Why MP3's Won't Kill High Fidelity

[admin]

You might (or might not) be shocked at the number of times people forward me the latest diatribe about the death of high end audio. It seems every six months or so there is one coming out. We've even written a few here. The thought process is thus - kids these days are getting more and more into MP3s. Most programs default to around a 128kbps bitrate. As has been discussed in many places (with a great example on AV Rant) compression of that sort is clearly audible (or in comparison can clearly degrade the overall quality of the audio fidelity). Kids are getting used to this decrease audio quality and have even been shown to prefer it. Therefore, high end audio is going the way of the dodo. Here's why they are wrong.


Discuss "Why MP3's Won't Kill High Fidelity" here. Read the article.

[Alittlemonster]

It's like the old axiom...you listen to "hi fidelity", and stereo is how you listen to it...or, with the newer technology--Dolby 5.1, 7.1, DTS, etc.

Record my Ipod with 1.444, heck with the 128 crap. Of course instead of an unlimited number of recordings, can only get about 12 CD's per 8 gigs. That's like 9 to 10 hrs of music for a trans-Pacific flight of 13 hrs! And with noise canceling headphones, viola--listening nirvana (almost)!

Incidentally, did a test quite awhile ago with an OSHA inspector about perceived noise. Used a quality personal cassette player and a real cheapie (prices were $229 vs about $29). Both were tuned to the same FM station, played in stereo and used the same headphones. Turns out that the cheapie volume was turned up to around 86 to 88 dB and with the expensive one...the avg volume was around 70 dB or less to get the same perceived noise level. According to OSHA, hearing damage can occur at a volume level of 84 dB for one hour, and it's permanent. The moral of the story is that compressed or crappy sound, when turned to a high volume to achieve a perceived listening level, is a self curing problem...the victim will eventually suffer hearing damage and none of them will buy compressed music, becuz they can't hear it anymore.

Of course, this isn't a very nice way of looking at it, but politically correct I'm not! I'd like to help those that insist on ruining their ears, but they probably won't listen...or can't.

[krzywica]

For me the solution to mobile hifi audio is streaming. I use Ampache to stream my entire music selection from my house to my phone or from my internet browser at work. I have control over exactly what bitrate the audio gets transcoded to (usually 192) from any format and any bitrate....and it has solved my issues of having to sync devices or having this song on one device and that song on the other....

[Shock]

Your article says that our younger generation prefers the sound of compressed audio to uncompressed. So would you not be able to assume that record companies are going to start producing more music that comes "compressed" right out of the box? Then what happens when this younger generation ages? I think your argument is decent but it is by no means the only one. Really how many people still listen to vinyl? Next to no one really. How many people even buy CD's these days? Why buy 9 terrible songs just to get 3 or 4 you want? Also anyone who can hear the difference from the raw CD version of a song and a 320 kbps Mp3 is a God.

The argument that Mp3 is going to kill hifi audio is a hard one to make since, in a lot of minds, it already has.

Now I'm sure there are some of you who will say "But Shock! I buy CD's all the time." Well congratulations, you and the other 4 people that do I'm sure enjoy them.

[krzywica]

Now I'm sure there are some of you who will say "But Shock! I buy CD's all the time." Well congratulations, you and the other 4 people that do I'm sure enjoy them.

Lol...I agree......but when it comes to anything lower than 192 or sometimes 256 it feels akin to taking a shower with a dollar store squirt-gun...

And as far as 320 Kbps mp3's go.....some of them I can tell a difference for certain music between 320 and FLAC, but that's only on my main system or in my study where the speakers are 2 feet away from my head.

[its phillip]

Yeah, a lot of my friends are more than happy with their mp3s or what have you, but I've not seen anybody actually get a 128 kbps mp3 in many many years. Most of them just don't care though, and are satisfied with their crappy computer speakers or skullcandy earbuds or headphones or whatever.

And although I've never tested it, I'm pretty sure I can't tell the difference between a v0/320/flac. I do rip all of my albums to lossless though just because the difference exists, whether I can hear it or not. When I first started ripping my cds, I only did 192 or whatever, and have replaced them with lossless rips here and there, but still have a lot more to redo. I have such crappy speakers at work ($8 dell speakers) that I just use v2 mp3s there.

[cwall99]

The moral of the story is that compressed or crappy sound, when turned to a high volume to achieve a perceived listening level, is a self curing problem...the victim will eventually suffer hearing damage and none of them will buy compressed music, becuz they can't hear it anymore.

I like that.

[3db]

Although I do agree with your conclusion some of your arguementts and premise is false. For e.g.

"The yardstick by which all recorded audio should be measured is live performance. It is only recently, I maintain, that we've gotten to the point where recorded audio can outperform live performance."

Nothing beats live be it in a venue or in a recording stereo. The best homesystems can do is to match live. It can never do better than the source. Its the same arguemnt that cassette recordings sounded better than the original vinyl they were taken from. Bullsh?t!!.

"Vinyl, the new audiophile format, has one glaring problem - it degrades with each playing. That's just a physical fact"

On a good system that wear is negligale. Ask TLS how old some of is recordings are and how good they still sound. I myself have some vinyl that are old and have seen many plays and still sound great. Much better in fact than its CD counterpart that I have as well. Furthermore the dynamic range of vinyl absolutely stomps over the dynamic range of the CDs being released today. The compariosn doesn't even come close. Its not that CD's can beat vinyl. Its that the loudness war has taken away the dynamic range. So again you're wrong in your assertion.

Now if recording overly compressed CDs into an MP3 format floats your boat, go for it. Thats your choice. Vinyl is making a resurgance because its simply sounds better than the commerically available CDs and MP3. Whats preventing it from really taking off is that its not a convienent format. It doesn't "fit" the lifestyle. For people who care more for sound than convience, vinyl wins. For those who care more convience, MP3s win.

Its not the MP3 format that his killing high fidleity. Its our lifestyle of wanting everying at our finger tips so we can squeeze more out of live that is killing high fidelity. MP3 is that format...but it still sounds like **** no matter how you look at it.

[its phillip]

I really don't understand why lossless hasn't gotten more popular. I can understand it being an issue several years ago when drives were smaller and more expensive, but nowadays you can get a 2TB storage drive for as little as $100 and a flac is only going to be 3~4x larger than a quality mp3.

[Tom Andry]

I really don't understand why lossless hasn't gotten more popular. I can understand it being an issue several years ago when drives were smaller and more expensive, but nowadays you can get a 2TB storage drive for as little as $100 and a flac is only going to be 3~4x larger than a quality mp3.

Hear hear!