That took two minutes
― waterface, Thursday, 1 August 2013 15:53 (ten years ago) link
from the p4k post, which is one of the major points of the article?:
"Few aesthetic experiences are as subjective as sound. When an iPhone has a retina display with more pixels per inch, you notice it. But what we desire in sound is much more of an individual thing. Some people want "accuracy" and some people want a lot of bass; some people only care that it's loud enough. Plus, we're very good at fooling ourselves when it comes to making distinctions between sounds. At this point, you have your computer or your mp3 player/smart phone, you plug headphones into these devices, and you listen to what comes out. The tangle of variables behind a vintage stereo system has largely been boiled down to: What kind of headphones am I using? The small differences between sources of sound reproduction are, for most people, pretty hard to differentiate, and wholly personal. "
― marcos, Thursday, 1 August 2013 15:59 (ten years ago) link
science!
for the 200th time, i am promising myself that i will never open this thread again
― Z S, Thursday, 1 August 2013 15:59 (ten years ago) link
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
― Z S, Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:44 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― marcos, Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:00 (ten years ago) link
you guys realize you're rehashing the analog/digital debate, already one of the most played-out, hackneyed arguments, with waterface, right
― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:01 (ten years ago) link
is this really how you want to spend your day
Gonna start a dog v. cat poll after lunch
― waterface, Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:01 (ten years ago) link
honestly waterface otm - no one ever argued that cds didn't have higher potential frequency range or better signal to noise, the problem he doesn't address is that outside of stuff that performs really insanely poorly on those scales (like idk wax cylinders and shit), nobody uses that as a measure of actual listenability.
sorry, that article has been bugging me ever since people started reposting it
― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:01 (ten years ago) link
But ok I guess I didn't read the article closely enough sorry brothers and sisters--
WF
― waterface, Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:02 (ten years ago) link
he being dude that wrote the article obv
― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:02 (ten years ago) link
Aw thanks Triple J
so you would have preferred a paragraph like "well, hi-fi magazines were able to graph out exactly why CDs sounded better, but some people just thought they didn't sound right". essentially the argument is "mastering engineers didn't know how to adjust the levels properly for compact disc" which I think is pretty common knowledge. hell I think that Mark has said this numerous times himself.
essentially what you c/p'd up there reads like those articles that champions FLAC over MP3 even though almost nobody can spot the difference between a properly encoded MP3 and a FLAC in a double blind test. I mean yeah, some people disagree, but it goes against the point of the article and it doesn't have the science to back it up, so why mention it? he says straight up that different people look for different things in sound. what's your point?
― frogbs, Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:03 (ten years ago) link
The tangle of variables behind a vintage stereo system has largely been boiled down to: What kind of headphones am I using?
LOL
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:03 (ten years ago) link
Yeah that's even dumber than the shit I posted
― waterface, Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:04 (ten years ago) link
i get that some people prefer vinyl - similar to how some people love Beats Audio because it distorts and cranks the bass so much - but yer kinda barking at a cloud here
― frogbs, Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:04 (ten years ago) link
i fucking hate speakers, man
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:04 (ten years ago) link
but again isn't this the whole point of the article? that although cds are technically better, lots of people prefer vinyl
― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:05 (ten years ago) link
I honestly can't figure out the point of the article, it's too fuckin dumb or maybe I'm too fuckin dumb
― waterface, Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:06 (ten years ago) link
anyone who questions pitchfork is racist
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:06 (ten years ago) link
the problem with the article is that it tries to cut both ways, mixing some sort of hey people like the sound of different things *shrugs* conclusion with statements like "One thing that was not in question, especially in the early days, is that CDs sounded better than LPs." thats some pretty wonky logic there!
― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:08 (ten years ago) link
iirc the point is basically just "everyone thought cds would be the ultimate playback model because they have the best fidelity technically, but lots of people are going back to vinyl because technical fidelity is not always most important to the listener." which isn't a mind-blowing point or anything, but it's not a pro-CD article.
― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:09 (ten years ago) link
but see fidelity isn't what he is claiming it is! accurate reproduction (leaving out the inaccuracy argument abt sampling vs analog curve, which is also valid) is not the measure of fidelity.
― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:10 (ten years ago) link
well fidelity is my phrasing, i don't remember if that's the word he used
― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:13 (ten years ago) link
I stand by my point it's a dumb article
― waterface, Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:17 (ten years ago) link
― waterface
let's just move on to this part of the day
― Z S, Thursday, 1 August 2013 16:57 (ten years ago) link
I don't really even get people who try to argue that vinyl "sounds better" than CDs or vice versa as a blanket statement. It's so hard to compare the two across the board, especially when you're dealing with so many variables -- are we talking about a 70s record vs. the digitally remastered version on CD? Maybe the remastering job is the problem. Are we talking about analog RECORDINGS on vinyl versus digital RECORDINGS on CD? Does the same digitally recorded new album sound better on new vinyl than on a CD through the same stereo setup? Do you perhaps like the distortion and "crackliness" of old vinyl?
