Pink Floyd Engineer Alan Parsons Rips Audiophiles, YouTube and Jonas Brothers

Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by eldavojohn · 2012-02-09 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oooh, now this should be good. Let's see what we got here.

Everybody strives to get perfect sound and we work hard to get the best sound we can. A certain artist or song or style of music will sound a certain way. It would be ridiculous for me to make a Jonas Brothers record using the techniques and procedures I normally use. The techniques used to make many modern pop records involve a lot of compression and that's what those consumers want, according to the labels. A lot of the processing that audiophiles criticize is a style thing and part of the music itself.

Oh, my god, the Jonas Brothers are so burned! He did not just say that they are trying to get their sound to be a certain way that their audience prefers. Oh no he did not! I can't believe it, I haven't seen a meltdown like this since Christian Bale flipped out on a stage hand. Somebody, call Disney and have them put the Jonas boys on suicide watch tonight in their cells -- not even paper underwear, they know how to hang themselves with that. When they hear this news they'll probably never perform again.

I think what perhaps critics don’t appreciate is that there is a lot of luck in getting a good sound. It's not all about the equipment, spectral response and compressing. It's all about the quality of the musicianship, the songwriting and the sound reaching the microphone ... that's crucial. It's often been said, "garbage in means garbage out," so if that's the case you won’t get a good sound.

Wow, I am so glad I'm not an audiophile right now. I would be fuming! Never have I heard such a direct and searing attack on audiophiles. The era of hipster sound snobs may be over as we know it.

There's another damaging situation: You can complain about iTunes and subscription sites being damaging to copyright owners and having inferior audio quality, but one of the worst culprits is YouTube. You can look for any record ever made and it's on YouTube for free - usually with crappy audio - and let's not even mention the video content that's out there to go with it. I sense there will be a huge copyright court case over the content on YouTube someday.

Oh, now he's stepping on a big dog's toes. You cannot print that, that is slander and that is libel. YouTube promises to provide only the highest quality sound and video ... Certainly Google's legions of lawyers will see Alan Parsons in court.

Seriously? That's considered "ripping"? Everything I read was fact and on top of that, he's still predicating his sentences with "I think."

"Well gee golly, Fred Rodgers, how will we put up with all these harsh words flying out of Alan Parson's mouth?" I think you need to take a trip to the Abuse Department to hear some real

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by elrous0 · 2012-02-09 08:14 · Score: 4, Funny

And another thing, get off his lawn!!!

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by tom17 · 2012-02-09 08:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Abuse? Oh sorry, this is arguments. Abuse is down the hall.
No it isn't.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-02-09 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's the new "Internet News" media standard. Story titles will flat out lie if they have to get you to click that link. It's all about driving traffic. "A rips B" is a classic New Media headline. BTW, the HuffingtonPost is the worst at this. I used to read it regularly when it was a political site and before it turned into a tabloid Kardashian watch rag.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by squidflakes · 2012-02-09 08:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Yes it is.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by Tridus · 2012-02-09 08:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

We've now reached the point where even the people writing the article summary don't RTFA.

--
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by jamstar7 · 2012-02-09 08:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Hey, us Trekkies have always been interested in keeping up with the Cardassians. Er, wait...

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by asdbffg · 2012-02-09 08:51 · Score: 5, Informative

As far as them being the biggest offender I was under the assumption that if I posted a video with Alan Parson Project as the background music I am fully allowed to use it under "Fair Use", as long as I'm not making a profit.
Fair use allows using copyrighted material for educational purposes, criticism, research, etc. Using a song for background music would not be considered fair use, especially if the entire song is used.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by drerwk · 2012-02-09 08:55 · Score: 4, Informative

As far as them being the biggest offender I was under the assumption that if I posted a video with Alan Parson Project as the background music I am fully allowed to use it under "Fair Use", as long as I'm not making a profit.
Have a look at : http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use re Fair Use.
I think your described use would not fall under Fair Use.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by Beriaru · 2012-02-09 09:02 · Score: 4, Funny

I simply don't understand why it's slashdotted if nobody RTFA.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by gorzek · 2012-02-09 09:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, that was a really retarded thing for him to say. YouTube complies with the DMCA and takes down anything it gets notified about. There will not be some huge lawsuit because YouTube isn't actively policing its content, unless something like SOPA/PIPA becomes law. Besides that, he even admitted most of it is really lousy quality. So what the fuck is he worried about? If someone cares about quality, they'll go get the music from a more quality source--and perhaps pay for it! How novel!
And YouTube even provides links to purchase songs, so it's completely asinine to imply YouTube is somehow promoting infringement and thus ripping off artists. It's helping artists, so maybe he should shut the fuck up.

--
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by X0563511 · 2012-02-09 09:17 · Score: 2

Indeed. WTF are Kardashians and did they realize what they were naming themselves?

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by drodal · 2012-02-09 09:19 · Score: 2

No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by ackthpt · 2012-02-09 09:31 · Score: 2

Alan Parsons says things thousands already know. It makes news because it's Alan Parsons saying it. If I said the same thing (which I sometimes have) people do not stop what they're doing, drop their jaws and mouth "oh .. muh .. gawd"
I know some audiophiles who do pay attention to room acoustics. I've attended a few CES, the audiophile stuff, where you can often find companies present who will come to your home/business/site, perform materials, surface, etc., analysis and make changes as necessary for optimal experience.
Jonas Brothers? That's as much about a jug band in Backwater, Tennessee, as a pop group - they deliver what the audience expects, not an audiophile experience (*smirk* imagine someone spending 10,000$US to get the most out of a Teen Pop band. LOL) That aside, a lot of music is cranked out with horrible production quality, because the consumer doesn't care. But he said that. Nothing new there, for the past 100+ years.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by Moryath · 2012-02-09 09:39 · Score: 3, Funny

This show would SO be more popular than their show.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by bolthole · 2012-02-09 09:48 · Score: 2

Here's a slightly better lawn, btw: http://www.cepro.com/story/alanparsons.html but still no google cache of it :(
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by TeknoHog · 2012-02-09 10:02 · Score: 4, Funny

Surely you mean the Calrissians?

