Kids Prefer Poor Quality MP3

[cwall99]

I hope no one's already posted this link...

A great article from about 15 months ago in Rolling Stone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print

Two things I like about it: that they describe how, even on a medium that has more bandwidth than MP3, CDs are still super-compressed - cuz kids want to hear it loud. Screw the dynamics. I just want it loud all the time.

The other thing I like about it are the comments posted to the article by music professionals like Donald Fagen and Mitchell Froom.

 

[mnnc]

Me...past Thanksgiving

 

[JLMEMT]

I just meant that they bought cheap HTIB and think they sound better then anything else out

This should maybe be a whole other topic, but where did many of you get your audioholic inclinations?

I have never really had the chance to listen to a true high quality system like many of you own. I was never naive enough to think that my HTIB was the ultimate, but to my unexperienced ears it did sound pretty good when I got it. At least for HT. I guess I can't say that I ever thought it was wonderful for music. I have always known that there was much more to music than what I knew, but I never really sought after it until recently. So I guess I am a late comer to to this world, but better late than never.

So I think that many of these kids may still have a shot if they have a chance to listen to something better. But I think that many, if they convert, will still be "two sided" audiophiles instead of "true" audiophiles like many of you. By that I mean that they will not likely give up their Ipods and such for certain uses, but they may still enjoy music as it should be at least sometimes.

 

[pzaur]

Talking as a music teacher - which I am

This is all about education. I make it a point to teach at least one lesson unit on the different formats available to the consumer. Students (kids) don't know what they are missing until they are taught. The mass market is such a machine that they can sell anything. Quality has been lost because the marketers believe it doesn't or matter. OR, they don't KNOW WHAT QUALITY IS!

Seriously. Most sales people will sell what is easy to sell. It's easy to say one is louder than the other. It's also easy to convince that louder is better. To hear quality takes time and effort. Both are things that are lost to the average consumer. People do not want to spend the time to learn what is quality. Then again, what is quality to someone is crap to another.

Formats are no different. What is important today is space. Memory space sells and the less space something takes up, the better. What is not being taught is that information is being lost. That simple little fact is driving the sales of the lower bit rates. It's compressed. It takes up less space. You won't notice (only because we'll keep you from knowing the difference).

Education. Education. Education. Where does it start? With you. Teach others. Teach each other. Demand excellence. Demand quality. Stop accepting crap.

-pat

ps - I didn't read through this entire thread. Just a quick rant.

 

[JLMEMT]

That is a good point, and along the lines of what I was going for.


Along the lines of memory though they are making some strides on that front. As memory gets smaller and cheaper, along with larger, do you think some of this can be reversed? Or will they continue to go for thousands of crappy songs instead of hundreds of much better quality?

 

[krabapple]

So, no one wants to know how these experiments were done? Theres' no indication these were even blind tests.

Everyone's going off as if something had been proved, but so far, everything I've read about this 'news' indicates this was far from a rigorous 'study'. It seems to be reports that a music professor gathers fairly informally from his incoming students.

If so, it could very well mean *nothing at all*, except that there's a music professor out there who doesn't know how to conduct perceptual research.

 

[cwall99]

Education is an interesting thing. I mean, if you really want to assess your system's sound reproduction, what you probably should do is spend some real time listening to live music, to find just what it is you like about live music. Listen to a lot of examples of live music, from your kid's grade school orchestra to local acts playing at a local bar to a symphony.

About the only thing I'd discourage you from listening to is arena rock bands at the local sports-plex (I've yet to hear any band sound good at the Palace of Auburn Hills, for instance).

I mean, if you want a system that sounds good, it's probably a good idea to listen to a lot of live music just to get a feel for what it is you like about sitting in a great spot listening to someone play. I mean, how should that sound of that cymbal really sound as it fades? Does the triangle really make you jump like that? What about that cool, visceral feel of a bass drum whoomp? The slight buzz of a clarinetist's reed or the faint hiss of spit in a trumpet or trombone? The lips and tongue of the singer forming the syllables? All the details we claim to like to hear in music, have you listened to it for real?

Then, once you know what you like, you can listen for it in your recordings. One of the things I realized was just how much a difference SACD and DVD-A make.

 

[pzaur]

To expand on Cwall99's post: acoustic music that is transported directly from the instrument and not processed digitally and then passed to a speaker. Amplified instruments will still be colored/altered by the speaker reproducing the sound(s).

-pat

 

[Sheep]

To expand on Cwall99's post: acoustic music that is transported directly from the instrument and not processed digitally and then passed to a speaker. Amplified instruments will still be colored/altered by the speaker reproducing the sound(s).

-pat

And the Mic's picking up the sounds, and the engineer EQing and mixing the sounds.

SheepStar

 

[strube]

I had to come here and look at that picture again.

I did want to point out that at least two artists have direct downloads of their music in lossless formats (FLAC), those being Dave Matthews Band and Nine Inch Nails.

Additionally, NIN released their last album completely free and in a variety of downloadable formats, including MP3, FLAC, and even 24/96 stereo wave format (a huge download, but I got it anyway)! Regardless of what you think of the music from a taste standpoint, that is outstanding service to the fans, and to those who don't want compressed garbage.

Amazon's 256kbps DRM-free MP3s are acceptable compared to the lower BR of competing download stores. Obviously if I really like the music I will probably get the CD so I can rip it in FLAC format anyway, but for those I care a bit less about, 256kbps will suffice.

 

[cwall99]

And the Mic's picking up the sounds, and the engineer EQing and mixing the sounds.

SheepStar

Yeah, I think that's what he said.

But, even in a live setting where there is electrically amplified gear, you're there. There's a much more direct link from the instrument to your ear. You're hearing the sound they want to project (if the act has a decent engineer or crew and decent equipment).

 

[3db]

even with lossless codecs, theres still so much information lost about the music. Not the music itself but informatuion about the band, ie,if the songs belong to the artist or are songs remade from other artists. There lis the biggest single loss and why I personally don't like digital music in becomming the main medium of music distribution. Yeah yeah I know the arguement that will ensue...you can alwasy look up the info on the internet but truthfully, how many will do this? I'm betting not many. But if the info was printed in the liners like it is on LP and CDs, one is more likely to read the info and learn something from it.

Its unfortunate that portability and ease of use as replaced information. I think we avalanching towards the "disinformation age", at least with respect to music.

 

[strube]

even with lossless codecs, theres still so much information lost about the music. Not the music itself but informatuion about the band, ie,if the songs belong to the artist or are songs remade from other artists. There lis the biggest single loss and why I personally don't like digital music in becomming the main medium of music distribution. Yeah yeah I know the arguement that will ensue...you can alwasy look up the info on the internet but truthfully, how many will do this? I'm betting not many. But if the info was printed in the liners like it is on LP and CDs, one is more likely to read the info and learn something from it.

Its unfortunate that portability and ease of use as replaced information. I think we avalanching towards the "disinformation age", at least with respect to music.

I certainly respect your comments, and I believe it is unfortunately true for the most part. However, though I am probably in the minority, I scan all album art and liner notes, as well as the disc itself and save it as a PDF in the folder for every CD I rip to my two hard drives, and then I also encode the said scans into every file using MediaMonkey. This is obviously not for everyone, but for those who actually care like myself and most people on this forum, it is an excellent archive method, IMO.

 

[3db]

I certainly respect your comments, and I believe it is unfortunately true for the most part. However, though I am probably in the minority, I scan all album art and liner notes, as well as the disc itself and save it as a PDF in the folder for every CD I rip to my two hard drives, and then I also encode the said scans into every file using MediaMonkey. This is obviously not for everyone, but for those who actually care like myself and most people on this forum, it is an excellent archive method, IMO.

Good for you. I'm glad to see you value the info as much as I do. There should be more of you around who take value in just knowing about music.

 

[krabapple]

Education is an interesting thing. I mean, if you really want to assess your system's sound reproduction, what you probably should do is spend some real time listening to live music, to find just what it is you like about live music. Listen to a lot of examples of live music, from your kid's grade school orchestra to local acts playing at a local bar to a symphony.

About the only thing I'd discourage you from listening to is arena rock bands at the local sports-plex (I've yet to hear any band sound good at the Palace of Auburn Hills, for instance).

I mean, if you want a system that sounds good, it's probably a good idea to listen to a lot of live music just to get a feel for what it is you like about sitting in a great spot listening to someone play. I mean, how should that sound of that cymbal really sound as it fades? Does the triangle really make you jump like that? What about that cool, visceral feel of a bass drum whoomp? The slight buzz of a clarinetist's reed or the faint hiss of spit in a trumpet or trombone? The lips and tongue of the singer forming the syllables? All the details we claim to like to hear in music, have you listened to it for real?

Then, once you know what you like, you can listen for it in your recordings. One of the things I realized was just how much a difference SACD and DVD-A make.

By your own logic, you couldn't know that the difference was due to SACD or DVD-A per se, unless you were able to directly compare the same source signal (be it live or not) being converted to redbook and the 'hi rez' formats .

The differences you heard are more likely due to mundane mastering choices, that to the formats.

(I'm excluding multichannel versus two-channel comparison of course)

 

[krabapple]

even with lossless codecs, theres still so much information lost about the music. Not the music itself but informatuion about the band, ie,if the songs belong to the artist or are songs remade from other artists. There lis the biggest single loss and why I personally don't like digital music in becomming the main medium of music distribution.

? It's quite possible to encode all of that information in a FLAC file, as metadata, if you want to. There's nothing inherently 'lossy' about them, in that regard, it's a matter of choice and effort. If downloading sources choose not to include that data, that is something you could press them to add.

Yeah yeah I know the arguement that will ensue...you can alwasy look up the info on the internet but truthfully, how many will do this? I'm betting not many

Well, there are applications that can look up data for you....

but it's true no CD or download will ever give the same tactile experience as a double-LP spread.

 

[3db]

? It's quite possible to encode all of that information in a FLAC file, as metadata, if you want to. There's nothing inherently 'lossy' about them, in that regard, it's a matter of choice and effort. If downloading sources choose not to include that data, that is something you could press them to add. .

Sure there is.. and thats a do it yourself project with the info in hand. How much of that info exists though from a commerical download site such as itunes or other music distributors? Thats the point I'm trying to make.

 

[tonmeister]

New Evidence Suggests Kids Like Good Sound Like the Rest of Us

I just presented a paper at the recent 132nd AES Convention in Budapest entitled "Some New Evidence That Teenager and College Students May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction" that refutes Berger's findings that kids like bad sound.

In my study none of 58 high school and college students I tested preferred MP3 (128 kbps) to CD-quality music files. On average, the students preferred CD to MP3 in 70% of the trials. The students with more critical listening experience tended to prefer CD in a higher percentage of trials than those students with less or no experience.

In a separate loudspeaker test where four consumer loudspeakers were evaluated under double-blind conditions, the most preferred loudspeaker had the most accurate set of anechoic measurements, and the least preferred loudspeaker had the least accurate set of anechoic measurements. So, it seems that kids can hear and appreciate good sound just like the rest of us. When given the opportunity to compare good sound to bad sound, the youngsters generally prefer the higher quality options.

Sound and Vision has summarized the paper here:

 

[its phillip]

You should think about doing tests comparing cd/flac to lame encoded mp3s (choose v0 - the highest quality vbr preset). That's the scene standard nowadays

 

[DS-21]

You should think about doing tests comparing cd/flac to lame encoded mp3s (choose v0 - the highest quality vbr preset). That's the scene standard nowadays

I would say the "standard" for lossy compression today is what Apple sells through the iTunes Music Store.

Those are the most common legitimately-sold lossy compression tracks, after all.