• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Do you have prejudices that you can't get rid of? (Lets stick to audio)

Unfortunately now I have a decent playback system, I am now prejudiced against a fair amount of the music I used to love.

Lots of the early new wave and rock that I grew up with is so badly recorded/mastered that I find it hard to listen to now. Same goes for a fair bit of early digital EDM/techno.

Definitely, (along with inherent cost), one of the downsides to this hobby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLi
It's New England. ;)
i love it! that is so true. i have a friend who is a uni-uni minister up here and he said a good solid 70% of his congregants don't even believe in god! so different from the southern experience i had growing up with a terror of new age ideas, and a fear that satan was in cahoots with the culture to trap you. i knew people down there who wouldn't buy any product that had a rainbow on it, and wouldn't go to indian restaurants!
 
re the vinyl thing, i know this has been pounded to death here, but there are a set of emotional associations i have with vinyl as a means for listening. it's comforting to me. that doesn't mean that CDs dont reveal more info, etc., but there is a feeling there that i really treasure. it reminds me of picture books: if you look at a first edition of Where The Wild Things Are, which would cost you like $6000, the design is carried through in a much more satisfying manner than in contemporary reissues. the way the paper takes the inks is different, the weight of the paper, and its texture, are more satisfying to hold, etc. i can enjoy reading a 75th printing from 2009 but if i want the real experience, the earlier editions make a real difference. there is emotional content there in those production methods that reproductions can't touch.
Without wanting to play down your emotional attachment the format: mine is even deeper, it's tactile.

Vinyl is the most engaging DJing format. You touch the big plastic disc, you manipulate it with some skill, you use the physical controls on the DJ turntable - and out comes pure bliss. It's hard to describe the feeling of manually beatmatching and mixing your favourite tracks with two or three turntables and a good DJ mixer. Even DVS (digital vinyl system, software playback controlled by timecode vinyls) can't match the experience. There's just something immediate, tactile, and "real" about vinyl DJing that no other system can give you. I guess it's the one most catering to our nature as animals and physical beings who enjoy touching things.
 
Different skills. Classical recordings are much more 'documentary' i.e. capturing a live performance, even though also make up of many different takes. Pop recordings are much more about creating a sound in the final recording, as there was never a sound to be captured live. It's all processed from different takes, different sample, with a lot of Special Effects added on.
With Classical recordings, the skill is in choosing the venue, positioning the microphones and choosing which takes to use in the final version. Editing for a 'transparent' transition between takes such that it all sounds like one long take. Pop recording and editing is much more about creating the recording in the mix.

I wouldn't suggest one is more skilful than the other, just different.

S.
yes, i agree, thanks. there is a power and depth that comes from listening to a recording of a roomful of experts playing together expressively. but, an album like the fragile or with teeth by nine inch nails, or an early eno soundscape record, opens the doors to so much imagination in terms of what kind of emotional effects can be achieved through technology --> sound.
 
Without wanting to play down your emotional attachment the format: mine is even deeper, it's tactile.

Vinyl is the most engaging DJing format. You touch the big plastic disc, you manipulate it with some skill, you use the physical controls on the DJ turntable - and out comes pure bliss. It's hard to describe the feeling of manually beatmatching and mixing your favourite tracks with two or three turntables and a good DJ mixer. Even DVS (digital vinyl system, software playback controlled by timecode vinyls) can't match the experience. There's just something immediate, tactile, and "real" about vinyl DJing that no other system can give you. I guess it's the one most catering to our nature as animals and physical beings who enjoy touching things.
i can totally see it! i dont use them for expression but i can totally see what youre talking about. plus, you get the tidal wave effecct of hearing your shit through giant speakers, and the energy of a roomful of people dancing. it must be a very intense experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLi
TTs without a decent hinged dust cover. Some fussy-looking TTs don't even come with a cover. Can you believe it? Shameful!
i understand them to be just another point where resonance can be lost or vibrations introduced. but i dont like them either!
 
I am prejudiced against the AV industry's lack of talent and disregard for usability when it comes to creating a decent remote control.

I am prejudiced against tiny OLED screens on equipment.
 
