Why MP3's Won't Kill High Fidelity

[cosoundman]

Hope you're right

I'm a young 60ish and have a pretty decent system WITH a good platter to play all my old records (45's too). As with CD's, other than SACD or DVD-A's, I've noticed that some CD's "sound" better than others. As is with my vinyl colection, same there. I have a small amount of Red Seal music also and you CAN tell the recording differences there, BIG time. Bottom line is, I guess, is that we audition "good recorded music", whether rock, classical etc, to the youngen's so they know there is music worth spending the extra $$ for and that the engineers don't cut corners to lower costs of production. Many very talented musicians work years sometimes on getting just ONE song the way they want it heard. It's up to "us" that we plea with the engineers to work just as hard putting it on whatever the current medium is to bring "us' the best sound possible.

 

[yepimonfire]

i think people should complain to the artists and or record companies when the dynamic range is destroyed, maybe they will stop doing it. and true its all about how its recorded, vinyl cd dvd sacd they can all sound terrific, but its dependant on the recording production.

 

[3db]

no i have played new vinyl records on the system and it sounds good, the old records they have specifically lack severely in the highs.

My brother 9 years my senior left me an original Led Zeppelin album which was basically mauled and dirty. Aside from the noise, the cymbal smashes shimmered and the acoustic guitar was very much present and swet sounding including the fingers dragging across teh strings as Page moved is hnad around the neck of his guitar. I have to side with TLS, poorly set-up equipemnt will ruin a record quickly where as a properly setup TT of decent quality will let the record last you a lifetime and then some.

 

[3db]

i think people should complain to the artists and or record companies when the dynamic range is destroyed, maybe they will stop doing it. and true its all about how its recorded, vinyl cd dvd sacd they can all sound terrific, but its dependant on the recording production.

How many teenagers do you know who care about compression and dynamic range? Dynamic range loss due to loudness is strictly based on sales, thats all.

 

[yepimonfire]

if they actually knew what it was and how it affects their music im sure alot would. or maybe not, alot of people these days have lost their sense of pride in quality things, this spills over into audio. i think it's more of a thing of they don't know what good sound sounds like, speaking from my own experience i can say the same song has a different effect on me depending on how good the quality is, ever since i've gotten into audio stuff my tolerance for even mediocre sound is ruined, i would rather not listen to the song then listen to it on a bad system. i will say as well one of the selling points when it comes to music for me is how good the recording sounds, if it sounds bad, i won't buy it because they have just raped the song to the point that it's not worth listening to, this is why i still don't own Emperor's In the Nightshade Eclipse, it may be a great album, but the sound quality is so bad it ruins it.

 

[buzzy]

As you say, this subject has been covered over and over. But this article adds nothing but confusion to the discussion.

Just one example: "Most people can agree, however, that the standard default compression of 128kbps in most encoders does reduce quality." More like, the standard years ago. It's not what Amazon or Apple sells now. Every article like this, takes this cheap shot. Let's talk about a decently encoded MP3, not start from the point of something that's far below what current technology and hardware can easily and inexpensively support.

And of course you have to repeat some of the confusion by mixing in the whole dynamic compression issue, without really addressing it properly.

Let's see the article that has the balls to throw all the snideness about high end audio aside. MP3s kick a55 for real world listening, where you're not just sitting in a quiet room completely focused on the details of the audio. The accessibility (instant access to thousands of songs) and flexibility (playlists, genres) are incredibly valuable. Any article that doesn't cover how people really listen and those benefits is limp.

 

[its phillip]

Yeah, I don't know why every article about mp3s mentions "128 kbps mp3" as the standard. Maybe that was the norm back in 1998, but most mp3s available for purchase or whatever are going to be v2, v0, or 320.

 

[3db]

As you say, this subject has been covered over and over. But this article adds nothing but confusion to the discussion.

Just one example: "Most people can agree, however, that the standard default compression of 128kbps in most encoders does reduce quality." More like, the standard years ago. It's not what Amazon or Apple sells now. Every article like this, takes this cheap shot. Let's talk about a decently encoded MP3, not start from the point of something that's far below what current technology and hardware can easily and inexpensively support.

And of course you have to repeat some of the confusion by mixing in the whole dynamic compression issue, without really addressing it properly.

Let's see the article that has the balls to throw all the snideness about high end audio aside. MP3s kick a55 for real world listening, where you're not just sitting in a quiet room completely focused on the details of the audio. The accessibility (instant access to thousands of songs) and flexibility (playlists, genres) are incredibly valuable. Any article that doesn't cover how people really listen and those benefits is limp.

Putting aside low bit sampling rates, do you honestly think that an MP3 has more dynamics than its CD counterpart which by most commercial standards suffer from the loudness wars? Check again. The source whether it be MP3 or CD is what we're *****ing about. And the compression used to make the music appear louder is what everyone is complaining about. Today's vinyl has far more dynamics despite its physical limitations than does today's mass market CD/MP3s. Portability is not an issue with me. I'd rather concentrate on the music that I'm listenign too then use it for background.

 

[haysonics]

Putting aside low bit sampling rates, do you honestly think that an MP3 has more dynamics than its CD counterpart which by most commercial standards suffer from the loudness wars? Check again. The source whether it be MP3 or CD is what we're *****ing about. And the compression used to make the music appear louder is what everyone is complaining about. Today's vinyl has far more dynamics despite its physical limitations than does today's mass market CD/MP3s. Portability is not an issue with me. I'd rather concentrate on the music that I'm listenign too then use it for background.

I agree but think your point about vinyl needs a little clarification. CD as a medium has greater dynamic range than vinyl. The problem is that these days the mastering engineers are using ridiculous levels of dynamic compression so as to make the music sound louder. The problem lies in the mastering process. Because of the physical percularities involved with cutting Vinyl a record needs to be mastered differently. For example (from memory) you need cut all frequencies above 18KHz otherwise the lathe will freak out. The majority of vinyl masters are created from the CD master. If the engineer who did the CD master used ridiculous dynamic compression that will be copied over to the vinyl master. There may be a few cases where the vinyl master was created from the original 2 channel mix rather than from the CD master but this is rare.

Note that its not just mastering engineers who are using ridiculous dynamic compression, mixing engineers do it as well. A mix may have had its dynamics squashed before it is handed to the mastering engineer. BTW, I don't have an issue with heavy dynamic compression being used on Pop/Rap/RNB. It seems to suit those styles of music. What I object to is it being used on Rock. You expect some dynamic compression (especially on Drums, aka Led Zep) to be used but on some modern productions they have wiped out the dynamic range of everything, Guitar, Vocals, Flutes, etc. This needs to stop.

 

[3db]

I agree but think your point about vinyl needs a little clarification. CD as a medium has greater dynamic range than vinyl. The problem is that these days the mastering engineers are using ridiculous levels of dynamic compression so as to make the music sound louder. The problem lies in the mastering process. Because of the physical percularities involved with cutting Vinyl a record needs to be mastered differently. For example (from memory) you need cut all frequencies above 18KHz otherwise the lathe will freak out. The majority of vinyl masters are created from the CD master. If the engineer who did the CD master used ridiculous dynamic compression that will be copied over to the vinyl master. There may be a few cases where the vinyl master was created from the original 2 channel mix rather than from the CD master but this is rare.

Note that its not just mastering engineers who are using ridiculous dynamic compression, mixing engineers do it as well. A mix may have had its dynamics squashed before it is handed to the mastering engineer. BTW, I don't have an issue with heavy dynamic compression being used on Pop/Rap/RNB. It seems to suit those styles of music. What I object to is it being used on Rock. You expect some dynamic compression (especially on Drums, aka Led Zep) to be used but on some modern productions they have wiped out the dynamic range of everything, Guitar, Vocals, Flutes, etc. This needs to stop.

Thanks for the tip but check back a few posts. I think I had mentioned that unless I have my forums/threads mixed up.

 

[yepimonfire]

i don't have too much of an issue with most DRC, what i hate is when it is overdone to the point where you can hear the compressor "breathing" for example, if the song starts of with drums only and the dynamic range of the drum transients is 12 dB, then when the guitars come in it drops to a 6-3db range and you can hear the drums lose all their dynamics and be "drown out" by the guitars, that really bugs me, some of the recording i have luckily dont do that, sure the music maintains a relevant volume level but as instruments are added or taken away, the volume changes, which is good. for instance on cancer bats album one of the songs starts off with just drums, each drum transient has a 12dB rise and fall, as the guitars come in, it maintains the transients well. this is good. one album that i notice where it doesent is on A different breed of killer's i collosus. one song starts off with drums and as the guitars and bass come in, the drums lose the dynamics due to the compression.

 

[victorchaves]

Could home Mp3 players adjust the level of hi-fidelity?

As technology advances, storage and bandwidth increases, it's my hope that all Mp3's would be sold in hi fidelity and new Mp3 players would allow the listener to adjust the sound to the desired level of hi-fi. For example, in a car or kitchen a listener could set the player to have more consistent volume but in the living room the player could be adjusted for full hi-fi. The medium the Mp3 is on would be the same - the player would do the adjustment.
I'm uncertain as to how complex dumbing down audio is but imagine that at some point in the future the process could be handled by a home Mp3 player. Am I naive to believe this could happen anytime soon?

 

[TLS Guy]

As technology advances, storage and bandwidth increases, it's my hope that all Mp3's would be sold in hi fidelity and new Mp3 players would allow the listener to adjust the sound to the desired level of hi-fi. For example, in a car or kitchen a listener could set the player to have more consistent volume but in the living room the player could be adjusted for full hi-fi. The medium the Mp3 is on would be the same - the player would do the adjustment.
I'm uncertain as to how complex dumbing down audio is but imagine that at some point in the future the process could be handled by a home Mp3 player. Am I naive to believe this could happen anytime soon?

You are confused.

Your confusion is failure to understand the difference between audio dynamic range compression and digital bit compression.

Dynamic range compression just narrows the spl between soft and loud passages within a defined db range and predetermined attack and release of the compressor. This can be done in the analog or digital domain. So to do what you want just would require adding dynamic range compression to the device. However pop music is highly compressed already because of the loudness wars.

Digital bit compression is throwing out bits of information by a defined algorithm.

To get 20Hz to 20 kHz with at least 90 db dynamic range requires a stream of 1,400 kbs. This is the rate a CD streams and it is loss less.

Codecs like MP3 throw out bits according to a psycho acoustic algorithm. The idea is that you are supposed to not notice bits are thrown away, but on good systems you do. Now codecs support different rates of bit loss (digital compression). This has nothing to do with loudness but quality. MP3 has a maximum streaming rate of 320 kbs. Now to be loss less you need a stream of 1440 kbs, so obviously MP3 is a lossy codec, as 1110 kb of information are lost, or as they say "thrown on the floor" every second. This is the highest resolution of mp3 and it can stream as low as 40 kbs were 1400 bits are thrown on the floor every second. This is low quality.

In addition MP3 is a relatively low quality lossy codec. There are more seamless codecs such as ACC3 available.

The bit rate is determined by the program and not the player. So you can only change bit rate by the downloading the program from a different source.

I doubt a manufacturer would add a dynamic range compressor to an MP3 player. Pop music is almost universally over compressed to start with. Classical music is not, and recordings have a wide dynamic range. I doubt many will listen to classical music on an MP3 player. I certainly don't.

 

[haysonics]

As technology advances, storage and bandwidth increases, it's my hope that all Mp3's would be sold in hi fidelity and new Mp3 players would allow the listener to adjust the sound to the desired level of hi-fi. For example, in a car or kitchen a listener could set the player to have more consistent volume but in the living room the player could be adjusted for full hi-fi. The medium the Mp3 is on would be the same - the player would do the adjustment.
I'm uncertain as to how complex dumbing down audio is but imagine that at some point in the future the process could be handled by a home Mp3 player. Am I naive to believe this could happen anytime soon?

TLS Guy has given you an excellent overview but if you are still a bit confused by the difference this may help;

Dynamic Range Compression can be thought of as a special effect that is used to change the way audio sounds. Its used for various reasons but we are focussing on the fact that DRC makes music sound louder at the expense of dynamic range, that is the high and low frequencies get squashed like in a vice. You can do this using either analogue or digital devices.

MP3 is just like TLS Guy explained; bits of information representing the music you hear get discarded according to a set algorithm in order to save space. The fact that the word "compression" was used for this was bound to cause confusion and the creators should have used a different term like "data loss" but then i suppose that wouldn't have gone down too well :0) The MP3 algorithm is supposed to discard things you can't hear but folks that grew up listening to CD's can clearly hear a difference, and that difference is a loss of quality. It doesn't take "special" or "golden" ears to notice this either. It's obvious to "old timers".

AAC is a better algorithm but it is still discarding bits of music data and it is noticeable.

Apple Lossless or FLAC are examples of the way forward. These data "compression" algorithms are loss less in a similar way to a zip file. You know that digital is a series of 1's and 0's. If you have 2 zeroes in a row thats 2 bits but you can save a bit by representing it by the letter K. So K means 2 zeroes in a row but only takes 1 bit to represent. 3 zeroes in a row could be represented by the letter V. Now you are representing 3 bits of information with only 1 bit of data. When you unzip the file you get your 3 zeroes back. No data is lost. It is loss less data "compression".

You get a really small file size with MP3 and AAC which was very useful for downloading and early ipods with limited capacity but 10 years later they are unecessary and should be avoided. Think of them as like a faithfull old horse who has served you well but now the time has come for him to be put out to pasture.