Why We Need Audiophiles

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

In the past, some people have asked me if I was an audiophile, simply because I have a good set of cans, a good audio card, and also happen to stick to lossless formats for my collection. But, I'll be the first to admit that I'm the furthest thing from being an audiophile. Just reading a review like Rory's is enough to reaffirm the fact that I simply know nothing when it comes to quality audio.

You might feel like you don't to be an audiophile or have expensive equipment to enjoy music, and you're absolutely correct. But another good fact to realize is that even if we aren't audiophiles, we can thank those who are, since they're undoubtedly the reason that (affordable) audio equipment nowadays is so good, and not to mention music production in general as well.

Gizmodo believes we owe a lot to audiophiles, and came to realize this after paying a visit to Michael Fremer, an editor for Stereophile magazine. Although Michael has hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment in his living room, he certainly doesn't believe that anything like that is required. In fact, he even states that folks who build a quality system for $3,000 - $5,000 are going to achieve "85" (out of a hundred) when it comes to overall audio quality. Getting those extra few percentage points and decimal places is not an inexpensive affair.

But would you believe that despite his equipment, he prefers music on vinyl? There's a few good reasons for it, and many true audiophiles feel the same way. And if you think that your 256 kbit/s audio is adequate, don't go talking to Michael about it! Indeed, audiophiles may be the fussiest people around, but it works out to our favor in the end, that's for sure.

We play my solid 256kbps VBR MP3 of "Heroes" off my iPod; it sounds like shit. Free of pops and crackles, yes, but completely lifeless, flat in every way. This is the detail that matters: Audiophiles are basically synesthesiacs. They "see" music in three-dimensional visual space. You close your eyes in Fremer's chair, and you can perceive a detailed 3D matrix of sound, with each element occupying its own special space in the air. It's crazy and I've never experienced anything like it.

Source: Gizmodo​

 

[2Tired2Tango]

some people have asked me if I was an audiophile,

Hey Rob... been a while and I thought I'd drop by and see what's new. Nice article and a very good point.

Was a time when high end manufacturers like Amcron, McIntosh, Klipsh etc. used to actively seek out "audiophiles" to test their gear with... These guys were perhaps the first "Beta" testers... Although my skills are largely technical and I do not consider myself an audiophile I spent many a joyous hour in demo rooms and specially equalized audition rooms, listening to some of the most beautiful music you can ever hope to hear.

A true audiophile has an advantage over the best of us. He can close his eyes in front of a proper system and he can *see* the music... Yes, he can visualize the performers but it goes beyond that, the music affects him in ways that play on his emotions and his perceptions producing an experience unlike anything we know. If the equipment (or the performance) is the least bit off, the experience fails them.

My point is that these companies learned about the human ear as much as about frequency response and crossover notches... they were discovering how to produce sound people enjoyed... and we can thank the extra-critical ear of a true audiophile for some of the best gear then or now on the market.

Just this evening I was reminded of a demonstration I attended at a new model introduction. The company had a live band on the stage to play the first couple of pieces, then they played a couple of recorded pieces on their gear... and blew us all away with how lifelike it was... then came the kicker... third set, the live band is back playing some really hot jazz pieces, we're all duely appreciative, and then they just put down their instruments and walked off the stage... the third set was recorded! We were sold and dozens of orders were placed on the spot...

Sound reproduction is not technical ... it is as much an art as the original performance. It is the perfection of mimicry, to the degree that the copy cannot be distinguished from the original. Of course anyone who's never seen a live performance, would never know this... they just accept what is handed to them as "as good as it gets".

As I've pointed out in past articles here, sometimes you find a rose in the sludge, sometimes you find the sludge. In recent years there has been a real trend away from quality audio gear, it's all plastics and tin, where it used to be *furniture*, wood, anodized aluminium, powder coatings etc. Unfortunately the cheapening also brings about degradation in the quality of sound. Today's absolute best PC speakers won't hold a candle to mediocre stereo speakers from the 60s and 70s...

Today's "audiophile" is more correctly described as a "Bassphile", judging the quality of the music by it's ability to irritate people 4 houses away. Rather than seeking the clarity of a flute or the heart of a violin, they satisfy themselves with earthquake level bottom end and often don't even recognize instruments in the upper register... how sad.

