@spookybuk The kbs really doesn’t matter; it gets downgraded by UA-cam even if you upload hi def sound. Mp3 with cheap ear buds are what the public can afford; not expensive ear buds with a hi-def expensive BT audio system, that you apparently have, dear consumer. We can go to a thrift store , pick up a cheap turntable and amplifier for $40 and grab an old record and the sound will NATURALLY (important word 3:29 : Analog is Natural Sounding Digital is NOT . No need to get into technical digits like they do online. Audio science is done HANDS ON . Make an A/B comparison AT HOME. Not on UA-cam. AFTERWORDS, when you have done the research and REAL work; THEN go and leave your precious cliche comments.❤✌️ Love your ears or go to Tic Tok. The Disgruntled UA-camr from Santa Barbara, California ❤
Asking Steve Albini to listen to music through crappy earbuds is like asking Julia Child to sample a half-eaten day-old Big Mac for its culinary quality.
Steve albinis comments on the audio quality seemed to be mostly relating to the earbuds but the commentary wanted to make it about mp3. Speakers/room or headphones will always make alot more difference than music format or source as long as nothing is seriously broken.
@@refluxcatalyst7190 i think you're also referring to anything digitally mastered in the early days of consumer PCM encoding. CDs sounded bad at first too.
Ask a vinyl and analog enthousiast to listen to HIS OWN RECORD, INTENDED BY HIM TO BE HEARD ON VINYL, on subpar earbuds, likely ripped at only 128 kbps. And he said it is BAD!!
He knew the issue was with the earbuds and not the IPod or mp3s. I also love his insight on the unified medium stretching through time, I guess I always subconsciously felt that but wasn't consciously aware of that aspect. Rip.
Perhaps the low-end information wouldn't be lost if Steve listened the MP3 on a nice pair of speakers instead of super shitty earbuds? This was just so utterly dumb.
I don't think it has to do with speakers a really bad mp3 encoding will sound bassless and brittle but is just because the encoding system has issues could be time related or jitter a good mp3 encoding will sound good on anything even on the crappiest speakers just like vinyl would
the better the system the worse an mp3 sounds. unless you have bad ears. run a studio master flac file through and maybe it’ll sound okay but anything less is a no-go for a real music lover
@@elijahcambry3319 that mostly because new memory since ddr 3 and onwards bios settings will auto adjust to a fastest config by default the operations between ranks read&write and different dimm must be exactly the same on time so you wont get intermodulation distorsion for having the same operations with a desync in different timings between dimm modules
I know where Albini is coming from, I have all of Big Blacks and Shellacs and even R**emans records but the problem here is that the iPod nano is utter shite, not that MP3s are. I don't know where they got that 90% figure from, probably they're referencing a 1411kbps file that's been compressed to 128kbps, but that is a terrible comparison, it's just not how it works. (Most of a 1411kbps CDA file is just empty space for starters.) A good pair of buds, a half decent player and good EQ & MP3s sound great. Not quite like vinyl obviously but that's ultimately a subjective preference. Rest in peace Steve, the world is a colder, less interesting, less exciting place without you 😢
FLAC is way better than m3ps because it's the original recording put onto a lossless digital format and get a good pair of headphones and it'll sound great, and just as good as a vinyl record
I bet most people couldn't tell the difference at 192kpbs. For a people listening in quiet rooms, on good systems, paying close attention, with some experience listening critically, probably a bit higher.
But most people didn't play, engineer, record, and master the music they are then asked to listen to on mp3. I'm not a professional audio anything and I can hear the difference between analogue & digital. That being said, most of the music in my collection is FLAC these days ... I guess that's the best we get other than vinyl records.
they are refering to the fact that mp3 are typically 90% smaller file size than wav, still absolutely stupid to equivocate it directly to a loss of data.
a friend of mine sent me this album on Dropbox many years ago. I hadn’t used my Dropbox in years. I re-downloaded my Dropbox this past Monday night because I was trying to transfer files from my phone to my computer. I saw this album and listened to this song around midnight Tuesday, May 7, 2024, the day Steve Albini died. I don’t think that it’s a coincidence, is my point.
From the mid 90s to the 2000s, digital recording and computer-based production went through an awkward phase as it became the standard. The technology needed to catch up, to develop and evolve. CD’s, mp3s and streaming aren’t the best mediums. But today you can record digitally and have it sound basically perfect. It’s all about equipment, knowledge and mastering. Digital recording only sounds like shit if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re emulating bad trends, or the medium it’s presented in is outdated. Even Steve’s studio uses digital recording as an option these days, and I guarantee you they use it a lot. Vinyl is technically better, but the line is a lot less clear today than it was 10-15 years ago.
Vinyl is technically worse, it's just worse in a way that people like because it's essentially a low-pass filter over everything. People don't like higher frequency content, which is what vinyl tends to lose and why CDs are often described as sounding sharper and harsher: they're produced by people and methods that came from vinyl, but they don't lose the frequencies vinyl records naturally do. A proper EQ on a well-encoded digital master will sound identical to a vinyl when played through the same hardware - but cleaner, because it doesn't have the surface noise vinyl does.
Vinyl is not technically better at all. Even a "audiophile" vinyl is hostage to the equipment you're playing it through, and even then the medium has physical limitations that digital simply doesn't have it. Obviously it is a whole different history what people find sounds "better", and definitely not only the vinyl sound (less bandwidth, specially on high frequency ranges) in itself but it being resampled and re-used countless times seeps into that equation in a way that it has less to do with "technical" sound quality and much more to do with sounding "pleasant". Digital production can sound harsher just because it can more accurately reproduce a larger range of sound, but that also is up to technical abilities of those involved and, ultimately (assuming the technical ability is there), creative choices - some records might WANT to sound unpleasant.
@@movimentodoscacoswhat makes the vinyl is better argument even more dead is the fact that most albums were recorded mixed and mastered digitally since the mid 70s.
I was about to autistically rant but then I actually watched and noticed that Albini correctly commented about the earbuds rather than the playback medium. Which is the smart thing to do because the difference between earbuds and speakers or even from one brand of ear buds to another is a far bigger difference than the difference between Lossless and MP3 or even vinyl and MP3.
I truly, unironically appreciate everyone who took the time to comment that there was no way he was gonna like listening to any music on those shitty earbuds LOL
helpful tip : purchase professional/semi-professional headphones(NOT earbuds) for around $170 - $200 dollars. There is a price you have to pay...but it's mostly hardware. The source is almost irrelevant unless you're clueless about clarity of sound. That's on you. 320 kbps :) There ya go!
@@newdeep19 partly ye but partly crappy emitters won't sway evenly outside limited ranges and would almost require a different mixing approach or certain dinamics and fq combinations will colapse on their attempts But almost sure that's a speakers in general thing
The worst here is that this piece of misinformation comes from none less than the BBC. I love Albini work/recording philosophy. And his belief in tape as the only long life medium. But this is vinyl propaganda pure and simple. I have seen lots of videos stating the same but none takes the Pepsi challenge. Which consists of A/B’ing a vinyl record with a recorded version of that same vinyl on CD. Listened through the same amplification system.
CD has great quality but it does have a tighter sound, you can crank a LP or cassette much wider, but ultimately you can do that with a good system anyway
Just like any format, you have to be listening to it with the right equipment or best recorded product to get the high end which he says is missing. If you listen to a low quality piece of vinyl on a low end record player, you’ll get the same response as listening to an MP3 on a pair of shitty earbuds or listening to a CD on a cheaply made CD player. Having a good system in any case will help you. Lossless or any kind of high grade digital will exponentially increase the enjoyment of listening to an album.
Dang. I thought I was a young shmuck not picking up things on records that I do now. Turns out I didn’t even have access to that info because I was listing to an iPod in my formidable years.
@@warshipsatin8764 recorded for vinyl or CD. I think that's bull though because if an album that was originally recorded for vinyl was ported over to a CD as long as they ported it from the master recordings it would sound better because CDs have a better bandwidth for frequencies that vinyl doesn't. The CD only sounds like shit if they're porting straight from the vinyl.
This documentary makes it sound like vinyl has a specific sound while in reality, that mostly of that comes with how it's mastered. You can master a CD (or any digital format) like vinyl but you can't master CD like vinyl since you have physical limitations. Early on, people were going overkill regarding what they could do hence why things sounded too bassy, too shrill etc. I like vinyl but don't make it sound like it's superior when it really isn't.
For me its just that vinyl is just way easy to handle to get the proper good sound. Digital is way more complicated and also the distorsion are harsher and anoying instead of the inherent distorsion flaws of vinyl like wow and flutter whic are warmer and non intrusive but digital in the other hand if handle it well thru a good system is just perfect sound.
@@newdeep19 great point. A lot of people claiming vinyl is superior in "quality" really just prefer the sound coloration produced by the equipment they are using. It's not that the audio is higher resolution at all
Oooof... I didn't need to watch a millisecond of this to know the blunt candor in store about this subject. I think it's great for anyone who has the money, space and time to listen to as much music as possible on vinyl through a quality system but people just listening to music by any means, as much as they can, is better than less or nothing. The perfect ought not be the enemy of the good. Listening to music with ear buds sucks ******** though, NGL.
and this ladies and gentlemen pretty much sums up why most modern recordings of the day dont sound that great. its not the medium - its that now music is engineered/mastered to sound ideal on THOSE headphones. not on full-range headphones / car stereos / home theater systems .
most music isnt recorded to sound ideal on shitty earbuds. MAYBE some modern pop, and even then i dont think thats true. but modern big budget radio friendly pop music is such a tiny tiny amount of the total music made today
Slightly pointless exercise. Vinyl can also sound terrible on crappy equipment. I mean, I have Shellac (Steve's band for those unaware) albums on vinyl but I'll listen to them off a hard drive as long as they're in FLAC or some other larger file so as not to lose the bottom end...or middle or top for that matter...and through half-decent headphones and amplification obviously helps. Steve knew this too, but, given a choice, sure, vinyl on good quality turntable & amp marginally edges out digital. RiP Steve Albini 💙
I could respect vinyl nerds if they just admitted they prefer the ritual and aesthetic of putting on a vinyl record. I do too under certain circumstances but it's absurd to say you're losing "90%" of the sound with digital. If you want to be a dinosaur who only listens to music in your fucking den at home, so be it, but stop with the smug posturing already.
Who gives a fucking shit pal. Barmy that I put this randomly up and, during a global pandemic, arguments about fidelity have occurred. Who gives a utter fucking shit. I got the vax last week pal, that's all I care about.
Amazing that we're still having this debate. It's just not as simple as CD bad/vinyl good or vice versa. Mastering matters the most. A poorly mastered vinyl record is still going to sound like shit even on the most pristine/virgin/UHQR/WTF-ever vinyl record. The pressing quality matters. Dropping a needle on a poorly pressed record is going to be a sucky time no matter how good the mastering is. A bit of surface noise is inherent, a little bit of light crackle is usually passable, but skips, pops and abnormal noise? No thanks. Equipment matters. Subjectivity matters. These golden-eared freaks who claim to hear magical sounds on their vinyl records that the hoi polloi can't are outliers and anomalies, and their bias towards vinyl counts for a lot of their perception. Some of these critters are buying a dozen copies of the *same album* in search of the "perfect/best" sound. 🙄 Vinyl can sound great, CDs can sound great, 320 mp3s will sound great to the majority of us, and FLAC/WAV is always available for those who feel something's lacking in the mp3s. I'll take all of the pros CDs offer over vinyl most of the time if I'm buying a physical release, but mostly I'm just happy that we have options. I'll never go back to cassettes, but it's nice to see that sometimes those are available for those who do like them.
CDs at the beginning had way worse PCM encoding than by the time iPods were around, if you had mp3's at 320kbps made from a good master, then you'd be hard pressed to find the difference between a CD and an mp3 even 10 years ago. god damn
23,000+ views? I put this up when I was shit-faced for an audience of a single person (hey Ian!) Go for a walk down your local park or something you lovely nutters
You'd think the world's biggest broadcaster would know better than to trash digital audio. Of course the shellac songs sounded bad on those apple earbuds - the iPod isn't at fault there though.
@@EtcEtcAndEtc Dividing the recorded signal into many slices and throwing those away that can't be heard in context. That would be my one sentence explanation.
@@EtcEtcAndEtc The whole idea behind Mp3 is that it removes frequencies masked by louder frequencies. This mean that our ears cant clearly make these frequencies out, its a well documented psychoacoustic phenomena. I think that any MP3 below 320kb/s sounds bad, but I cant reliably tell the difference between a Flac or WAW file and an 320kb/s MP3 file
I have a pretty nice record player with good speakers and as cool as it is to sit down and spin a record... it is very boring, no matter how good it sounds. Music has been moved to the background of every other activity and is hardly the only activity going on. Driving, video games, partying, working, cleaning, smashing, studying. Then there is the competition with Netflix, UA-cam and Hulu.
If you find it boring to listen to records then stop listening to boring records? One thing I truly enjoy about old formats is that it sort of forces me to focus on the music instead of some superficial bullshit trying to grab my attention
this is really dumb fake music science for people who don't know how digital audio formats work, sucks that steve got roped into it lol. rest in peace.
yuck.... ipod.... lowest quality music player in history.... listen to wav files directly ripped from cd on a pc with a sound blaster live/audigy... these rigs blow ipods clear out of the water
It's funny, I've never been impressed with this guy ever, but the fact that he is a professional and was/is so clueless to what the consumer uses (whether he likes it or not) that he doesn't/didn't bother to mix his music for earbuds just solidifies my opinion. Over rated.
I don’t like how the narration frames Steve as like anti-CD or digital when really all he’s saying is not everyone can afford vinyl and you can listen to music however you like
Exactly. Sort of surprises me they used some of these clips at all, he's pretty clear in the ipod bit that his problem is the shitty earbuds not the file
2014 seems pretty late to talk about mp3’s. I think Apple was selling their last dedicated iPods by then if they weren’t already discontinued. (Save for some very low capacity model that I think is still available.)
You gave Steve Albini 5 dollar earbuds to listen to his own music with and he didn't like it? Wow, I can't believe it
And he says exactly why right afterwards. Not sure why people are in such a tizzy over it.
What the interviewer said. Did you watch the whole video? Yes, he made that point. It was the point. He did believe it.
bet the mp3 was like 56kbps too
@spookybuk The kbs really doesn’t matter; it gets downgraded by UA-cam even if you upload hi def sound. Mp3 with cheap ear buds are what the public can afford; not expensive ear buds with a hi-def expensive BT audio system, that you apparently have, dear consumer. We can go to a thrift store , pick up a cheap turntable and amplifier for $40 and grab an old record and the sound will NATURALLY (important word 3:29 : Analog is Natural Sounding
Digital is NOT .
No need to get into technical digits like they do online. Audio science is done HANDS ON . Make an A/B comparison AT HOME. Not on UA-cam. AFTERWORDS, when you have done the research and REAL work; THEN go and leave your precious cliche comments.❤✌️
Love your ears or go to Tic Tok.
The Disgruntled UA-camr from Santa Barbara, California ❤
Asking Steve Albini to listen to music through crappy earbuds is like asking Julia Child to sample a half-eaten day-old Big Mac for its culinary quality.
The irony that this video's audio was filtered through a potato...
Rest in Peace, Steve. Your methods in recording those prolific albums will be remembered forever....
Steve albinis comments on the audio quality seemed to be mostly relating to the earbuds but the commentary wanted to make it about mp3. Speakers/room or headphones will always make alot more difference than music format or source as long as nothing is seriously broken.
I see you weren't around in the late 90's early 2000's days of mp3s.
@@refluxcatalyst7190 What make you say that?
@@bipedofthecentury9956 mp3s sound like shit. The earlier ones were the worst. They're still bad.
@@refluxcatalyst7190 I shudder at remembering 64kbps MP3s.
@@refluxcatalyst7190 i think you're also referring to anything digitally mastered in the early days of consumer PCM encoding. CDs sounded bad at first too.
Ask a vinyl and analog enthousiast to listen to HIS OWN RECORD, INTENDED BY HIM TO BE HEARD ON VINYL, on subpar earbuds, likely ripped at only 128 kbps. And he said it is BAD!!
He knew the issue was with the earbuds and not the IPod or mp3s. I also love his insight on the unified medium stretching through time, I guess I always subconsciously felt that but wasn't consciously aware of that aspect. Rip.
Damn I'm gonna miss this man so much. Got to see Shellac 5 years ago and their precision as a band is far better than most
Perhaps the low-end information wouldn't be lost if Steve listened the MP3 on a nice pair of speakers instead of super shitty earbuds? This was just so utterly dumb.
I don't think it has to do with speakers a really bad mp3 encoding will sound bassless and brittle but is just because the encoding system has issues could be time related or jitter a good mp3 encoding will sound good on anything even on the crappiest speakers just like vinyl would
that's called quality journalism , you know? :))))
I laughed when I read the title and saw the thumbnail
Cd's sound great imo
Agreed. It obviously helps to have half-decent equipment and source recording, same as it does with vinyl.
@@dee_seejay sure. You can record straight into protools though. You don't need tape
I don´t blame steve he´s set in his ways and he´s a master of his craft... but a 320kbps mp3 through a decent hifi sounds perfectly fine
You're right and will add that a bad mp3 encoding can happen not everything digital is flawless.
320kbps is fine. But vinyl sound better. When actually mixed for vinyl that iS
Yeah honestly I would blame it on the earbuds those look like crap, he even mentions it as he takes them out
the better the system the worse an mp3 sounds. unless you have bad ears. run a studio master flac file through and maybe it’ll sound okay but anything less is a no-go for a real music lover
@@elijahcambry3319 that mostly because new memory since ddr 3 and onwards bios settings will auto adjust to a fastest config by default the operations between ranks read&write and different dimm must be exactly the same on time so you wont get intermodulation distorsion for having the same operations with a desync in different timings between dimm modules
Rest in Peace...
Steve Albini knows his recordings will sound good on all mediums.
But not on $5 earbuds
I know where Albini is coming from, I have all of Big Blacks and Shellacs and even R**emans records but the problem here is that the iPod nano is utter shite, not that MP3s are. I don't know where they got that 90% figure from, probably they're referencing a 1411kbps file that's been compressed to 128kbps, but that is a terrible comparison, it's just not how it works. (Most of a 1411kbps CDA file is just empty space for starters.) A good pair of buds, a half decent player and good EQ & MP3s sound great. Not quite like vinyl obviously but that's ultimately a subjective preference. Rest in peace Steve, the world is a colder, less interesting, less exciting place without you 😢
FLAC is way better than m3ps because it's the original recording put onto a lossless digital format and get a good pair of headphones and it'll sound great, and just as good as a vinyl record
This is a common misconception. The difference between mp3 and FLAC files is only discernible if the listener uses a digital to analog converter (
As long as it at least 320kbps Mp3 not many people could ever tell the difference.
I bet most people couldn't tell the difference at 192kpbs. For a people listening in quiet rooms, on good systems, paying close attention, with some experience listening critically, probably a bit higher.
But most people didn't play, engineer, record, and master the music they are then asked to listen to on mp3. I'm not a professional audio anything and I can hear the difference between analogue & digital. That being said, most of the music in my collection is FLAC these days ... I guess that's the best we get other than vinyl records.
Oh Silvio, up to his old tricks again.
Albini: "yeah these earbuds sound like crap" - BBC: "And there you have it, confirmation that digital music sucks"
"it's estimated that you lose 90% of the recorded sound", well they just pulled that one out their arse didnt they, obviously untrue
they are refering to the fact that mp3 are typically 90% smaller file size than wav, still absolutely stupid to equivocate it directly to a loss of data.
I was gonna say the same thing…I love me some vinyl but no reason to spew nonsense.
a friend of mine sent me this album on Dropbox many years ago. I hadn’t used my Dropbox in years. I re-downloaded my Dropbox this past Monday night because I was trying to transfer files from my phone to my computer. I saw this album and listened to this song around midnight Tuesday, May 7, 2024, the day Steve Albini died. I don’t think that it’s a coincidence, is my point.
From the mid 90s to the 2000s, digital recording and computer-based production went through an awkward phase as it became the standard. The technology needed to catch up, to develop and evolve. CD’s, mp3s and streaming aren’t the best mediums. But today you can record digitally and have it sound basically perfect.
It’s all about equipment, knowledge and mastering. Digital recording only sounds like shit if you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re emulating bad trends, or the medium it’s presented in is outdated. Even Steve’s studio uses digital recording as an option these days, and I guarantee you they use it a lot.
Vinyl is technically better, but the line is a lot less clear today than it was 10-15 years ago.
Vinyl doesn't have as high a sound bandwidth as a CD does.
Vinyl is technically worse, it's just worse in a way that people like because it's essentially a low-pass filter over everything. People don't like higher frequency content, which is what vinyl tends to lose and why CDs are often described as sounding sharper and harsher: they're produced by people and methods that came from vinyl, but they don't lose the frequencies vinyl records naturally do. A proper EQ on a well-encoded digital master will sound identical to a vinyl when played through the same hardware - but cleaner, because it doesn't have the surface noise vinyl does.
Vinyl is not technically better at all. Even a "audiophile" vinyl is hostage to the equipment you're playing it through, and even then the medium has physical limitations that digital simply doesn't have it. Obviously it is a whole different history what people find sounds "better", and definitely not only the vinyl sound (less bandwidth, specially on high frequency ranges) in itself but it being resampled and re-used countless times seeps into that equation in a way that it has less to do with "technical" sound quality and much more to do with sounding "pleasant". Digital production can sound harsher just because it can more accurately reproduce a larger range of sound, but that also is up to technical abilities of those involved and, ultimately (assuming the technical ability is there), creative choices - some records might WANT to sound unpleasant.
@@movimentodoscacoswhat makes the vinyl is better argument even more dead is the fact that most albums were recorded mixed and mastered digitally since the mid 70s.
I was about to autistically rant but then I actually watched and noticed that Albini correctly commented about the earbuds rather than the playback medium. Which is the smart thing to do because the difference between earbuds and speakers or even from one brand of ear buds to another is a far bigger difference than the difference between Lossless and MP3 or even vinyl and MP3.
ah, steve.... should be a blue plaque somewhere in wood green for you & john loder.
These arguments used to happen all the time where they disregarded mp3 bitrate.
I truly, unironically appreciate everyone who took the time to comment that there was no way he was gonna like listening to any music on those shitty earbuds LOL
I wish there was a Steve Albini documentary (if there is then I'm unaware, let me know)....but yeah he deserves one, fascinating dude
I second that.
"We gave him a song from his band Shall-ack, to listen to on earbuds in order to prove I'm not sure what"
If you like what you hear, don't listen to what anyone else thinks about how you're hearing it. Enjoy music.
helpful tip : purchase professional/semi-professional headphones(NOT earbuds) for around $170 - $200 dollars. There is a price you have to pay...but it's mostly hardware. The source is almost irrelevant unless you're clueless about clarity of sound. That's on you.
320 kbps :) There ya go!
FΞVΞЯD ЯΞДM that's rubbish too. But everyone wants music on the go. You have to WAV the file before it's acceptable. 320 is wank
Wav files do sound the best, but take up so much space if you’re trying to digitize a larger collection
I disagree source is everything a bad source will sound bad even on a million dollars speakers.
@@newdeep19 partly ye but partly crappy emitters won't sway evenly outside limited ranges and would almost require a different mixing approach or certain dinamics and fq combinations will colapse on their attempts
But almost sure that's a speakers in general thing
Old age stuff assumed saturation ranges differently, now they dont need to abd progressively they build ignoring that headroom
The worst here is that this piece of misinformation comes from none less than the BBC. I love Albini work/recording philosophy. And his belief in tape as the only long life medium. But this is vinyl propaganda pure and simple.
I have seen lots of videos stating the same but none takes the Pepsi challenge. Which consists of A/B’ing a vinyl record with a recorded version of that same vinyl on CD. Listened through the same amplification system.
I've done that! I even did it with a Shellac record. On my setup the CD sounded waaaaay better
I always say this. CD is superior as a format in every single way.
CD has great quality but it does have a tighter sound, you can crank a LP or cassette much wider, but ultimately you can do that with a good system anyway
"it sounds odd and alien coming through earbuds".
🎸🎸🎸
"FOR ALBINI, THE ONLY WAY TO LISTEN TO MUSIC IS STILL ON VINYL"
Also, no idea what resolution he was listening to it at...on a shitty headphone. His vinyl would also sound like shit on iPod headphones.
Just like any format, you have to be listening to it with the right equipment or best recorded product to get the high end which he says is missing.
If you listen to a low quality piece of vinyl on a low end record player, you’ll get the same response as listening to an MP3 on a pair of shitty earbuds or listening to a CD on a cheaply made CD player.
Having a good system in any case will help you. Lossless or any kind of high grade digital will exponentially increase the enjoyment of listening to an album.
Good to see Silvio Dante make a recovery 😁😁
Dang. I thought I was a young shmuck not picking up things on records that I do now. Turns out I didn’t even have access to that info because I was listing to an iPod in my formidable years.
As usual, "more comvenient" is a way to say "worse than". Every time.
EDDIE TRUNK should Interview STEVE 😁✌
If it was recorded for a certain medium of course quality is going to dip if its enjoyed through different way
what do you mean by "recorded for a certain medium"?
@@warshipsatin8764 recorded for vinyl or CD. I think that's bull though because if an album that was originally recorded for vinyl was ported over to a CD as long as they ported it from the master recordings it would sound better because CDs have a better bandwidth for frequencies that vinyl doesn't. The CD only sounds like shit if they're porting straight from the vinyl.
RIP Steve
This documentary makes it sound like vinyl has a specific sound while in reality, that mostly of that comes with how it's mastered.
You can master a CD (or any digital format) like vinyl but you can't master CD like vinyl since you have physical limitations.
Early on, people were going overkill regarding what they could do hence why things sounded too bassy, too shrill etc.
I like vinyl but don't make it sound like it's superior when it really isn't.
For me its just that vinyl is just way easy to handle to get the proper good sound. Digital is way more complicated and also the distorsion are harsher and anoying instead of the inherent distorsion flaws of vinyl like wow and flutter whic are warmer and non intrusive but digital in the other hand if handle it well thru a good system is just perfect sound.
@@newdeep19 great point. A lot of people claiming vinyl is superior in "quality" really just prefer the sound coloration produced by the equipment they are using. It's not that the audio is higher resolution at all
Oooof... I didn't need to watch a millisecond of this to know the blunt candor in store about this subject. I think it's great for anyone who has the money, space and time to listen to as much music as possible on vinyl through a quality system but people just listening to music by any means, as much as they can, is better than less or nothing. The perfect ought not be the enemy of the good. Listening to music with ear buds sucks ******** though, NGL.
and this ladies and gentlemen pretty much sums up why most modern recordings of the day dont sound that great. its not the medium - its that now music is engineered/mastered to sound ideal on THOSE headphones. not on full-range headphones / car stereos / home theater systems .
most music isnt recorded to sound ideal on shitty earbuds. MAYBE some modern pop, and even then i dont think thats true. but modern big budget radio friendly pop music is such a tiny tiny amount of the total music made today
Anything will sound crap on crappy earbuds.
you couldn't be more wrong. damn.
rip
Slightly pointless exercise. Vinyl can also sound terrible on crappy equipment. I mean, I have Shellac (Steve's band for those unaware) albums on vinyl but I'll listen to them off a hard drive as long as they're in FLAC or some other larger file so as not to lose the bottom end...or middle or top for that matter...and through half-decent headphones and amplification obviously helps. Steve knew this too, but, given a choice, sure, vinyl on good quality turntable & amp marginally edges out digital. RiP Steve Albini 💙
Owner of vid just doing my 6 month check in.
Nutters still taking extreme positions on a fuck-all nonsense.
Job done, cheers..See you in July 2024.
There is so much misinformation in this video. Take everything they say with a grain of salt. (And I'm a fan of Albini)
I record/mix audio and 320Kbps MP3 or FLAC made from 24 BIT or higher res audio sound pretty good to me.
Do they even make iPods anymore?
I could respect vinyl nerds if they just admitted they prefer the ritual and aesthetic of putting on a vinyl record. I do too under certain circumstances but it's absurd to say you're losing "90%" of the sound with digital. If you want to be a dinosaur who only listens to music in your fucking den at home, so be it, but stop with the smug posturing already.
Who gives a fucking shit pal. Barmy that I put this randomly up and, during a global pandemic, arguments about fidelity have occurred. Who gives a utter fucking shit. I got the vax last week pal, that's all I care about.
Dude, you're on point. Sorry the uploader can't deal with you saying facts.
@@123612100 The uploader's response is pretty bizarre and nonsensical.
What earphones were they?
Probably shitty ones. If you buy some even medium priced ones you can control the bass on them.
SHELLac
Amazing that we're still having this debate. It's just not as simple as CD bad/vinyl good or vice versa. Mastering matters the most. A poorly mastered vinyl record is still going to sound like shit even on the most pristine/virgin/UHQR/WTF-ever vinyl record.
The pressing quality matters. Dropping a needle on a poorly pressed record is going to be a sucky time no matter how good the mastering is. A bit of surface noise is inherent, a little bit of light crackle is usually passable, but skips, pops and abnormal noise? No thanks.
Equipment matters.
Subjectivity matters. These golden-eared freaks who claim to hear magical sounds on their vinyl records that the hoi polloi can't are outliers and anomalies, and their bias towards vinyl counts for a lot of their perception. Some of these critters are buying a dozen copies of the *same album* in search of the "perfect/best" sound. 🙄
Vinyl can sound great, CDs can sound great, 320 mp3s will sound great to the majority of us, and FLAC/WAV is always available for those who feel something's lacking in the mp3s. I'll take all of the pros CDs offer over vinyl most of the time if I'm buying a physical release, but mostly I'm just happy that we have options. I'll never go back to cassettes, but it's nice to see that sometimes those are available for those who do like them.
Everyone's into UA-cam thanks to 69...
and these people were wrong. your ego will lie to you.
Haha.name someone from this week.
CDs at the beginning had way worse PCM encoding than by the time iPods were around, if you had mp3's at 320kbps made from a good master, then you'd be hard pressed to find the difference between a CD and an mp3 even 10 years ago. god damn
Bro was that Silvio from the Sopranos?
Yep, he plays in Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band.
@@SORECORDINGS Never really into The Boss so when I hear theses facts Im dumbstruck lol Chillin with Silv and creepy Max Weinberg ftom Conan XD lol
23,000+ views? I put this up when I was shit-faced for an audience of a single person (hey Ian!)
Go for a walk down your local park or something you lovely nutters
You'd think the world's biggest broadcaster would know better than to trash digital audio. Of course the shellac songs sounded bad on those apple earbuds - the iPod isn't at fault there though.
0:28 Silvio!
No bass made it out cuz it’s out of phase
So many vinyl crybabies are insufferable.
Lossless 24-bit FLAC has much more dynamic range. It's much better now.
mp3s were super compressed; vinyl resurgence died because of covid.
Vinyl for music and FILM for photography.
Analog is better.
That's a load of shit. Digital is way better in all mediums.
@UC3FeWIqnx3YE8Mzb4n9DWZQ preference is different than saying, "it's better". I don't have a problem with someone saying they prefer a certain way.
& in person live is the ultimate.
Def turn off the devices
"Losing 90% of the recorded sound"
BAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! That could literally be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Lol, this guy xD
if the file size of an mp3 is 10% of the same audio as a Wav, how would you explain it?
@@EtcEtcAndEtc Dividing the recorded signal into many slices and throwing those away that can't be heard in context. That would be my one sentence explanation.
@@EtcEtcAndEtc The whole idea behind Mp3 is that it removes frequencies masked by louder frequencies. This mean that our ears cant clearly make these frequencies out, its a well documented psychoacoustic phenomena. I think that any MP3 below 320kb/s sounds bad, but I cant reliably tell the difference between a Flac or WAW file and an 320kb/s MP3 file
I have a pretty nice record player with good speakers and as cool as it is to sit down and spin a record... it is very boring, no matter how good it sounds. Music has been moved to the background of every other activity and is hardly the only activity going on. Driving, video games, partying, working, cleaning, smashing, studying. Then there is the competition with Netflix, UA-cam and Hulu.
If you find it boring to listen to records then stop listening to boring records? One thing I truly enjoy about old formats is that it sort of forces me to focus on the music instead of some superficial bullshit trying to grab my attention
You can't skin-up on a 1 and a 0
this is really dumb fake music science for people who don't know how digital audio formats work, sucks that steve got roped into it lol. rest in peace.
Vinylism is the Trumpism of the music industry. No way Vinyl sounds better than a properly mastered digital file.
yuck.... ipod.... lowest quality music player in history.... listen to wav files directly ripped from cd on a pc with a sound blaster live/audigy... these rigs blow ipods clear out of the water
What a trash bit of journalism
What a load of BS spoken by all concerned.
It sounds really bad.
It's funny, I've never been impressed with this guy ever, but the fact that he is a professional and was/is so clueless to what the consumer uses (whether he likes it or not) that he doesn't/didn't bother to mix his music for earbuds just solidifies my opinion. Over rated.
Vinyl has to be mint, and the equipment has to be superior. Then it can rival CD's.
Nothing beats in person live.
Put down Ur device & go outside
do u have infinite money? 😭
@@jackwatchstuff8459 huh? Obviously, one can't make it to every show
I don’t like how the narration frames Steve as like anti-CD or digital when really all he’s saying is not everyone can afford vinyl and you can listen to music however you like
Exactly. Sort of surprises me they used some of these clips at all, he's pretty clear in the ipod bit that his problem is the shitty earbuds not the file
I love you, I miss you, I miss your smile and your look from your sweet blue eyes.
2014 seems pretty late to talk about mp3’s. I think Apple was selling their last dedicated iPods by then if they weren’t already discontinued. (Save for some very low capacity model that I think is still available.)
Stick some quality earbuds in that iPod and then compare. Come on Steve...