• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

"Music-First Audiophile" Manifesto by John Darko

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Only partly so, even with classical music close miking of instruments gets away from the 'purity' of reproducing the real thing as experienced by the audience. I guess you can argue this can be a good thing and can potentially produce a better record of the performance, I sort of sit on the fence for that but with my preference for small scale works the pure approach is often all that is needed.
 
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.
Do you hate Sal or something?
 
Last edited:
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.
How does that relate to what I said, you seem confused. :facepalm:
If your system isn't first capable of High Fidelity (accurate) playback of the source, your lost before you begin.
That's "sound quality" first. If you later want to inject some EQ or whatever to make that old shellac sound
more pleasant, fine.

If you instead chose components and speakers that are distorted in some way but "make" that 1930s recording sound nice, but not whats really in the grooves, you system will distort everything you listen play in that manner.
 
I like Darko even as I disagree with him about most everything. I don't find him particularly pompous; he just has a posh accent. He can't really help that, can he? A manifesto like this is silly, but it's fine. He's a content creator, this is content. It's certainly got us talking.
2. The Music-First Audiophile has many thousands of albums in his library and will choose audio hardware that elevates the sound quality of those albums.
I spent my teens obsessively collecting albums, but there's this thing called streaming nowadays and it's pretty darn good. What does this have to do with being music-first?
3. The Music-First Audiophile knows that there are many other music genres beyond those that he enjoys (or she will hear at a hi-fi demo). To name a few: hip-hop, metal, funk, soul, grime, techno, country, noise, psychedelic rock and folk.
Everybody knows that there are many music genres.
4. The Music-First Audiophile isn’t trying to bring the live experience home. She understands that music playback is its own art form – a movie is not made by pointing cameras at a stage play.
There are naturalistic albums and non-naturalistic albums; both have their place. For a naturalistic album it is an absolute joy to have the sensation of having those players and instruments in the room with you.
6. The Music-First Audiophile understands that a software app’s user interface, the hardware’s aesthetics, its ergonomics and its haptics all play a part in the overall listening experience.
John Darko understands this. I don't know what it has to do with being music-first.
7. The Music-First Audiophile knows that hi-res audio can enhance sound quality but she will never choose or refuse an album based on the delivery format's sample rate or bit depth. Why? Because she knows that mastering quality matters more.
Why would a music-first audiophile have a particular opinion about hi-res audio?
 
Do you hate Sal of something?
They always just look for a fight because of my views on expensive vinyl spending.

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.
That's a lie Matt and you know it, I've never said anything like that
The joke for you is you've spent tens of thousands of dollars on vinyl playback only to end up
with sound quality from it that's little better than what I had in 1968. And for what, to listen to that "one in 10 million"
antique pressing of some obscure performance not available on digital. LOL
expense.jpg
 
For vulgar excess in the the futile search to improve an inherently flawed medium, don’t miss the Munich Hi-End coverage, I posted a link to Leo’s excellent ‘My HiEnd’ site.
Keith
 
Really? He "hears" all these differences between DACs, amps and streamers...
Well yeah, there is that. But of all the subjectivists he’s the only one I’ve seen stress repeatedly that the differences he describes are “minute at best” and that there are no “night and day” differences etc etc. He’s pretty practical about it all.
 
Only partly so, even with classical music close miking of instruments gets away from the 'purity' of reproducing the real thing as experienced by the audience. I guess you can argue this can be a good thing and can potentially produce a better record of the performance, I sort of sit on the fence for that but with my preference for small scale works the pure approach is often all that is needed.
Certainly with solo or chamber music one is usually better off with just two microphones. At least that's my experience. With orchestral music I'd usually use six microphones, an ORTF pair for most everything, a couple of outriggers placed wide so the sides of the string section wouldn't get lost and two omnis placed as far away as I could get away with to get room sound and bass. This was for "live" recordings, intended for radio replay, mostly. Jack Vad had a system permanently in place of multiple microphones, also mainly for radio rebroadcast, all suspended from the ceiling.

I don't think classical record collectors want the purity of the real thing; the sound would probably get too washed out by hall acoustics. Most recordings of orchestral music and the like are from a closer perspective than is possible from any seat in the hall. About the only recordings that aimed for a purist technique in the digital era were those on Telarc. I happen to like the classic, minimally miked recordings from RCA, Mercury and Decca from the dawn of the stereo era and don't like what happened to Columbia's and DGG's sound once they started using lots of microphones. However, those Columbia and DGG recordings sound a lot better in their current, remixed state these days.
 
Last edited:
How does that relate to what I said, you seem confused. :facepalm:
If your system isn't first capable of High Fidelity (accurate) playback of the source, your lost before you begin.
That's "sound quality" first. If you later want to inject some EQ or whatever to make that old shellac sound
more pleasant, fine.

If you instead chose components and speakers that are distorted in some way but "make" that 1930s recording sound nice, but not whats really in the grooves, you system will distort everything you listen play in that manner.
It relates because you say sound quality comes first. Above and beyond musical concerns. And for what it's worth, the better the replay quality, the better those old recordings sound.

Of course, having the flexibility to shift EQ or otherwise improve sound quality of compromised audio is not the same thing as distorting everything one is listening to.
 
Why would a music-first audiophile have a particular opinion about hi-res audio?
I'm not sure, but my opinion is that high-rez audio doesn't improve sound quality. It might be true that high-rez production makes the end result better, but higher bit rates or a wider frequency response in the end product will not be audible. There are limits to what the human ear can resolve and high-rez recordings exceed those limits. I guess a music-first audiophile wouldn't let a recording's lack of being high-rez get in the way of their enjoyment of that recording.
 
