Gary.M1553552674 Posted September 3, 2009 Posted September 3, 2009 http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sashafrerejones/2009/09/dithering-jonny-greenwood.html
kiwi_1282001 Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 [...] SFJ: Do you think any of the MP3 generation—ten- to twenty-five-year-olds—want a higher quality experience? JG: No. That comes later. It’s those thirty-something men who lurk in hi-fi shops, discussing signal purity and oxygen-free cables and FLACs. I should know—I was very nearly one of them. LoL. So now we have the truth about audiophiles? It all starts as a result of a typical male mid life crises. A bit like the Harley Davidson which suddenly appears in your driveway. Jonny is full of contradiction and he wants attention...
Jon1553552729 Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Buried underneath that lot is this. Click on a link or two! Much more interesting!
Electra Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 It just asks to be torn to shreds that article! Do any of you want "crunchiness" in your music? Me? no thanks, or not if its what I imagine it means! We listened to a lot of nineties hip-hop during our last album, all as MP3s, all via AirTunes. They sounded great, even with all that technology in the way. Its hip hop - MP3 compression makes it sound better as it sounds less like the original and more like the speakers are under water. I could go on....
nixon76 Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 I remember first seeing MP3's in 1996 on IRC - pretty unorganised back then.....
Electra Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 The very first MP3 I ever experienced was Garbage's Stupid Girl, whenever that came out. Sounded just as bad then as it does now. MP3 that is, not Garbage.
Ayou21553552688 Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 "Its hip hop - MP3 compression makes it sound better" Hip Hop (you may have it confused with mainstream Rap) has some of the best production values of any genre. Try out some Jurassic 5 on your system.
johnnyrs Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Ayou2;101923 wrote: Hip Hop (you may have it confused with mainstream Rap) has some of the best production values of any genre. Try out some Jurassic 5 on your system. Agreed - I find 99% of Hip Hop/Rap a mjor turn off but am partial to Dr Dre's Chronic - the production is blinding - imo. On the other hand RnB - the modern stuff with some twat winging about some strippper or some such - is only good with the power button switched to off.
Electra Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Ayou2;101923 wrote: "Its hip hop - MP3 compression makes it sound better" Hip Hop (you may have it confused with mainstream Rap) has some of the best production values of any genre. Try out some Jurassic 5 on your system. Its not got anything to do with the quality of the recording, its the entire genre IMHO!
kiwi_1282001 Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 too_tall;101856 wrote: It just asks to be torn to shreds that article! Do any of you want "crunchiness" in your music? Me? no thanks, or not if its what I imagine it means! [...] Yeah, "crunchiness" obviously alludes to a new genre of music, 'coco - pops'.
Gopal Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 johnnyrs;101948 wrote: Agreed - I find 99% of Hip Hop/Rap a mjor turn off but am partial to Dr Dre's Chronic - the production is blinding - imo. On the other hand RnB - the modern stuff with some twat winging about some strippper or some such - is only good with the power button switched to off. Dr Dre is a production genius with both mad skills and an unlimited budget. The thing to remember about Hip hop and alot of modern pop is that there are only 3 or 4 instruments happening. It's piss easy to make a recording sound great when you've only got a kick, a snare, a couple horn stabs, some backing strings and a singer. The more elements the engineer has to make space for, the harder it is to get a good mix.
otisredding Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 kiwi_1282001;101966 wrote: Yeah, "crunchiness" obviously alludes to a new genre of music, 'coco - pops'. When I talk with industry people and we use the term 'crunch' we mean musical compression & limiting such as that offered by the famous Fairchild limiters etc.... MP3 is convenient. He clearly doesn't believe it's truly any good sonically - or else why doesn't he out his money where his mouth is and listen to MP3 at home? Personally, I like my iPod when I'm traveling. And that's all.:cool:
Luis1553552738 Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 Well, Jim O'Rourke has a different opinion of MP3's quality. See about 3/4 of the way down this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/arts/music/06ratl.html?_r=2
stuarth Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Luis;102727 wrote: Well, Jim O'Rourke has a different opinion of MP3's quality. See about 3/4 of the way down this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/arts/music/06ratl.html?_r=2 O'Rourke is not just concerned with sound quality, he's taking a stand about the way that mp3's are packaged as well the pacing, the length, the sound, the cover images. but back to Jonny Greenwood, at least he did put together an enjoyable roots reggae comp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_Greenwood_Is_the_Controller
Guest Guest Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 JG: No. That comes later. It’s those thirty-something men who lurk in hi-fi shops, discussing signal purity and oxygen-free cables and FLACs. I should know—I was very nearly one of them. Dick.* Luis;102727 wrote: Well, Jim O'Rourke has a different opinion of MP3's quality. See about 3/4 of the way down this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/arts/music/06ratl.html?_r=2 Good on ya Jim! *= IMO
Owen Y Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 "Don't trust anyone over 30!" Popular saying during the hippie 60s. Still applies, it seems :rolleyes:
Guest Guest Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Yeah, I'm getting defiant in my old age.......
