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]

Hi Fidelity

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!

 

[jkongting]

compression

I use a dbx 120x and dbx 3BX III to provide some dynamics with radio and most pop CDs. I have them a long time and hope they don't fail, as I understand that dbx stopped making consumer equipment a long time ago. I have not seen any used units, not that I looked very hard as my stuff is still giving me what I like. I usually set the controls near the middle. I also use it with DVDs and TV with the front channels and I seem to get a more satisfying experience. The really loud ads is a major downside to all this, as well as the transients that happens on TV with loss and return of signal. I hope that my tweeters don't fry. I have not put a computer in the loop to get software generated expansion, and I hope to get some feedback on this approach from anyone who has implemented it.

 

[Starmax]

3db says: "Nothing beats live be it in a venue or in a recording stereo. The best home systems can do is to match live. It can never do better than the source."

He obviously hasn't been listening to live music in the same dives I have (Lincoln Center, they're not). As I don't live in a large metro, most "live venues" accessible to me on a regular basis are restaurants and bars that convert themselves to after-dinner "music venue" to snag the late night crowd. Staging and acoustics are generally afterthoughts, if there's any thought at all. Lousy mixing, echoes, reverb, feedback, loud drunks, bored chatter at the next table...all conspire to utterly deafen 3db's live venue fantasy. If by "live venue" he means music halls and auditoriums designed specifically for musical performance, he is correct. By real world standards, live venue can mean anything from motor speedways to pizza & beer joints.

 

[yepimonfire]

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.

past 256kbps mp3 vs. cd is not really an argument, the information removed from 256kbps mp3's is not even musical information, which you will notice when listening to out of phase tests, it sounds like rhythmless white noise that occasionally pops up. almost all music download services offer encodings above this bit-rate. i will say mp3 has had its run and its time to move on, AAC is about 2x more transparent then mp3's, you can get the same quality sound at 128k AAC that you get with 256 mp3. at 320k, AAC becomes nearly transparent. the problem with mp3's is they have a tendency to brutally beat transients to death, AAC does not. the real issue is that one, Ipod DAC's are good, but no match for you 32-bit 196khz oversampling of your receiver, since ipods do not have sampling rates above 44.1khz. the idea would be to create a CD player that plays back AAC since to me the biggest issue with files is that you don't actually have physical copies of the music, unless you burn them of course.

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.[/B]"

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.

this is true only because most live performances are done in large, echo chambers with uneven response, terrible transient smearing, etc. recordings are recorded in an acoustically dead room, if people were to treat the live places, it would be awesome. secondly, live speakers are made to do one thing, produce sound, and ALOT of it. they are no match for you high end HT speakers. of course were talking about amplified music, like rock. classical is a different story, ive heard classical music played in a good acoustic room before, sounds great, i doubt we will ever be able to reproduce it exactly that way.

 

[yepimonfire]

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.

actually CD sales are going up, not down. MP3 is like a bad trend, and as far as only having 2-4 good songs on one album, thats pop music for you, you get into the underground stuff that no one talks about and you have whole albums that are great, most of what i listen to is like that, not one song i dont like and most of the time the albums have a theme of some sort. pop music is a business, not an art. its like comparing those $2.97 pictures that are mounted on cardboard at walmart to the mona lisa.

 

[son-yah-tive]

I thought my bones started to creak, but....SHEEW! It was just my ears popping from all those M-POOP 3s out there. Our ears aging in style at least, but I don't know what the MP3-ers will hear after the years go by.....WHAT!!! WHAT DID YOU SAY!! I'm listening to my MP3....Can't hear you!! DAMM EAR BUD!

 

[brocluno]

I agree, mostly ...

I've been in and out of the audio business since I worked at GRT Corp (General Recorded Tape, Sunnyvale) who owned Chess/Janus Records and some others. We made consumer stuff like 8-tracks and cassettes w/o dobly, but we also made 7.5 ips four track reels for sale to audiophiles.

These came from Gen 1 dupe masters or distribution masters. They were very good. There has always been a small but persistent market for good recordings. Some labels are figuring that out, even today. In jeopardy - yes. In death throws - no, not by a long shot.

Used vinyl with good material, original 1/4" tape or even high end cassettes/DAT with good material and good production values is bringing money on the open market. MFGs will figure it out sooner or later

 

[haysonics]

Let them hear the difference !

It is interesting to see the range of views expressed. There is an obvious diversity in age and experience. To the older/more experienced I say this; It is your duty to music to expose the young guns to high quality audio. You need to sit them down in front of a decent hifi, blindfold them, play a cassette (with Dolby on), then play a 128Kbps recording. Ask them which one sounded better. Good luck ! It's hard to pick the difference. Just remember, you thought cassettes sounded ok 25 years ago. 128Kbps is simply the Y-Gen cassette. It sounds ok to them because that is what their ears and brains are accustomed to hearing. That conditioning is 90% of the argument.

