Pink Floyd sound engineer talks about modern audio technologies and Youtube

[antiacid]

Sound engineer legend Alan Parsons discuss Youtube's crappy quality, audiophile's inability to spend money properly (room treatment first!) and the impact of new technologies on sound recording (compression is a stylistic choice apparently).
source!

What is the biggest thing that both electronics dealers and enthusiast consumers should do when setting up home theater/sound systems?
You get what you pay for. But having said that, there are some decent budget surround systems you can buy at Costco or Walmart that really aren’t bad. Everybody has their budget; the hi-fi world will tell you if money is no object you can get better results out of every component - even the surface the amplifier sits on. Pro sound people have different expectations; they are only concerned that a piece of gear works and allows them to do their job. Hi-fi people spend huge amounts of money for tiny improvements, and pro sound guys will say, “I can spend half as much and get the results I need.”

I’m simply not very familiar with the latest domestic hi-fi equipment. I don’t go to hi-fi tradeshows and I don’t have sophisticated equipment in the family areas of my house for music, but there are things that make sense like good speakers and a decent amp. But I dare say there would only be a small improvement if I bought a $20,000 amp. I can live with what I have.

imageI do think in the domestic environment, the people that have sufficient equipment don’t pay enough attention to room acoustics. The pro audio guy will prioritize room acoustics and do the necessary treatments to make the room sound right. The hi-fi world attaches less importance to room acoustics, and prioritizes equipment; they are looking more at brand names and reputation.

Bottom line, if it's good enough for the guy who made possibly one of the best albums of all times, it's good enough for you.

What do you think is the most misunderstood part of the recording/mixing process that audiophiles don’t understand that you address with the box set?
I think what perhaps critics don’t appreciate is that there is a lot of luck in getting a good sound. It’s not all about the equipment, spectral response and compressing. It’s all about the quality of the musicianship, the songwriting and the sound reaching the microphone … that’s crucial. It’s often been said, “garbage in means garbage out,” so if that’s the case you won’t get a good sound.

And there you have it, ladies and gents. Enjoy your 25 000$ cables

[haylui]

not everyone could differentiate sound quality as they could with image quality...

[SabreWulf69]

Whilst I would love room treatment, in a rental it simply is not feasible for me unfortunately.

[demonkevy666]

perception is deception of a judgmental mind.

[eXa]

Whilst I would love room treatment, in a rental it simply is not feasible for me unfortunately.

Shure it is, there is plenty that you can do. Corner traps stacked ontop of eachother, they just stand there. some dampening material on the walls in the 1. reflection, that only takes a nail, just like hanging a picture. Thick carpenting...
When you take it out there is only a couple of nails in the wall, no biggy.

[WangChung]

I'm convinced I've been losing my hearing early, so audio quality up to a point is subjective to me. However, I do agree that we're overpaying for iTunes quality and CD releases; they're all overcompressed garbage. I appreciate the musicians that care about their recording quality to either release a proper Super Audio CD/DVD or have the songs to buy in HQ from their website.

[Nikolasz]

And what i can say.. im using headphones!
Is good if you hear, is good that you dont hear?
My sig tell that i can hear well, but spending lots of money for not havin as close thing as source sound, like while you sitting in studio and lisiten them, or live lisitening...
Is it worth to sit somewhere and spending many K$ ?

[Pontos]

And there you have it, ladies and gents. Enjoy your 25 000$ cables

Expensive cables are stupid (The whole HDMI Monster cable stuff is an example).
A good DAC, good speakers and an actual good source (The music, and not just the format used to store it) are what makes a difference.

Going from a crappy pair of headphones or speakers to a good pair is extremely noticeable when dealing with a good source, even if the DAC is average (Like what comes with most sound cards).
And then going from an average DAC to a good one makes it even more noticeable.

Buy some Sennheiser headphones and mod your sound card with a bunch of L4562MA DACs and you will have to clean your desk after having an audio orgasm.

[ChaosMinionX]

Boy that Asus Xonar thread really struck a chord with you ey? Anyways the fact was most Audiophiles are not buying speakers, they are buying headphones so soundproof your walls and add acoustic materials to them all you want.

He also did not say anything revolutionary, and nothing that wasnt already known. Hence why most audiophiles seek out the best copies of music they can possibly find, and just use the higher end equipment to make it sound better, and bring more life to it. I can take plenty out of context and sell you a flying car if you'd like... besides that, there is something to be said for higher end cables and such and nobody ever said they were $25000, must be something with that Canadian exchange rate.