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by yurtinus · 2012-02-09 10:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you're going to complain about a misleading headline, don't be so selective in your examples. He did after all say:

The pro audio guy will prioritize room acoustics and do the necessary treatments to make the room sound right. The hi-fi world attaches less importance to room acoustics, and prioritizes equipment; they are looking more at brand names and reputation.
He says quite a bit more than that, and while not quite ripping it is still unfavorable to the hi fi fanatics.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2012-02-09 10:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
There are three possibilities:
- The server sucks and three people can crash it
- Slashdotters think there might be photos of Jewel Staite, Summer Glau, and/or Natalie Portman
- TFA looks like it actually might be interesting (extremely rare)
--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by Pseudonym · 2012-02-09 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oddly enough, when I read the headline, I assumed "Alan Parsons Rips Jonas Brothers" meant he was using samples of them.
I even started imagining the result. Let's all sing along, now...
There are pyramids in my head
There's one underneath my bed
And my lady's getting cranky.
(I can't get your smile outta my mind.)
Every possible location
Has a simple explanation
And it isn't hanky panky.
(Modesty is just so hard to find.)

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by tnk1 · 2012-02-09 11:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Alan Parsons says things thousands already know. It makes news because it's Alan Parsons saying it. If I said the same thing (which I sometimes have) people do not stop what they're doing, drop their jaws and mouth "oh .. muh .. gawd".
Yes, and no. Yes, people say this all the time, and I agree, the sentiments/concepts involved are nothing special. But most people aren't accomplished sound engineers with at least one iconic album under their belt. Alan Parsons is talking about things that he is either a professional and accomplished practitioner of, or they are at least things that are tangential to his profession.
So yes, it's news because he said it, but just because thousands have said it before, doesn't mean his words aren't newsworthy or at least interest-worthy. It's entirely possible that things that thousands of people say are entirely wrong. You're never really going to be able to get to a better level of understanding unless someone who knows what they are talking about makes a pronouncement. Sure, he didn't share a secret with us, but he did provide an affirmation that lends credence to these statements.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by hairyfeet · 2012-02-09 13:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

You forgot "Everybody sees Pink Floyd and figure there might be some cool bootlegs on the site and stampede the thing". Personally this is one thing i love about being a normal indie musician, we can just not compress the living crap out of our music. I'm happy to say the only compression I've ever used is a pedal to even out the string response on my basses and most of the local artists agree with me that compressing the hell out of the sound is crap. Better to just turn the volume down a little and have plenty of headroom for the instruments instead of squishing everything just so you can turn the volume up a little higher. This is especially true when you like to play three piece like i do as its the gaps between instruments that lets it "breathe" for lack of a better word and lets me and the drums get a nice chunky backbeat going while the guitar and vocals kinda float on the top.
Now while I agree with him on acoustics sadly most of us can't afford the kind of spaces required for that, especially for recording. That is why for us DIYers I'd say the local studio has the best compromise, with each instrument separated in soundproof doghouses and a clear plexi booth for the drummer so you can play together and get that live feel without having everyone stepping on each other tracks. Sure it would be nice if we could pipe the instruments to amps in their own large rooms to get some natural depth but those kinds of spaces are seriously costly so you do what you got to do. That said a good mike along with a DI mixed in does give a nice full sound even when you are using isolation boxes, at least IMHO.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Scathing, Absolutely Scathing by Swampash · 2012-02-09 15:25 · Score: 3, Funny

Given that this is Slashdot, I'm surprised that the article wasn't headlined "Engineer for Apple Corp Artists Rips Audiophiles, YouTube and Jonas Brothers, Mentions Apple Itunes. Apple."

"Pink Floyd engineer"? by catbutt · 2012-02-09 08:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes, we all know he was engineer for Pink Floyd, but seriously, isn't his name most known for his own stuff? (Eye in the Sky, etc)

Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-02-09 08:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Tales of Misery and Confabulation.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by John3 · 2012-02-09 08:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Although I was a fan of Alan Parsons Project albums, I think the vast majority of music listeners would say "Alan Parsons?", with the logical response being "He engineered Dark Side Of The Moon".

--
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by virgnarus · 2012-02-09 08:21 · Score: 5, Funny

I know him most for a giant death ray entitled with his name.
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by snarfies · 2012-02-09 08:29 · Score: 4, Informative

And let's not forget, he was the Cambridge physicist who invented the laser!
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by gstoddart · 2012-02-09 08:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the vast majority of music listeners would say "Alan Parsons?", with the logical response being "He engineered Dark Side Of The Moon".
I'd be willing to bet you're overstating "vast majority". By a lot.
Find 100 people, ask them if they've heard Dark Side of the Moon. Of the ones that say yes, ask how many know who the sound engineer was. I bet you'll find it quite small.
I've got pretty much everything published by Pink Floyd up until about '95 or so ... and I know Alan Parsons from his band. I was actually going "really?" when I read the summary.
Then again, I'm neither a musician, nor someone who knows the endless trivia about who was sitting where during the recording and if he was wearing pants or not. That is the "vast majority" of music listeners. The behind-the-scenes talent remains anonymous to most of us.
That's not to say there aren't loads of people out there who do know these things; but I seriously doubt it's even close to a majority, let a lone a vast majority. It's really only the hard-core music geeks who keep track of such things.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by Animats · 2012-02-09 08:41 · Score: 2

Right. He's had one top 40 album of his own, and several top 100 albums.
His own stuff is closer to acoustic folk than rock, which is why he's likely to care about subtle audio quality. Pink Floyd could be played through a bullhorn without much loss.
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by John3 · 2012-02-09 08:48 · Score: 5, Informative

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my narrative.
Me: Did you read that article about Alan Parsons?
Average music listener: Alan who?
Me; Alan Parsons. He was the recording engineer for "Dark Side Of The Moon".
Average music listener: Oh, I know that album, didn't know the name of the engineer.

