Slashdot Mirror
The Death of High Fidelity
Ponca City, We Love You writes "Rolling Stone has an interesting story on how record producers alter the way they mix albums to compensate for the limitations of MP3 sound. Much of the information left out during MP3 compression is at the very high and low ends, which is why some MP3s sound flat. Without enough low end, 'you don't get the punch anymore. It decreases the punch of the kick drum and how the speaker gets pushed when the guitarist plays a power chord.' The inner ear automatically compresses blasts of high volume to protect itself, so we associate compression with loudness. After a few minutes, constant loudness grows fatiguing to the brain. Though few listeners realize this consciously, many feel an urge to skip to another song."
It seems that FLAC does the job quite nicely.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
I call shenanigans. Double blind testing shows no perceptible difference between a good MP3 and the source material for most listeners most of the time. The real death of hi-fi is the fault of the record companies themselves, and the Loudness War. Who cares if an MP3 encoder drops a tiny amount of imperceptible data when the CD itself has been compressed and clipped to the point that you don't want to listen to it?
Now they know. It amazes me how many of the LP's I own still sound better than the CD versions.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Who sells music in a loosy compression such as MP3? CDs aren't mp3; itune music doesn't come in mp3. I think the author of the article is making the mistake of calling all digital music mp3. That's like calling all smart phones iPhones and all digital music players iPods.
People who think MP3 encoded with Lame -preset standard (about 192kbps) suck and are not trolling should register at Hydrogenaudio and submit audio samples and ABX tests tests. Some Lame developers hang out there, and I'm sure they would like some help in improving their acoustic model.
True, and it makes sense. I just wanted to point out that the MP3 format or its use can't be blamed for how albums are mixed ...
Go listen to "Something in the Way" off of Nevermind. Though he's being pulled into a loudness war, along with every other big rock/metal producer, it doesn't make him a total failure. The man has done insane things in some areas of production, granted, but he's a genius in many others IMO.
Launchy.net changed my world.
MP3 and similar compressed audio standards are to a large part based on the insights of psychoacoustic research, which is in turn based mainly on surveys taken among a large set of listeners.
So when you don't have an average ear, you're positioned out of the target group for MP3, AAC, Vorbis, etc.
In most blind tests, I can tell that there is a difference between 192Kbps-Lame compressed and uncompressed audio,
but I can't tell which is which, or which is better.
What I have experienced over years is that, compared to lossless, listening to MP3 over long periods fatigues me more and is not as much fun. It's a long term effect that no short term blind test like the ones that are run on sites like Hydrogenaudio can reveal.
That said, I think there are other aspects that have a much larger influence on the perception of music.
These are, among others:
- the look and feel of your audio equipment (including the felt value of the equipment and the music media)
- your social surroundings while listening to music
- you physical surroundings
- your overall psychological disposition (self esteem, self consciousness, attitude towards life). this changes when you're getting older.
- nostalgic feelings bound to special music
I don't see how MP3s radically alters post production values. Record producers have always sought to compensate for low-fi playback systems, such as radio, by listening to the mix on small, mono speakers, as well as using bespoke studio monitors. All that has happened is MP3 has replaced small transistor radios, as the medium which dictates record sales.
Well, to be fair the article is specifically talking about the phenomenon known as 'finalizing', which is a way to clearly boost the
apparent levels by up to 10 dB or more during the mastering stages without any digital clipping artifacts. (a.k.a. brick-wall limiting)
There is no question that a lot of great points were raised in the article, however when it comes to MP3 (the 'other' form of compression)
as a person who has participated in recording, mixing and mastering sessions for over 30 years, and constantly listens to master recordings,
can only say that it is pathetic how bad they sound on large audio playback systems, which some of us have and listen to.
(For example pick a very large loft, or someone's home theater for 20 people, not to say anything of a proper auditorium)
You might not hear it at home, on computer speakers or certainly not your earbuds, but the bigger the stereo, the more it is obvious.
And actually what is the most disturbing is that what is very, very wrong about lossy encoding formats is that it doesn't necessarily affect so
much the frequency response, as it does the 'punch', transients and other intangibles which when played on those large-format systems become
quickly apparent. The same way a graphic designer will not try and magnify this site's jpg logo (415 x 55 pixels, I did check) to a more
adequate 16,000 x 2122 for billboard and poster printing, as there will be obvious and nasty pixelization artifacts, there are similar phenomenons
happening with audio, and they are - at best - poorly understood, and at worst dismissed as being the brainchild of crackpots with too
much time on their hands, the New-Age idealists like those who read John Diamond's "Life Energy In Music" and keep a stack of copies
of 'Absolute Sound' by the bathroom stall.
Suffice to say that the combination of both forms of compression (finalizing, plus lossy encoding) do make for a pretty formidable opponent that
already has greatly affected the public's perception of what 'sounds good' and doesn't. And it's not likely to get better.
Fear not, for those who care about listening to music in more proper manners, there are plenty of options available, from an arguably limited selection
of SACDs of some great Jazz, Classical and Pop, to fantastic vinyl playback systems, or ways to re-process those CDs that are too loud and give them
back some form of dynamic range, which will involve spending time re-mastering them with specific analog//tube//tape-machine type equipment, and is
obviously not a recommended activity for what seems to make the most of today's impatient 'click-click' listeners, the Attention-Deficit-Disorder-addled set.
As for the Hydrogen Audio bunch that keeps doing those double-blind tests and play with oscilloscope and frequency analyzers, I think they should
once try them again, but in a place that holds a couple of thousand listeners, and they may come back around to the fact that even CD-resolution
is quite atrocious to listen to, when compared to something like formats that can actually reproduce the original master recordings in a way they should,
such as DSD or 24-bit / 96 kHz encoded music. (not to say anything of a proper 1/2" open-reel master copy)
So in essence, while some of these people quoted in the article all agree that something's wrong, most of them cannot put their finger on it, as it is
something that is far more in the domain of the perceptual and psychoacoustics than an exact science.
It is mind-boggling that 25 years after the CD was introduced, most people consider progress to be size-reduction and loudness, and all attempt
at making a case for higher-fidelity have commercially failed, but again there are far larger problems looming over our heads today.
As someone who has made a living with playing recorded sounds in very large venues, I can however vouch for the fact that even if people do not exa
The same is the case with newer metal releases. I found that, almost universally, albums released in the last couple of years have great quality and sound much cleaner than those released in the 90s or earlier (excepting artists like King Crimson, who probably were all sound engineers).
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS
If you're going to compare CD with mp3, compare the original wav files to the mp3 instead of comparing your mp3 player to your CD player. As it is, you have too many variables. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an audible difference between a headphone jack and a line out, simply because they have to drive very different loads.
They have been screwing up mixes since the early nineties way before mp3s were prevalent. Fidelity was a thing of the past way back in the past. Mixing engineers first compensated for everyone's crappy speakers and little tinny headphones. Then they started doing it for mobiles and mp3s. This is all at the hands of some moronic producer who doesn't understand quality. Compare anything mixed after 1990 with "Dark Side of the Moon". Nothing stacks up. Case in point. Norah Jones. Her first album was mixed very well. Her second album was mixed by someone with no concept of fidelity. And, yes, I have the system to fully enjoy it. My headphones alone can handle more of the spectrum than the human ears can.
Producers don't care about the music or quality or fidelity anymore. It's all about the dollar. "What can I sell to people?" This is part of the reason why I don't buy music anymore. The last two CDs I bought were both Paul McCartney albums. (Though "memory almost full" is pretty crappy.) I occasionally buy singles from itunes but that's it.
I like to think that my music is mixed well.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Are you sure? I'm not talking about RECORDING or MASTERING, I'm talking about playback. Try this thought experiment. You've got a CD. On that CD is a bunch of 16-bit numbers representing the music. So, I put the CD in my CD player, or computer, and hit play. So by your assertion loud music uses all 16-bits, as does soft music. So, if I don't touch the volume knob, how does my CD player know to play track 1 (Teeth Gnashing Rage) loud, and track 2 (Music to Spoon By) at different volumes? Better yet, how does it know that Teeth Gnashing Rage has a quiet section in the middle?
Alternatively, if the volume of the music is boosted in mastering so that it's loud, how come extra loud bits (like a drum hit) clip (that is, exceed the ability of the CD to represent)?
Stadium Arcadium was produced by Rick Rubin. What you describe is actually his ' style' I guess :).
He's been doing it for a while too :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rubin#List_of_albums_produced
But yeah, it's disturbing to hear how good some old Motown sh*t sounded with the limited equipment they had, and now, with all our superduper digital systems, things just sound thin, dull, compressed and tiring. Most of the time they just put in too much stuff , I mean how many gated reverbs and exciters can you handle ?
The Bigger The Headache The Bigger the Pill
If you really want to be 100% fair, rip the original CD to WAV (or FLAC), then reburn it. Then encode those WAVs (or FLACs) as MP3s, then decode them again, and burn that.
You can now play both on the same relatively high-end CD player. (Or you could try playing both from a laptop, if you like, but I'll bet the CD player is better.)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
frequency response is sometimes questionable, although at higher bit-rates is acceptable (320 kbps, and not that sliding crap either, I don't want software telling me what part of the song is important enough to hear properly.)
You don't actually know how VBR works, do you? It actually reduces the amount of judgment the software is making over what's important, by assuming everything is equally important, rather than individual sounds in more complex parts being considered less important, as is the case in CBR encoding.
I remember reading somewhere that some of the primitive digital equipment in the 70s and 80s had limitations that often left analog versions sounding better. It wasn't until we perfected the digital process that digital recordings really sounded good. Part of the problem was that digital audio was seen as a way to eliminate hiss, when we didn't understand that our ears work best when quiet sounds fade gracefully into hiss.
No, I will not work for your startup