Never watch the YouTube blogs, though I find more value in the written equivalent. Haven't watched this one either. Had dabbled with the notion of doing a blog of my own for audio gear of value that you can pick up for under £500. But that's pointing at a pretty rarified group these days. Might do, one day...!
Every random doofus is a YouTube personality these days. I'll take a wild guess that the first thing out of his mouth is "be sure to click and follow my videos" or some such. I'll take another guess that the entire video is centered around some stupid but mildly controversial "hot take".
I do like to use those zip lock freezer bags to store cables and other stuff. Not cartridges though..they'd just bang around in there.
I agree with his observations. I'm probably twice his age and I wish I could have reached this insight much earlier in life than I did.
I watched the video, I read this entire thread. I see no difference between him and most of you. Too bad the the true definition of Audiophile has been lost.
Wow! You just painted a huge number of people here with a broad brush. You don't even have an idea of what a person thinks until you meet with them. If you make decisions based on what you read that's posted on forums then ... whatever. But actually no one cares, e.g. about what you or I think. M~
Wait... tell us "the true definition of audiophile" that you feel has been lost. I disagree, but nobody really cares about whether I personally agree with you or not. What's your definition of what you think audiophile used to mean or should mean?
This is an odd hobby because it’s the only one where spending money is upsetting to a vocal minority. You wouldn’t go to a car show and tell all the guys that brought Ferrari’s how stupid they are. That’s all this is, he is just pandering to the segment that would rather do anything other than spend money and insult those that do. Using the term “audiophile” as insult is cheap, easy and stupid. Audiophile really means you are interested in sound and make an effort for it to be as good as possible. Everyone falls off that ride at a different point and there is no need for the hostility or arrogance. I feel pretty confident in saying pink Floyd didn’t mean for Dark Side of the moon to be heard through BT earbuds of an MP3 player. Sorry if that makes me pretentious prick.
I watched a few mins of this and my IQ dropped 15 points. This guy is a ***** it's pretty sad anyone can hop on Youtube and people will assume they know anything.
Hey I agree with you but re"I feel pretty confident in saying pink Floyd didn’t mean for Dark Side of the moon to be heard through BT earbuds of an MP3 player. Sorry if that makes me pretentious prick" Do you think that they even cared what people listened to their music on, as long as they purchased and listened to it? M~
yes, yes I do. When you listen to dark side on a decent system you hear a lot more going on, there are loads of details that were put there through careful consideration and a great deal of effort. I would have to assume their preference would be for the audience to actually hear that work. Clearly, it’s a business and the priority is sales. It’s not like they would rather you not listen to it if your equipment was garbage but they don’t obsess on the details because they don’t care.
He simply didn’t hold my attention past the first few minutes (to be fair, this type of just-talking video usually doesn’t), but I, too, disagree with the “as the artist intended” thing, just not for the reasons he gives. I don’t even think most artists “intend” anything when it comes to EQ of playback. My impression of most artists are that they just write and play the songs, and may have some “intentions” regarding the mix. But all most artists typically seem to care about, when it comes to the person listening, is whether people like their music and connect with it. On earbuds, on Alexis speakers, on a $100k audio system… I really doubt most artists care, as long as people like what they’ve done. The reason for getting things to measure as flat as possible is, IMO, just so things sound as natural and open as they can. If certain frequencies are out of line, that can sound weird.
Sure, because those things did not exist. What would have been the equivalent? A car radio, maybe? It does seem to me like they were not optimizing that album for car radios, of course, but I’m sure they wouldn’t have been upset with people hearing “Money” on the radio and enjoying it that way, right? I’m also sure most people who bought that album to hear at home were not using systems we on this forum would consider particularly great…
Come on now, we’re talking about Pink Floyd. Sound quality was a thing they took very seriously. I doubt they were bothered if people wanted to play their music on a one speaker AM radio in a 74 Pinto but there is no chance they were recording their music for that playback system. I dare say they were audiophiles aiming to make the best possible recording for the worlds best equipment. I’m sure that was generally the case for any and every professional in the recording industry. The idea of catering to Lo-fi playback systems is a fairly recent development as home stereos and large speakers have virtually vanished from most houses. And that’s really just the compression in the mastering.
My "family's" entertainers just want/wanted people to "dig" their music and purchase it (because that's their livelihood/was their livelihood), but Pink's views maybe different, I don't know. But it's all good. BTW, just what components would be the baseline for this hypothetical system? M~
