The Dumbing Down of Audio

[Pyrrho]

Great read. One day, with your help, we can rid the world of this bull.

SheepStar

We won't live that long.

It will come when the human race dies out.

 

[philh]

I'm dumbfounded by my 14yo daughters ears. This same girl can hear a single bad note out her entire orchestra band, but listens to low quality (<128) MP3, and doesn't care if the analog bathroom radio is slightly off frequency.

 

[gene]

Our own Mark Sanfilipo has provided some feedback to this article so I incorporated it.

Here it is:

Commentary from Mark Sanfilipo
Date: 3/12/06

Great article that squarely nails many a lossy-codec issue right on the head.

Whether or not XM radio, mp3s or what have you works for you depends on how your priorities are arranged where it comes to what's important in your listening experience. If maximum fidelity is key, you probably won't find XM radio or mp3s entirely satisfying.

However, if portability and convenience are tops on your list of listening priorities, then compressed files, such as mp3s are a good way to go.

My oldest daughter, Sarah, is a great case in point. Sarah would marry her iPod if it could cook. If it weren't for me she'd never hear anything that wasn't squashed & compressed and run through one sort of lossy codec wringer or another.

She can hear the qualitative differences, but in her mind convenience (and the fact she can store every tune in her collection in something small enough to fit in her purse) far outweighs intrinisc quality. Dr Earl Geddes pointed out in an AES Convention Paper, "Auditory Perception of Nonlinear Distortion" mp3s can have a measured THD upwards of 50% ! For someone like Sarah - who puts convenience & portability above all else - that is simply a non-issue.

If bandwidth or storage restrictions are issues for you, then once again compression is the way to go. Typical in this instance would be the case of someone listening to an Internet-based radio station on their office PC. Sonic wallpaper, if you will.

Of course, there's the couldn't care less crowd and my sons are a great example of that bunch: they really don't care, so long as its loud and annoying; compressed to the eyeteeth suits them just fine.

On the other hand, my youngest daughter, JB, recognizes the difference between compressed and not compressed and definitely prefers the latter. Out of all my kids she's also the one most exposed to live music on a consistent basis.

Some of the debates going on in various formats between pro- and anti-mp3 crowds in many ways echo the debates I used to hear between the pro- and anti-8 track folks back in the 70's.

Ironic to think that as the hardware we use to listen to music has been technologically refined & improved over the years, the quality of the media played back through that hardware has, in many cases, been compromised. At least the old stuff (Beatles, Zeppelin, Yes, etc) sounds better than it did back in the day.

 

[Pyrrho]

The comments in the article under the heading: "Lack of Live Unamplified Comparative Reference" reminded me of so many self-proclaimed audiophiles who profess to care about sound quality and spend vast amounts of money on equipment, but never hear anything live and unamplified. Consequently, they are not in a position to judge what really sounds most real, yet imagine that they can tell by listening to their recordings. Lack of hearing anything live does not prevent them from pontificating on what sounds most real and is of the highest fidelity.

I think the problem isn't simply marketing, but a lack of any appreciation for how one can determine the truth about something. People are constantly encouraged to simply believe something, but rarely is there much concern for reasoning and evidence. As long as people don't look for evidence, and have some appreciation for how it can be reasonably evaluated, people will believe all sorts of foolishness. To change this would be to totally alter the fabric of society as we know it.

 

[xboxweasel]

I've never been to a live unamped concert. Only been to 1.5 live amped concerts. Allana Miles at Lou Lous in Kitchener (awsome - like her stuff ... er ... music) and some alternative rock band that sounded like crap without the help of a mixer. I stayed for all of 5 minutes.

None the less I would like to give it a try sometime.

Unfortunately my taste of music cannot be listened to unamped. Trance, elecronica, what ever you want to call it and all the spinoff subclasses from there.

I do like some classical music. Very dynamic stuff. Greig under the hall of the mountain king is awsome. Almost too dynamic. Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture by Telarc was a little let down. The booklet says "don't turn the volumn up to loud" because of the cannons. I did not like the cannons. I think the mic had to be closer.

Anyways. I will have to listen to a live show sometime. Now....where to find them....

 

[mulester7]

I've never been to a live unamped concert.

.....and you probably won't, unless it's an orchestra, band, or a large choral happening....and sometimes, even they use mics to accentuate principal players or sections....I've attended and participated in countless such events, and a reproductive recording never comes close, so I agree, get out and attend some live happenings, it will only be for your enrichment....Pyrrho, that was a very good copy-and-paste, haha....just kidding, good post......

 

[Audioholics]

I've never been to a live unamped concert.

You should hear me sing in the shower sometime... lol

 

[sjdgpt]

I had 3 cats having a family discussion below my bedroom window last week.

It was live, it was loud, and it sure was annoying.

Over the cats, I prefer MP3's. At least MP3 are kinda of intune.

 

[Sheep]

I had 3 cats having a family discussion below my bedroom window last week.

It was live, it was loud, and it sure was annoying.

Over the cats, I prefer MP3's. At least MP3 are kinda of intune.

Couple rocks will fix that.

SheepStar

 

[sjdgpt]

Couple rocks will fix that.

SheepStar

I bought one of those big squirt guns. A blast from the gun seems to do the trick But unfortunately I have to get up and go outside and do the deed, when I would rather stay in the warm bed with the cold wife.

 

[xboxweasel]

You should hear me sing in the shower sometime... lol

I'll pass. Thanks anyways.

I went to a couple of stores looking for DVD-A and SACD recordings. Nothing. Best I could find was DVD VIDEOs of band performances in Dolby 5.1. Too bad I can't get my hands on a loaner to check it out before I buy a disk and all the extra cables required.

 

[supervij]

You could always come to Toronto for a visit. Just bear in mind I've got pretty low-end equipment on which to listen (good enough for me at the moment, though).

I can't get enough of my SACDs and DVD-As! Just a few days ago, I listened to The Best of Mickey Hart: Over the Edge and Back DVD-A, and I was lost in the tribal rhythms and cool percussion coming from all around me. It was very cool.

cheers,
supervij

 

[b_panther_g]

...I would submit to you that the “high end” is by definition unmarketable. The non-marketing of the true high end is exactly what keeps them high end...

Hey Wayde,

Nice post. But I disagree with the above statement. Here’s why…

If a business is unmarketable, it is destined to die.

Marketing is simply the science of letting your target customers know that you have what they’re looking for. Every business has to do it. And the better they do it, the better the business will do.

Here’s an example of “high end” marketing done right…

Do you own a…

• Cessna jet or a

• Lamborghini or a

• 50 foot Yacht

Well I don’t…YET. But I’ve heard of them. I know they’re out there.

That proves that they are marketed well. People believe that once they have “arrived” (whatever that means) they should/could buy these things.

They are all exclusive or high-end toys. Toys for the privileged. And they are NOT something that you see on TV commercials or find in popular magazine ads. But most people have heard of them. When people win the lotto, they buy them.

That’s marketing.

“High-End” refers to the best of the best. To make something “exclusive” simply make it more difficult to purchase (make people work – locate a specialized dealer – to get it). But…

People still need to know that the “high-end” product exist.

And that’s what’s wrong with “high-end” A/V. Almost no one even knows they exist. They are a secret.

And that’s the difference between the above products and “high-end” A/V. Almost no one knows, high-end even exists. Not musicians, fans, celebs, or everyday people.

How’s an industry to even survive (forget about growth) if no one knows it’s there.

Hope this makes sense.

Enjoy,
Panther

 

[xboxweasel]

WOOHOO Found One!

I went out looking for SACD or DVDA recordings. The best I found was a used copy of Sheryl Crow's The Globe Sessions in DTS ES 6.1. Now I want to find a used copy of the CD recording and do a comparison. I also picked up some cables to connect my DVD players multi channel outs to my receiver.

And talking about dumbing down audio....what about video....I picked up the Star Wars Trilogy (episodes 4-6) on DVD. I was not impressed with the video at all. In the scene were The Millennium Falcon guns down a few Tie Droid Fighters you can see a green square patch around the Tie's. That really sucks. I thought these movies were supposed to be digitally remastered!!!