--
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by gstoddart · 2012-02-09 09:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Ah, my apologies ... upon re-reading, that is exactly what you said.
Sorry about that, chief.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by Pascal+Sartoretti · 2012-02-09 09:21 · Score: 2

Although I was a fan of Alan Parsons Project albums
I was also a big fan of Alan Parsons Project 30 years ago. Lately, I "accidentally" found a torrent of their discography, and gave it a try. It was not a good idea.
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by John3 · 2012-02-09 09:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was also a big fan of Alan Parsons Project 30 years ago. Lately, I "accidentally" found a torrent of their discography, and gave it a try. It was not a good idea.
LOL, I think I'd be the same way if I took out the LP's and listened today. I did a lot of college radio, mostly on the engineering and production side, and I collected a lot of albums that had strong production values (clear recording, cool effects, etc). Alan Parsons Project albums were so well recorded and produced, but the actual music probably doesn't stand the test of time. I used to snap up anything recorded or produced by Mutt Lange and Roy Thomas Baker as well, and there are hits and misses in their musical resume as well.

--
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by tippe · 2012-02-09 09:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Their called "klipschorn" speakers, you insensitive clod, and of course there isn't much loss as long as you use $7200 Pear Anjou speaker cables with proprietary hybrid geometry and ultra low electrical reactance... They're very danceable cables, don't you know, and totally worth the price.
*ducks*
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by metlin · 2012-02-09 10:28 · Score: 2

To be fair, most people listening to Pink Floyd are probably high as fuck to even care if it's Floyd or a bullhorn being played.
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 10:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Ask 100 Slashdotters if they can figure out what the fuck you're trying to say in your posts.
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · 2012-02-09 10:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my narrative.
Me: Did you read that article about Alan Parsons?
Average music listener: Alan who?
Me; Alan Parsons. He was the recording engineer for "Dark Side Of The Moon".
Average music listener: ???
Me: You know, Pink Floyd?
Average music listener: Ah Pink, but she's sooo 2005 - and who is Floyd?.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by asliarun · 2012-02-09 11:11 · Score: 2

Right. He's had one top 40 album of his own, and several top 100 albums.
His own stuff is closer to acoustic folk than rock, which is why he's likely to care about subtle audio quality. Pink Floyd could be played through a bullhorn without much loss.
For what it is worth, Dark Side Of the Moon is widely considered as one of the most well recorded albums of all time.
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by sa1lnr · 2012-02-09 11:52 · Score: 2

This is well worth watching, 4 parts in all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pljfIQcZf-0
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by the+plant+doctor · 2012-02-09 14:14 · Score: 2

"Oh, by the way, which one's Pink?"
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by Dachannien · 2012-02-09 14:18 · Score: 2

Actually, the vast majority of today's music listeners would say, "Oh, yeah, that's the guy that they made that joke about in Austin Powers that I didn't get until I looked it up."
Re:"Pink Floyd engineer"? by bryanp · 2012-02-09 15:09 · Score: 2

Alan Parsons Project albums were so well recorded and produced, but the actual music probably doesn't stand the test of time.

Depends on your tastes I suppose. I've been a fan of Alan Parsons and the late Eric Woolfson since I first listened to a cousin's LP of Tales of Mystery and Imagination back in 1978 at the age of 10. While some of the albums hold up better than others, I still enjoy listening to quite a bit of it.

--
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper

Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by Skinkie · 2012-02-09 08:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

The loudnesswar has killed virtually anything on a digital medium, resulting in a worse quality masters. Far worse than compressed phonogram recordings in the past. Sadly this seems to be the new standard for every commercial publication. So first give us back the -12dB, then complain about our rooms.

--
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!

Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-02-09 08:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Its not the techies who did it, its the marketing departments. Any audio engineer who refuses to over-compress is just going to get replaced by someone else who will.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by Yvan256 · 2012-02-09 08:25 · Score: 5, Informative

In case anyone is wondering what Skinkie is talking about, here's the link.
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by Paul+Slocum · 2012-02-09 08:43 · Score: 4, Informative

Yeah, they asked him about that and he misunderstood the question to be about lossy audio data compression rather than dynamic range compression:

Q: Do you think that sound quality is driving this trend? Are people tiring of low-resolution sound and compressed recordings that lack dynamic range?

A: That may well be. The majority [of consumers] are happy with MP3, but they donâ(TM)t know what they are missing. Being fast and free are priorities, and thatâ(TM)s why MP3 is popular. Thereâ(TM)s another damaging situation: You can complain about iTunes and subscription sites being damaging to copyright owners and having inferior audio quality, but one of the worst culprits is YouTube.
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by jdgeorge · 2012-02-09 08:49 · Score: 2

The good news is that this problem only seems to affect "pop" music (including popular genres such as Rock, Hip-Hop, Countrry, and Western). Jazz and orchestral seem to be uninvolved.
The bad news is that there is a lot of great new "pop" music, and many of the records have terrible sound quality because of what you describe well as the loudnesswar.
Example: One of the last big label pop albums I bought (a country record) had a beautiful "hit song" on it that was ruined because the "loudness adjustment" caused loud crackling distortion on the recording.
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by epiphani · 2012-02-09 08:52 · Score: 3, Informative

An audio/video explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

--
.
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by brainzach · 2012-02-09 09:00 · Score: 2

You need high end audio equipment and acoustics to fully appreciate high dynamic range and the market for that is small. Most people want to be able to enjoy their favorite songs on their subpar equipment and the engineers give them what they want.
Compressed dynamic range sounds better in car stereos, iPod ear buds and noisy bars, which is where the majority of consumers listen to music. It is annoying to have to adjust the volume mid song because I can't hear the soft parts.
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by Threni · 2012-02-09 09:02 · Score: 3, Funny

Yeah, both jazz cds and all 7 classical releases sound fine to me.
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by thisnamestoolong · 2012-02-09 09:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Furthermore, it's not the recording engineer who squashes it like that. While they may squash individual instruments with compression, it is the mastering engineer who applies the overall limiting to the mix.

