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]

Originally Posted by Laz

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

Good point.

[Taco John]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by '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

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]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

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.

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.