Are you an audiophile? Simple test... put on a well made classical recording on a pair of top line headphones, at moderate volume... do you hear 1 of each instrument --one violin, one tuba, one obo-- or do you hear the lines of instruments played in combination to produce the desired effects. Most listeners hear the lead violin... a true audiophile can hear each one seperately.

Now comes the big question... can your gear give you that experience? Most can't.

 

[Rob Williams]

Just this evening I was reminded of a demonstration I attended at a new model introduction. The company had a live band on the stage to play the first couple of pieces, then they played a couple of recorded pieces on their gear... and blew us all away with how lifelike it was... then came the kicker... third set, the live band is back playing some really hot jazz pieces, we're all duely appreciative, and then they just put down their instruments and walked off the stage... the third set was recorded! We were sold and dozens of orders were placed on the spot...

Wow, what a perfect demonstration! I can just picture the dropped jaws after the third set!

Unfortunately the cheapening also brings about degradation in the quality of sound. Today's absolute best PC speakers won't hold a candle to mediocre stereo speakers from the 60s and 70s...

Sadly, I think this applies to <em>many</em> things, not just audio. It's all about building a good product nowadays that longs just enough to keep the customer happy.

Thinking about all this makes me really want a better sound system, although I'm still quite pleased with my set of cans. I like being able to experience loud music without disturbing other people (closed back headphones are one of the best inventions ever ;-).

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Wow, what a perfect demonstration! I can just picture the dropped jaws after the third set!

Yeah... like to see them pull that off with today's equipment. It was McIntosh, btw...

http://www.mcintoshlabs.com ... check out their heritage pages.

Sadly, I think this applies to <em>many</em> things, not just audio. It's all about building a good product nowadays that longs just enough to keep the customer happy.

Ain't that the truth... just good enough to get you to buy, but not good enough to really last.

I have an old "Minimus 7" system from Radio Shack that I use for FM ... the original amp, the original speakers, all still working perfectly 30 years after I bought them... By contrast I have a remote control I got from The Source, the first one died and the second one is on it's last legs... but I'm still on the first set of batteries... the batteries are going to outlast the equipment twice over!

Thinking about all this makes me really want a better sound system, although I'm still quite pleased with my set of cans. I like being able to experience loud music without disturbing other people (closed back headphones are one of the best inventions ever ;-).

I get that too... it's like this little voice following you around demanding that you dump a bucket of money just to see how much better it really is... Shop carefully, buy only best quality, and you'll only have to buy it once.

My eye these days is on Kenwood, Bose, Klipsch and Pioneer. My money seems to be on Logitech, JVC and RCA... oh well, champaigne tastes on a beer budget... such is life.

 

[Rob Williams]

Ain't that the truth... just good enough to get you to buy, but not good enough to really last.

That's what bugs me... it's like that with everything. TV's used to last forever, but when I bought my 26" LCD TV back in 2005, it had developed serious problems by early 2006... which is absolutely needless. For the price I paid for that piece of crap, I could purchase a 40" TV today!

I'm not familiar enough to comment on speakers or the quality of, but Pioneer is one company I'd love to devote some money to. They have some amazing DJing equipment that's truly drool-worthy.

oh well, champaigne tastes on a beer budget... such is life.

LOL. Nice, and I can relate.

 

[Kougar]

I found a flac recording of one of my 256bit albums... Out of curiosity I nabbed it and gave them both a listen to... the difference is astonishingly subtle but I could notice it. I'm not sure how to describe it except that it had more depth and was more "full" sounding... but it was subtle. I'm not sure if I could hear the difference between a good 320bit and FLAC recording, at least not on my setup!

I wish there were more audiophiles and audio purists out there, we definitely do not have enough! I try to buy my music in the highest quality just because, but almost everyone only offers 256bit or 256 VBR... CD Baby, Amazon, and a few dozen other sites. Am I right in that not even iTunes offers a lossless format download option?

Regardless of thoughts on the right or wrong of allofmp3, they did one thing right which everyone seemed to love. They allowed most music to be downloaded (and priced) in anything between 128 to 320 or even CD quality, and I think we really need a legitimate music site with the same option for consumers. Otherwise it's just one more reason to download rather than buy, pirates can often get better quality copies than buying it legitimately.

I don't know what business school most of these music studio execs attended, but they seemed to have missed a few key concepts. Instead they would rather sue people, which they have begun doing again last month.

 

[Rob Williams]

I'm not sure if I could hear the difference between a good 320bit and FLAC recording, at least not on my setup!

