Do you listen mainly to Audiophile CDs and records?

Rvpiano 11-4-2017
I listen mainly to classical music, and the quality of sound varies greatly from disc to disc.
I was wondering if that’s the case with rock, pop and the like.
Do you tend to listen mainly mostly audiophile media?

... Do you avoid listening to music you like, or love because it doesn’t sound good?

I too listen mainly to classical music, which probably comprises around 90% of my listening. But I also enjoy rock, pop, folk, Broadway, and other genres, within the other 10% or so.

And yes, I find that among all genres recording quality varies greatly from disc to disc. I would say also that while my listening tends to gravitate toward better sounding recordings, and they comprise a somewhat disproportionately high percentage of my collection, I don’t particularly avoid listening to poor quality recordings if I enjoy the music.

Regarding the perennial question of whether a higher quality system makes poor recordings more objectionable or less objectionable than when listened to on a lesser quality system, or even via computer speakers or in a car, I find that it can go either way depending on the particular recording. But more often than not I would have to say that a system that is more resolving of fine detail will make a poor recording less objectionable than a lesser system. For example, on an overly bright orchestral recording the sound of massed strings will often tend to be much more listenable when it is resolved into an approximation of the sound of massed strings, albeit with some added brightness, rather than being reproduced as a homogenized blob of sound.

And it depends to a great extent on the nature of the flaws in the recording. As a general rule of thumb, heavy multi-mic’ing and/or a lot of electronic post-processing of a classical (or other) recording will result in sonics that I find to be more objectionable than a simply mic’d (or even monophonic) recording from the pre-hifi days. For example, Toscanini’s 1940 performance of Brahms’ First is one of my favorite recordings of probably my favorite symphony, as played on my main system via a CD I burned it to, despite its very primitive sonics.

Regards,
-- Al

http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/forgiving-resolving/12570/

The blog, "Forgiving or resolving" by Paul McGowan (PS Audio) at the above link might be of interest. It definitely relates to the OP’s question.

From it, comes the quote below:
"If you want your system to provide extraordinary performance levels you need one that’s highly resolving: capturing the best and the worst of every recording. The more forgiving your system, the more you’re trading extraordinary for middle of the road."

I get the point being made and happily disqualify myself from Audiophile-dom as defined by those terms. The system exists to facilitate the enjoyment of music. Reasonable compromises that provide a good measure of resolution yet still allow a wide range of recording quality to be enjoyed seem worth pursuing.

For classical I like Telarc, Naxos, Chandos, Hyperion and Mercury Livinvg Presence.

Like all forms of music jazz, pop or rock, the performer is key - I like Benjamin Zander, Lorin Maazel and Sir Chris Hogwood in particular.

wtf 
+1 I listen to every possible  source to find new and exciting music and then play it on my good sound.  I look for every genre and every style .

I think the post “forgiving vs resolving” misses the point. At this level (let’s presume a well put together six figure system) resolving is a given. The choice is between resolving in an analytic versus musical sense. The former will render your poor recordings “warts and all” and what you focus on is the wart. The latter lets you hear beyond the problems and focus on the essence of the performance. If you want to test what sort of system you have try playing a noisy LP pressing. Do the crackles and pops lift out and separate from the music, or are they all you can hear?