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by royallthefourth · 2012-02-09 09:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

If audio engineers had a little bit of professional self esteem they would refuse to go along with this loudness war thing.
They care a lot more about making their next mortgage payment than some immaterial bullshit about professionalism and integrity, just like everybody else.
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by hey! · 2012-02-09 09:25 · Score: 2

The loudnesswar has killed virtually anything on a digital medium, resulting in a worse quality masters. Far worse than compressed phonogram recordings in the past.
I recently purchased the MP3 of the original Broadway class album of Hair, which was record on May 6 1968. I could not believe how good these tracks sounded. Dynamic range was a big part of that. It's like we've forgotten that a piece of music can get louder and softer. The vocalists' performances really benefited from having that range to work with.
I wonder whether the reason so many pop songs vocals are so overwrought, but only come out sounding like near-beer blues is that without the dimension of loudness to work with, vocalists have to rely more on ornamental notes or manipulating the timbre of their voice.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by lgw · 2012-02-09 09:34 · Score: 2

You might be amazed how many classical CD titles there are - likely more than pop CD titles. Classical performers can be quite prolific, compared to pop performers, because they don't need to write each new piece (amazing what happens with out-of-copyright works and creativity). For a while the Academy of St Martin in the Fields orchestra was releasing around 30 CDs a year (they got quite good at the technical aspects of recording a CD). Luciano Paverotti lists about 90 titles on the discography on his website.
Jazz is similarly proflific - most of the standard works may still be under copyright, but the jazz tradition is firmly pro-sharing, so there's a ton of new content every year. The jazz station I listen to brags about playing 30,000 unique tracks a year, many of which are from new CDs.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by geekoid · 2012-02-09 10:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you believe that, then the company you work for can get you to do ANYTHING.
Some of us aren't self deluded bitches.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by DrJimbo · 2012-02-09 10:11 · Score: 4, Informative

The loudnesswar has killed virtually anything on a digital medium, [...] give us back the -12dB, then complain about our rooms.
Alan Parsons Shares Lessons Learned During Legendary Career (from 4 years ago):

But one of his biggest pieces of advice for students and anyone interested in recording now is not to join the loudness war.
"Record labels want their records to sound louder than everyone else's so they compress the s--t out of them," he says. "It's terribly sad and I hope you will support me in resisting this concept.
"If a song has dynamics and breathes then don't push it. If your record is quieter than someone else's then just turn it up with the volume knob!"

--
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Re:Those audiotechies killed dynamic range by royallthefourth · 2012-02-09 10:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

You're the one who's deluded since you think individual workers can just cease to do their jobs and go on living somehow. I go to work and do dumb bullshit all day long because it's how I am able to eat.
The only way it's going to stop is by people organizing and deciding they're not going to take it anymore, and that comes about by threats to their livelihood (pay cuts, benefit cuts) not by them actually caring about the dumb bullshit they make at work. Except, perhaps, in special cases where they make something other than bullshit which could be life-threatening, like a bridge. But as usual, Marx said it better than I can. This applies to audio engineers as much as any white collar worker and was as true in 1850 as it is today:

The fact is that these workers, indeed, are productive, as far as they increase the capital of their master; unproductive as to the material result of their labour. In fact, of course, this 'productive' worker cares as much about the crappy shit he has to make as does the capitalist himself who employs him, and who also couldn't give a damn for the junk. But, looked at more precisely, it turns out in fact that the true definition of a productive worker consists in this: A person who needs and demands exactly as much as, and no more than, is required to enable him to gain the greatest possible benefit for his capitalist.

Audiophiles by sexconker · 2012-02-09 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Audiophiles are pretty much the dumbest group of people ever.
No, you can't hear a difference between this $5000 speaker and this $150 speaker.
No, these cables don't sound "warm".

Re:Audiophiles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 08:21 · Score: 5, Funny

++ This. Too dumb to become a real geek? Then become an audiophile. All of the angry nerd posturing with none of that meddlesome knowledge.
Re:Audiophiles by SJHillman · 2012-02-09 08:22 · Score: 4, Funny

I've found that cheaper cables taste better, especially with a little ketchup.
Re:Audiophiles by John3 · 2012-02-09 08:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Probably trolling, but what the heck....
There are certainly are noticeable differences in the sound produced by different speakers, different amplifiers, etc. However, if the source material is compressed and equalized so there is minimal dynamic range then the differences in sound from one setup to another will be less noticeable.

--
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Re:Audiophiles by Joce640k · 2012-02-09 08:28 · Score: 3, Informative

Audiophiles are pretty much the dumbest group of people ever.
No, you can't hear a difference between this $5000 speaker and this $150 speaker.
Um, you're dead wrong about that one.

--
No sig today...
Re:Audiophiles by torgis · 2012-02-09 08:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Audiophiles are pretty much the dumbest group of people ever. No, you can't hear a difference between this $5000 speaker and this $150 speaker.
Um, you're dead wrong about that one.
Yeah, you're obviously using the wrong cable. If you had something like this maybe you would have a different opinion.
For the record, anyone that pays $1100 for an HDMI cable should be mauled by angry weasels.
Re:Audiophiles by mlts · 2012-02-09 08:34 · Score: 2

Call me a moron, but I don't get why one would pay the extravagant prices for "audiophile" equipment.
With the same cash, I can go get studio equipment, such as a good set of monitors with a subwoofer, a mixer, an amp, a parametic equalizer, a graph equalizer, and other rack equipment. Heck, with the price of some "audiophile" stuff, I can end up with a mixing deck, a top of the line keyboard, and enough cash left over to treat the room (kill standing waves, have proper bass traps at the corners, etc.)
Adding it up... do I want some "audiophile" stuff with $400 wooden knobs? Or would I be better off spending the money and have not just an accurate sound to listen to, but the ability to cut an album, even being able to record a drummer properly with the needed 12-16 mics (depending on drumset.)
Re:Audiophiles by maxwellmath · 2012-02-09 08:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Just because YOU aren't able to distinguish the difference between a cheap speaker and expensive speaker does not mean that there isn't a noticable difference. Several things to consider:

1. Is the quality of the source material good enough to make a difference? Crap quality audio will sound like crap on any speakers, no matter how expensive. However, if the source is of good quality (and some other conditions are true) then you can definately tell a difference.

