Apple Once Again Rumored to Be Developing High-Resolution Audio Formats

[JamesPDX]

Of course it does. The article MR quotes addresses improving audio hardware standards to accommodate HQ audio. MR goes into the whole HQ sound file download issue and linking to past articles about it, but that doesn't make this article "entirely about" audio for streaming. Why does the article state manufacturers are preparing their own Lightning cables if it's all about streaming? If Apple improves audio capability of the iPhone, then the iPhone will be able to create HQ audio natively to match its pro 4K video abilities, and now we're discussing production. If the iPhone can record HQ audio, then it's got to be able to play it back somehow, so the user can work with it, right? Currently when I open a 24bit/48K ProTools session on my Mac, I cannot stream it over AirPlay. I can record it, but I have no way to work with it over AirPlay. It's similar to the 4K video issue in which the only way to see native 4K playback is to export the video file to a device which will play it. Apple is rumored to be improving that ability for audio, if not video. Maybe the Apple TV 5 will support 4K video streaming as well. Regardless, if Apple enables HQ streaming via AirPlay, then "produced" content created on the iPhone will be the only audio that will be able to take advantage of it, until Apple actually offers commercial content, which is probably going to be a big problem for the labels, not to mention that it's not likely to materialize any faster than 4K content is, or BluRay did.

I don't read the article as 'Apple is rumored to enable HQ audio for streaming purposes only'. Not sure why you do.

Interesting stuff, you two!

Remember when the animation houses and VFX house freaked out when "the industry" said, "Hey, you know what? We want your next feature to be shot in 4k." -Way more CPU/GPU required than just shooting live-action. Is there an Engineering IT person in the forum that can explain (better than I can) why it's harder to do multi-channel 24/192 re: i/o latency issues, but easier to deal with 3D graphics? -Something about the spatial, multi-threaded/GPU processing of video vs. the linearity of audio that works better with single-core high-clock performance? (Something you won't see on Geekbench scores."

But the question remains: Even if we do get 24/192 uncompressed stereo masters streaming from the console of Bob Ludwig; Does the world really need that for Kanye? Nope. But for Valentina Lisitsa or Marc-Andre Hamelin? Absolutely, but I'd still want a hard copy.

 

[JamesPDX]

Because I see this rumor as something directly tied to Apple offering "pro" audio on their devices. Based on what you're saying, Apple, and all these manufacturers are gearing up to offer HQ streaming audio created elsewhere, but won't be offering any production access to that HQ audio. Right?

It's clear to me, this rumor is based around being able to play the content created on the device itself. Because where exactly is Apple going to instantly get access to millions of 24 bit/96k master recordings of commercial music to stream from iTunes and Apple Music to begin to warrant this HQ support?

If this rumor is true, I can create and edit "pro" audio on my ProTools app, something I can't do right now on an iOS device.

Oh man! Are you on PT12? That's what Track Commit is all about: There's a new thing in the music industry that you now must provide 24/96 or higher stems to the majors for "future formats, remixing, and remastering..." PM me if you want.

 

[Kilmister]

It's surprising how amazing a lot of cheap turntables sound. The Rega RP1 really does sound absolutely great, I'm a big fan.

But you're comparing two different recordings. To sit down and listen to the same album on vinyl and then CD means you're also listening to two different masters which affects the sound pretty drastically. I rip all my favourite albums from Vinyl to listen to on my iPhone because the masters sound so much better.

Different masters for digital and vinyl? Absolutely. But the typical consumer doesn't really care about masters. He/she cares about which format sounds best on his/her stereo.

Technically speaking though, CD quality digital audio is superior in every way.

Even if your bold statement would be true – and it isn't – many people still prefer vinyl. Almost all people I know that really have compared end up saying the vinyl is better. Even if the CD is mastered correctly.

 

[roadbloc]

Just support flac already.

 

[grahamtriggs]

You are very sadly misinformed. There's a reason DAC equipment that can produce higher bit rates and depth are selling like hotcakes in the several thousand dollar range. They do sound closer to the real thing. I've done several A/B comparisons with the Berkley Alpha DAC and if you can't hear the difference then perhpas you need new batteries in that hearing aide.

That's comparing apples to oranges.

Remember, if you are taking CD and HiRes audio from a record producer, they may have gone through different production processes that have affected the sound (and quite likely deliberately made the CD sound worse than it could do - e.g. dynamic range compression).

HiRes DAC equipment may have benefits for playing back CD resolution, that doesn't mean that you need HiRes as a distribution format.

I actually use a digital amplifier, that massively up samples the input - it needs to be up sampled in order for the rest of the topology to be possible, but that doesn't mean I get any benefit from feeding it with an input signal that is higher than CD resolution.

The key factor is the production that went into the music.

 

[grahamtriggs]

Moving to 24/96 audio will expand dynamic range by quite a bit. But I totally agree that lossless audio should be the goal.

Technically, yes. But the dynamic range of 16 bit audio already exceeds the limits of human hearing. It just doesn't get used properly.

 

[iSunrise]

-Because people don't know that they don't know.

This is probably the most simple, yet most correct way to think about audio compression, or compression in general. If you don't know your tracks perfectly, you are already unable to judge differences. Even when you know, you're hearing is filtering out most of the >16khz frequencies (because, relative to the other frequences which are lower and usually have a lot more energy, which can be perfectly seen in the spectral analysis) anyway. However, all this does not mean that 128kbps is sufficient for every needs.

...So when you take everything and mix it "in the box" and "make it loud" (apparent loudness) so that it only has about 4dB of dynamic range and autotuned vocalizations, even AAC VBR 128kbps is overkill for a production master.

I agree, but here is the catch. This just shows that the standards are so much lowered (because almost everyone listens to these kind of tracks) already, that 128kbps is now even considered overkill, which is simply laughable. Even when we take into account that the upper limit with 128kbps VBR may be in the 300kbps range (did not verify, do not care), that's only about 1/5 of the available space of a 1411kbps CD master.*

The problem is also not solely the bitrate or the bit-depth, but the encoders intelligence to choose which frequencies to low-pass, band-pass or completely filter out (read: delete). There are some reports on the web, where mixing engineers even have problems with AAC 256kbps VBR, because Apple's encoder is just not intelligent enough to fit everything into the bitrate limitation. While I agree that for most of the material out there 128kbps AAC VBR may be OK for the masses, I simply cannot agree that it's good enough for everything and everyone.

*For comparisons sake, in the video mastering field, 10mbps H.264 (x264) may be practically transparent, but when you really look at both (uncompressed/compressed) side by side and you have good sources (read: HDCAM SR or whatever) with good equipment (not $100 LCDs), you can see the differences. Yet, we have some material that needs well higher than that to be perfectly reproduced. It's the same for audio. Audio is just way more simple to compress, but the same principles largely apply here. The problem is to listen to two audio tracks side by side. ABX for audio has it's problems by definition.

 

[grahamtriggs]

Even if your bold statement would be true – and it isn't – many people still prefer vinyl. Almost all people I know that really have compared end up saying the vinyl is better. Even if the CD is mastered correctly.

Technically, 16/44.1khz sampling is better. Better dynamic range, better noise floor, repeatable duplication with absolutely zero differences, and can be stored/maintained/played with zero data loss.

The only theoretical advantage that vinyl has is in extended frequency response, but that is beyond human hearing anyway.

Now, you might prefer vinyl. That's fine - enjoyment doesn't necessarily have to be the same as accuracy.

 

[iSunrise]

I'm sorry.

And that is your proof for your claim?

They have a noisy room (probably the noise floor in that room is well above 60dba) and the first two (I did not even need to watch any further) could not even use their AKGs or their Sennheiser headphones, which their ears are trained for.

Sorry, that is not a test, that's a very bad excuse for pointing out that it's impossible to do ABX testing with such a high noise floor and being unable to use open headphones. Have you even considered for one second, how they are even supposed to hear the quieter high frequencies with that amount of noise in their surroundings? Right, it's impossible.

...which leads to the ultimate guessing test of all guessing tests.

Sorry, please try again.

 

[applezulu]

Apple effectively killed high-res audio a decade ago in the form of SACD and DVD-A, by feeding MP3s to hordes of "you can't tell the difference anyway" iSheep via the iPod, relegating hi-res digital formats to "elitist snobs" and "pretentious" vinyl enthusiasts with good hearing and hi-fi stereo systems. Some people don't use earbuds, some people aren't deaf, and some people DO care.

The iRony that most music is produced on Macs and yet Apple insists on degrading the artist and the listener by shoving lossy down our throats for the past decade.

"All the kids will eat it up, if it's packaged properly".

Screw you Apple, your insistence on using proprietary ALAC instead of open-source FLAC has guaranteed you will get none of my money in this realm.

See, this is what I was talking about. You're making the wrong comparisons. Apples and oranges, maybe? The iPhone/earbuds/iTunes format audio was never meant to replace hi-res digital formats or high-end audio gear. The hordes of "you can't tell the difference anyway" people you're referring to were never in the audiophile market anyway. They were the owners of gear that already made the sorts of trade-offs of audio quality for convenience that you're complaining about. They had cassettes, warped, mass-produced vinyl (that they never cleaned), and CDs played through walkmans with lightweight earphones that were profoundly awful. A stock iPhone with stock buds is orders of magnitude better than any of that, and was thus an improvement.

If Apple does indeed come out with a lossless and/or hi-res product, they're going to be entering an entirely new market niche, serving the 'elitist snobs' and pretentious vinyl enthusiasts with good hearing and high-end gear. What they come up with will determine their success, and it has little to do with the imagined affronts of iPhones to audiophiles.

 

[HVDynamo]

Even if your bold statement would be true – and it isn't – many people still prefer vinyl. Almost all people I know that really have compared end up saying the vinyl is better. Even if the CD is mastered correctly.

Except it is 100% true. That was the point of saying 'technically speaking.' On the technical end, CD's are superior in every way, this is a fact. The dynamic range capability is far greater, the noise floor is far lower, so it will make a more accurate reproduction. One thing I have noticed though is when mastered, Vinyl has a very particular limit when it comes to loudness, so generally the Vinyl version will end up having a greater dynamic range than the CD because they can push it much farther in digital. This isn't an issue with the format, it's an issue with the mastering. For a CD to sound as good/better, they have to stop the loudness crap. If you prefer Vinyl, then you like the extra warmth that the higher noise floor brings to the table. That is a personal opinion, not an objective truth, and it is a less perfect reproduction. So, from a technical standpoint, the CD format is superior and that is a fact that is not debatable. However, Vinyl may sound better to you because you like the signature, or because they couldn't boost the loudness as far leaving some dynamic range to be enjoyed. Either of these reason's are completely valid reasons to prefer Vinyl. But as a format, CD is still technically superior. I am not trying to tell you which will sound more enjoyable to your ears, if you enjoy the sound of Vinyl more, then go for it.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

I love the Hi Res audio arguments. There's an entertaining mix of BS and actual science flying back and forth.

I'll throw this in there. For the vast majority of consumers, what they get out of iTunes Plus on an iPhone with a decent set of buds is far superior to what the vast majority of consumers were listening to at pretty much any time in the prior history of recorded music. Most of the arguing likes to compare that iPhone setup to audiophile gear of days gone by. That's not the right comparison. The iPhone setup should be compared to Sony Walkmans, car cassette (and 8-track!) players, and Sears stereo racks playing slightly warped (and never cleaned) mass-produced vinyl.

Having bought a 4th Generation Apple TV, though, I'm interested in the idea of high-end audio coming through that device. It's already hooked up to a decent sound system in my case. Not super high-end audiophile gear, mind you, but better-than-average consumer-level gear. Playing Apple Music through it already sounds pretty good. I've also bought a few Blu Ray Audio discs for my Blu Ray player, which generally have sounded very good, though I can't attest as to whether it's because of the higher bitrate or because the mastering engineers were more careful, or most likely, some combination. Still, Dark Side of the Moon in Alan Parson's quad mix, or the more recent 5.1 mix literally adds a whole new dimension. There's no reason those sorts of experiences couldn't be delivered through the Apple TV box, so I'm all for it. Bring it on.

For me, though, the best part of Apple Music coming through the Apple TV is that it finally brings to fruition Frank Zappa's 1983 concept for just such a thing.

CD Walkmans? Minidisc? DAT? Great portable audio has been accessible to consumers for decades. The loudness wars have destroyed much of it. Digital compression (I realize MD is compressed) is the other player in a poor audio experience these days, though the former much more so. I stopped buying CDs because of it.

I'd love to get the quality back but I have to wonder about the motivation of adding hi-res audio. The tech we already have is good enough but underutilized. So is it just marketing BS to rake in more money from a captive and gullible audience?