 

[krabapple]

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><A href="http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/DumbingDownAudio.php"><IMG style="WIDTH: 125px; HEIGHT: 103px" alt=[cube] hspace=10 src="http://www.audioholics.com/news/thumbs/cube_th.jpg" align=left border=0></A>Despite our advances in science, one divine truth can always undermine us – <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">marketing</I>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>I fear we are breeding a generation of ignorance to music and fidelity playback. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>If you haven’t heard an unamplified musical performance recently, do yourself a favor and attend one.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>Your ears will thank you for it.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>If your only exposure to music is via a compressed playback system (ie. iPOD, MP3) and cubed speakers, consider one of our Recommended Systems.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN></SPAN><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1ersonName><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Don</SPAN></st1ersonName><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">’t get dumbed down, do this to preserve the sanctity of your own musical intelligence. <?xml:namespace prefix = o /></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">[Read the Editorial]</SPAN></P>

Might I suggest you have another expert take a closer look at Chris Tham's results, whihc you reference in this editorial? I'm not convinced they demonstrate what they claim to demonstrate.

 

[krabapple]

Great article, Gene, and I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I am getting a little tired of all the iPod-bashing. These things (and other mp3 players) were designed to be portable, i.e., for when you're taking the bus downtown or going for a walk outside. And with all the background noise coming from traffic and other people, it wouldn't matter if you were listening to an mp3, a CD, or an SACD. You're still going to hear pretty much the same thing.

There's nothing wrong with the audio quality of the ipod. It's all in how you use it. Personally I think a much bigger danger is the hearing loss from constant listening to loud modern mastering at loud levels, over earbuds. This isn't *intrinsic* to ipod or any other device, it's just a matter of common practice.

 

[krabapple]

I get into this argument all the time, trying to explain audio compression to people who think that 128Kb MP3s sound "just as good" as a CD.

Granted, I fall into the category of owning cube speakers (not as small and tinny as the Bose cubes mentioned in the article), but I still know when something is getting too dumbed down.

MP3 is good enough to listen to on my computer when I'm working (background filler), but not enough for when I really want to enjoy music.. then I go for DVDs or CDs running through the sound system downstairs. I heartily agree with the whole iPod thing.. MP3 is killing the quality of music, and people are eating it up left and right. I fear that some day, it'll be nigh impossible to get real music.

128 kbps runs a moderate chance of sounding different from CD, but higher bitrates don't. You may be surprised to find how difficult it can be to tell a
high-variable bitrate MP3 from source. The codecs have gotten VERY good in the last few years.

 

[krabapple]

Agreed. Pick the right tool for the job. If you are one of the few that does critical listening, then lossy compression formats aren't the right tool for the job. Then again, MP3 does a very good on many types of music but Jazz and Classical as mentioned in the article are not the types it does well.

Not true. MP3 don't discriminate that way between genres. If anything, some modern 'green block' hypercompressed and limited rock and pop might pose more of a challenge for codecs , than music with a natural sonic imprint.

 

[krabapple]

I see some of the usual misinformed prejudice against MP3s on this thread. May I suggest you do this: download some ABX software (available here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124

)

and a LAME MP3 encoder, and make your own MP3s from wav files of your choice, at various bitrates (recommended settings are here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=28124
)

Then do ABX comparisons to see which, if any, you can tell apart.

 

[krabapple]

Nobody denies the convenience of these portable players for the applications you listed here. However, if this is the only exposure to music playback people subject them to, it lowers their standards and expectations of what audio is supposed to sound like. Although the home theater industry has a large following of passionate audio enthusiasts, they are still a small minority to the masses of department store, bubble gum chewing, Britney Spears loving general public.

So instead of weighing in against MP3, it's better to weigh in against LOW QUALITY compression..and crappy mastering.

I seriously think the audio and music industry should do, if they want to keep a consumer base that isn't DEAF, is stop the loudness wars at the software end, and start mandatorially including a dynamic range compression circuit on home audio gear (many already have something like this as 'night listening') and especially on car stereo gear and portable audio file players. THis way it's the listener's CHOICE if they want everything to sound louder than everything else. Meanwhile the rest of us can enjoy something approaching a natural dynamic range..which was one of the big benefits of CD in the first place!