It can sometimes be tough to tell the difference, that's for sure, but I've found it's more so obvious on some genres over another. Trance music, for example, usually fares better at a lower bit rate than rock. At 320 Kbit/s, the quality is good, but there's still compression going on, so there's undoubtedly going to be a loss of detail (this would likely not count for older music where the original recording wasn't that good to begin with).

A good sound system helps a lot with finding the differences, and even clean ears for that matter :-D

Am I right in that not even iTunes offers a lossless format download option?

;-)

To be honest, I can't see it taking that long before lossless downloads actually surface, because there are many out there who would gladly pay a $1 more for a lossless copy. What better way to get your lossless audio than directly from the source? That beats ripping a CD any day. As long as they actually cater to audiophiles and encode it properly, which I assume they'd have to.

I hear you on the low bit rate thing though. I hate purchasing non-lossless music, but I've made a habit of doing so for certain albums and tracks, only if it's to save money. I have about 500 tracks I've gotten off of iTunes since I started using it (no, not all are singles, that'd be hella-expensive), and although I don't love the 256 Kbit/s audio, it suffices for albums I'm not that fussy about.

What I mean is, if I can get an album off of iTunes for $8.99 and it costs $15.99 on Amazon before shipping, I'll go with iTunes unless I really want that album in the best quality. Some artists I'm really fussy about that way, some not. I just bought Grafton Primary's debut album on there for example... the album cost me $5.99. Would have been a lot more to get it off of Amazon.

I agree on AllofMP3 wholeheartedly. We need a legit service like that, and now.

 

[madmat]

From our front-page news:

In the past, some people have asked me if I was an audiophile, simply because I have a good set of cans, a good audio card, and also happen to stick to lossless formats for my collection. But, I'll be the first to admit that I'm the furthest thing from being an audiophile. Just reading a review like Rory's is enough to reaffirm the fact that I simply know nothing when it comes to quality audio.

You might feel like you don't to be an audiophile or have expensive equipment to enjoy music, and you're absolutely correct. But another good fact to realize is that even if we aren't audiophiles, we can thank those who are, since they're undoubtedly the reason that (affordable) audio equipment nowadays is so good, and not to mention music production in general as well.

Gizmodo believes we owe a lot to audiophiles, and came to realize this after paying a visit to Michael Fremer, an editor for Stereophile magazine. Although Michael has hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment in his living room, he certainly doesn't believe that anything like that is required. In fact, he even states that folks who build a quality system for $3,000 - $5,000 are going to achieve "85" (out of a hundred) when it comes to overall audio quality. Getting those extra few percentage points and decimal places is not an inexpensive affair.

But would you believe that despite his equipment, he prefers music on vinyl? There's a few good reasons for it, and many true audiophiles feel the same way. And if you think that your 256 kbit/s audio is adequate, don't go talking to Michael about it! Indeed, audiophiles may be the fussiest people around, but it works out to our favor in the end, that's for sure.

We play my solid 256kbps VBR MP3 of "Heroes" off my iPod; it sounds like shit. Free of pops and crackles, yes, but completely lifeless, flat in every way. This is the detail that matters: Audiophiles are basically synesthesiacs. They "see" music in three-dimensional visual space. You close your eyes in Fremer's chair, and you can perceive a detailed 3D matrix of sound, with each element occupying its own special space in the air. It's crazy and I've never experienced anything like it.

Source: Gizmodo​

That guy's an idiot. "My 256kb/s recording sounds terrible" Of course it is, it's inherently lossy especially in AAC format. A well encoded MP3 at 256K will sound worlds better than the same rate AAC. Want lossless sound? VBR WMA is a great lossless format that doesn't take up a super huge amount of space.

And no not all audiophiles prefer vinyl. Vinyl degrades with each use, is hard to maintain, is noisy, once dusty are damn near impossible to clean... ever again, etc, etc, et al. If you can afford to listen to an album once or twice then discard it then it's not too bad of a medium. Still, analog is very, very flawed.

2tired, while I think that the demonstration does sound impressive I can tell you now that while those speakers might sound great in medium to far field, most people listen in near field (less than 8 feet from ear to speaker) and a far field design that sounds exceptional from 15-20 feet away in a large room can sound a lot different when auditioned from a normal listening distance in a smaller room. That's part of the reason why the Boston bookshelf systems are so highly regarded. Not only were they a convenient size they sound spectacular in a near field environment.