 

[Boomish69]

I have extensively been writing about this in several other threads on here...

Apple needs to make raw uncompressed, full-quality AIFF versions of their music available to download at the Apple Music Store. I would not have a problem paying extra for the higher quality audio, much like Beatport already has available,

The audio quality difference IS noticeable on good speakers, or good studio monitor headphones, but it is neglibible if none on the standard white earbuds,

I couldn't agree more, uncompressed audio as a stream would be the right way to do it for me, I don't collect MP3's because of this, as a studio engineer I can tell you just because you can't hear difference on earphones doesn't mean there isn't one. It's a bit like eating food with poor ingredients , you might not notice the difference in what your eating but you know it's not good for you. It's the same with high compressed audio format's, the detail you lose subjects the hearing to all kinds of audio defects, such as harsher frequency response, distortion, corrupted stereo imaging etc etc Hearing is one of the most powerful features of the human body, shoving low quality limited clipped audio into this complex hearing mechanism is like shoving fatty burnt processed food into your mouth, IMHO I think it leads to fatigue both mentally and physically. If Apple can find a way of giving us the same 24bit quality that music is recorded with I'd certainly welcome it.

Loudness wars and maxed out limiting is another discussion but streaming should bring an end to this if they can get average normalisation right. - http://productionadvice.co.uk/blog/

 

[applezulu]

CD Walkmans? Minidisc? DAT? Great portable audio has been accessible to consumers for decades. The loudness wars have destroyed much of it. Digital compression (I realize MD is compressed) is the other player in a poor audio experience these days, though the former much more so. I stopped buying CDs because of it.

I'd love to get the quality back but I have to wonder about the motivation of adding hi-res audio. The tech we already have is good enough but underutilized. So is it just marketing BS to rake in more money from a captive and gullible audience?

Loudness wars are the effect of (poor) aesthetic choices, made possible by digital media, but certainly not required by it. The various compression models are more resultant from the technology, trading quality for convenience and quantity. As bandwidth and storage capacity grow exponentially faster than the prices for it, data compression becomes less of a need.

The idea of some format of streaming hi-def audio could just end up being fluff and marketing, but it also could have real potential. It's the streaming factor that makes it possibly more transformative. The challenge for the various formats for hi-def audio in the past has been the dependence on physical media. The consumer has to buy a player and then buy (and often re-purchase, at a considerable premium) content for the player. Because the high-end stuff has mostly been expensive, it ends up as a small niche market, making the creation and stocking of content untenable. So content gets scarce and formats phase out, and the consumer has to start over with whatever the next thing is.

If, on the other hand, Apple comes out with a format for content that will play on devices that consumers already have (iPhones and Apple TVs), and then makes that content available through some variation of iTunes Match or Apple Music, you've got a game changing scenario. Suddenly, the barrier to entry into the hi-res audio world becomes minimal, and the market becomes sustainable. While changing device formats and re-purchasing content limits the market, there are a lot more people who only dabbled before who would gladly pay a few bucks' premium to upgrade their existing libraries to the good stuff. With the larger audience comes more content, and the company so often maligned for popularizing compressed audio ends up being the company that makes the hi-def audio market actually work.

 

[JamesPDX]

This is probably the most simple, yet most correct way to think about audio compression, or compression in general. If you don't know your tracks perfectly, you are already unable to judge differences. Even when you know, you're hearing is filtering out most of the >16khz frequencies (because, relative to the other frequences which are lower and usually have a lot more energy, which can be perfectly seen in the spectral analysis) anyway. However, all this does not mean that 128kbps is sufficient for every needs.


I agree, but here is the catch. This just shows that the standards are so much lowered (because almost everyone listens to these kind of tracks) already, that 128kbps is now even considered overkill, which is simply laughable. Even when we take into account that the upper limit with 128kbps VBR may be in the 300kbps range (did not verify, do not care), that's only about 1/5 of the available space of a 1411kbps CD master.*

The problem is also not solely the bitrate or the bit-depth, but the encoders intelligence to choose which frequencies to low-pass, band-pass or completely filter out (read: delete). There are some reports on the web, where mixing engineers even have problems with AAC 256kbps VBR, because Apple's encoder is just not intelligent enough to fit everything into the bitrate limitation. While I agree that for most of the material out there 128kbps AAC VBR may be OK for the masses, I simply cannot agree that it's good enough for everything and everyone.

