"Music-First Audiophile" Manifesto by John Darko

[Sal1950]

1. The Music-First Audiophile knows that music and sound quality are important but that music will always be the most important.

WRONG.
Sound quality should always come first.
The "sounds good to me" approach to audio has never moved the goalpost of High Fidelity one inch closer.
"Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly said [in his January 2004 "Listening," see "Letters," p.9], fidelity is irrelevant to music.
J. Gordon Holt"

 

[AlfaNovember]

while I am not looking to excite a political riot here

In the spirit of wholehearted agreement, I must point out that the datacenters which power the streaming media economy are stupendous energy and resource hogs. The nascent AI revolution multiplies those needs exponentially, to the point where the Thought Leaders(tm) are already casually talking about "of course we'll need a few new nuclear plants to power all that, so we've got our site committee hard at work..." I really don't mean to start bench-racing which is worse - they're both bad, in different ways. (Both sublime, too) Alas; perhaps an in-person experience of a lovingly-varnished spruce box with gut strings really was the high point.

 

[Robin L]

WRONG.
Sound quality should always come first.
The "sounds good to me" approach to audio has never moved the goalpost of High Fidelity one inch closer.
"Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly said [in his January 2004 "Listening," see "Letters," p.9], fidelity is irrelevant to music.
J. Gordon Holt"

Doesn't really work like that.

If you want Artur Schnabel or Billie Holiday's 1930's sides, you've got to put up with 1930's sound, there's no way around that.

In a lot of instances, musical quality is more important than audio quality.

And in the case of a lot of modern popular music, "sound quality" is really beside the point.

 

[Robin L]

Yes, while I am not looking to excite a political riot here or figure out who is awake and who is dreaming, there just is a lot of waste in buying any new physical media.
I get it some folks just love that liner note or cover art, plus shopping out and about.
That said to riff off what you folks said, please consider going used only and not buying new for albums and CDs.
Just vinyl alone is staggeringly polluting to produce and that PVC(&PVA) is one of the worst environmental issues and largest components of worldwide pollution.
But if you must you must I get it, we have our personal poisons to pick and fun and enjoyment to get where we can.
All for the best I hope.

Most of what I listen to and almost all of what I'm buying is classical and used. As there hasn't been a market for new classical recordings for at least twenty years, about all that's left is used. Of course, seemingly un-played classical CDs are pristine and cheap as dirt.

 

[pseudoid]

WRONG.
Sound quality should always come first.
The "sounds good to me" approach to audio has never moved the goalpost of High Fidelity one inch closer.
"Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly said [in his January 2004 "Listening," see "Letters," p.9], fidelity is irrelevant to music.

Which one is "WRONG"?
I am envisioning a deserted island..., your wish from the bottled-up Genie was to give you music ... but it turned out that the Genie hooked-you up to the coconuts on the only tree on that island, for your 'listening pleasures':
Would you chop up the coconuts and eat them because the "sound quality ... comes first!"?
Or, would you attempt to wipe your loneliness away (as temporary as it may become) with the coconut music that lacks fidelity?
[Everyone knows @Sal1950 loves Beach Boys]

 

[MattHooper]

Which one is "WRONG"?
I am envisioning a deserted island..., your wish from the bottled-up Genie was to give you music ... but it turned out that the Genie hooked-you up to the coconuts on the only tree on that island, for your 'listening pleasures':
Would you chop up the coconuts and eat them because the "sound quality ... comes first!"?
Or, would you attempt to wipe your loneliness away (as temporary as it may become) with the coconut music that lacks fidelity?
[Everyone knows @Sal1950 loves Beach Boys]

Remember: to be a proper audiophile, if you are in the mood to listen to Janis Joplin you better catch yourself fast and put on some well recorded Dianna Krall or Spanish Harlem by Rebecca Pidgeon instead. Audiophiles must be dedicated to sound quality first, music is secondary.

 

[Lednek]

Darko is an epic wind bag, some kind of bag anyway. Sorry I couldn't watch through all of this. I however, wanted to leave my two cents. Although it is more than his pomposity deserves. Pretty much everything I dislike about the stigma of "audiophile" is epitomized by John Darko.

 

[restorer-john]

Most of what I listen to and almost all of what I'm buying is classical and used. As there hasn't been a market for new classical recordings for at least twenty years, about all that's left is used. Of course, seemingly un-played classical CDs are pristine and cheap as dirt.

I've been doing the same for 20 years. Unbelievable finds at stupid prices. I'd say I've collected maybe a thousand classicals, all premium discs and passed most on to my father to listen to. I'll get them all back one day down the track.

Thing is, those recordings can never be made again. The budgets for the orchestras, the venues, the accomodation and expenses along with the headline artists/conductors are simply not there. Many of them have retired/died.

And, in the scheme of things, those "push the boat out" recordings were not massive sellers in the first place. It's those CDs that are now some of the rarest and most valuable in the world and they will continue to become more so.

Keep up the good work, and if people are so stupid as to dispose of entire Telarc collections, I'll pick them up at single cents on the dollar.