― HOOS next aka won't get steened again (Hurting 2), Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:08 (ten years ago) link
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?
― marcos, Thursday, August 1, 2013 8:44 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
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?
― marcos, Thursday, August 1, 2013 8:45 AM (3 hours ago)
a surprisingly high, and sustained by now, percentage, yeah. i would be very curious to find out what's driving it - availability of writing, judgments about their readers, the simple fact that metal is having a moment, its hipsterfiability, or whatever.
i think the curious thing is that they run so many reviews without really settling on a stance toward 'the metal identity'.
― j., Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:17 (ten years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP4qdefD2To
― markers, Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:19 (ten years ago) link
instead of talking about a blog post, let's all listen to the goo goo dolls together
i doooon't want the world to see mebecause i don't think they'd understaaaaawhen everything's made to be brokeni just waaaaannt you to know who i aaaaam
da-da-da-dada-da-da-daDUM DUM dummmmmmmda-da-da-dada-da-da-daDUM DUM dummmmmmm
well i said i was walking down the highway babyi'm just a rebel with a nothing to losei said you know i hate to lonely, ladybut the hard life is callin' and i just can't refu-use!
― Z S, Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:26 (ten years ago) link
goo goo! ga ga!
― Geoffrey Schweppes (jaymc), Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:27 (ten years ago) link
ooh la la
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:32 (ten years ago) link
DOGS V CATS
― waterface, Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:35 (ten years ago) link
a surprisingly high, and sustained by now, percentage, yeah. i would be very curious to find out what's driving it - availability of writing, judgments about their readers, the simple fact that metal is having a moment, its hipsterfiability, or whatever.i think the curious thing is that they run so many reviews without really settling on a stance toward 'the metal identity'.― j., Thursday, August 1, 2013 5:17 PM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― j., Thursday, August 1, 2013 5:17 PM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
yea, exactly. especially that last part -- the reviews and the coverage run constantly but it's all just kind of "there." all this kind of started with the "hipster metal phenomenon" around 2004-2006 but their coverage has just continued.
― marcos, Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:15 (ten years ago) link
and despite the high coverage w/ reviews and columns, has metal been incorporated into the more influential "tastemaking" features of the site? (e.g. best new music, the year-end lists, etc.)
― marcos, Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:20 (ten years ago) link
I don't really even get people who try to argue that vinyl "sounds better" than CDs or vice versa as a blanket statement. It's so hard to compare the two across the board, especially when you're dealing with so many variables
It's not really that hard to compare. Digitize a record though a good AD converter and then compare the original record playing to the digital copy.
― wk, Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:21 (ten years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5fTtGylEO0
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:24 (ten years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jix7XcbVA4w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqgtsai2aKY
Wait, are we still doing baby talk?
― wk, Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:21 AM (1 minute ago)
or, if you care about sound quality, just cut a 12" from a cd run through a good DA converter
― IIIrd Datekeeper (contenderizer), Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:27 (ten years ago) link
lmao mid 80s DACs were horseshit
― hello :) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:28 (ten years ago) link
what would that test?
― wk, Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:36 (ten years ago) link
accurate reproduction is not the measure of fidelity.― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, August 1, 2013 4:10 PM
Huh? That's precisely the measure of fidelity.
― early rejecter, Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:44 (ten years ago) link
yeah, I was wondering about that one too
― wk, Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:45 (ten years ago) link
waxmanship
― IIIrd Datekeeper (contenderizer), Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:53 (ten years ago) link
highly illogical
― wk, Thursday, 1 August 2013 19:03 (ten years ago) link
yeah that was sloppy on my part - definitionally thats exactly what fidelity is, but thats not how audio nerds use it casually.
― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 1 August 2013 19:09 (ten years ago) link
the whole argument is also amusing to me because anybody in the know will tell you that the number one weak link in your audio chain is always going to be your speakers anyway
― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 1 August 2013 19:11 (ten years ago) link
what i should have said is that accuracy in reproduction/fidelity isn't actually of much use when talking about quality of sound (again, removing bottom-feeder stuff like substandard encoding etc.) so i just see his statement abt all that tech spec totally pointless, but he's using it as a lynchpin for an argument that doesnt actually need it. and i dont find the "hey different people like different things that sound different" argument article worthy.
― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Thursday, 1 August 2013 19:14 (ten years ago) link