2. Is the sound of the room masking the sound of the speaker? A speaker, no matter how good, can NOT compensate for a terrible sounding room. Standing waves, reflections, and damping from the room can ruin the sound of the audio. In order to properly hear the audio, this must be compensated for. Typically, you start by adding room treatment to deal with low-frequency standing waves and then work your way up to deal with high end comb filtering and reflection points in the room. The orientation of the room is important here as well, the optimal sound does depend very much on the placement of the speakers in the room relative to the listening position.

As for cables, the only real difference between cheap/expensive cables is how long they last. A cheap cable will most likely not put up with much abuse where as an expensive cable is more robust.
Re:Audiophiles by MrHanky · 2012-02-09 08:43 · Score: 2

The dumbest group of people ever is the one that bases their judgement on other groups of people solely on prejudice.
Re:Audiophiles by 0123456 · 2012-02-09 08:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Our rabbit prefers the taste of gold-plated cables to plain old copper.
Re:Audiophiles by gparent · 2012-02-09 08:54 · Score: 2

But then aren't you just buying audiophile equipment but different one?
I mean, I wouldn't go back to my $50 pair of Sony headphones I picked up at radio-shit 5 years ago after using A700s this entire time. Anyone who can't tell the difference is probably deaf, it's completely absurd to claim there is none.
Realize that there is affordable audiophile equipment and some that is a lot more expensive.
Re:Audiophiles by demonbug · 2012-02-09 09:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Audiophiles are pretty much the dumbest group of people ever.
No, you can't hear a difference between this $5000 speaker and this $150 speaker.
No, these cables don't sound "warm".
There is a very significant difference between a $150 speaker and even a $500-$1,000 speaker. Not even approaching audiophile territory here, any random person you pick off the street who isn't deaf is going to be able to tell the difference. Stupid audiophile territory starts a little higher; once you get to around $5,000 plus or minus a couple thousand, yeah, you're into the realm of rapidly diminishing returns and you probably aren't going to hear any difference unless you really look for it.
Agree about the cables, though - that is just dumb.
All that said, I think the point Mr. Parsons was trying to make is that a lot of people will pour money into their speakers, cables, amps, turntables, etc. but totally ignore the room they are in. There's absolutely no point in my trying to put together an ultra-high-end system because I use it in a room that also has a refrigerator, often times AC or heater running, people walking around, noise coming in from the street, no attention to acoustics, etc. Basically, no matter how perfect the system is, the listening environment is sub-optimal. Unless you spend the money to install some acoustically perfect and isolated listening environment (basically, a recording studio), it makes absolutely no sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars chasing those last tenths of a percent of performance. And if you do install such a room, then I'd have to agree with one of the other commenters - at this point you are more interested in listening to your system than you are interested in listening to music.
Re:Audiophiles by sjames · 2012-02-09 09:36 · Score: 2

You may not be aware of the amazing phenomena he is referring to. Yes, there are differences in those various components, but what he is talking about are the people who are sure that only a $9000 speaker cable will do and that the human ear will perceive the difference between that and a good heavy zip cord. He is talking about the people who clip special piezoelectric rocks in a vial to their cables to suppress, well, something they're sure they otherwise hear. The people who actually believe that a speaker cable must be rigorously broken in using fantastically expensive equipment and that it will be absolutely ruined if you put the audio through it backwards! (meaning connect the speaker end to the amp and the amp end to the speaker. Who knew?).
At one point there was even a 900 number that claimed it would send a series of tones through the phone to analyze and fine tune your listening room for only $30.
Those people.
Re:Audiophiles by John3 · 2012-02-09 09:52 · Score: 3, Funny

Those people.
People who would buy this cable for example. :)

--
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Re:Audiophiles by jd · 2012-02-09 09:52 · Score: 2

Absolutely true on (1), though one of the other conditions how good your hearing is. I can hear just fine up to 24KHz, whereas many adults my age would have trouble hearing past 18KHz. That makes a vast difference in sound perception. The sound source and the speaker have to support the best hearing of those listening, but for cost reasons it's usually "better" for a record label to only support the worst hearing of those listening.
(For those observing that CDs started at 44KHz, it is important to note that that is a sampling rate. You cannot describe a waveform of a given frequency with one or two samples spread out over one wavelength. The 44KHz rate assumes nobody has better hearing than the average middle-aged male. The 96KHz of higher-end audio recordings these days is better - 4 data points for a 24 KHz wave - but you only actually get that if the playback system is aware that some of us aren't deaf AND the speaker system has accurate-enough response at the higher end.)
You are correct on (2), but there is nothing to stop a sound system from emitting a controlled set of sounds, recording them with mikes, and calculating
For cables, it's a bit iffy but you're largely correct. Higher impedance in the cables means loss of power, assuming the signal is analogue. If the signal is digital, then yes you still lose power but your loss of data is essentially zero unless you have cables from hell. A lack of proper shielding means you've got a brilliant dipole aerial connected up. It'll play the sound ok, but it might also pick up the local taxi cab, the neighbor's Nintendo game, or any other RFI that happens to be around. This is just as true for digital, only you won't hear them, you'll just get clutter. The connectors only matter insofar as to whether you have a sustained connection or an intermittent one. No matter how expensive the rest of the cable is, an intermittent connection won't work when there is no connection taking place.
And that last point is why it is not price that matters but the quality of the product. The two may have no relationship to one another. We know that from fashion and computer software. In both cases, the price tag tells you nothing about the usefulness of what you get, all it tells you is the usefulness of what the vendor gets in return.
Most people with even a modicum of experience with electronics could (if there was any incentive to do so) build high-end sound systems for a fraction of what a similar system would cost from an online or bricks-and-mortar store, where (with a recording of sufficient quality) they could absolutely blow the cynics through the wall. But why bother? No CD comes at that kind of quality (DVDs don't count because you're splitting your attention between sound and video), so there's nothing to play on such a system that you could get any benefit from, and those capable of such a thing would want to spend their time elsewhere. It's not even as if you could build such systems to sell, because again there's nothing to play on it.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Audiophiles by HornWumpus · 2012-02-09 09:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Then GP should have said that.
Instead he proved he was an idiot. Speakers are the most important and lowest performing part of any audio system.
You talk about parts without measurable differences.
He talks about parts with THD measured in whole % (speakers; yes I know THD isn't a great metric).
Smart audiophiles spend about 65%+ of their money on speakers, 20% on amps, 10% on room accustics, 5% on everything else. They also reject the label to avoid being confused with the 'Black Mamba' 5K$ power cord idiots.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Audiophiles by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-09 10:15 · Score: 3, Funny