 

[Rob Williams]

That guy's an idiot. "My 256kb/s recording sounds terrible" Of course it is, it's inherently lossy especially in AAC format. A well encoded MP3 at 256K will sound worlds better than the same rate AAC.

He's an idiot for simply pointing that out? I really need to watch what I say around here, then. Of course it's lossy, he's not that naive and doesn't realize that. He used it as an example because it's extremely typical for readers of that site to use it, since a vast number of them use iTunes. Plus, I'd be hard-pressed to call AAC 256 kbit/s "worse" than MP3 at the same bit rate. Both sound damn similar, and both are lossy.

As for VBR WMA, having a VBR option is alright, but I don't see a reason to not use something like FLAC, given that storage is so unbelievably affordable nowadays. That is, of course, unless you want to use it on a Zune, where I could understand the desire to cram as much in there as possible.

I'd MUCH rather go with an open standard lossless format rather than a proprietary Microsoft one. You're going to see far better support for the former than the latter.

And no not all audiophiles prefer vinyl.

I didn't say "all". And yes, analog is seriously flawed. I still like LP though, even though I don't have a player. It's mainly a history thing though, but it remains important. It's funny how artists still release LPs... I just bought one last month (for the album in my avatar). I like that people still support it, at least for those who want it.

Funny we don't see that with cassettes though... a technology even more flawed than LPs. At least LPs are stable... with cassettes we had to deal with screwups in the machine, and sometimes the machine eating the ribbon. That used to be so frustrating.

 

[madmat]

He's an idiot for simply pointing that out? I really need to watch what I say around here, then. Of course it's lossy, he's not that naive and doesn't realize that. He used it as an example because it's extremely typical for readers of that site to use it, since a vast number of them use iTunes. Plus, I'd be hard-pressed to call AAC 256 kbit/s "worse" than MP3 at the same bit rate. Both sound damn similar, and both are lossy.

As for VBR WMA, having a VBR option is alright, but I don't see a reason to not use something like FLAC, given that storage is so unbelievably affordable nowadays. That is, of course, unless you want to use it on a Zune, where I could understand the desire to cram as much in there as possible.

I'd MUCH rather go with an open standard lossless format rather than a proprietary Microsoft one. You're going to see far better support for the former than the latter.



I didn't say "all". And yes, analog is seriously flawed. I still like LP though, even though I don't have a player. It's mainly a history thing though, but it remains important. It's funny how artists still release LPs... I just bought one last month (for the album in my avatar). I like that people still support it, at least for those who want it.

Funny we don't see that with cassettes though... a technology even more flawed than LPs. At least LPs are stable... with cassettes we had to deal with screwups in the machine, and sometimes the machine eating the ribbon. That used to be so frustrating.

Well, you don't see people that hold cassettes dear but they do love reel to reel. IMHO, 1/2" reel to reel is THE analog medium of choice for a true audiophile. A large reel run at the highest speed will give you the truest playback free of hiss, pops, snaps and have far more dynamic headroom than any other source material. CD's and vinyl can't hold a candle to a reel to reel recording running at 7ips.

I've never used AAC but from everyone I've spoken to about it AAC has more artifacting in the midrange than MP3 does which translates into it having a harder sound. Naturally a true audiophile is going to hate it because it sounds harsh.

And, no, you had nothing to do with my saying that he's an idiot, he's an idiot because he's comparing analog to digital sound and going with (in my opinion) the worst of the digital breeds. As to the WMA VBR versus something like FLAC... well, 99% of every PC in use in the world supports WMA VBR whereas FLAC is something that requires software from a third party. WMP is one of the most polished media players around. Say what you will about anything from M$ sucking, I've seen many players that aren't nearly as easy to use.

 

[Rob Williams]

Reel to reel sounds like the name of a boy band, haha. What is that exactly? It's like a cassette, but much larger or something? I've never heard of it that I know of. As for AAC, I haven't noticed any real problems with 256 kbit/s, and I've bought about 500 tracks worth off of iTunes in that format. There's a noticeable difference between it and lossless, but I still don't think I noticed any real difference between it and MP3 (although it's been a while since I've done a direct comparison).

And, no, you had nothing to do with my saying that he's an idiot, he's an idiot because he's comparing analog to digital sound and going with (in my opinion) the worst of the digital breeds.

