Lou Reed Hates MP3s

['Hamas' Jenkins]

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.

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

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". 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