pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

is that a gas prices joke

I think it was just a coincidence!

Mirror to the Soul, a compilatoin that pairs a 2xCD set with a tw0-hour documentary made up entirely of clips from the archive of British Pathé, brings together music, film, and writing to provide a perspective on the Caribbean that encourages cultural links and connections.

been noticing lots of typos lately. free site lol i know but kind of undercuts the superiority complex of the place

me too. This sentence occurs in today's Big Star review:

They don't shine like the original album versions, but still, "When My Baby's Beside Me" is just as compelling even if this mix has more pish in the symbols. You would have to be at least a six-out-of-10 on the Big Star nerd scale to hear specific differences without cuing up a Big Star album proper to check.

paragraph even!

Fest is this weekend, likely distractions afoot.

i've been noticing it a lot lately. i mean really who cares it's a free site but it's sort of funny coming from a bunch of stuck-up know it alls

All of these typos you guys are finding get fixed pretty quickly.

why don't they just spellcheck in the first place? are they too good for spellcheck?

Well, "symbols" seems like the exact sort of mistake you get with spell check. Like, if someone wrote "cymbols" instead of "cymbals," I'd bet it might autocorrect to "symbols."

Spellcheck
Spellcheck

5.7

guess they don't think they NEED spellcheck up there in their IVORY TOWER

the hoity-toity, toffee nosed bastards

compilatoin ain't just a village in france

As the legacy of Hüsker Dü has shown, equal songwriting partnerships do not necessary translate to equal statures.

I mean, come on.

I hardly ever look at the site tbh but their writing must be pretty top drawer at the moment given that this thread is now solely an outlet for pointing out typos

It has been pretty good lately, fwiw. That's just such an egregious error for the opening sentence in a review.

kinda dying at the phrase "pish in the symbols"

haha, yeah, it is kind of a beautiful turn of phrase.

http://www.words-chinese.com/symbols/_pish.htm

it's true grant is much shorter than bob mould

i don't read the reviews. the typos i see are on the front page summaries of the reviews. i'm sure the superior musical taste of their editors makes up for or is even part and parcel of the lackadaisical editing

is this "superior taste" thing a running joke you're desperately trying to jumpstart or are you just really insecure

i'm sure i've said this before (prob in this thread!) but the front page summaries are kind of annoying, because they always paraphrase a sentence or two from the review but often losing some essential context or putting undue focus on something not really that important to the album and/or review.

i'm just really insecure

i'm not a huge metal listener at all and i don't really know grayson currin's writing, but dude is reviewing like 10 metal albums a week there -- is p4k's demographic that interested in metal?

notice all the other metal content on the site, show no mercy, etc. i know they've been covering metal for a while now, 7-8 years, but it seems like a good %30 of the coverage on the site is metal-related?

seems like metal is something it's not really worth covering in a half-assed way, so it's probably a good thing that they're going all in (at least objectively, i don't know what the quality of their coverage is)

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/29-vinyl-records-and-digital-audio/

One thing that was not in question, especially in the early days, is that CDs sounded better than LPs. Hi-fi magazines, especially then, were notorious for their number-crunching. Reviews of gear would include graphs that showed the frequency range of the sounds produced, measurements of things like channel separation (how much the information from the two stereo channels could be kept isolated from each other), signal-to-noise ratio, and dynamic range (the difference between the softest and loudest sounds the source was capable of reproducing). And every possible measurement of the sounds-- which are, after all, vibrations in the air that are quantifiable-- suggested that CDs were superior to LPs. There were still some holdouts, especially among those who had spent thousands of dollars on turntables, but the consensus was that CDs had gone a long way toward "solving" sound.

Yeah, idiot, of course Stereophile thinks a CD sounds better than an LP. Idiot.

There's nothing idiotic about that quote.

vinyl sounds warmer

vinyl sounds way way way better

i enjoyd that vinyl post, mark richardson is righteous, i love that guy's writing, both for pfk and his tumblr. one of my favorite music writers.

Maybe you should write for pitchfork

that quote is an accurate summary of a certain set of views at the dawn of the CD era.

There's nothing idiotic about that quote.

― wk, Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:24 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I am a total hoser

― wk, Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:24 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― HOOS next aka won't get steened again (Hurting 2), Thursday, August 1, 2013 4:35 PM (24 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

why dont you explain whats so dumb about that quote

I already did check out my explanation below the blue box

Basically if you get a bunch of nerdy number crunchers in a room they will "decide" that CD's sound better than LPs

There's nothing idiotic about that quote.

― wk, Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:24 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― HOOS next aka won't get steened again (Hurting 2), Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:35 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I am a human garbage pit.

― wk, Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:24 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― HOOS next aka won't get steened again (Hurting 2), Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:35 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― frogbs, Thursday, August 1, 2013 4:42 PM (20 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Here comes that awkward moment when once again it comes to light that the person we're shitting on for their pitchfork article is also a regular ilm poster who will come along in about 10 minutes and engage with us politely about our criticisms.

warmerface

that quote is an accurate summary of a certain set of views at the dawn of the CD era.

― stefon taylor swiftboat (s.clover)

There's nothing idiotic about that quote.

― wk, Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:24 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― HOOS next aka won't get steened again (Hurting 2), Thursday, August 1, 2013 10:35 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― frogbs, Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:42 AM (1 second ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"criticisms"

Just saying that O'course an Audiophile Nerd O Rama magazine is going to think that kind of thing, but if he had done some legwork and asked around he would have discovered that not everyone thinks CDs sound better

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).

This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate.

In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion.

This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise.

that quote is an accurate summary of a certain set of views at the dawn of the CD era.

― stefon taylor swiftboat (s.clover)