Last edited:
this may also be a dead horse 'round these parts, but i would say i have an irrational prejudice against taylor swift. any cult of personality bothers me, and i question the ideological and aesthetic positions that her music represents. to me, her way of writing, working, conceptualizing is the opposite of what music is for, and i find myself cringing even before i press play on one of her tunes. obviously, music is like tomatoes-- some people like them and some don't and nobody cares. so i am glad people can get enjoyment out of anything they like. but in her case, and beyonce's, i always have the feeling i am being had.
 
i can totally see it! i dont use them for expression but i can totally see what youre talking about. plus, you get the tidal wave effecct of hearing your shit through giant speakers, and the energy of a roomful of people dancing. it must be a very intense experience.
I've only DJed for real crowd a number of times you can count on one hand, and apart from that only on internet radio (although with Livechat). But yes, it true: other, more modern DJing methods are perfectly fine and often technically superior, and way more convenient. But in the end, you working up a sweat, feeling like you're doing "real work", and getting excited about it - the average listener can hear that. The DJ is a servant and aims to provide pleasure. That pleasure towards the dancers, including track selection, depends on his own excitement. It's all a big psychological feedback loop, and the gear used can very well have a heavy influence. If only it creates real, physical effects that psychologically reflect back towards the "artistical" outcome.

I really think vinyl does that, better than other formats. The listener and dancer directly responds to expressions of joy and excitement. Every good DJ can provide that in abundance. I still believe it's easier with vinyl. But in return, the heavy lifting of vinyl cases will be harder on the DJ... :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLi
I have a profound refusal for any audio amp made out of power packs, justified or not.
 

Attachments

  • sanyo.jpg
    sanyo.jpg
    5.3 KB · Views: 60
have you found any exceptions to this? sometimes if the writing is good, i will not notice the limited chord vocabulary or melodic range. the two things you just described are literal hallmarks of contemporary music-- it makes it very tough for me to really hear anything made after about 1995. there are exceptions of course, but i teach guitar for a living and i can say for certain that on the pop level, we are at a high point for creative sound production, but a low point for lyric-writing, composition and musical ability. and i have to say that kids may like this stuff, and i am glad, but that doesn't change the objective facts about the deterioration of the art form. lots more thoughts about this if anyone cares to discuss, and am definitely interested in hearing other perspectives!
It's sounds like you agree with my long held belief that the Grammy (in pop categories) should go to the engineers, with a smaller (juvenile-sized) replica for the producer.

As for there being exceptions to my harmonic/melodic prejudices: sure, there are plenty.* But there's a reason why it's called 'The Blues." The structural constraints are too limiting for it to be accurately deemed a genre. One could nearly make the argument that every "blues" song is really a cover of the "The Blues," that singular artistic expression now lost in the noise of all the covers. That said, "The Blues" is rich compared to a lot of contemporary drek.

Now, contrast most of contemporary pop with "All the Things You Are," (Kern and Hammerstein) from 1939. It's readily accessible, even to unschooled audiences, yet it's harmonically rich enough to make most conservatory grads smile - Jerome Kern was that clever.

* I was probably listening to Howlin' Wolf before Mick Jagger was. The last time I heard B. B. King live, the Allman Brothers were the warm up band. I'm selective, not a snob.
 
Yes I’m prejudiced against software driven audio systems. All in one streaming DAC amplifiers do not appeal to me at all. I want separate components that can be individually chosen and upgraded with no need for an app or software to use it.

With the exclusion of streaming, I prefer the equipment to have no need for software.
Nothing wrong with the tech behind them except they stink of planned obsolescence.

(happy 100 years of it by the way, I hope the engineers who agreed to it back then are still slow burning, sous vide-style in their own special hell)
 
If you had told us (me) you "hate" disco or rap (or even saxophone), you would have gotten a Like from me.:(
Personally, I could never 'hate' the blues; as this genre has much of the DNA that has been inherited by the rock genre (varieties) of music.

I would dare not ask what your feelings are regarding rock-n-roll music; especially, if their close association (blues/rock) breeds a similar 'hate' for the latter.:confused:
A good point, but only on the surface.

Music and its history and how it influenced each other is very complex. For example: blues is soul. Techno is high tech soul (as said by Detroit based musicians who were influenced by soul and certainly knew hardship and struggle). I love Techno. Do I love blues? Hell no. It's too far removed for me.

And here we are. Music and its history is complex.
 