[Kallenator]

Shure it is, there is plenty that you can do. Corner traps stacked ontop of eachother, they just stand there. some dampening material on the walls in the 1. reflection, that only takes a nail, just like hanging a picture. Thick carpenting...
When you take it out there is only a couple of nails in the wall, no biggy.

This /\

I made my own sound absorbing plates out of cheap materials and a specific Rockwool which is designed to absorb sounds (Made 6 of them, cost around 150USD total). And I just lean these on the walls around the room, no nails needed. And I have attached some blankets to the ceiling as well, not pretty... and quite dusty, but keeps the reflections down.

Any hifi enthusiast who is not your common gullible individual with way too much money or a wife with the whip close at hand knows acoustics are alpha omega and that expensive cables are bull.

Buy some Sennheiser headphones and mod your sound card with a bunch of L4562MA DACs and you will have to clean your desk after having an audio orgasm.

This is very true, high end headphones and an decent DAC with a built in amp preferable, doesn't need to be tubes or anything fancy nor expensive, sounds so damn good!

[K404]

there is something to be said for higher end cables and such

This idea has......annoyed? me for years. Has an "audiophile" ever been blindfolded and made to listen to the same piece of music again and again, with different cables in use each time? Random cable choice order, no tricks.

I honestly believe that a % of audiophiles listen with their eyes.... and their eyes are fixed on the brand.

[Kallenator]

This idea has......annoyed? me for years. Has an "audiophile" ever been blindfolded and made to listen to the same piece of music again and again, with different cables in use each time? Random cable choice order, no tricks.

No, but there have been done a similar test, where a group of audiophiles where subjected to a blind test where the trial was to decide which of the two systems the individual liked the best and not which one was the most expensive, this way there is "no fear of not being able to hear which one is "the best" " (One expensive system, and one cheap system.)

Results and info about this test:

11 - Matrixhifi.com from Spain. ABX test of two systems. June 2006.
Two systems, one cheap (A) with a Sony DVD and Behringer amp (supported on a folding chair) with chepo cables and the other more expensive (B) with Classe, YBA, Wadia and expensive cables and proper stands were hidden behind a sheet and wired to the same speakers.

The results were;

38 persons participated on this test
14 chose the "A" system as the best sounding one
10 chose the "B" system as the best sounding one
14 were not able to hear differences or didn't choose any as the best.

A lot of info here on the subject:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/test...aims-and-myths

[K404]

Close enough, that'll do me Thanks for posting!

[Andrea deluxe]

right.

youtube video and audio are crappy!

nothing new under the sun.....

[Kallenator]

right.

youtube video and audio are crappy!

nothing new under the sun.....

Youtube is ok for it's cause. It's not exactly where you go to get your complete cinematic experience super high definition experience anyways :/

However Loundness compression which was used heavily in for example Metallica's Death Magnetic album is seriously terrible. Peaking because of clipped information in the soundtrack is very apparent throughout the album and its really annoying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

[naokaji]

Yes Youtube audio quality is crap, but lets face it, without it one of the most convenient ways of discovering artists in the first place would be gone and if you don't know "insert artist of choice" exists you are never going to obtain their music in a higher quality.

[crash5s]

yes, youtube sucks.

I"m not an audiophile, but my sound set up was pricey, but I prefer to buy once and be done with it. He isn't saying anything new though. Of course that amp, dac, 10k worth of speakers, couple hundred worth of wiring is going to sound like ass if you listen to youtube. But I don't know any audiophiles that blow thousands or tens of tousands on audio to go out and listen to youtube with it. I have a cd player, and a blue ray/dvd audio source.

[ChaosMinionX]

No, but there have been done a similar test, where a group of audiophiles where subjected to a blind test where the trial was to decide which of the two systems the individual liked the best and not which one was the most expensive, this way there is "no fear of not being able to hear which one is "the best" " (One expensive system, and one cheap system.)

Results and info about this test:


A lot of info here on the subject:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/test...aims-and-myths

Has alot to do with the age of the subjects in the test, and how intact their hearing is. Most people lose the ability to hear higher frequencies, and even small ambient things that say a teenager would be able to hear.

I would say having a large test group that has all been checked out for their ability to hear still, and what frequency ranges they can hear would be the best test of whether or not there is something to be said for higher end equipment especially along the lines of the "tweaks" like cables and the like.

But I would agree most Audiophiles listen with their eyes, just like some car drivers that think adding a huge ass wing and some stickers adds horsepower

[ZenEffect]

everybody agrees, youtube audio quality is crap.

the real question is, why are you watching videos to listen to music?

[BeepBeep2]

This guy is funny.
VHS's audio sucked too...so did Analog Broadcast, think MTV, VH1 in their heyday. 8-tracks sucked, Audio Cassette sucked...FM radio sucks too. I'll live with the ~128kbps audio in youtube videos.

As far as audiophiles spending money in the wrong places goes, I don't know where he draws his conclusion from. Most of us audio freaks spend our money on headphones for private listening as the rest of our families aren't audiophiles too. The Realtek Onboard HDA's DACs even are enough to satisfy most of us with headphones up to $200. (Think Sennheiser HD5 series, BeyerDynamic DT7/8, Grado SR, Audio-Technica's closed back models)...


"I’m simply not very familiar with the latest domestic hi-fi equipment." ...enough to discredit anything he says. Most of the time, pros and audiophiles are using the same type of equipment for listening. Just because we don't want to cover our homes with acoustic foam doesn't mean we're spending money in the wrong places.

[antiacid]

for the record, my last line with the smiley face was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

As for audiophile headsets, I'll agree that you can find quite a good selection in the sub 300$ range. I've personally went with Sennheiser PC-360, since I use them for gaming and the microphone comes in hand. A friend had been using the hd-280 for a while before they broke (I think someone sat on them or something stupid like that) and then he bought the hd 25 II for DJ/Mixing work and I can't say that I hear much of a difference, besides the difference in contact on the ear (supraaural vs circumaural). They're all great headsets.

Anyhow, I'm just happy that this topic received a healthy discussion and that someone (other than me) brought up an example of a blind test that showed the expensive setup performing just as good compared to the inexpensive one. Knowledge is power!

[Jumba]

On a related note, I recall a very good article written in Rolling Stone on how compression (specifically wrt mp3) is killing high fidelity. Great read...

http://www.electriccity.be/Images/Th...ng%20Stone.pdf

Give me 24-bit 192kHz FLAC without compressing the cr@p out of it.

[sin0822]

i heard this live on the radio on NPR news yesterday.

[ZenEffect]

24-bit 192kHz FLAC is barely distinguishable between a 24-bit 96kHz. most pronounced is a wider sound stage but thats about it. nunances cant really be reproduced accurately with sub-$300 headphones to warrant 150+MB per song (im looking a copy of the "Hot Space" album I have in 24-bit 192kHz, total album size of 11 tracks is 1.94GB)

@ beepbeep2, what is so funny? those songs were mixed and recorded on 3" TAPE. to further the high audio quality "back in the day" argument, we had and still do have vinyl records that is still considered by many to the "best" of all audio formats even today. in many many ways, the average listener today has worse audio quality for their own personal collection than people did 40 years ago. to even further this, the instrumentation used in the tracks are of poorer quality as well (think guitar, bass, drums, mics, etc) which is why vintage equipment is still considered to be the best and most pleasurable to listen to as well as play.

the old addage is true, they dont make them like they used to.

[BeepBeep2]

24-bit 192kHz FLAC is barely distinguishable between a 24-bit 96kHz. most pronounced is a wider sound stage but thats about it. nunances cant really be reproduced accurately with sub-$300 headphones to warrant 150+MB per song (im looking a copy of the "Hot Space" album I have in 24-bit 192kHz, total album size of 11 tracks is 1.94GB)

@ beepbeep2, what is so funny? those songs were mixed and recorded on 3" TAPE. to further the high audio quality "back in the day" argument, we had and still do have vinyl records that is still considered by many to the "best" of all audio formats even today. in many many ways, the average listener today has worse audio quality for their own personal collection than people did 40 years ago. to even further this, the instrumentation used in the tracks are of poorer quality as well (think guitar, bass, drums, mics, etc) which is why vintage equipment is still considered to be the best and most pleasurable to listen to as well as play.

the old addage is true, they dont make them like they used to.

There is a reason I didn't mention vinyl.
There has always been some form of ty audio from the 70's till now. Of course, vinyl in the mid 60's with the stereo explosion was a golden time for audio fidelity.


However you can still order vinyl for new releases (quite a few) and still go out and buy CDs.) A lot of Digital Downloads are 320kbps MP3 too, which, to be honest...don't sound ALL that bad.
The average listener was buying 8-tracks then Cassette Tapes in the 70s and 80s. The MP3's of today, even the 128 kbps MP3 that is most common sounds better than both of those technologies.

Youtube sounds better than VHS tape, and Analog Broadcast signals too. I never claimed it to be better than Vinyl (with the correct equipment, not the cheap-ass turntable and wimpy speakers many people had in the 60s/70s)...