Lou Reed Hates MP3s

[gblowfish]

Rocker Lou Reed takes aim at new technology
http://tinyurl.com/ysepcv

By Gary Graff and Jonathan Cohen Fri Mar 14, 5:37 AM ET

AUSTIN, Texas (Billboard) - Lou Reed is lashing out at new modes of audio technology, saying that "people have got to demand a higher standard" than current MP3 music files.

The edgy rocker delivered the keynote speech at the South By Southwest Music Festival + Conference, which is underway in Austin, Texas.

Reed was interviewed Wednesday by producer Hal Willner, who recently worked with him on the opulent "Berlin" concerts in which the musician delivered a theatricalized concert version of his under-appreciated 1973 concept album of the same name. Those shows are the subject of "Lou Reed's Berlin," a documentary by Oscar-nominated director Julian Schnabel that had its American premiere at SXSW.

In typically glib and dry-witted form throughout the wide-ranging 55-minute conversation, the bespectacled Reed bemoaned the current state of audio and other digital technologies, noting that "it's like the technology is taking us backwards. It's making it easier to make things worse.

"Here's our song reduced to a pin drop -- what, what, what?!" Reed explained. "It's like if no one knows any better or doesn't care, it's gonna stay on a really, really low level and people who like good sound are gonna be thought of as some kind of strange zoo animal."

Reed did express some hope that "you hear they've got a newer version (of MP3) that sounds better, and you suddenly hear the other instruments that are on the song. They've got to bring up the standard. You have the world open to you now; you can get almost any song in the world as an MP3, and I suppose if you like it you can go out and try to find a version you can actually listen to -- if you like good sound. If you don't like good sound, none of this matters for a second."

During the session, Reed said he plans to stage the "Berlin" shows in Europe this summer but not in the United States. The "Berlin" concert concept "wasn't an audition to do more of these things" with any of his other albums, though he said 1992's "Magic and Loss" and 1978's "Street Hassle" would be good candidates if he did want to try it again.

[patteeu]

I like Lou Reed music a lot, but most of it isn't going to suffer all that much from the kind of reduction in fidelity that Reed seems to be complaining about.

I don't have the best music equipment in the world (far from it) so maybe that's why I have a hard time hearing the difference between a CD version of a song and a high quality .mp3 version.

[Ultra Peanut]

I feel sorry for audiophiles. It's nothing more than a disease. A very costly disease.

Give me a 192kb mp3 and I'm coo.

Also, Lou Reed's coming to Memphis in May, so that's neat.

[ZootedGranny]

FLAC & Ape don't exist.

[Mr. Laz]

so mp3 quality sucks but the RIAA is suing the world because the quality of mp3 is too good?

[Braincase]

I can rip a CD at a level higher than it was recorded at and higher than my simple ear can discriminate... but I guess if I want my dog to really appreciate music, I'll have 'em listen to vinyl, just as soon as he gets his nose out of that other dog's ass....oops, sorry, that was Lou Reed.

[patteeu]

so mp3 quality sucks but the RIAA is suing the world because the quality of mp3 is too good?

:LOL: Good point.

[Taco John]

Audio fidelity might matter here, but it's not because of anything Lou Reed is doing...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kXgbN81zNG8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kXgbN81zNG8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Deberg_1990]

I Agree. Bring back 8-Tracks and Vinyl records!

[bango]

I am not too sure of exactly how much stock I am going into what some guy who stopped making good music, what, 25 years ago?

[pikesome]

Sick Boy: Well, at one time, you've got it, and then you lose it, and it's gone forever. All walks of life: George Best, for example. Had it, lost it. Or David Bowie, or Lou Reed...
Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: Some of his solo stuff's not bad.
Sick Boy: No, it's not bad, but it's not great either. And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it's actually just shite.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Self professed "audio-philes" were participants in a double blind test that tested high quality oxygen-free cable against 12 gauge lamp cord, and none of them could tell a difference.

It always cracks me up when people crow about digitized sound. The speakers and receiver make 95% of the difference.

There are few things funnier than seeing someone who has purchased an HD-radio shelf system with two 1 1/2" speakers

[Baby Lee]

Self professed "audio-philes" were participants in a double blind test that tested high quality oxygen-free cable against 12 gauge lamp cord, and none of them could tell a difference.

It always cracks me up when people crow about digitized sound. The speakers and receiver make 95% of the difference.

