The Dumbing Down of Audio

[miklorsmith]

EAC is free and does a lot of things other rippers don't. It will read and re-read every sector many times until it gets a perfect match before it moves on. The "offset" feature mentioned doesn't relate to this error correction.

I find my copies are better than the originals. Many others have too. Am I a cultist? Oh yes, pass the robes and incense.

EAC is free, try it and make up your own mind. Even if you don't agree about copy superiority, there's no debate it is no worse than other rippers. I have recovered more than one disc utterly from the dead with EAC.

 

[MDS]

EAC is free and does a lot of things other rippers don't. It will read and re-read every sector many times until it gets a perfect match before it moves on. The "offset" feature mentioned doesn't relate to this error correction. I find my copies are better than the originals.

That is exactly why I say it is a cult mentality. You CANNOT determine that it got a 'perfect match' unless you have the original master and can compare it bit by bit to the extracted audio. By definition the copy cannot be BETTER than the original. If the copy were better than the original, then it didn't create a 'perfect match' now did it?

EAC creates bit for bit identical copies to those created by Sound Forge. Still there is no way to determine that the copy is bit for bit identical to the original master just as there is no way to determine that the original cd is bit for bit identical to the master (because you don't have the master).

The real kicker is that even if the offset of the drive causes it to mis-read by a block or two, the result will be INAUDIBLE. Modern drives are accurate and there is no longer any need for this 'feature' of EAC. But, hey it's FREE.

 

[miklorsmith]

The "better" is reportedly that the burning mechanism of CD-R's is superior to mass-produced originals, which are pressed. The idea is that the CD-ROM laser produces a disc that is easier to read and produces fewer real-time errors in playback through the CDP. The high-speed "original" process doesn't get the data wrong, but is more difficult to read in real time and causes timing errors on playback, most easily recognized as blurring in basslines and tizzy treble.

Of course, it's much more complicated than this and I'm not technically minded, just regurgitating what I've read on the subject. I don't really care why or how it works, but in my experience it does.

 

[krabapple]

I'm sorry that I didn't click on the link you gave in the article, because I thought that it was referring to an article I had read previously. I did manage to find the part I was referring to here, which is from the article I did read:

The Tham article is rubbishy, but the issue of 0 dB 'intersample overs' is real, and has been addressed in other articles by highly reputable sources such as Thomas Lund, Nika Aldrich, Bob Katz

http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/nielsen_lund_2000_0dbfs_le.pdf
www.cadenzarecording.com/papers/Digitaldistortion.pdf
http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=36/

IIRC, in Lund's paper the majority of players tested -- and these were from less than ten years ago -- could not correctly play back tracks with intersample overs.

'I don't think I've ever had a CD come back from a plant that sounded as good as the PMCD I sent them (really unscientific claim, sorry...
but in an a/b comparison using the same d/a converter the difference is obvious to the CLIENT...Some studies, though informal, have found that higher burn speeds of the glass master at the CD production plant cause the "digital pits" that are inscribed on the CD to be less uniform. The lack of precision will cause higher timing jitter and increased errors. Typically timing jitter will cause more distortion of low amplitude signals, and more distortion of higher frequency signals.'

This is an entirely different issue than the '0 dB' issue. I agree completely that claims of audibile differences in bit-identical files should be viewed skeptically, unless jitter measurements or DBTs are provided.

-

 

[krabapple]

Well it certainly appears from the post above that Gene has once again hit the nail on the head. The articles that this web zine posts of this nature are peer reviewed by a number of sources, including well respected recording engineers, and electrical engineers, who are not part of the Audioholics staff. None of which are on the staff at Stereophile by the way.

The Tham article needs to be re-reviewed, then.

Hyper compression is most definetly destroying music and CD correction systems are not designed to handle it. If you wish more technical papers on this subject send me an e mail address and I will send some. AES Level 109 by Lund and Sorenson is a good one to read.

Anything that increases the frequency of visible peaks near 0 dB FS increases the chance of intersample peaks, but if everyone promised not to peak past -0.5 dB tomorrow, the problem would not be eliminated. Ultimately it's a monitoring issue, though it could be addressed at playback too.

I have noted no comment from anyone in this thread on the dumbing down of pop music. Am I missing something?
d.b.

Pop music has been suffused with dumbness since at least the first part of the 20th CD. 'Sophisticated' pop has always been in shorter supply.

 

[Bruno Putzeys]

Bloody good article. I might add that hypercompressed and clipped material actually exacerbates MP3 coding artefacts. Music has a highly structured spectrum (that's why we like listening to it) with concentrated peaks and holes. It's also what MP3 coders rely on, by assigning less bits to portions of the spectrum that are fairly empty. Clipping fills in those holes with harmonic and intermod products. The MP3 coder then is at a loss (no pun intended) where to assign the bits. Result: less bits where the original music was. The distortion is really gross.

 

[mustang_steve]

I agree.

MP3 isn't bad for portable use, or putzing around on the computer...but I refuse to play such junk on my stereo.

I believe that full-range spekaers are dinosaurs that belong in museums or in cheap clock radios....that cassettes are best used ar ribbon for christmas presents...cube speakers were originally created by Satan...and of course, 5" subwoofers are about a much a subwoofer as Pamela Anderson is natural.

That said, I do think there is too much watering down of sound quality anymore...it started with mucking around with CDs to make them all sound "loud", at the expense of dynamic range....and from there, MP3s being passed off as CD-quality (I think Fraunhofer called it "near-CD" when they came out with it...I was one of the early adopters of their CODEC....it was just fine for a computer that had car 6x9s as speakers....hey, i was a broke 16 year old that could barely pay for his first comuter ).

Either way, I do think we need a re-awakening of the CD format....to start embracing the true dynamic range....100dB range is enough for all but the most godly of hi-fi setups...heck I doubt most of use have more than a few albums that even use that kind of dynamic range....


....it's truly sad

 

[Geoff]

Aside from the techie stuff.... I blame the Marketing Men!

In a world where youth is brought up to think Pop (American) Idol is the height of creativity, where are we going to get the next Beatles, Clapton, Springsteen, Sex Pistols, Talking Heads, Joy Division, Fleetwood Mac, etc. etc. from (I know someone is going to have a go about marketing and the Pistols, but before you do, have a good listen to "Never mind the bollocks"!!).

I'm sure they're out there, but they won't get anywhere because they won't get contracts because they won't make easy money for the their publishers (although they could make a fortune if they were the next "Beatles"...) because the Marketing Men will prove, with powerpoint presentations, they are not viable, not worth the financial risk.

Creativity, and in particular the intense emorions that can be released through music, are being stifled at the expense of Corporate greed. For now. I do predict a resurgence of "from the heart" performers soon. People can only put up with manufactured "safe" music for so long.(That's why punk started....).

As to the wonders of our old music systems, don't forget, they weren't perfect either. I used to get lost in music, run from a cheap Dual deck, a (not cheap) Meridian power amp, Meridian pre-amp and Solitaire Deisis speakers. Sounded gorgeous.... until the needle picked up a bit of dust and the whole experience was ruined!!

 

[Sheep]

Aside from the techie stuff.... I blame the Marketing Men!

In a world where youth is brought up to think Pop (American) Idol is the height of creativity, where are we going to get the next Beatles, Clapton, Springsteen, Sex Pistols, Talking Heads, Joy Division, Fleetwood Mac, etc. etc. from (I know someone is going to have a go about marketing and the Pistols, but before you do, have a good listen to "Never mind the bollocks"!!).

I'm sure they're out there, but they won't get anywhere because they won't get contracts because they won't make easy money for the their publishers (although they could make a fortune if they were the next "Beatles"...) because the Marketing Men will prove, with powerpoint presentations, they are not viable, not worth the financial risk.

Creativity, and in particular the intense emorions that can be released through music, are being stifled at the expense of Corporate greed. For now. I do predict a resurgence of "from the heart" performers soon. People can only put up with manufactured "safe" music for so long.(That's why punk started....).

As to the wonders of our old music systems, don't forget, they weren't perfect either. I used to get lost in music, run from a cheap Dual deck, a (not cheap) Meridian power amp, Meridian pre-amp and Solitaire Deisis speakers. Sounded gorgeous.... until the needle picked up a bit of dust and the whole experience was ruined!!

Most of these bands have grown to like the un-famous stacture. And not many people listen to poppy music anymore. Sure there is a good chunk, but its now turned Emo, and gothic. The new cool is guys putting on makeup and girls equaling whores.

But, how hard have you looked at underground music? I know many bands that I hold in higher regards then the ones you mentioned, and they tour in white vans.

SheepStar

 

[mustang_steve]

Most of these bands have grown to like the un-famous stacture. And not many people listen to poppy music anymore. Sure there is a good chunk, but its now turned Emo, and gothic. The new cool is guys putting on makeup and girls equaling whores.

But, how hard have you looked at underground music? I know many bands that I hold in higher regards then the ones you mentioned, and they tour in white vans.

SheepStar

So true, I love the "unknown" scene more than the "pro" scene anymore....the songs are better, the emotion can be quite raw and powerful (Reaction 31...amazing metal goup...even if you don't like metal, if they are around, go hear them), and the stuff is far less processed and canned. It feels like music should be, from the heart.

Honestly, I think the Internet will eventually lead to a better music scene, where there may be less corporate greed, and more innovation....well that is if the greedy bastidges get removed from the equation once and for all.

 

[Geoff]

Sheep, Mustang

My prime source of good new bands was a UK DJ named John Peel, who you may have heard of. His radio shows were unmissable. A lot of bands got their big break through him. Sadly, he recently died.

Anyway, back to the dumbing down of audio.....

In the early 90's, I was fortunate enough to know someone who ran a part time "high end" audio business in Rotterdam, Holland.

I had (and still do) a Meridian Boothroyd Stuart set-up which I thought was the bees knees.

He took some of us back to his house one afternoon to listen to some gear you'd need a mortgage to buy. I think the system we listened to cost over 20,000 UK pounds.

I really really wish I can remember the names of each bit, but I can't. I know there were two individual power amps, may have been Krell or Mark Levinson? He didn't rate CD and I'm pretty sure the deck was a Pink Triangle with some amazing cartridge.

The pre-amp looked wierd! And the speakers I think were a combination of electrostatic panels at the top with woofers in the base.... not Quads. They were about 6 feet high.

He played Gregorian Chant, Pink Floyd, and even some Stranglers (my request!).

I was absolutely amazed. I've been to plenty of concerts but this was just awsome. Totally effortless, faultless, musical sound that made the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.....

The moral? Real Hi-Fi is out there, but can mere mortals afford it?

PS, if anyone wants to throw in ideas about those speakers, feel free!!

 

[mustang_steve]

Those speakers may have been Martin-Logans. Pricey, but very nice.

....and you reminded me that I need to get a chant album....Since I moved too far away from my mom to borrow hers anymore.

 

[Geoff]

Cheers Mustang.

The Martin-Logan name doesn't ring any bells. I'll have to find some "antique" hi-fi sites!!

 

[Fierce Mice]

That was a great read, Gene. However, although I agree with many of the basic points you make, I feel the bottom line is convenience. I sure like my 40 year old reel to reel, and vinyl can make for a wonderful listening experience. But it's MUCH less convenient to limit myself to those playback systems. Lower fidelity means better portability, less expensive, etc., and in many listening environments, a high fidelity broadcast would be wasted (over headphones on the El? Please, I'm not going to tell a difference!

I also don't think the difference is purely monetary, however. I could see a LOT of live shows for what I've put into my system, and I've spent peanuts compared to many folks on this forum!

Everything has its time and place, and it would sure be a shame if the mass marketing of low-fi products and services hoodwinks the masses into thinking that's as good as it gets. But if it's not convenient, it won't fly.

 

[bluedevils]

Though I do feel the points brought up in the article do show how many choose other priorities over sound quality, I do not feel this is much more than earlier times, but maybe more visible because of the portable nature. I remember plenty of people listening to am radio for music (classical and jazz included) even though fm was all around. Boom boxes have always been popular too.

I also read another good point about people growing up listening to compressed music only. It's all about education and maturity. A bunch of coworkers couldn't understand how I could tell a 320 mp3 from pcm. I let them listen to the difference on a decent pair of headphones and they were shocked at the difference that they could hear. They still have their mp3 players, but they spent more on their home systems.

I listen to mp3s only sometimes on a noisy subway train.

 

[Tomorrow]

Cheers Mustang.

The Martin-Logan name doesn't ring any bells. I'll have to find some "antique" hi-fi sites!!

You might start here ----> http://www.oaktreeent.com/Stereo_Speakers.htm

 

[gene]

That was a great read, Gene. However, although I agree with many of the basic points you make, I feel the bottom line is convenience. I sure like my 40 year old reel to reel, and vinyl can make for a wonderful listening experience. But it's MUCH less convenient to limit myself to those playback systems. Lower fidelity means better portability, less expensive, etc., and in many listening environments, a high fidelity broadcast would be wasted (over headphones on the El? Please, I'm not going to tell a difference!

The point of my article is many peoples only exposure to audio is portable compression devices such as MP3 or XM. These devices are fine for convenience but shouldn't be peoples only exposure to quality sound.

 

[JerryLove]

The thread is long dead: but the article is coming up at the top of the home page, so I'll hope this isn't narco-posting.

I have some of the same concerns discussed in the article: but I disagree with it on two major points.

My first disagreement is with the claim/implication that music is moving from some high bar of yesteryear to some low bar of today. The problems with (to hit the most basic) dynamic compression are not new problems. Radio stations have done it for a long time, and "hot mastering" (as it was called in the '45 days) has been ruining audio recordings for many decades.

Yes: the CD format was once (generally) less compressed than it (generally) now is; which is why so much of my collection is from the 80s and 90s, but that requires looking at a specific media from a specific moment and cannot be extrapolated to a trend in audio in general (beyond that media and that time).

And listening on headphones isn't new. Remember the phenom that was the walkman? And though satellite speakers are not conducive to good audio reproduction: nether were the incredibly common single-driver boxes (often mono) of yesteryear.

I also have a difference of opinion on the light of hope:

. It's not Gandalf the White arriving with the army of Rohan bright, but it's there. Websites like HDtracks and itrax offer us access to high quality digital music.

I haven't been through itrax but HDTrack is running the same masters as the CDs (as far as I can tell) with the same types of dynamic range. I'm not seeing better DRs on Linn, or HDTracks, or any of the other high-bitrate offerings.

Redbook offers 98db of dynamic range (bottom to top), and there's no reason that CDs (and CD-quality data files) cannot offer 20+db of avg-peak range (I have a couple that do). Therein lies one of our most signifigant problems; though to be sure there are others. What people actually like, and what the engineers (or their bosses) actually think they like are not the same.

 

[Rich Davis]

What did the masses listen to back 40 years ago? A cheap transistor radio with one ear piece that sounded like utter garbage. OR, they used a cheap turntable/speakers where you had to tape a quarter to the needle so it wouldn't skip.

Sorry, I'm not buying into it so easily that it's not getting better.

DACs are getting better, just like everything else.

Say what you want about 16 AAC files, but they aren't THAT bad with a decent set of headphones/DAC. But eventually, the cost of a 24 bit DAC will allow Apple and others to replace the existing 16 bit DACs with 24 bit, and the price of storage will come down, and then instead of downloading 16 bit AAC, we'll be downloading more 24 bit AAC files and then the case will be even more different.

Look at how much a decent phono cartridge costs today? $400? That's outrageous to expect the masses to plunk down that kind of money for a turntable cartridge. Plus, vinyl is more expensive and hard to find and reality is that it's possible to get a DAC that can get pretty damn close to a comparably priced turntable/cartridge/phono pre amp than it is to stick a bunch of 24 bit sound files on a computer system. AAC files are getting better since they went from 128 to 256 kbits per second.

The point is, you can get a 24/192 DSD DAC from someone like MyTek that will sound as good as any turntable/cartridge/phono pre amp combination for the same amount of money. There are others that are even less expensive that sound great without DSD. Plus, digital files don't wear out like vinyl and cartridges tend to do over time. Car stereos are actually getting far better than they used to when compared to that of 40 years ago.

On the ultra high end, there are DAC/Transports for $50K that will come pretty close to a $150K turntable/cartridge/phono pre amp, so I don't know if I agree completely. And with the DAC system you don't have to replace anything like you would with vinyl.

Yeah, there is ALWAYS going to be cheap junk on the market, there's just more of it now since there are more people on the planet.

What was the choice for portable audio before iPods came out? A Sony Walkman playing cassette tapes? I'll take an iPod over those in a heartbeat. How about those close and play record players children used to have? Those SUCKED. I'm sure an iPod playing 256kbps AAC files is far better than those Close and Play record player.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Jerry,
I think Gene is going through some of old forgotten posts and re-posting them. By large degree the article is still relevant, except point or two.
It's been over 7 years since it was posted originally and there are some updates: As mentioned electronics do get cheaper and that includes flash memory. once prohibitively expensive, now a commodity
Case in point my S4 smartphone has 64gb sd card and could play up to hd flac files without any issues. it also has been tested by AH and has some outstanding qualities regarding it's analog output stage.
So, yes - today you can have the convenience of mobile music, while not sacrificing on the quality even a little bit

Now regarding the modern music - yes, you wont find anything good on the radio/tv, but doesn't mean that good music is all dead. There are plenty of modern musicians who create great music (and not hyper-compressed pop which is overplayed on radio) - the problem is to find them

Since the days of music single are long gone (even before my time) now-a-days music discovery is harder and at best falls with some social service (used to be turntable.fm for me, now to some degree Plug.DJ)