I agree for the most part, but let's face it, we're not all audiophiles. There's likely a lot of people out there who truly believed that the digital file would sound better than the analog (it's kind of easy to understand why... people think digital is always the best).

As for WMA VBR, it's still a closed format, and proprietary. FLAC is open and free, and widely supported, not just on the PC, but on devices as well (such as Squeezebox). As for WMP... no, nevermind ;-)

 

[madmat]

Dude, I've read self professed "audiophiles" say that they prefer using 128K (or lower!) over higher rates as they sound more analog. WTF?

Reel to reel are like those old computer tape systems for storage back in the '60's and '70's. Huge spools of magnetic tape.

 

[Rob Williams]

If you prefer 128 kbit/s over anything and consider yourself an audiophile, you have deep-rooted issues. Even my siblings could tell the difference between 128 kbit/s and 256 kbit/s, I'm sure of it.

As for reel to reel, cool... I kind of thought that but wasn't sure. Great page on it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel_to_reel

Feel like I've gone down memory lane there, even though I've never touched one of them before, haha.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

That guy's an idiot.

Can we please not start messages with insults...

And no not all audiophiles prefer vinyl. Vinyl degrades with each use, is hard to maintain, is noisy, once dusty are damn near impossible to clean... ever again, etc, etc, et al. If you can afford to listen to an album once or twice then discard it then it's not too bad of a medium. Still, analog is very, very flawed.

Yes there are drawbacks to vinyl... but there are (were?) also methods of protecting it that worked very well. I've had albums that I played dozens of times with no noticeable degredation in sound... but then I wasn't exactly using a $9.95 cartridge with the penny on top to play them.

ALL sound reproduction is, at some point, analog in nature... because sound itself is anlog in nature. It is not inherently flawed, it is what it is. I can point you at analog amps that will make today's digital amps sound like that tin-can speaker outside Tim Hortons. As I pointed out earlier, proper reproduction of sound lies in the art of perfect mimicry, which digital cannot do... digitizing an analog signal of necessity imposes limitations on slew and ramp accuracy that cannot be reconstructed on playback. Even "lossless" digital will suffer this problem because you are numerically encoding a non-numerical value.

I will concede the audible difference between a good quality CD and Vinyl is minimal, but for those of us who tend to be overly critical (an audiophile's stock in trade) these differences no matter how subtle can affect the overall enjoyment of the music. To my ear CDs have a "mechanical" edge that I've never heard in live performances or from Vinyl.

2tired, while I think that the demonstration does sound impressive I can tell you now that while those speakers might sound great in medium to far field, most people listen in near field (less than 8 feet from ear to speaker) and a far field design that sounds exceptional from 15-20 feet away in a large room can sound a lot different when auditioned from a normal listening distance in a smaller room. That's part of the reason why the Boston bookshelf systems are so highly regarded. Not only were they a convenient size they sound spectacular in a near field environment.

Absolutely. Boston Accoustics was a great product, although their more recent offerings don't really measure up. I've listened to some of their older floor standing sets extensively at a friend's house (before he went Bose) and I was more than pleased by them.

This demonstration however, was McIntosh's "home system"... I don't know if you were around in the audiophile heyday (late 60s through early 80s) but I knew several people who were saving up the $12,000 to get their hands on one of their "matched" systems. While you could buy the stuff separately, the big deal back then was that they would actually build your system, put it in an anechoic chamber and test it for you... and it was worth the extra...

Poor old me, back then, had to suffer along with an Amcron DC300a, a Kenwood preamp and a Klipsch Cradenza speaker system... Excellent gear, but no match for the the "Big Apple".

I always advise caution when I hear the stock in trade "digital is better" call. Yes it certainly is good and there's no denying it's a lot more convenient. (I have every "top 100" song from 1946 to present on a thumb drive) But do be aware that any time you convert something from one form (not format) to another you get errors and losses that are entirely unavoidable... Perhaps one of the most obvious examples is to listen to a rivited cymbol played very gently then make a digitized recording of it... Hey, where'd the rivets go???

Thanks for commenting... very interesting stuff!

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Reel to reel sounds like the name of a boy band, haha. What is that exactly? It's like a cassette, but much larger or something?

