"Music-First Audiophile" Manifesto by John Darko

[CapMan]

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."

Should folks just enjoy listening to music regardless of the playback equipment.

If not, why did the musicians bother? I doubt they care what system we use to enjoy their labours.

 

[MattHooper]

Should folks just enjoy listening to music regardless of the playback equipment.

If not, why did the musicians bother? I doubt they care what system we use to enjoy their labours.

Darko is just speaking self evident truths and turning them into some kind of wisdom - I have no time for it.

I agree much of what Darko wrote seems obvious and reasonable, but clearly there are those who don't see it that way, as we've seen in this thread.

Sometimes mostly because, well, it's Darko. And we can't let Darko be too "right." ;-)

Which is where this meme comes in sometimes for this forum:

 

[CapMan]

I agree much of what Darko wrote seems obvious and reasonable, but clearly there are those who don't see it that way, as we've seen in this thread.

Sometimes mostly because, well, it's Darko.

Oops - I edited that bit out - felt it was a bit pompous thanks for capturing it for posterity

 

[Vacceo]

I agree much of what Darko wrote seems obvious and reasonable, but clearly there are those who don't see it that way, as we've seen in this thread.

Sometimes mostly because, well, it's Darko. And we can't let Darko be too "right." ;-)

Exactly. If the point is subjectivism, mine clearly loathes him.

And by the same token, I appreciate your subjective renditions a lot more than his simply due to absolute agnosticism of signals.

 

[kemmler3D]

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

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.

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.

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.

5. The Music-First Audiophile understands that sound quality is affected more by the listening room’s acoustic make-up than the electronics chain that feeds the loudspeakers.

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.

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.

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.

9. The Music-First Audiophile knows that being an audiophile isn't about how much money she spends on audio gear but how much she cares about sound quality without letting the tail wag the dog. Music comes first. Always.

10. The Music-First Audiophile thinks music first, hardware second, format third.

Some good points, but coming from a man who puts weights on top of DACs and Streamers to improve the sound, it sounds a little bit weird.

Thanks for sharing here... Darko is an interesting guy, I think his head is screwed on 90% straight, but he's still got some subjectivist opinions that are doubly weird in context with some of his other beliefs that seem to be in reasonable correspondence with objective fact. He says acoustics matter more than electronics (good) then goes on to say hi-res improves sound quality (oof)...

I agree or at least fail to disagree with most of it, except:

The first half of point 4 -I think "live sound at home" is a valid goal, although it's not one I share or find conceptually compelling, for the reason he stated here

The first half of point 7, for obvious reasons.

The first half of point 2 - I don't really think gatekeeping anything based on exactly how many albums someone has in their library is useful or helpful. If it's 10 or 100 or 10,000 you can still care about music quite a bit.

 

[Soria Moria]

The more someone has to remind themselves that they are a 'music first' audiophile the less I feel like they really are. It's like they're trying to convince themselves.

 

[kemmler3D]

I’m surprised by anybody who hasn’t encountered this before.

Agree, this has been a common practice in formal writing since before I was born. So unless you think the Reagan years were too woke I guess this is poor grist for the outrage mill.

 

[CapMan]

Well all I know is, the sun is up, the air is warm, the wine is cold, and the Sonos Play 1 on the deck is doing just fine for me

 

[Purité Audio]

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.

It doesn’t matter what the mastering engineer may or may not have heard all we have is the artefact.
All we can do is attempt to reproduce that file as accurately as possible, if that is you are interested in high-fidelity.
Keith

 

[CapMan]

All we can do is attempt to reproduce that file as accurately as possible, if that is you are interested in high-fidelity.

This is a great thread and I am in the camp of music-phile first, audiophile second (whatever that is) . Take my system away, but never ever take away the music .

Think I’m done, most cathartic - thanks all and wish you a great weekend.

 

[Basic Channel]

I feel sorry for the movie-first audiophile. Watching movies with the tv off.

 

[MattHooper]

Thanks for sharing here... Darko is an interesting guy, I think his head is screwed on 90% straight, but he's still got some subjectivist opinions that are doubly weird in context with some of his other beliefs that seem to be in reasonable correspondence with objective fact. He says acoustics matter more than electronics (good) then goes on to say hi-res improves sound quality (oof)...

I agree.

Darko used to bug me more. Mainly, he talks with a vocal inflection and facial expression that often gives me the impression of an obnoxious dude talking exasperatedly to his girlfriend like "you just don't get things, do you? I can't believe I have to explain this.."

However, allowing that just seems to be his default physical affect and it doesn't necessarily mean that...

I can get quite a bit from his reviews and I find he's often making reasonable points. And I see him as generally a good dude, enthusiastic about audio equipment and music.

Personally I try not to delineate via strict purity tests, by which I mean if someone is generally agreeable, or says things I agree with, I don't just dismiss them wholly if they believe some things I don't, or say some things I disagree with. Darko fits in to that scenario for me. He goes a bit too far in to the subjectivist camp on some stuff. But..eh..I can dig the stuff he says I agree with, and derive entertainment and some information from his channel.

 

[Robin L]

It doesn’t matter what the mastering engineer may or may not have heard all we have is the artefact.
All we can do is attempt to reproduce that file as accurately as possible, if that is you are interested in high-fidelity.
Keith

But how can we possibly know what "accurate" is with a recording, particularly of an audio event assembled from disjunct bits and pieces?

All a person can do, honestly, is please themselves as best as they can. If one's ears are attuned to the shriek of live, loud Metal, that will be their standard. If it's the sound of classical music in an acoustically friendly environment, that will be their standard. It would be very difficult to get ideal representations of both of those sounds with one audio system.

But "accurate" is a red herring, at best. If the final mixdown of an album was via Auratones, I kinda doubt "accurate" replay is even possible.

 

[Purité Audio]

The file is the artefact the only thing left, we can only attempt to reproduce it accurately as possible.
Keith

 

[kemmler3D]

But "accurate" is a red herring, at best. If the final mixdown of an album was via Auratones, I kinda doubt "accurate" replay is even possible.

This is why it's "high-fidelity" (to the recording) and not "high-accuracy" (in the sense of resembling a live concert somehow).

Both are worthy goals depending on who you ask, but fidelity is measurable while accuracy (in the sense of realism) has too many variables to even agree on a concrete definition, let alone measure it. Accuracy and fidelity are often used interchangeably which makes it confusing.

 

[Anton D]

I feel sorry for the movie-first audiophile. Watching movies with the tv off.

Perfectly said.

The two things that really draw them to their systems seems to be expense and inconvenience.

Is it Dolby worship?

Bottom line, as someone already pointed out is that our enjoyment of music is what draws us to audiophilia. I suspect there are only a minority of these 'gear first' audiophiles....unless they waited until electronics became "signal perfect' and they could spend time equalizing a room full of speakers before they ever deined to actually listen to music. Would they now quit listening to music if they had a change in living circumstance?

The iconoclasm is cute. It's a nice form of leisure anger and fist shaking, signifying nothing.

I liked the post where someone mentioned we often separate the two, fine by me!

Also, fellas, if you sit around ranting how people wanted to have set ups that please them, please feel free to shut up and sit and point out how great your system is with pink noise.

 

[Anton D]

This is why it's "high-fidelity" (to the recording) and not "high-accuracy" (in the sense of resembling a live concert somehow).

Both are worthy goals depending on who you ask, but fidelity is measurable while accuracy (in the sense of realism) has too many variables to even agree on a definition, let alone measure it. Accuracy and fidelity are often used interchangeably which makes it confusing.

Really well done, sir.

 

[kemmler3D]

I agree.

Darko used to bug me more. Mainly, he talks with a vocal inflection and facial expression that often gives me the impression of an obnoxious dude talking exasperatedly to his girlfriend like "you just don't get things, do you? I can't believe I have to explain this.."

However, allowing that just seems to be his default physical affect and it doesn't necessarily mean that...

I can get quite a bit from his reviews and I find he's often making reasonable points. And I see him as generally a good dude, enthusiastic about audio equipment and music.

Personally I try not to delineate via strict purity tests, by which I mean if someone is generally agreeable, or says things I agree with, I don't just dismiss them wholly if they believe some things I don't, or say some things I disagree with. Darko fits in to that scenario for me. He goes a bit too far in to the subjectivist camp on some stuff. But..eh..I can dig the stuff he says I agree with, and derive entertainment and some information from his channel.

Darko doesn't bug me because I don't watch his videos and I rarely read his stuff. I'm aware that he's a presence in the audiophile world, but if nobody posted his stuff here I would never see it. I'm dimly aware of his audio worldview, more so now that he's codified it in a list. As far as that goes... I've seen a lot worse.

 

[Anton D]

The file is the artefact the only thing left, we can only attempt to reproduce it accurately as possible.
Keith

So, a multi channel mix of a two channel artifact would be what? An abomination?

 

[Purité Audio]

It would be a multi channel upmix.
Keith