*For comparisons sake, in the video mastering field, 10mbps H.264 (x264) may be practically transparent, but when you really look at both (uncompressed/compressed) side by side and you have good sources (read: HDCAM SR or whatever) with good equipment (not $100 LCDs), you can see the differences. Yet, we have some material that needs well higher than that to be perfectly reproduced. It's the same for audio. Audio is just way more simple to compress, but the same principles largely apply here. The problem is to listen to two audio tracks side by side. ABX for audio has it's problems by definition.

You've quoted me out of context: 128kbps @ 44.1khz is fine for rap (look at a waveform, it's a big rectangle of audio, but the same could be said for Lady Gaga's mixes.) But okay, I guess if you want to push the resolution of a TR707, TR808, or TR909 beyond its reproducing capabilities, then you could record at 16/44.1. OTOH- 24 bit @192khz is for (acoustic) instrumental, classical voice, opera, and orchestral works.

WWBLD?

 

[SactoGuy18]

Personally, most of today's popular music don't benefit from 24-bit 96 kHz sampling rate audio encoding. However, symphony orchestras, "Big Band" music, and acoustical bands do benefit, since many acoustical music instruments have a lot of treble frequency energy, something that 24-bit 96 kHz sampling rate audio can fully take advantage off. A symphony orchestra would sound great with really clear violins, cymbals, flutes/piccolos and the higher notes on a piano.

 

[pennysmythe]

Screw you Apple, your insistence on using proprietary ALAC instead of open-source FLAC has guaranteed you will get none of my money in this realm.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/27/apples-alac-codec-is-now-open-source/

But I'm sure they've taken note of your concerns.

 

[drumcat]

It's staggering how much of this comment thread has been about everything except streaming...

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Loudness wars are the effect of (poor) aesthetic choices, made possible by digital media, but certainly not required by it. The various compression models are more resultant from the technology, trading quality for convenience and quantity. As bandwidth and storage capacity grow exponentially faster than the prices for it, data compression becomes less of a need.

The idea of some format of streaming hi-def audio could just end up being fluff and marketing, but it also could have real potential. It's the streaming factor that makes it possibly more transformative. The challenge for the various formats for hi-def audio in the past has been the dependence on physical media. The consumer has to buy a player and then buy (and often re-purchase, at a considerable premium) content for the player. Because the high-end stuff has mostly been expensive, it ends up as a small niche market, making the creation and stocking of content untenable. So content gets scarce and formats phase out, and the consumer has to start over with whatever the next thing is.

If, on the other hand, Apple comes out with a format for content that will play on devices that consumers already have (iPhones and Apple TVs), and then makes that content available through some variation of iTunes Match or Apple Music, you've got a game changing scenario. Suddenly, the barrier to entry into the hi-res audio world becomes minimal, and the market becomes sustainable. While changing device formats and re-purchasing content limits the market, there are a lot more people who only dabbled before who would gladly pay a few bucks' premium to upgrade their existing libraries to the good stuff. With the larger audience comes more content, and the company so often maligned for popularizing compressed audio ends up being the company that makes the hi-def audio market actually work.

What do the loudness wars have to do with digital? They started on radio and then in popular recorded music well before digital.

I agree with many of your points about previous attempts at hi-res formats. I will be very disappointed, however, if Apple's attempt is relegated to a DRM laden stream. That's not a game changer, just more of the same.

 

[jhwalker]

Apple is reportedly preparing to launch new higher-quality audio streaming in 2016, according to industry sources who spoke to Mac Otakara at this weekend's Portable Audio Festival in Tokyo.The report also claims many audio equipment manufacturers are preparing their own third-party Lightning cables in anticipation of Apple's move toward improved audio quality.

Apple has long been rumored to be looking to introduce higher-quality audio formats for iTunes Store downloads and perhaps also Apple Music streaming. A year and a half ago, music blogger Robert Hutton claimed Apple was working to roll out high-resolution audio for the iTunes Store, and Mac Otakara made similar claims about an HD Audio format and new hardware being planned for release alongside iOS 8 later that year.