LOL... now that's funny!

http://www.vintagerecorders.co.uk/sales/tascam/small/gallery.gif

 

[madmat]

I remember when CD's first hit the scene back in the 80's. There were a few double blind tests that took the same recordings in analog and digital and played them over the same equipment and less than 1% of the participants were able to discern any differences or identify the source. At that rate I'm more inclined to think that it's more mental than anything else. In other words the die hard analog fans hear a difference because they want to.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

I remember when CD's first hit the scene back in the 80's. There were a few double blind tests that took the same recordings in analog and digital and played them over the same equipment and less than 1% of the participants were able to discern any differences or identify the source. At that rate I'm more inclined to think that it's more mental than anything else. In other words the die hard analog fans hear a difference because they want to.

You know that "less than 1%" part... Those would be the audiophiles in the group.

Don't forget, we're talking about something truly exceptional. What Rob was hinting at and what I tried to explain is that some people have exceptional sensitivity to music. They don't just hear it, they feel it and they see it. It's an emotional experience for them. This is a very real and documented phenmenon, not some kind of effite snobbery. And yes, they can tell the difference.

I used to maintain a pro-audio grade studio for a guy... console in the basement, very nice... When I ran frequency tests with a CD I'd made he would leave the room... claimed he could hear the "steps" in the sound. Checked it out on a scope and, guess what, the disk had an alias running about -20db, 2 octaves above the sound... I couldn't hear it, he claimed it was like a bug crawling around in his ears. Absolutely amazing.

One of the most important lessons in audio is that no two people hear the same thing. Most often a person's choices are based on perfectly real differences in the way their ears work.

For example, I hear "Infrasonics" (frequencies below 50hz) that most people aren't even aware of. Power supply hum drives me right up the wall. My friend says he can hear dog whistles... at 24khz!

Everyone's hearing is a little different. But that's what makes this so much fun.

 

[madmat]

Well, all the analog guys can keep their lack of dynamic range and RIAA equalization, me I'll stick to digital. Vinyl is too compressed for my tastes.

 

[Rob Williams]

Well, I'll just add that after I made that post about with the boy band mention, a music video ended up coming on the dance channel later that night from an R&B band called Reel 2 Real. Close enough ;-)

I couldn't hear it, he claimed it was like a bug crawling around in his ears. Absolutely amazing.

You sure he wasn't just listening to too much death metal?! In all seriousness, that must be one heck of a weird feeling.

Vinyl is too compressed for my tastes.

I know for a fact that if vinyl is compressed too much, it will break.

That concludes my absolutely limited ability to comment inside of an audiophile thread.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Well, I'll just add that after I made that post about with the boy band mention, a music video ended up coming on the dance channel later that night from an R&B band called Reel 2 Real. Close enough ;-)

ROFL... nice timing.

Actually the band is REAL-2-REAL... but plenty close enough.

You sure he wasn't just listening to too much death metal?! In all seriousness, that must be one heck of a weird feeling.

Must be... thing I wonder is how does he know what a bug crawling in your ear feels like?

I sometimes wonder how many people can actually hear Infrasonics (sounds lower than 50hz)... For me it's a sense of pressure, a presence in the room, I can hear a real low pitched sound, but it's much more a feeling than a sound.

But there's more to infrasonics than just "really deep bass"... this is one area where sound actually does have emotional impact, even when not heard. There have been numerous experiments with adding "dread sound" in movies. The beginning of "Independence Day" uses a very powerful infrasonic vibration that, while barely heard, definately causes a sense of fear as the big spaceship flies overhead. One theatre in the US tested infrasonics to enhance realism in a horror flic and caused a panic. There was even an accident with a Disney movie where a sound effect was misrecorded at half speed and made audience members ill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensurround
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound

Even beyond music and entertainment there have been situations where infrasonics have affected entire cities...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=91912&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hum

In my apartment building there is a constant low hum, not very loud but definately detectable on an oscilloscope... it's at 29hz with a harmonc at 58hz. I've told them repeatedly there is a problem with the furnace pumps causing this, but apparently I'm the only person who can hear it... Last week the heat went off and we were told they have to replace one of the pumps because of "bad bearings"... Go figger.

I know for a fact that if vinyl is compressed too much, it will break.
That concludes my absolutely limited ability to comment inside of an audiophile thread.

Wrong... the subject of hearing is individual, nobody is ever right or wrong about what they like to hear. (except on the physics of it) Heck, I've even got one friend who likes Slim Pickin's...