To be honest, if I want subjective takes on gear, I much rather ask most people around here. I cannot stand Darko and I like reading most of you, so if it's going to be subjective, I might as well get the comments in a format I find pleasant.

Any back and fourth between Sal and Matt is a million times more fun than Darko's hipsterisms.
 
Do you hate Sal or something?

Of course not. Pointing out someone has made an odd argument isn't "hating."

Sal's "my way or the highway" attitude shifts between amusing and exhausting, depending on the day, but no "hate."

Darko said that he doesn't deny the relevance of how other audiophiles approach the hobby, but that he was simply carving out his own approach, which he feels is pragmatic with respect to his system's primary reason for being is to play music he likes.

Darko made it clear that, obviously, the gear was important, that's why he's an audiophile:

"8. The Music-First Audiophile knows that the pursuit of better sound is not “all about the music”. She’d be happy listening to music on laptop speakers or tiny white earbuds if it were."

But that:

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

To which Sal replied:

WRONG.
Sound quality should always come first.


Do you think maybe Sal misunderstood Darko's point? Or: What do you think Darko was saying in those above quotes, that is so objectionable?
 
I suppose for the most part, though I would not self identify that way, I'd fit in mostly to Darko's "music first audiophile" criteria.

For instance:

2. The Music-First Audiophile has many thousands of albums in his library and will choose audio hardware that elevates the sound quality of those albums.

I don't think the number of albums matter per se (I have about 1,000 LPs, and almost as many ripped CDs, but of course all of us with streaming have an almost unlimited "library" of music to access).

But I choose my system around whatever allows me to enjoy the music I love as much as possible. So I want the highest proportion of my music to sound good-to-me as possible. If that ends up with some slight zig or zag from perfect neutrality, then I'll take that zig or zag.

Note though: Darko's statement is NOT, as far as I see it, some simple endorsement of "colored" systems, as in "that's what you should do." Every audiophile who prefers his music through a neutral sound system would fit the bill as well. It seems hard to argue against the idea that the vast majority of us are, at bottom, in to audio equipment because of how it impacts the experience of listening to our favourite music in a way we like.
 
Do you think maybe Sal misunderstood Darko's point? Or: What do you think Darko was saying in those above quotes, that is so objectionable?
Easy, IMHO, Darko's Music First over Sound Quality was simply an extension of the "ears only, if it sounds good to me that's all that's important, measurements be damned" audiophool philosophy of High End Audio. A position he often repeats.
 
Easy, IMHO, Darko's Music First over Sound Quality was simply an extension of the "ears only, if it sounds good to me that's all that's important, measurements be damned" audiophool philosophy of High End Audio. A position he often repeats.

Right. You've misunderstood the point of his comment then.

It was not an endorsement of "colored systems over neutral systems" or dictating what type of equipment you should buy.

It was that whatever system the "Music first audiophile" has, in terms of WHICH RECORDINGS that audiophile will choose to play, it will ultimately be dictated by which music he likes best, the musical content, NOT whether "Which Recording Will Sound Sound Best On My System."
 
You've misunderstood the point of his comment then.
Wrong, you have.

2. The Music-First Audiophile has many thousands of albums in his library and will choose audio hardware that elevates the sound quality of those albums.
What do you think he's saying here?
Hi-Fi Gear should first be chosen on it's accuracy to the source, not what makes some of your albums "sound good"
And that's not my "dictating" but it is the definition of the pursuit of High Fidelity.
 
What do you think he's saying here?

That the reason the audiophile chooses her audio gear is to elevate the sound quality of music played on that system - which of course for any audiophile will be mainly focused on the music she likes.

This does not argue against or rule out any audiophile pursuing an accurate system. That's your blinders working, Sal. Many audiophiles find accurate systems elevate the sound quality of their music library. That's why they buy those systems.

Tell me: What was the point of your choosing your gear? Did you choose your gear because your music sounds better on that gear vs "poorer performing" gear or not? (We both know the answer). Your choice of your gear fits in to Darko's point there too Sal. And given Total Accuracy is unattainable you've made your own compromises.
 
Last edited:
Wrong, you have.


What do you think he's saying here?
Hi-Fi Gear should first be chosen on it's accuracy to the source, not what makes some of your albums "sound good"
And that's not my "dictating" but it is the definition of the pursuit of High Fidelity.
Hi-Fi gear should be tailored to the needs of the person using that gear. Not some absolute, unattainable criterion of "accuracy".

Unless we were in the recording booth with the sound engineer, we will never know what "accurate" is. And all too often, there isn't an "accurate" for a given recording, as recordings are, after all, usually an assemblage of different, often incompatible, sonic perspectives and electronic treatments.

No replay of "Dark Side of the Moon" can be accurate, full stop.
 
Hi-Fi gear should be tailored to the needs of the person using that gear. Not some absolute, unattainable criterion of "accuracy".

Unless we were in the recording booth with the sound engineer, we will never know what "accurate" is. And all too often, there isn't an "accurate" for a given recording, as recordings are, after all, an assemblage of different, often incompatible, sonic perspectives and electronic treatments.

No replay of "Dark Side of the Moon" can be accurate, full stop.

Indeed. It's amazing how some can take virtually any pursuit or hobby and introduce dogmatism.
 
Of course not. Pointing out someone has made an odd argument isn't "hating."

Do you think maybe Sal misunderstood Darko's point? Or: What do you think Darko was saying in those above quotes, that is so objectionable?
I think you and Sal have a major difference of opinion and it would better if both of you guys stopped butting your heads in public. Then again, some around here like to see the sparks fly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom