|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.162.12.180
In Reply to: Stereoohile's R2D4 posted by Maestro on January 26, 2006 at 18:19:31:
and I gotta be honest it's really a pretty damned lame list if you think about it. I kind of wish it was more about little known stuff but I get the feeling it's more about establishing one as a golden ear or earning a few hip credential points.It's just me - it's impossible for me to reconclile listening to the Clash on a TT I paid $2,000 for but it's downright disusting thinking about an ex-magazine publisher slick sassy assed rich boy doing it on a $90K turntable. puke
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Follow Ups:
I will agree with you. But honestly, that's how I feel about Stereophile's record reviews in general. I don't see albums all that often that I've even heard of, much less interested in. I wish they would review more jazz and modern music. I'm sure there is still good quality (sound and performance) music being put out today that is also well known to the masses.
I actually like the reviews - both equipment and the music. Stereophile actually put me onto PJ Harvey. I like reading peoples opinions but these compilation type
of "recommended" lists just turn me off to the extreme.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
It is staggering how much better The Absolute Sound is compared to Stereophile when it comes to rock music in general, and indie-rock in particular. Having said that I do like the R2D4 feature, and I did notice a few more interesting titles this time around..The Silver Jews, Sufjan Stevens, The Drive by Truckers, The National, Kruder & Dorfmeister; nothing wrong with bringing obscure titles to the attention of Stereophile readers.
Only if you live in a box:http://rateyourmusic.com/top_albums?year=2005
http://www.metacritic.com/music/bests/2005.shtml
http://pitchforkmedia.com/top/2005/index5.shtml
Maybe not obscure among music critics, but I was speaking of the general public and/or the average Stereophile reader.
Music critics?Some of the mentioned albums could only be obscure to those who do not look for new music (or only pay lip service to looking.) A lot of Stereophile readers are quite adept at seeking out bargain gear on the internet - do they realise it's possible to seek out new music as well?
If most of this music is obscure to you, you haven't been looking. Hence my comment about living in a box.
You'd rather listen to the Clash on CD, or cassette, or what? I don't understand that comment at all.
i'd take the clash over all of that annoying jazz vomit they push. man do i ever despise jazz. it's dysfuntional music. the the equivilent of listening to an insane person mumble nonsense to themselves.their choices in classical are just as crappy. i don't recall ever seeing any great symphonies in their lists either. no tchaikowski, no dvorak, no holst, and no rossini, but alot of boring bach elevator music.
oh don't get me started on operatic death wailing. *shudder*
the list isn't just about fidelity, it's also about what the writers like. if it weren't for the list, i never would have heard of "shonen knife". now THAT'S music i can tap my toe to!
> > the list isn't just about fidelity, it's also about what the
> > writers like.You mean like to admit they like - there's a big difference. Now I'm not a mind-reader but I know for sure that discussions about music are often as more about enhancing one's "credibility" than it is about revealling one's favorite and most listened to music.
I find it unimaginable that anyone who was into music for a number of years could suddenly discover the Clash's London Calling (or any other recording of popular music for that matter) because it was audiophile remastered or now sounds so good because it's been recorded onto CD from being spun on a 90K TT.
I'm sure some good stuff has shown up on that list before - but IMO it's not as worthwhile as spending a couple of hours at a Virgin records listen station or reading any number of music fan websites.
Why I or anyone else should care what these self-annoited audio celebrities listen to is beyond me.
i never accused the clash of being "hi-fi" although from what i recall, "combat rock" isn't that bad, but they definately make better MUSIC than most hifi sludge.i'll take the kingsmen's version of "louie louie" over most of the junk in the R2D4 list any day.
poorly recorded (and even played) music that has a heart will ALWAYS be better than ultrafi heartless tripe as far as i'm concerned.
music 1st, fidelity second.
"shonen knife: gasatanka giant" is strictly lofi, but it has a huge heart and can get my toe tappin'. that's what i call music.
if they ever wanted to name R2D4s that are hifi AND great music to boot, rykodisk kicks awesome (and cheap) compilations out with many tracks worthy of reference disc status when listening to new gear.
"the best of both worlds" features many great vocal tracks, many great dynamics tests, imaging workouts, subwoofer destroying bass and tweeter speed tracks. you could pretty much acess the quality of any system with that $10 2 CD compilation. aside from the recording quality, the music is downright awesome and varied.
every time i see yet another "miles davis" disc in the R2D4 list however, i cringe.
> > i never accused the clash of being "hi-fi" although from what i
> > recall, "combat rock" isn't that bad, but they definately make
> > better MUSIC than most hifi sludge.No you didn't but at least one "pro" audio reviewer apparently discovered the Clash just this year.
I recall at some point being in agreement with your view on combat rock. But these days I don't consider it a good sounding record at all - though it does best fit what many rock fans seem to consider an audiophile kind of recording given the work of the Clash (at least that which I'm familiar with).
Personally I prefer the sound of the earlier recordings to combat rock and even to London Calling for that matter.
> > i'll take the kingsmen's version of "louie louie" over most of the
> > junk in the R2D4 list any day.Um, yea probably, but what does this really mean? There seems to be a big difference in opinion in what a good rock recording actually is. I've concluded that what many would consider a bad rock recording due to low production values is actually a good recording - at the same time I would consider what many audiophiles consider to be a good rock recording to actually be a bad recording due to heavy handed production values.
Over time I've come to a conclusion that very often what is considered a good rock recording is simply a recording that doesn't sound bad on the average audiophile's stereo system.
> > poorly recorded (and even played) music that has a heart will
> > ALWAYS be better than ultrafi heartless tripe as far as i'm
> > concerned.> > music 1st, fidelity second.
Sure I completely agree. Our differences would revolve around our definition of good recording and fidelity. I would consider Led Zeppelin I, the Stooges Raw Power and MC5 - Kick Out the Jams as great rock recordings regardless of how they fit the audiophiles definition of high-fidelity. I've heard audiophiles criticize the "quality" of these recordings time and time again - but the bottom line is they wouldn't be the great records that they are if they sounded differently than they do.
Many audiophiles talk about the great sound of say, the Eagles Live or Dire Straights Money for Nothing. WHATEVER!!!!! Yea I get the sound quality part but I believe the recordings are actually "worse" because of it not better. Maybe it's just me but that kind of squeaky clean sounding kind of stuff just leaves me searching for the next disk.
In many ways I think that the audiophile definition of a good recording is kind of off-putting to rock music fans. Add to that the general acceptence that this stuff is supposed to sound bad on a good stereo one's gotta wonder why how any rock fan could find his way in audiophiledom at all.
Sorry about the rant - guess I get tired of talking about music and having some "audiophile" butt in and comment "but it sounds like shit".
Give me rhythm or give me death!
hey... say whatever you have to say as long as it's about the music and not someone's ancestors.there are still SOME rock recordings out there that are also hi-fi.
dark side of the moon is surely the king of the rock and roll demo disc hill. even 30 years later, it's still getting respect in the SACD format. it's great music and sounds great too. the whole "grandfather clock" intro to time is a definate tweeter workout by anyone's standards.
"the cars" and "the b-52s" both have some pretty nice sounding tracks too. then there's "talkingheads". i still use "the good thing" from their second album as an imaging demo with it's group vocals and L/R wandering lead vocals.
solex vs. the hitmeister isn't as much rock as it it is pop, but it has tracks that test many of standard hi-fi hallmarks including: bass, treble extension, imaging, image depth, and female vocals. i don't know of ANY track in my music collection that is as revealing of tweeter speed and extension than "solex for a while". i've never really heard all of it HF content exept on B&W tweeters where it sounds really loud. on typical soft domes, the HF info becomes barely audible.
regardless of recording quality, i'd rather have a 40 year old cassette recorded off the radio with great music than MOST of the "pristine" but heartless crap out today.
fidelity is nice and should be strived for (unless you're DELIBERATELY trying to sound gritty and dirty... nothing wrong with that) but harmony, melody and beat etc. are way more important.
most of the demo discs i've heard at high end shops are pretty darned boring. lousy music on 24/96 is still lousy music. awesome music on a mono gramaphone cylinder will always be awesome.
average rock recordings still sound ALOT better on a nice system. nearly anything in my collection is decent sounding at worst on my modest system. you can hear "led zep" 100 times on 100 average systems, but when you hear the remastered version on a true hifi system, it isn't shabby.
no, it can't compete with a serious minimalist acoustic recording, but it's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY better than hearing it on a department store shelf system.
a good system CAN make a silk purse out of a sow's ear recording. as painfully bright sounding as the buzzcocks sound on virtually every system i've heard them on, they sound almost warm on my class-d panasonic reciever.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: