Article: Editorial: What's Wrong With You?

[Jud]

I guess I'm a stickler for trying to be accurate - can anyone find an interview or piece of writing where Alan Parsons actually said what was attributed to him in that quote?

 

Closest I got was a 2012 interview in a publication called CEPro, where, under the headline "Alan Parsons Rips Audiophiles," the engineer and musician had these among other things to say:

 

Quote

I don’t listen to much music recreationally - it’s almost always for professional applications.

 

So the man who supposedly criticized audiophiles for not just enjoying the music seldom listens to music for enjoyment.

 

Quote

The art of listening is the key to any kind of career in this business. My training at EMI/Abbey Road was thorough in how to listen. I learned how to discern minute differences in pieces of equipment, and it helped me to appreciate what I was hearing.

 

The man who supposedly criticized audiophiles for listening to equipment says the art of listening is critical, and you can learn how to "discern minute differences in pieces of equipment."

 

Here's his "rip" of audiophiles:

Quote

 

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.

 

I 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.

 

 

Audiophiles don't pay sufficient attention to room treatment compared to pro sound people, and will pay lots of money for comparatively small improvements that aren't necessary in the pro environment.  Wow, just scathing.

 

_ _ _

 

I think highlighting the quote that Parsons may or may not have really said, and the blaring headline, in contrast to the much more balanced view presented in the actual interview, are symptomatic of exactly the sort of thing your editorial critiques, Chris.  Do race drivers have this jaundiced view of car collectors, or do car collectors think this sort of thing about themselves or fellow collectors?  Professional golfers or weekend duffers about the guy with an expensive set of clubs?  Don't know.  Maybe it exists and I'm not aware of it.

 

If people are that much into regret at participation in the hobby or anger at the industry that absolutely forces you to spend money on equipment(!), maybe we need an AA (Audiophiles Anonymous) section here where they can let it all go and feel cleansed.

 

Is more knowledge about how stuff works (or doesn't) better?  Absolutely.  To me that's not at all antithetical to enjoying my hobby.

[Jud]

50 minutes ago, rickca said:

A psychiatrist would have a field day just analyzing some of the characters here on AS.

 

4 minutes ago, accwai said:

 

Psychologist?

 

Whatever.  😉

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Is it possible he said it outside this single article / interview?

 

Well, as a sort of meta-analysis: While there are secondary sources (collections of quotes) that have it attributed to him, it seems odd to me that one of the quotes for which he's supposedly most remembered doesn't turn up in any primary source at all.  If it happened before that 2012 interview, why was it never mentioned, since that was the interviewer's obvious angle (looking at his headline vs. Parsons' actual statements)?  If it happened since, why doesn't the interview/statement/whatever from which it comes show up anywhere in Google?  Unless it does and I've missed it, but I did a fair amount of looking.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

Meanwhile, he also said commented about analogue and miking techniques in other interview which may not go well with audiophiles.

 

Well, he learned from George Martin, who felt that artists and producers should have the freedom to create a sonic environment in the recording rather than striving only to reflect accurately what would essentially be a live studio performance.  The latter is something I've read many audiophiles urging, and Martin really had no time for that.  (Heck, a quick listen to Beatles recordings and Dark Side of the Moon, which Parsons worked on, will make it more than obvious the goal was never a straight reflection of a few guys playing in a studio.)

[Jud]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

I can't recall everything about Beatles now as I was gathering information on stereo development at the time. Anyway, here is something which may help to throw some light on this discussion which has now gone out of topic.

 

"

Martin: Four-track was the earliest thing we had and that wasn’t until 1965. From ’62 to ’65 we didn’t have four-track. We had mono--mono was the thing. Mono was all that pop records were. Stereo was reserved for classical. Stereo wasn’t considered to be in any way useful to pop record because it dissipated the sound...

MF: ...on the radio...

Martin: ...and pop had to hit you square on the nose. And so it was considered irrelevant. Very few people had stereo machines anyway. And if they did, they generally had them in cabinets where the speakers were about a foot apart, so you couldn’t really tell.

So mono was the thing. But I took a stereo machine and separated the tracks and made it into a twin-track machine. So when we recorded the Beatles live as we did, we didn’t overdub. I would keep the voices on one track and put the backing on another, so when they went home I could then mix it down and keep the voice forward--but at the same time get plenty of impact. I wouldn’t have to do it on the spot. So that gave me time.

MF: And there was some leakage between the two tracks because they were playing live...?

Martin: Of course.

MF: But it was amazing separation!

Martin: Yes, but then, in the instrumental where the voices stop, all the shit comes out on that track from elsewhere. When I first heard what they’d been doing, I was horrified. But they just did. And I didn’t find out 'till afterwards, and it was too late.

But the worst thing is: The people got used to this and loved it! They liked to be able to turn up the voices in songs. So I was hoisted with my own petard here. I couldn’t protest anymore. I was saying, “Why do you do this? It’s a travesty!” But then they’d say, “The people like it!”

MF: But that came out in England also—the stereo With the Beatles.

Martin: It did. By this time I’d left EMI, and I had no power there at all. I left EMI in 1965 to start my own company. Up to ’65 I was the head of Parlophone Records, so what I said went--as far as Parlophone was concerned. But once I left, I had no authority...apart from complaining.

MF: Back to those Capitol tracks: They were in mono, I assume.

Martin: Yes, "Baby, You’re a Rich Man," "Penny Lane," and "All You Need is Love" should have been mono.

Read more at https://www.analogplanet.com/content/sir-george-martin-interview-part-two-0#ZEV6pzrSh7tOpvJG.99 "

 

 

And 

 

Beyond this, working in true stereo the way the Beatles wanted to simply wasn’t possible through most of the 1960s. By the time of A Hard Day’s Night in 1964, for example, EMI had taken delivery of several new four-track machines, but that remained the state of the art for the next several years. And four tracks is far short of the number necessary to create what we might think of as a “modern” recording - with stereo drums, stereo instruments and stereo voices. Since early stereo attempts tended to sound clumsy and primitive, the Beatles gave up on the format until better times arrived. It wasn’t until 1968, when they began using eight-track machines, that they began giving real attention to stereo.

In the Beatles’ minds, we should remember, it was always more important for a record to be musically good than for it to be compatible with some new, gimmicky format. The Beatles had been raised on mono. All their early records were mono. The radio they listened to was mono. And so it’s natural that, as they began recording, mono remained their chief form of public expression. From 1962 until 1968 the Beatles would record their songs, create mono masters with George Martin plus either Norman Smith (1962-65) or Geoff Emerick (1966-67), and then go off on tour or holiday, leaving the stereo mixes to be done solely under Martin’s supervision. Stereo tapes were often couriered to Capitol in New York without the Beatles ever hearing them at all.

 

George is talking about Capitol in the US releasing "hard panned" stereo versions, which were not under his or the band's control. Not even the lineup of songs was under their control - those were different in the US and UK, as we know.

[Jud]

49 minutes ago, STC said:

 

It was in the interview. He made them for US Capitol. 

 

 

 

He made them so the band could listen back to themselves. Capitol originally released them without input from Martin or the band. Then it appeared the public seemed to like them (as we would anything by the Beatles at that time), so more were released in that hard-panned style.

[Jud]

I guess it does show a certain tendency to be tendentious.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Summit said:

Why are HIFI magazines so obsessed about reviewing audio gear that cost more than a “normal” working audiophiles can ever buy? 

 

How often do you see auto magazines with a cover photo of an economy car?  I'm sure we recall all the "Lada vs. Trabant vs. Yugo - East Bloc Shootout!" articles, right?  Watch magazines featuring Timex? Architectural Digest featuring affordable efficiency apartments?

 

That's why. Just like any other publications for enthusiasts, audio magazines focus on what is most exciting for that group, and "cheap but does the job" isn't tremendously exciting. Perhaps it should be, but it just doesn't get enthusiast juices flowing like Ferraris, Rolexes, and expensive audio gear that makes enthusiasts say "Wish I could afford that."

[Jud]

23 hours ago, Summit said:

 

I understand that those super expansive gear can be nice to see and read about ones in the while. I also get that some people may be interested in reading and looking at 100 000 USD gear they can never have, over and over again. I personally like to read impressions that focus more on good gear that I can get and which that match good together. It absolutely doesn’t have to be the audio equivalents of Lada or Trabant, more like a better Volvo, Toyota, Hyundai or WW etc.

 

I'd like to see more of that too, but so far in the US no one seems to have made more than a token effort to run an audio magazine along these lines. That says to me there is at least a possibility they found it didn't sell very well when they tried.