then could be a matter of preference on your end.

In the end it is all about enjoyment (my opinion) but in studios (or people wanting to emulate that) technical performance would be leading because it can clearly show flaws in recordings.

IMO the technical better ones are really only enjoyable when fed with high quality recordings.
Lesser recordings are less enjoyable (to me) as the 'warts' show and aren't 'glossed over'.

 

[CapMan]

Could be that the reworked speaker was performing (technically) less well in your room compared to the older one.
Could be a matter of preference on your end as well.

Preference is definitely part of it. To use my iffy car analogy - I’d like a car with a more compliant suspension setup - not the best on great roads, but takes the edge off poor ones !!

 

[Peluvius]

I like this category, but I’d define it differently - I think the Music Lover listens to the performance and musicians irrespective of the equipment. Fidelity is secondary to musicality. They enjoy music in the car , on an iPhone, Bluetooth speaker or on a ‘big rig’. They don’t need audiophilia to get pleasure from the musical performance …. Just my 10c

Exactly. However I am suggesting that given no further constraints the Music Lover will gravitate towards hi fidelity equipment, preferring music that is reproduced accurately. That is fundamental to my proposed category and what makes it relevant as part of this discussion. If this holds, then all music lovers are also audiophiles.

But they might or might not be an audiophile. Audiophiles, by definition, care about sound quality/fidelity. So music lover does not seem to be a subset but rather a requirement to be an audiophile.

Someone that enjoys music just as much on a cheap BT speaker as on a high-end system may well be an audiophile or even audiophool but at the time he listens to the crappy BT speaker just lowers his 'audiophility standards'. I think that most audiophiles do this on occasion when they do not have access to high-end gear.

I propose there are other motivations at play for a music lover to enjoy the music they enjoy replayed on a mono Bluetooth speaker or a set of Genelec 8361s without preference. I do not believe in a blind test the "technology agnostic" Music Lover will not prefer the Genelecs regardless of their own personal view on how much time/money/effort they chose to invest in audio gear. I nominate Genelecs here but substitute for any well designed kit as you may prefer.

In the event that the fictional blind test proposed above demonstrates the "technology agnostic" music lover has a preference for hi fidelity audio, they will therefore be (or become) "a person who is enthusiastic about sound quality".

 

[solderdude]

In the event that the fictional blind test proposed above demonstrates the "technology agnostic" music lover has a preference for hi fidelity audio, they will therefore be (or become) "a person who is enthusiastic about sound quality".

Or... (s)he might hear the sound quality is (much) better but for him/herself does not care that much, does not want to invest any money in it.

IME even lay(wo)men who never owned a high sound quality system, without any exceptions all go 'whoaaa... that sounds really good' when hearing a decent to good system but most would not consider buying something else than what they already own, they don't care.
No audiophile so no subset of audiophile either ?

 

[Peluvius]

Or... (s)he might hear the sound quality is (much) better but for him/herself does not care that much, does not want to invest any money in it.

IME even laymen who never owned a high sound quality system, without any exceptions all go 'whoaaa... that sounds really good' but most would not consider buying something else than what they already own.

That does not preclude them from being an Audiophile, just means they would not spend money to improve their system. The two are not linked.

 

[solderdude]

That does not preclude them from being an Audiophile, just means they would not spend money to improve their system. The two are not linked.

To me it does, when they don't care about sound quality they, by definition, are not audiophiles so no subset.
They just enjoy music, regardless of the delivery system. Which is fine but not your typical audiophile which always searches for 'better' sound quality.
Of course an audiophile can still enjoy listening to music even when the sound quality is not as good as they want. They will, however, always have at least one 'audiophile' system somewhere which a music lover doesn't need to have.

 

[Vacceo]

Yes the first recording is pretty sh*t quality. The performance is surely fun though.

Aesthetics vary of course, but I'd be surprised if others don't also have tracks/albums they enjoy in spite of their production values.

I also think it's an overgeneralisation when people argue (not referring to your posts) that a better reproduction system always makes low production value stuff sound worse. Sometime flaws are obscured, sure, but I usually prefer a system with better sonics (separate issue from euphonics, EQ etc obviously) even if the production is less stellar.

That said, the argument that music may be best enjoyed on systems similar to those used in itsproduction has some merit.

Sometimes we like art precisely for it's imperfections. Romanesque sculptures or Henry Rousseau's paints have a lot that in those who appreciate them.