If you had told us (me) you "hate" disco or rap (or even saxophone), you would have gotten a Like from me.:(
Personally, I could never 'hate' the blues; as this genre has much of the DNA that has been inherited by the rock genre (varieties) of music.

That’s a funny comment to me. I only dislike a narrow blues genre, the one where those same damn cords are played over and over, with noodling and bending notes and ways are supposed to make me think they are expressing the ultimate emotional depth.

Otherwise, I’m quite cognizant that the blues forms the basis of some of my favourite music genres. I’m a huge fan of funk/dance/disco/R&B (and rock). I played in a really big Earth Wind & Fire style band for a long time. So everything that expanded on those basic blues… I love. (I still listen to disco).

Funny that you bring up the sax. My father was a jazz musician and music teacher. He played tons of instruments, but his main instrument was saxophone. Same with me when I played in stage band.

I remember being over at a friends house for dinner and we were talking about things we dislike, and both he and his wife brought up the saxophone. They HATED the sound of saxophones and generally music featuring saxophones. I thought that was so odd.

And yet, even if somebody who grew up playing and listening to saxophone… I’ve come to kind of know what they mean.

I really like saxophone in the classic jazz genre, especially cool jazz. But beyond that for me, saxophone now tends to denote cheesiness. It’s almost the only instrument that does so for me. Especially when it makes an appearance in popular music as it used to. Trumpets are great. Flute bring it on. Whatever else. But sex for me is often falling flat.

re the vinyl thing, i know this has been pounded to death here, but there are a set of emotional associations i have with vinyl as a means for listening. it's comforting to me. that doesn't mean that CDs dont reveal more info, etc., but there is a feeling there that i really treasure. it reminds me of picture books:

Same here. That’s one of the things that hooked me back into buying records again around 2015 after having abandoned them in the 80s.

With the vinyl revival in full steam, I had noticed that plenty of soundtracks that I either loved or that I’d always wanted were coming out in beautiful vinyl sets. I remember how gorgeous some of those first albums looked in terms of artwork and packaging, how great they felt in the hand, how nice it was to slide out shiny perfectly new vinyl, and to play new vinyl that has so little noise. It felt sort of luxurious in a way that swiping the next song on my iPhone just didn’t duplicate.

There’s also of course, the facts of experience affects perception. There are those blinds that show some people rating sonic quality higher simply because they had interacted with a record to play it - even though in the blind test, it turned out, they were listening to a digital signal. That’s going to be affected by the type of prejudices one brings to vinyl I’m sure. But in any case, there’s nothing wrong in taking advantage of how a different medium can affect ones personal perception and enjoyment.

i agree-- it is very hard to make using software an enjoyable part of the process. i feel like it activates a different part of my brain to scroll with a mouse. it makes the music seem phony to me.

Same. I don’t think I go to the extent of saying it seems phoney to me. But I have found them more I get back to the old basics… gear that is dedicated to a task and which is highly tactile - for instance records over streaming, preamps/knobs over software, a sturdy remote with a big volume knob over swiping on my iPhone… all of it feels more satisfying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLi
, but i would say i have an irrational prejudice against taylor swift. any cult of personality bothers me

For me that’s Beyoncé.

For me, there is an offputting level of self seriousness about her, combined with the fawning “Queen Beyoncé” attitude the people are supposed to adopt towards her… all while I find her a mediocre singer and composer… it all rubs me the wrong way.
(and I’m a big fan of dance and R&B stuff).

I’m not a Taylor Swift fan, but at least I find something of a buoyant fun quality. For me she doesn’t seem to emote the same level of “ bow to me I am the queen” as Beyoncé.
 
For me that’s Beyoncé.

For me, there is an offputting level of self seriousness about her, combined with the fawning “Queen Beyoncé” attitude the people are supposed to adopt towards her… all while I find her a mediocre singer and composer… it all rubs me the wrong way.
(and I’m a big fan of dance and R&B stuff).

I’m not a Taylor Swift fan, but at least I find something of a buoyant fun quality. For me she doesn’t seem to emote the same level of “ bow to me I am the queen” as Beyoncé.
A good point, in general. Personally I like artists (preferably within my own tastes) who don't take themselves too seriously, but their music all the more. Or vice versa, if that makes sense. It's either the artist or the music itself that can be utterly serious, to be really good; not both.

I'm having a hard time explaining this properly. It's got to do with the artistic nature and according personality types. I hope you get it; it's apparent to everyone so inclined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLi
For me that’s Beyoncé.