There are few things funnier than seeing someone who has purchased an HD-radio shelf system with two 1 1/2" speakers
Want to conflate, misconprehend and mischaracterize a few more issues?
1. The strongest argument concerning indistinguishable differences, is digital transfer media. ie, an HDMI cable is an HDMI cable, is an HDMI cable [pretty much the same for optic fiber].
2. The differences between exotic cables and plain ol' lamp cord is pretty much debunked, but there's no one 'gotcha' definitive double blind test to which to refer. And actually there is evidence of some differences with some cables, but whether those changes are better, worse, cleaner, dirtier, more colored, or more 'true.' is up for debate.
3. It's not just crowing about 'digitized' sound, it's critiquing whether 44.1 kHz [or the often much lower rates of Mp3] is sufficient. Few argue that SACD or DVD-A aren't excellent digitial media
4. Another side issue is mastering, partially due to Mp3s and partially due to radio play, the studios are mastering massive amounts of normalization into today's tracks, meaning there's less decibal differences between the first high-hat tish and the 'thundering crescendo' than ever. Not really a digitization issue, but some might be confused if overhearing one of those asshole audiophiles bemoaning the current state of sound.
5. HD radio is funny, but not because it's being played on a crappy system. It's not even a higher definition of content. It's digitized and compressed so the actual 'HD' is the ability to play multiple channels on one frequency as a byproduct of digitization and compression. That and the 'it's either there or it's not' nature of digital content, being touted as 'clean clear uninterupted sound.' There are no standards for what quality of content is broadcast.

[bango]

This is not reall on topic, but the title of this thread would make a great name for a band.

[StcChief]

Want to conflate, misconprehend and mischaracterize a few more issues?
1. The strongest argument concerning indistinguishable differences, is digital transfer media. ie, an HDMI cable is an HDMI cable, is an HDMI cable [pretty much the same for optic fiber].
2. The differences between exotic cables and plain ol' lamp cord is pretty much debunked, but there's no one 'gotcha' definitive double blind test to which to refer. And actually there is evidence of some differences with some cables, but whether those changes are better, worse, cleaner, dirtier, more colored, or more 'true.' is up for debate.
3. It's not just crowing about 'digitized' sound, it's critiquing whether 44.1 kHz [or the often much lower rates of Mp3] is sufficient. Few argue that SACD or DVD-A aren't excellent digitial media
4. Another side issue is mastering, partially due to Mp3s and partially due to radio play, the studios are mastering massive amounts of normalization into today's tracks, meaning there's less decibal differences between the first high-hat tish and the 'thundering crescendo' than ever. Not really a digitization issue, but some might be confused if overhearing one of those asshole audiophiles bemoaning the current state of sound.
5. HD radio is funny, but not because it's being played on a crappy system. It's not even a higher definition of content. It's digitized and compressed so the actual 'HD' is the ability to play multiple channels on one frequency as a byproduct of digitization and compression. That and the 'it's either there or it's not' nature of digital content, being touted as 'clean clear uninterupted sound.' There are no standards for what quality of content is broadcast.:clap::clap: The industry new mastering of music is BS.

they know it's being stolen, uploaded/burned, re digitized.

MP3s quality? good enough for most ears that are shot from too many loud concerts anyway.

Lou Reed included, likely can't hear past 10K anyway.

[Baby Lee]

If you want a taste of what audiophile content can offer, d/l some Bob Dylan/Rolling Stones MP3s and compare them to the same recordings on SACD on a good system. 'She's a Rainbow' is so beautiful I'm likely to cry, and I'm not even that much of a Stones fan.

Famous Blue Raincoat - Jennifer Warnes on CD is about as good as you can get on the CD medium.

'Jazz at the Pawnshop' on SACD is nirvana.

Chesky's Ultimate Demonstration Disc is a good primer that tells you what qualities to listen for before the track, then gives you an excellent example detailing the differences between a quality recording and a mashed up mess.

And that's not even getting started on the awesome that is DSotM in 5.1.

Saying audiophiles have an expensive disease is like saying 'why pay for a steak when there's a McDonalds on every corner' or 'why buy a BMW when a Hyundai will get you from here to there just the same.'

Don't tout your lack of palate as a virtue.

[jiveturkey]

The wife's new Acura has a DVD-A player in it and the difference is certainly noticeable.

The technology is dying though and there's not a lot of discs available.

[jiveturkey]

And that's not even getting started on the awesome that is DSotM in 5.1.
And how!