Now compare 128Kbps to 256Kbps. 256Kbps to CD (properly mastered). CD (properly mastered) to DVD-A. Each step is noticeable to you but to them the difference will be subtle (if any). The disparity between the gens has little to do with hearing damage. Your hearing has deteriorated somewhat with age so call yourselves even.

Keep in mind the CD's that these kids have heard. It's stuff that in the mastering process has been dynamically compressed to blazes. No wonder they don't think there is much (if any) difference between a "good" mp3 and a CD. Considering what they have been exposed to, they are correct. You can debate them all you want but it will lead nowhere. You need to give them the opportunity of a blind comparison. Encourage them to take the opportunity because few will seek it out on their own.

The OP is correct. MP3's didnt kill high quality audio and won't as long as greater data storage capacity and faster download speeds make MP3 and their ilk a thing of the past. Its the same argument we had about cassettes in the 80's but some of us have forgotten.

Now where did I put my car keys ?

 

[yepimonfire]

well ill say when cassettes were the norm during my childhood i thought they sounded crummy. sure CD's exsisted but most of what was in the norm were cassettes cds were expensive and "high end"

 

[TLS Guy]

I have been following this thread with interest.

I really doubt good equipment and media will die.

The main reason is classical music. While that is a small market in most of the US, not here in Minnesota, it is certainly not true world wide. In the UK is is 30 to 40% of the market. The UK is one of the few regions where attendance at Opera is increasing.

I think this is due to two reasons, Sir Henry Wood who founded the Proms in 1895, which continue to this day, and the BBC.

This year these Proms will run from July 16 through September 11. They will be a major concert seven days a week, and many associated side concerts. All will be sold out long in advance and all will be broadcast live by the BBC. There is nothing anywhere near comparable in the rest of the world.

There will also be major music Festivals throughout the British Isles all summer.

This will continue to create a demand for accurate reproducers, as it always has.

Among classical music fans there is downloading, but in the US the physical media is cheaper than the Downloads. Also classical music purchasers generally prefer the whole production complete with printed inserts.

There has always been poor equipment for the mass market, but I would say the gap in quality has narrowed on the whole. Mass market equipment in the fifties and sixties was really dreadful.

However I could put a rig together with equipment circa 1959, that would surpass in audio quality probably most forum members systems.

The fact is that the LP at its best can give digital media a run for their money.

Good open reel machines with actual speed copies or masters is every bit the equal of CD.

The problem was high speed copies. However at the end of the tape era there were reel to reel tapes with Dolby B noise reduction and some with dbx II that really give digital media a chase.

I think the big step forward is in multichannel audio. However one big problem will remain. The fact that many listening rooms are not suitable for surround reproduction, this is especially true in Europe.

The recent Blue Ray offerings of Operas I have purchased are astonishing. I think they are significantly superior to SACD. The main reason I think is the ability to use seven channels and above all set delay.

Converting to PCM makes a nonsense of SACDs mastered in Europe, so you have to listen from the DSD decoder.

The only benefit I have got from Audyssey is the delay settings, and it is a big benefit. The perspective and sense of space achieved if phenomenal.

So with the results now possible and the vast selection of fine music on offer, I think there will always be a place for the sensible high end. We will continue on the Peter Walker's quest for the Closest Approach to the Original Sound.

 

[haysonics]

well ill say when cassettes were the norm during my childhood i thought they sounded crummy. sure CD's exsisted but most of what was in the norm were cassettes cds were expensive and "high end"

Flashback ! Do you remember TDK SA and SAX ? The coating was Super Avilyn (spelling?) which was apparently superior to chrome. You'd still buy the BASF chrome cause that sounded almost as good and was cheaper. Your tape would sound great when you recorded from a borrowed CD onto a decent tape deck. You'd record with dolby B "on" as it boosted the top frequencies by 10%. Some would play it back with dolby "on" but some wouldn't as playback seemed to cut more than 10% off the high frequencies. You'd notice the tape hiss if you didn't so it was a real toss up. You would buy records cause they were significantly cheaper than CD's and you'd get more albums for your limited budget but they would end up with pops, clicks and damn jumps because the record companies used cheap vinyl that wore out quickly. You would notice the dynamic range of cd's but the early ones sounded flat compared to vinyl because the mastering engineers had been working with vinyl for 20 years and were still "tweaking" the eq in the weird ways they needed so that a record lathe wouldn't freak out. You'd also couple a pastel T-shirt with a white jacket and think you were Don Johnson. Now you dress sensibly and only buy DEVO on cd when no one is looking.