AudioKiwi Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 " I find this sound quality stuff both fascinating and ridiculous. It’s like the pixel resolution of digital cameras: higher numbers are better, but that discussion always pushes the actual photography to one side, somehow." Jonny Greenwood in the New Yorker article. I think this quote is a very pertinent one and Greenwood raises some very good points in this article. I work in the world of photography and it is amazing how often the discussion of equipment overwhelms the discussion of images. If having the latest 21 megapixel camera with motion stability makes better photographs then images made with older cameras must be, by definition, a little inferior. Anyone who has been moved by a 19th Century albumen print or a 1970s polaroid or even the snapshot they took last week will know this not to be true. It is the content that does the moving - not the technology. Similarly there is a point where sometimes the pursuit of high fidelity sound reproduction can actually decrease the enjoyment of music. I battle against this myself - trying not to listen to how 'impressive' the snare drum sounds but how am I emotionally effected? Best of all is when I don't think at all and am just caught up in the music. But it is a fine line - we all seek a clearer insight and think that a new amp or cable lifter will get us there - stepping ever closer to a vicious circle of eternal dissatisfaction. Sometimes I wonder if I was not happier as a teenager with a beat-up ghetto blaster and a bunch of dusty tapes
Tonto Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 With the advent of Computer Audio I have found myself listening to MORE music which I equate to a better experience (I had them encoded as MP3 320kps). Up grading these to CD quality has increased this enjoyment further but I would rather have great access to my music with MP3 files than a few SACDs I could only play once in a blue moon. my IIC.
Mycenius Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 I agree DC - what is this clown saying with the below? DodgyConnection;103031 wrote: It’s like the pixel resolution of digital cameras: higher numbers are better, but that discussion always pushes the actual photography to one side, somehow." That comment alone shows a complete ignorance beyond the consumer 'I want the newest biggest toy' mentality... I think you are right in some respects with pursuit of Hi-Fi sound comment - of course there's the well documented studio obsession with mastered the volume as high as possible and clipping every second track as well that doesn't help! FWIW as an aside I had a Nikon D70 (i.e. 6MP DSLR) but upgraded to a D80 (10MP) - miss my D70, it took such wonderfully clear photos and no issue with processor noise or moire or anything thanks to the lower MP - the quality of the Nikon lenses and the processor electronics are what make the difference, not the MP rating...
kiwi_1282001 Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 mycenius;103037 wrote: [...] FWIW as an aside I had a Nikon D70 (i.e. 6MP DSLR) but upgraded to a D80 (10MP) - miss my D70, it took such wonderfully clear photos and no issue with processor noise or moire or anything thanks to the lower MP - the quality of the Nikon lenses and the processor electronics are what make the difference, not the MP rating ... I think this observation is instructive. It suggests that the overall performance of the image collection process is as strong as the weakest link allows it to be. Audio is no different.
tanman_sg Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 DodgyConnection;103031 wrote: " I find this sound quality stuff both fascinating and ridiculous. It’s like the pixel resolution of digital cameras: higher numbers are better, but that discussion always pushes the actual photography to one side, somehow." Jonny Greenwood in the New Yorker article. Sometimes I find the discussions on audio are more easily related to things like bit depth and colour space rather than mere megapixels!
nixon76 Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 And anyway, everyone 'in the know' knows it's not about the number of pixels, it's about the sensor size. Why is it always about size?
Luis1553552738 Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 "Sometimes I wonder if I was not happier as a teenager with a beat-up ghetto blaster and a bunch of dusty tapes " For sure, I'd say we all have strong memories of music played on crap equipment ( The Beatles on a junk radio, Sex Pistols on a rubbish car stereo, Billie Holiday on an old 3in1...) but that doesn't invalidate a discussion about the equipment. That's what a forum like this is all about. I'd hope we all appreciate 'the music' above all, but that doesn't preclude an appreciation of the conduit for it as well.
AudioKiwi Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Luis;103070 wrote: "Sometimes I wonder if I was not happier as a teenager with a beat-up ghetto blaster and a bunch of dusty tapes " For sure, I'd say we all have strong memories of music played on crap equipment ( The Beatles on a junk radio, Sex Pistols on a rubbish car stereo, Billie Holiday on an old 3in1...) but that doesn't invalidate a discussion about the equipment. That's what a forum like this is all about. I'd hope we all appreciate 'the music' above all, but that doesn't preclude an appreciation of the conduit for it as well. Not at all - I was being a bit flippant I love the craft of well engineered audio equipment and marvel at the brains that make it. I'm in a philosophical mood I guess.
Recommended Posts