For me, there is an offputting level of self seriousness about her, combined with the fawning “Queen Beyoncé” attitude the people are supposed to adopt towards her… all while I find her a mediocre singer and composer… it all rubs me the wrong way.
(and I’m a big fan of dance and R&B stuff).

I’m not a Taylor Swift fan, but at least I find something of a buoyant fun quality. For me she doesn’t seem to emote the same level of “ bow to me I am the queen” as Beyoncé.
well-put. i thought i would like her stuff, given how people talk about her. but i didn't hear anything at all in her music. i find it to be run-of-the-mill over-produced pop-- total dime a dozen stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLi
Odd that no one has ill-spoken of 'pop' music.:oops:

I could not really define what 'pop' music is about but it has some additional ingredients (glamour? fame? fortune?) that my classical music upbringing and my rock-roots has never digested well.
I could not tell you the difference between a Taylor Swift or a Beyonce sound, nor do I want to discern them.
Avoiding pop music could be considered a prejudice or a hate. But for me, it is just that alternatives abound.:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLi
Oh man, that reminds me of perhaps my most rock, solid prejudice: I hate “the blues.” My idea of hell is Being stuck in an eternal bar forced to watch performances by Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters etc.

I think I developed this prejudice, not simply from the fact that the music doesn’t appeal to me, but it’s also the level of reverence The Blues seems to command, where you have the blues musician making all those stank faces, callout from the audience at the deep profundity of the emotion… and the fact that when I was a regular attendee of high-end audio shows it was impossible to escape tracks from such Blues artists, inevitably leading to rooms filled with old audiophiles sitting in silence, nodding in tandem with the profundity they are experiencing. I just can’t get out of those room fast enough. And it’s still a staple of audiophile shows (though at least it seems to expand somewhat into electronica these days).


Sorry… back to audio prejudices….
Interesting (not your dislike of Blues) but the fact it is used as a reference in shows (never been to one). I can guess that maybe some acoustic Blues might be used as reference (in the same way those breathy female Jazz vocalists are) but that's really a slim slice of Blues.

I guess like most genres there are "figure head" artists that always float to the surface (in Jazz that would be Miles Davis, Sonny Rollins, John Coltrane) and so are always hip (i.e. what you call reverence) but obviously they are the thin edge of any genre.

I aren't particularly taken with acoustic/country Blues, I am more electric focused and you don't have to "suffer" the usual suspects (BB King, Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters)

In my music library I have 324 Blues artists (across 2500 albums) so plenty of others to choose from:

find Blues | cut -d'/' -f3 | sort -u | wc -l
324


In regard to Jazz, I have 2500 albums and not a single vocal is sung (outside of 10 Billie Holiday albums). I don't like wasting energy on finding the meaning in the spoken word... so I avoid them as much as I can. Blues, while it has words, I am there for the feeling of the music not any deep meaning from the lyrics ***.

In regard to "inevitably leading to rooms filled with old audiophiles sitting in silence", my experience with a communal Blues environment is an electric band play loudly in a hole-in-the-wall bar, with drunks falling of chairs, bottles/glass flying across the bar room at random times and scuffles breaking out once or twice a night ****

But that was in my younger days. Now the only drunk is me, falling out of my listening chair in my room and any scuffles I have are with Her Indoors (which she always wins)

Peter


*** my favourite Blues lyric is from Son Seals:

I'm an alcoholic and sometimes I regret it
Especially when the liquor store wont give me no credit.


****
There was one local bar (The Cricketers Arms) that on Sunday's (during the 1980's Blues revival) had a parade of Blues bands where no one bothered to take their bottles back to the bar so by the end of the night, you were surfing across a sea of bottles (many broken) to get to the bar or to leave. Stout boots were the order of the day.

Ha. I found a photo of it, taken in 1970.

Three bars on three levels with what was called the "public bar" downstairs (meaning the working mans bar, full of rough and tumble). The middle bar (up the stairs but on the ground floor) was the music venue and indestructible being made of concrete and with basically having no windows, it was very dark. As I never went to the upstairs bar I have to assume it was for more a sophisticated type of clientele

Obviously from the Modernist/Brutalist 1960's/1970's era of concrete buildings.

1743219708696.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KLi
Back
Top Bottom