He is talking about the people who clip special piezoelectric rocks in a vial to their cables to suppress, well, something they're sure they otherwise hear.
Piezoelectric rocks?
WTF? I thought you were just making it up, but sadly, no. You can't make up this sort of thing.

Fact: Diamonds have good bass but rolled off highs
Fact: Citrine follows in the similar sound quality.
Fact: Amethyst has very good top end and upper midrange energy.
Fact: Diamonds and most other crystals, are thermoluminescent, whereby the crystals pick up stray electrons, trapping them in their latticework, and can release them later along with a photon (QED). This fact is utilized by archeologists to date buried artifacts ( flint and other material normally not datable by carbon), by heating the crystals up to 900 degrees and having a photomultiplier present as they do so to count photons released. Apparently, exposure to even light purges the stray electrons within the crystal thus "resetting" the crystal back to zero, giving a rough time line as to when the crystal or rock was reburied., as the natural radiation i the earth "recharges" the crystal.
Fact: Amethyst transforms itself into clear quartz when heated to 450 degrees C and into citrine when hated to 550 C.
Fact: Clear quartz does not quite have the openness of amethyst.
Fact: In addition to the trace amount of iron, amethysts are supposedly to obtain the darker shades of purple by exposure to natural radiation contained in the soil in which they are buried. The darkest shades seem to come from deeper within the earth.
Speculation: Being that the piezo effect means that an EMI field hitting a piezo electric crystal can generate movement and thus help dissipate energy, could it be possible that the citrine and diamonds have their unique sound signature because they are absorbing some of the electrons?
Perhaps amethysts have a lattice work which is "full" and thus more energy is transformed into mechanical motion. While some mineralogists warn that prolonged exposure to sunlight will bleach out the coloring of stones, most amethyst is fairly stable color wise.
I have tried heating some matched amethyst beads with an alcohol lamp and have succeeded in creating clear and a slight citrine coloration. The experiment was interesting because I could listen to the purple application and then heat the crystals up and reevaluate. One caveat: the crystal can "pop" like popcorn and they are very hot! Theoretically, the crystals remain unchanged except for the application of heat. The molecular structure is supposedly unchanged, but there are distinct differences in color and in sound when applied, with the top end distinctly being rolled off.
Incidentally, if you missed it over on Tweaks, sugar is also piezo electric and using a sugar cube certainly makes an effect. The cool thing about sugar cubes is that you can shape the cube and it most certainly has an effect upon the sound ( see the post on Tweaks for more information, a reply to FidPup's query about crystal alternatives).

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Audiophiles by qortra · 2012-02-09 17:32 · Score: 2

Basing it on money is not a good guideline in any industry that basis most of it's product on marketing and exploiting urban myths.
You can assume for the purposes of the conversation that by "$150", I mean "the best speakers that can be obtained for $150". *Some* of the industry exists through marketing and other gimmicks, but exactly what proportion is up for debate. Again, engineer-geek style audiophiles like myself are generally not so easily manipulated.

I could build a 50 dollar speaker that will sound as good, if not better, the many 5000 dollar speaker.
[citation needed] Even if I were to stipulate that you could build a competitive speaker for $50 in parts (and I don't believe you, for the record), the speaker is still worth way more than that since a person would be paying for your time, expertise, and potentially any shipping or payment processing that was required. Furthermore, there is a raw cost of materials that makes pretty standard thresholds in pricing tiers. For instance, in order to minimize resonance, you have to have sufficient enclosure rigidity. This requires raw materials that will be a not-insignificant proportion of cost of the speaker, and in some cases (for larger speakers) set you back more than $50 alone (for a large quantity of decent quality MDF).

no. They are what people ignorant of the actual engineering say. They are also used because they are an 'opinion'
Seriously, this is just stupid. Just because a word is imprecise doesn't mean that it is used by ignorant people. Sometimes a certain amount of imprecision is desirable and expedient for the purposes of conversation. For instance, I am a software engineer. In some cases, we will look at a piece of software and claim that it is "buggy", or that the code is "messy", or that performance is "scalable". These are all very imprecise terms, but they are useful for providing a quite overview of the situation. More detail can always be used later (like the exact number of unresolved bugs, or the performance benefit from doubling the number of CPU cores), but for a quick overview, the imprecise terms does quite nicely. Likewise, though a term like "muddy" is imprecise, it has a widely understood meaning (described in my previous post) that is helpful when communicating with audiophiles or especially with audio engineers.

Spoken like someone who doesn't like his statements to be testable.
Don't take my sentence out of context. In many cases, engineer audiophiles will provide graphs to show a variety of things, especially frequency response. However, textually describing such things is a huge pain in the ass. Let's say you're listening to some new speakers, and you notice a gigantic hump in the frequency response (5dB in amplitude) starting around 250Hz and ending around 400Hz. (just 50Hz past the bass-midrange crossover). According to you, why the fuck can't we just call it "muddy"?

In other news... by GreatBunzinni · 2012-02-09 08:20 · Score: 3, Funny

In other news, Bose, Monster Cable, Bang & Olufsen and other brands announce a entirely new line of room acoustics kits for the audiophile. The kits will be sold for tens of thousands of euros, and are specially engineered for those who wants to hear those bitstreams as if the mp3s were coming directly from the sound studio.

--
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.

Re:In other news... by orthancstone · 2012-02-09 08:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I presume those would be aimed at the Beats by Dre crowd, not the audiophile crowd.
Re:In other news... by CanHasDIY · 2012-02-09 10:01 · Score: 2

In other news, Bose, Monster Cable, Bang & Olufsen and other brands announce a entirely new line of room acoustics kits for the audiophile
In a related question: Can anyone tell me how to get more Bang for my buck?
Cheaper hookers.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Audiophiles don't listen to music. by Tackhead · 2012-02-09 08:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think what perhaps critics donâ(TM)t appreciate is that there is a lot of luck in getting a good sound. It's not all about the equipment, spectral response and compressing. It's all about the quality of the musicianship, the songwriting and the sound reaching the microphone ... that's crucial. It's often been said, "garbage in means garbage out," so if that's the case you wonâ(TM)t get a good sound.

All true, Mr. Parsons, and entirely beside the point. Music lovers care about the music, but they're listening to you because you're exceptionally talented. They love your music so much they're even willing listen to put up with crappy 128kbps encodes on YouTube.

But we're not talking about music lovers here, we're talking about audiophiles.

Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment.

Re:Audiophiles don't listen to music. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 08:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Real audiophiles only listen to pure sine waves!
Re:Audiophiles don't listen to music. by GrumpySteen · 2012-02-09 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Having good equipment set up well in a good room isn't silly, but paying thousands of dollars for a speaker cable and a few hundred more for a CD/DVD demagnetizer) is.
There are two definitions for audiophile. You seem to be using the "someone who loves good audio" definition. The person you're replying to is using the "someone who spends ridiculous amounts of money on things that claim to work in ways that would break the laws of physics" definition.

Damn it! by r1348 · 2012-02-09 08:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

You slashdotted the site before i could read the second part of the interview! Do you know how BAD that feels? Also, the guy seems very reasonable an pacate, and this is a blatantly inflamatory title. Can we tag titles "-1 Flamebait"?

I agree by koan · 2012-02-09 08:24 · Score: 2

With everything he said.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

I mostly agree. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 08:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm sort of an audiophile myself, and I agree with most of his points, especially the stuff about expensive gear versus room acoustics and "garbage in, garbage out".

As for the YouTube comments, I doubt he knows how much YouTube actually does do for artist's rights. Didn't YouTube pioneer some audio-video matching algorithm to quickly identify infringing content? Don't they use hits to direct traffic to places to legitimately purchase music and videos, rather than just removing videos? This approach is much better for artist's rights than simply censoring things.

Then again, I abhor almost all pop music (all styles, including rock, etc.), and most of what I'm into is pretty underground, and that does contribute a bit to my attitude.

I want the editor's tracks. by Karmashock · 2012-02-09 08:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I want an AC3 file (or whatever) with all the sound tracks split. Vocals, back up vocals, each instrument, etc on it's own track.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Re:I want the editor's tracks. by jameskojiro · 2012-02-09 08:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

How about a couple sub channels of editing instructions like how much compression and post processing cues.
That way you could adjust them on you new MP5 player?
So the player processor would take all the channels and combine them in realtime to play them and you could have a nice friendly knob to dial up or down compression as they play back.

--
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...

Well, he's as good as dead... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 08:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Audiophiles? Ok. Youtube? Fine. But bashing the Jonas Brothers?? Do you have aaaaaaaaany idea what army of girls they command? They will eat you for breakfast...

then again, there's Beats by Dr Dre by sqldr · 2012-02-09 08:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Sorry Dr Dre, but having you design speakers is like having an acoustics geek make a hip-hop record.

--
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.

Sensationalizing for Page Hits by pavon · 2012-02-09 08:50 · Score: 5, Informative

The submitter works for the website that posted that interview. He certainly read it, but chose to make up sensational lies when posting it to slashdot to get more people to click the link.

I agree on his point about the room. by Lumpy · 2012-02-09 08:50 · Score: 4, Informative

IF they spent $100.00 on the fricking room they would make more of an increase in sound than $10,000 in gear.

Problem is Audiophiles, the type that read Audiophile magazine and Buy bullshit like B&W are not looking for sound quality, they are trying to show "HOW RICH I AM"

My home theater I built in the basement only tapers from front to back by 1 foot. the rear wall is 1 foot narrower than the front and the ceiling also tapers by that much. Floor is flat except for the riser. This cost me NOTHING extra in the build out.

I then covered the walls in cheap carpet tile and the ceiling is simply a drop ceiling with 3" of fiberglass batts laying on top of them for weight and more sound control (so I cant hear the wife stomping around upstairs)

It sounds better than the $200,000 theater rooms I have installed for rich people. Because I have reduced the room nodes significantly by eliminating parallel walls. (rear is parallel to front, but I have bass traps back there.)

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:I agree on his point about the room. by gmhowell · 2012-02-09 09:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Great, now I expect crappy contractors to excuse their lousy builds with the statement "we did it for the acoustics".

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:an old guy by gstoddart · 2012-02-09 08:55 · Score: 3, Informative

an old guy who doesn't understand the internet rips on the internet. go figure.

Seriously, did you RTFA?

All he said was that the sound quality of things you find on You Tube is generally low. That's it.

The tone of his answers bear no relation whatsoever to the summary ... he didn't rip, blast, shred, flame, or even really put down anybody. He offered up some opinions, in a polite way, and without a whole lot of bile attached.

The entire summary is a joke, and is almost entirely unrelated to the interview except that it was Alan Parsons, and he did mention You Tube and the Jonas Brothers. Oh, and he also said that while you could spend an outrageous amount of money on equipment, it made only an incremental difference in his opinion.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

How audiophiles can fool themselves by steveha · 2012-02-09 09:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Audiophiles are not known for using controlled, double-blind testing. That's a problem, because you can actually control a lot about how you hear things. In short, if you expect something to sound different, you can actually hear a difference; not imagine you hear a difference, actually hear a difference.