 

[pseudoid]

Remember: to be a proper audiophile

I wince when I am called "an audiophile".
I usually try to change the subject from hardware by asking what type of music they listen to.
I gulp when I hear "Oh, I listen to all kinds of music!"
I bite my tongue simply because smacking them with a mackerel is not an option!

Hey @MattHooper: What type of an audiophile are you?

 

[Ron Texas]

Remember: to be a proper audiophile, if you are in the mood to listen to Janis Joplin you better catch yourself fast and put on some well recorded Dianna Krall or Spanish Harlem by Rebecca Pidgeon instead. Audiophiles must be dedicated to sound quality first, music is secondary.

Audiophiles want SQ and good music. They tend to dwell on SQ and gear in forums because there is more of a common denominator there. What is available in recorded music and the tastes of listeners is far more diverse.

 

[Axo1989]

... And in the case of a lot of modern popular music, "sound quality" is really beside the point.

Certainly Ηolt's imperative for "perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space" was/is an interesting conceptual exercise and practical challenge, but when music—"real" or otherwise—includes a collage of synthetic sonic elements assembled post-facto, it isn't the critical/relevant ideal or metric.

 

[MattHooper]

Audiophiles want SQ and good music. They tend to dwell on SQ and gear in forums because there is more of a common denominator there. What is available in recorded music and the tastes of listeners is far more diverse.

Sure. But the joke is Sal's idea that sound quality should come first, over the music.

If you have a so-so recording of your favourite version of a symphonic piece, with your favourite orchestra and conductor, but there's a better quality recording but a much poorer performance, is the audiophile supposed to go for the poor performance "because of the sound quality?" That sounds silly, not to mention the perfect caricature people have of audiophiles.

 

[Robin L]

Keep up the good work, and if people are so stupid as to dispose of entire Telarc collections, I'll pick them up at single cents on the dollar.

I've been volunteering at the local library, assist with the bi-monthly book and audio/visual media sales. At one, all classical titles were ten cents a pop, bought 37. Crazy. My Telarc collection is expanding rapidly.

 

[Robin L]

Certainly Ηolt's imperative for "perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space" was/is an interesting conceptual exercise and practical challenge, but when music—"real" or otherwise—includes a collage of synthetic sonic elements assembled post-facto, it isn't the critical/relevant ideal or metric.

Unless you're into classical music, of course. Even with theoretically "acoustic" musics, like folk and Jazz, there often is multi-miked juicing and the application of various effects. At least with classical music, the intent is to sound like an event that happened in real space even if the means involve a fair amount of audio/electronic jiggery/pokery.

 

[JiiPee]

I think there is nothing wrong in being a Sound Quality First Audiophile. It just means that one is interested in building a music reproduction system (listening space included) that has as high sound quality capability as possible within the limits set by one's investment in the system.

Being a Sound Quality First Audiophile is just a hobby and it does not exclude having also other hobbies, like listening music for example. One can enjoy listening 1930s recordings and still spend time on learning more about pros and cons of different loudspeaker concepts, usage of DSP etc...

 

[Axo1989]

Unless you're into classical music, of course. Even with theoretically "acoustic" musics, like folk and Jazz, there often is multi-miked juicing and the application of various effects. At least with classical music, the intent is to sound like an event that happened in real space even if the means involve a fair amount of audio/electronic jiggery/pokery.

Yes, I don't mean to downplay/ignore the production work that goes into making good recordings of acoustic instruments, live performances of same, and so on. And I don't think Holt's ideal lacks applicability either, it's useful for those cases and others, but not for everything.

 

[Robin L]

I think there is nothing wrong in being a Sound Quality First Audiophile. It just means that one is interested in building a music reproduction system (listening space included) that has as high sound quality capability as possible within the limits set by one's investment in the system.

Being a Sound Quality First Audiophile is just a hobby and it does not exclude having also other hobbies, like listening music for example. One can enjoy listening 1930s recordings and still spend time on learning more about pros and cons of different loudspeaker concepts, usage of DSP etc...

One can also listen to 1930s recordings and be interested in evolving noise reduction/elimination techniques. I've got Schnabel's Beethoven Piano Sonata cycle on both Naxos and Warner Classics with two very different noise reduction techniques. As a recording engineer of Classical music my intent was sound quality first, preferably using minimal miking techniques. Some of my best sounding recordings involved nothing more than an ORTF pair of Neumanns into a Mackie mixer. Sometimes, less is more.

 

[CapMan]

Well it seems it wasn't until recently that Darko figured that out himself, better late than never I guess. So lets hope he for once can convince his target audience about something that's actually makes a difference for once.

Should we expect a line of Darko Diffusors and Audiophile First Absorbers sometime soon

 

[Punter]

11. A Music First Audiophile recognizes that the sound they are hearing is the product of a technician or engineer manipulating and molding the recorded musical elements into a mix that they find appealing and has no relationship to a live performance.

 

[Multicore]

So, judging by those statements, not me. I'll continue as The Pragmatic Antiaudiophile.