An even earlier flurry of rumors came in 2012 after Neil Young revealed that he and Steve Jobs had discussed ideas for improving the audio quality of iTunes Store content. Young ultimately went on his own in an effort to increase the quality digital music, releasing his PonoPlayer in early 2014.

Article Link: Apple Once Again Rumored to Be Developing High-Resolution Audio Formats

Apple's "Mastered for iTunes" program has specified 24/96 masters for several years now, so they have a ready-made "base" of 24/96 files to work with.

I think a lossless / ALAC streaming solution at 16/44, along with a "hi-res" download offering at 24/96 would be well-accepted, and would cost Apple virtually nothing.

 

[HVDynamo]

What do the loudness wars have to do with digital? They started on radio and then in popular recorded music well before digital.

I agree with many of your points about previous attempts at hi-res formats. I will be very disappointed, however, if Apple's attempt is relegated to a DRM laden stream. That's not a game changer, just more of the same.

The digital format has allowed them to abuse loudness worse than they can with other formats like vinyl (because of the physical nature of vinyl). So the worst offenders of loudness are on CD/Digital. The format is capable of so much, but they abuse it instead of use it.

 

[JamesPDX]

All this said, I have to say that my "Mastered for iTunes Droplet" (AAC tweaked to CBR 320Kbps) does an amazing job with 24/44.1 and 24/88.2 .wav masters. What I don't understand is this idea of streaming 24/96 AAC.

And really, if you're driving around town, you want some dynamic range compression so that the softness doesn't get lost in the traffic. -That's why FM radio used/uses those Orban processors that seemed to make everything "sound better" even if you driving with the windows rolled-down.

Whatever.

 

[grahamtriggs]

Personally, most of today's popular music don't benefit from 24-bit 96 kHz sampling rate audio encoding. However, symphony orchestras, "Big Band" music, and acoustical bands do benefit, since many acoustical music instruments have a lot of treble frequency energy, something that 24-bit 96 kHz sampling rate audio can fully take advantage off. A symphony orchestra would sound great with really clear violins, cymbals, flutes/piccolos and the higher notes on a piano.

All of which (well, aside from some harmonics) exists below 5khz. Even the harmonics are below 22Khz. And 24-bit has NOTHING to do with frequency. You will be deaf before you can fully utilise the dynamic range of 16-bit.

 

[grahamtriggs]

What do the loudness wars have to do with digital? They started on radio and then in popular recorded music well before digital.

I couldn't really put a date on radio compression, but my perception is that the invention of CD predates the bulk of it.

But you have to look at habits. Vinyl was a "home" format - as in, for the general public, you only listened to vinyl at home; you didn't play it in your car; take it to the park, etc.

It was cassettes that you played on a boom box; on your car stereo; on your walkman. And cassettes have always been a low fidelity medium.

Radio suffers from dynamic range compression, because it was also a "portable" format, often used by people on crappy systems, and even the format itself - at least prior to FM - has always been low fidelity. But then that's fine, because the compression was applied by the radio station, not the record producer.

The critical thing we see with CDs, is that it is the first time that you've had a high fidelity format - something that is capable of storing very high quality recordings - that has had huge traction across different markets. People playing CDs in their cars; portable CD players; etc. - as well as as part of high quality systems.

And that's where the loudness wars come in - because instead of being something applied to the recording, by the radio station, or potentially by the playback device - it became baked into the recording by the record producer.

 

[cycledance]

I couldn't agree more, uncompressed audio as a stream would be the right way to do it for me, I don't collect MP3's because of this, as a studio engineer I can tell you just because you can't hear difference on earphones doesn't mean there isn't one. It's a bit like eating food with poor ingredients , you might not notice the difference in what your eating but you know it's not good for you. It's the same with high compressed audio format's, the detail you lose subjects the hearing to all kinds of audio defects, such as harsher frequency response, distortion, corrupted stereo imaging etc etc Hearing is one of the most powerful features of the human body, shoving low quality limited clipped audio into this complex hearing mechanism is like shoving fatty burnt processed food into your mouth, IMHO I think it leads to fatigue both mentally and physically. If Apple can find a way of giving us the same 24bit quality that music is recorded with I'd certainly welcome it.

Loudness wars and maxed out limiting is another discussion but streaming should bring an end to this if they can get average normalisation right. - http://productionadvice.co.uk/blog/

you say you are a studio engineer? like seriously?

you agree with bs and write bs.