JJ Johnston gave a presentation, Why Do We Hear What We Hear?. (PowerPoint, but LibreOffice should open it just fine.) If you look at slides 14 and 16 you will see him explaining the above points.

With double-blind testing, the audiophile will not be able to tell the difference between a $2 cable from monoprice.com and a $1000 cable from some audiophile scam web site. Without the double-blind, a confident audiophile will hear differences that favor the expensive cable.

The crazy thing, and I'm not making this up, is that some audiophiles claim that double-blind testing "doesn't work". They claim that you introduce errors that mask the superiority of the expensive equipment.

P.S. If you would like to have quality audio gear, and you would like to see the gear tested scientifically, you have to check out the NorthWest AV Guy blog. He bought a $1000+ DAC/amplifier that audiophiles like and that tests well objectively, and then he designed a very inexpensive headphone amp that in double-blind testing cannot be distinguised from the expensive one... and he open-sourced the design; you can build one if you like, or buy one pre-built. He uses professional test gear, and for example he showed that the Sansa Clip really is a good-sounding media player (which plays Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, by the way). Check it out. (And NWAudioGuy, if I ever meet you in person, I'll buy you lunch or something.)

steveha

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely

Re:How audiophiles can fool themselves by Minwee · 2012-02-09 09:32 · Score: 3, Funny

The crazy thing, and I'm not making this up, is that some audiophiles claim that double-blind testing "doesn't work". They claim that you introduce errors that mask the superiority of the expensive equipment.
But they're right. The problem is not with the audiophiles, but with the testing.
A _proper_ double-blind test would involve you, the tester, telling the test subject the names of two competing brands of audio equipment, but not their price. The subject would then hold lengthy conversations with his peers about how much better the equipment makes everything sound without ever plugging it in. Whichever brand leaves him feeling more superior at the end of the test is clearly better.
If you're just going to bring stupid crap like listening to music into it then you're completely missing the point and your testing methodology is doomed to failure.

I'm no specialist, but... by Stormwatch · 2012-02-09 09:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I must disagree about this point:

It would be ridiculous for me to make a Jonas Brothers record using the techniques and procedures I normally use. The techniques used to make many modern pop records involve a lot of compression and that’s what those consumers want, according to the labels. A lot of the processing that audiophiles criticize is a style thing and part of the music itself.

Crushed dynamic range and signal clipping are not a "style" or "part of the music itself". They are production errors. They are defects. If done in purpose, they are a sign of defective thinking -- "it has to be as loud as the latest #1" rather than "it has to sound as good as possible".

--
Circumcision is child abuse.

Re:I'm no specialist, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-09 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Crushed dynamic range and signal clipping are not a "style" or "part of the music itself". They are production errors. They are defects. If done in purpose, they are a sign of defective thinking -- "it has to be as loud as the latest #1" rather than "it has to sound as good as possible".
No, it's part of the style, just like acid-washed jeans or predistressed clothing.

Noisy-environment mode by tepples · 2012-02-09 09:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Compressed dynamic range sounds better in car stereos, iPod ear buds and noisy bars, which is where the majority of consumers listen to music.

Then why can't they just release records without overcompressed dynamic range and let the car stereo or the digital media player handle noisy-environment mode?

Re:Noisy-environment mode by yurtinus · 2012-02-09 10:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Notice how most cars have a button to turn on and off "loudness?" That's essentially the way car stereos do it. But, if it's already compressed, you can make it more compressed, AND MORE LOUDERER!!!

--
+1 Disagree

Not really... by MaWeiTao · 2012-02-09 09:16 · Score: 2

I know an audiophile and so am privy to that world. They do care quite a lot about room acoustics, contrary to what this guy is saying. Also, serious audiophiles don't just go out and buy the most expensive equipment available. Serious audiophiles obsess over what to buy before they actually get it. The ones who go out and buy the most expensive equipment are poseurs who want something they can brag about. A lot of them are very technically inclined. I knew this guy who was an engineer and actually built his own speakers.

Examples of audiophile equipment by steveha · 2012-02-09 09:17 · Score: 2

$300 power cord containing $15 worth of parts:
http://gizmodo.com/371536/300-audiophile-grade-power-cable-is-really-worth-15

$1000 power cord on sale for a mere $750:
http://www.essentialsound.com/essence-power-cord/index.htm

$2000 power cord:
http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/125/24045

$695 cable for digital signals... that's right, a $700 S/PDIF cord:
http://www.lessloss.com/digital-cables-c-70.html?zenid=l5tu6jq73toh5mk09a315pkid0

Machina Dynamica. Oh man. I really wonder if the guy running this site even believes in his own products, or if he is gleefully exploiting the gullible. Products include "The Clever Little Clock" which seems to be an ordinary travel alarm clock with magical powers, "The Super Intelligent Chip" which not only improves the sound of your CDs, but does so permanently (by altering the structure of the CD in some hand-waving "quantum" fashion), his new product, "The Quantum Temple Bell", a decorated bell you walk around your house ringing and your audio sounds better, and my favorite "The Teleportation Tweak" where he calls you and plays magical tones through your phone, and your audio sounds better afterward.
http://www.machinadynamica.com/

steveha

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely

YouTube helps me discover music by Enderandrew · 2012-02-09 09:34 · Score: 2

I don't listen to the radio. My friends post YouTube suggestions of artists they like. I check them out, and if I like them, I buy their music.

Music sales are up in the digital age and some point don't seem to understand that.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.

Better Summary by fibonacci8 · 2012-02-09 10:37 · Score: 3, Informative

Alan Parsons thinks the music industry should focus on producing quality music before and during the recording phases, instead of worrying about distribution formats that package music after the fact.

--
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.

And then there are... by fyngyrz · 2012-02-09 14:42 · Score: 2

...the Cartesians. Just a bunch of squares. Cubic, man.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Slashdot Mirror

Pink Floyd Engineer Alan Parsons Rips Audiophiles, YouTube and Jonas Brothers

104 of 468 comments (clear)