I downloaded the original Alan Parson's mix onto DVD-A and it blows my mind.

[Baby Lee]

The wife's new Acura has a DVD-A player in it and the difference is certainly noticeable.

The technology is dying though and there's not a lot of discs available.
Yeah, I went with SACD [Sony-boi am I]. Luckily there's a good bit of content for the stuff I want high fidelity for [classical, jazz, must haves like Stones/Floyd, Allison Kraus] basically the artists I like who actually pay attention to fidelity. I'm hoping for more Floyd, particular the grail-esque remastering of WYWH, but have all but given up on the Beatles catalog. Would love for Radiohead or Led Zep to put stuff out.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Want to conflate, misconprehend and mischaracterize a few more issues?
1. The strongest argument concerning indistinguishable differences, is digital transfer media. ie, an HDMI cable is an HDMI cable, is an HDMI cable [pretty much the same for optic fiber].
2. The differences between exotic cables and plain ol' lamp cord is pretty much debunked, but there's no one 'gotcha' definitive double blind test to which to refer. And actually there is evidence of some differences with some cables, but whether those changes are better, worse, cleaner, dirtier, more colored, or more 'true.' is up for debate.
3. It's not just crowing about 'digitized' sound, it's critiquing whether 44.1 kHz [or the often much lower rates of Mp3] is sufficient. Few argue that SACD or DVD-A aren't excellent digitial media
4. Another side issue is mastering, partially due to Mp3s and partially due to radio play, the studios are mastering massive amounts of normalization into today's tracks, meaning there's less decibal differences between the first high-hat tish and the 'thundering crescendo' than ever. Not really a digitization issue, but some might be confused if overhearing one of those asshole audiophiles bemoaning the current state of sound.
5. HD radio is funny, but not because it's being played on a crappy system. It's not even a higher definition of content. It's digitized and compressed so the actual 'HD' is the ability to play multiple channels on one frequency as a byproduct of digitization and compression. That and the 'it's either there or it's not' nature of digital content, being touted as 'clean clear uninterupted sound.' There are no standards for what quality of content is broadcast.

Hate to break this to you, buddy, but what I said was 100% correct, and you pretty much backed up everything I said.

1.Yeah, digital cables are digital cables. Where did I say any different? Oh wait, non sequitur, baby :thumb:

2. The "Monster" myth has been debunked, and you agree as much, then you don't, then you do. Which personality is it?

For the record, from a self-professed audiophile:

Perhaps, someday, Ken Kessler and several other audio perverts will condescend to take a controlled listening test. Several offers have been made for anyone who can correctly identify a particular kind of wire under controlled conditions. Challenges offering $15,000 or more have not even been tried by these “experts,” Ken could be a rich man if he could consistently identify differences in house wiring with controlled tests. I would encourage him to prove his abilities for the readers of Audio magazine who deserve the truth.

3. I never even discussed DVD-A or SACD. You are trying to pull monkeys out of your ass because you have a school boy obsession with my posts. I seriously cannot recall the last time you didn't reply to my posts with some kind of snide, hateful drivel. It's almost like you jerk off to hating me. Niche formats like that are designed for people who want to spend ostentatious amounts of money for a slight difference in sound. For the people who own hundreds of basic CDs, there is no perceptible difference between that and a well-encoded MP3 or FLAC file.

4. This is going on a rant for the sake of going on a rant and has nothing to do with anything that I mentioned. If you are pissed off at record execs for their mastering of sound, wail away, but it's a completely unrelated topic to what I was discussing. As you say "not really a digitization issue". ROFL It's almost like you've spilled some Schlitz on your wife beater and decide to take it out on the old lady.

5. No shit, Sherlock. It's not only a malleable standard, but it's played on substandard systems with weak power transmitters, but people will buy it, just like they will buy Monster Cables et. al because they want to believe it so.


It's obvious that you're one of those guys who thinks that he can hear above 20,000 Hz and below 20, and who can tell a difference between a receiver with .08% THD and one with .05%

Sorry dude :shrug:

[Kerberos]

"And the Colored Girls Go" Do da Do-Do Do Do-Do da Do-Do Do Do

[Baby Lee]

First off
Hate to break this to you, buddy, but what I said was 100% correct, and you pretty much backed up everything I said.
Self professed "audio-philes" were participants in a double blind test that tested high quality oxygen-free cable against 12 gauge lamp cord, and none of them could tell a difference.
2. The differences between exotic cables and plain ol' lamp cord is pretty much debunked, but there's no one 'gotcha' definitive double blind test to which to refer. And actually there is evidence of some differences with some cables, but whether those changes are better, worse, cleaner, dirtier, more colored, or more 'true.' is up for debate.
2. The "Monster" myth has been debunked, and you agree as much, then you don't, then you do. Which personality is it?

For the record, from a self-professed audiophile:

Perhaps, someday, Ken Kessler and several other audio perverts will condescend to take a controlled listening test. Several offers have been made for anyone who can correctly identify a particular kind of wire under controlled conditions. Challenges offering $15,000 or more have not even been tried by these “experts,” Ken could be a rich man if he could consistently identify differences in house wiring with controlled tests. I would encourage him to prove his abilities for the readers of Audio magazine who deserve the truth.

Second despite your first post was how people who like good reproduction of music are such ****ing jokes that crack you up so ****ing much. And despite youir second post that alternatively characterize me as a wife beater wearing redneck and an effete snob, I'll apologize if you took offense at the tone of my post.

Honestly, I didn't even notice that this was a 'Hamas Jenkins' post until I was halfway through my response. Then my thought was '****, this guy's gonna turn into some imagined, fever-dream, personal yuppy/hippy battle for the soul of eternity. Thanks for proving me wrong.

But your were wrong that 'self-professed audiophiles were participants' in any kind of definitive test. The very point is that 'they' won't take the test. For the most part, sure cables that meet a certain floor standard are fungible, and sure most of those qualities touted for exotic cables are bunkum.

And I addressed normalization and SACD/DVD-A because you remarked how crowing about 'digitization' cracks you up, which leaves a good deal of ambiguity. My point was that audiophiles don't 'crow' about GOOD digitization, be it high fidelity/high bitrate mastering like DSD underlying SACD, or non-normalized/non-compressed mastering by the studio.

I know you like to think of an audiophile as some hipster douchebag who doesn't know what he's listening to, but loves telling his hipster douchebag friends how expensive it was and why. But the sizeable contingent are simply music lovers, who patiently assemble a system with an eye and ear towards quality.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

First off





Second despite your first post was how people who like good reproduction of music are such ****ing jokes that crack you up so ****ing much. And despite youir second post that alternatively characterize me as a wife beater wearing redneck and an effete snob, I'll apologize if you took offense at the tone of my post.

Honestly, I didn't even notice that this was a 'Hamas Jenkins' post until I was halfway through my response. Then my thought was '****, this guy's gonna turn into some imagined, fever-dream, personal yuppy/hippy battle for the soul of eternity. Thanks for proving me wrong.

But your were wrong that 'self-professed audiophiles were participants' in any kind of definitive test. The very point is that 'they' won't take the test. For the most part, sure cables that meet a certain floor standard are fungible, and sure most of those qualities touted for exotic cables are bunkum.

And I addressed normalization and SACD/DVD-A because you remarked how crowing about 'digitization' cracks you up, which leaves a good deal of ambiguity. My point was that audiophiles don't 'crow' about GOOD digitization, be it high fidelity/high bitrate mastering like DSD underlying SACD, or non-normalized/non-compressed mastering by the studio.

I know you like to think of an audiophile as some hipster douchebag who doesn't know what he's listening to, but loves telling his hipster douchebag friends how expensive it was and why. But the sizeable contingent are simply music lovers, who patiently assemble a system with an eye and ear towards quality.

Oh really?

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/03/audiophile_deathmatch_monster_cables_vs_a_coat_hanger-2.html

Whether or not Monster Cables are worth it is a war that has raged since home theatre immemorial. A poster at Audioholics was put in a room with five fellow audiophiles, and a Martin Logan SL-3 speaker set at 75Db at 1000KHz playing a mix of "smooth, trio, easy listening jazz" that no one had heard before. In one corner, Monster 1000 speaker cables. In the other, four coat hangers twisted and soldered into a speaker cable.


Seven songs were played while the group was blindfolded and the cables swapped back and forth. Not only "after 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire," but no one knew a coat hanger was used in the first place.

Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent, however, when A-B tests occured, it was impossible to determine which sounded best the majority of the time and which wire was in use.

It's possible these guys weren't super-hardcore audiophiles that might not be able to tell the difference, but it largely goes with what we've found in our own tests of Monster Cable: The lower end can perform just as well, though we don't really recommend re-wiring your home theatre after a firesale on wire hangers

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Here's a more comprehensive one for you:

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

[Baby Lee]

That's the whole point of that particular argument
=Hamas]Self professed "audio-philes" were participants in a double blind test
It's possible these guys weren't super-hardcore audiophiles
Listen, I'm on the 'an interconnect is an interconnect' bandwagon, but I do recognize that there are some qualities to some wires that can color what's reproduced. Whether that's good or bad, better or worse is a matter of taste.
My main point was your seeming derision of anyone who thinks there's better content out there than an MP3, or any way of making things sound better than a boombox.
MP3s are missing information that CDs possess and generally lose sound quality, be it to compression or bitrate.
CDs are 44.1 kHz, which while a decent bitrate is still a sampling of the true music. There are some high quality DACs that turn that information into a very smooth reproduction, some even approach good analog playback, but for the most part quality crafted SACDs/DVD-As and vinyl gives an objectively better experience.
And it's not just about hearing some absurdly high frequency, it's about closer approximation of the actual linear analog sound produced live.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

That's the whole point of that particular argument


Listen, I'm on the 'an interconnect is an interconnect' bandwagon, but I do recognize that there are some qualities to some wires that can color what's reproduced. Whether that's good or bad, better or worse is a matter of taste.
My main point was your seeming derision of anyone who thinks there's better content out there than an MP3, or any way of making things sound better than a boombox.
MP3s are missing information that CDs possess and generally lose sound quality, be it to compression or bitrate.
CDs are 44.1 kHz, which while a decent bitrate is still a sampling of the true music. There are some high quality DACs that turn that information into a very smooth reproduction, some even approach good analog playback, but for the most part quality crafted SACDs/DVD-As and vinyl gives an objectively better experience.
And it's not just about hearing some absurdly high frequency, it's about closer approximation of the actual linear analog sound produced live.

I understand that to an extent, and yes information is left out, but it's not perceptible to the human ear. I believe psychoacoustics > someone's desire to hear something. There are shitty MP3's out there, but a 192 or 256K MP3 file, let alone FLAC is imperceptibly compared to a CD. MP3s cut out the stuff we can't hear to reduce file size, and FLAC does an even better job with said compression, which is why it is lossless.

Did you read that .pdf, because it basically rebuts your entire argument, whether it be the superiority of vinyl or what is and is not left out of MP3.

Granted we are going to have to agree to disagree, because you are invested in your stance and it's quite obvious that nothing will budge you from it.

[Rausch]

If you want to rip the CD's you own at a huge file size there are plenty of other file formats out there. MP3 is just the most managable size and easiest to steal.

Where was he to bitch when local radio sounded like ass?...

[Rausch]

Did you read that .pdf, because it basically rebuts your entire argument, whether it be the superiority of vinyl or what is and is not left out of MP3.

I'll never sped the jack to build a classic album collection but I'll always believe the sound of vinyl is unbeatable. There's just something about hearing the scratch of the needle hitting the record and the small imperfections...

[KC Kings]

If you want a taste of what audiophile content can offer, d/l some Bob Dylan/Rolling Stones MP3s and compare them to the same recordings on SACD on a good system. 'She's a Rainbow' is so beautiful I'm likely to cry, and I'm not even that much of a Stones fan.

Famous Blue Raincoat - Jennifer Warnes on CD is about as good as you can get on the CD medium.

'Jazz at the Pawnshop' on SACD is nirvana.

Chesky's Ultimate Demonstration Disc is a good primer that tells you what qualities to listen for before the track, then gives you an excellent example detailing the differences between a quality recording and a mashed up mess.

And that's not even getting started on the awesome that is DSotM in 5.1.

Saying audiophiles have an expensive disease is like saying 'why pay for a steak when there's a McDonalds on every corner' or 'why buy a BMW when a Hyundai will get you from here to there just the same.'

Don't tout your lack of palate as a virtue.

Are SACD and DVD-A still around? I bought a 6-channel out DVD player just to play DVD-A and 2 months later Best Buy didn't carry them anymore. I find them here and there but they are always $30 a piece.

I have and older audio system, but 4 years ago the HK receiver was $800 and the JBL Studio series speakers were just at $1000. Playing DVD-A's out of my 6-channel DVD player sounded better than any demonstration at any bose, Tweakers, etc.. store. As good as it sounded $30 a album was too high for me to get into.