Crimes Against Sound Quality

[pitchdrifter]

Mp3 is data compression and has nothing to do with loss of dynamics. It comes down to the program material, and of course the codec settings used. You can have top quality mp3s and shitty mp3s. That said, a good mp3 encoding won't fix a flat song, of course.

It's not technology causing the loss of quality. It's people's decisions and the reason for that is lack of perception/value put into quality.
Things like dynamics just don't register in some people's brains, or depth or clarity or dimension for that matter.

Technology is capable of anything we make of it. Look at video codecs. Some film studios chose quicktime, tiny resolution, bad sound quality, big filesize - but big exposure on apple.com. Other studios chose divx, good to top resolutions (e.g. HD), built in menu's, good audio quality, overall small filesize (comparing runtime+quality vs filesize) - but a way less frequented platform (divx.com and the studio's websites of course).
Quality just isn't a high priority for some people. For others it is. Same goes for music production, mastering etc. - the list is endless.

Markus

[emdot_ambient]

...Anybody who’s ripped a recent CD and loaded it into a wave editor can’t have failed to notice the lack of dynamic range of many recent recordings, and the abysmal use of hard clipping...because it sounds better on cheap midi systems, i-pods, in car equipment or standard computer speakers...

I pretty much agree with your sentiments and it would be interesting to look at Photek's own work to see if it is similarly over compressed and clipped.

However, I read another interview with a couple of professional sound engineers who pretty much do mastering exclusively . . . and they report that the reason they end up overcompressing and clipping a lot of music is that the BANDS and their RECORD LABELS demand it. They were both opposed to it and said they prefer to master with dynamics intact, when they are allowed. But they have to pay the bills, so they overcompress and clip on demand.

I also disagree that overcompressed/clipped work sounds better on car and cheap home systems. I've listened to plenty of classical and jazz on all kinds of systems, and I've done the same with techno/trance/goa/et. al. The one thing I've found about overcompressed/clipped CDs is that they 1) sound louder (not better) and 2) fatigue your ears REALLY fast. You actually get tired of listening because your ears just burn out after a while . . . even if you like the songs you can't take but so much of it.

As for hearing loss in performing musicians . . . I think it's true that older musicians suffered more from this. But that's only because there's been a trend to actually tone down the onstage monitoring levels. Used to be the monitors were run at really dangerous, uncomfortable levels. But that's not so much the case anymore, I don't think. Even if the audience is subjected to Disaster Area decibles, on stage it can be at a quite comfortable (and safe) level.

[deleted]

DELETED

[emdot_ambient]

This is all about opinion, an audiophile will say that any compression ruins the recording, older engineers will say that a certain amount is too much, and the new kids just add the amount that they like the sound of (change of times anyone?)

Only to a certain degree. It may be opinion as to which song sounds better, but if you take the same song and do two versions, one preserving dynamic range and no clipping, the other compressed and clipped to the max . . . listen to them both 100 times with the volume cranked. It's not a matter of opinion which will fatigue your ears first.

[deleted]

DELETED

[3*s]

Dynamics sound good in the clubs too! Who remembers the mid ninties? :/

I'd like to see "unmastered" versions of cds released for the hifi community to appreciate. Maybe download only if the guys in black suits are afraid of spending a few petty cents.

Compression is a thing of balance imo. The spectrum looks like this:

low sound quality---------------------dynamics are unpleasant to listen to (ex transients are hurting my ears).

Good hifi engineering is finding a balance somewhre in there IMO.

[eduardo_b]

This is all about opinion, an audiophile will say that any compression ruins the recording, older engineers will say that a certain amount is too much, and the new kids just add the amount that they like the sound of (change of times anyone?)

To me, this argument about quality of music reproduction is part of the never-ending schism between those who live for audio perfection and those who don't care. The former is a tiny percentage of the music listening population, and the latter support the music business with their money.

I'd say that overall, the quality of music reproduction technology has never been better in terms of value per dollar or euro, but an overall appreciation of the finer qualities of recording, mixing and mastering is not even a concept to the vast majority of those who buy and listen to music. My wife, for example, loves Dire Straits and anything that Mark Knopfler does, but to her the only reason she likes the Monsoon system in the Passat is it plays loud and still sounds good. That's it folks. Otherwise, she listens to the music, not how it's reproduced.

Let me really throw fuel on this fire. I read the many posts about the subtle qualities and differences among reverbs, compressors and whatever, and I think to myself how few people could tell the differences or even care if they could. Now, maybe the point is that the typical music enthusiast isn't supposed to notice these things, but I think it's more that they simply like what they hear or they don't, and either way it's unlikely that the details of audio quality will be a factor. It's an emotional response to the melody, lyrics, beat or some combination.

Which is to say, precisely which reverb creates the best effect -- whatever that might mean -- is not all that important except to those who believe it's important. There's nothing wrong with caring, but don't expect many others to also care.

It's a given that compression and limiting are used to make songs seem louder because that's what radio station managers and program directors believe gets the attention of listeners. Those artists and labels that don't cater to the masses will probably produce sonically pleasing recorded material because they are not competing in the media marketplace where all the big money is. Dynamic range simply doesn't matter in this market.

Long ago I gave up expecting those around me to appreciate the quality of music reproduction and the details of mixes. I've listened to music with high-quality headphones for many, many years, so I'm thinking it's just possible that with so many people now using portables, some of them are discovering the hidden secrets in at least some music -- Pink Floyd of course. :)

[robenestobenz]

I must say, I have never experienced any kind of listening fatigue other than getting bored of a song due to overplay. Personally though, I prefer dynamics in a recording but as long as I can hear the component parts of the song clearly I really don't care all that much. It's like watching a film on the picture of slightly degraded video tape compared to a DVD - you still get everything that's important in the film, the essence of it.

[Sonic Assault]

That new Greenday really sounds like shite. That acoustic song, when the chorus comes it, I swear it actually goes quieter!! At least on the radio, I would never buy the CD based on the sound on the radio. I made the mistake of buying the Killers, I can barely listen to it.

A fellow sufferer.

I think Synthpulse nailed it

I think, is we now have a generation (or two) that have grown-up listening to over-compressed, hard-limited music since age 3. Also low bandwidth MP3's. It's the norm for them.

From a conversation I had recently from a friend who's still in the Hi-Fi industry who reckons that the Hi-Fi buying public are getting older, the youngsters are more concerned with the image of owning an i-pod than the actual quality of the sound their listening to. I have to confess though, I did spend 6 years in the Hi-Hi industry and have had access to some very nice bits of kit over the years - something which a lot of people don't get exposed to. But in all that time the one thing that struck me was, that if people do get the chance to sit down and listen to a great recording on a half decent Hi-Fi set up all of them could appreciate the difference.
Perhaps the Hi-Fi industry itself has killed sound quality with the introduction of the Sony Walkman back in the seventies - Was this the beginning of the end?

[bmanic]

Let me really throw fuel on this fire. I read the many posts about the subtle qualities and differences among reverbs, compressors and whatever, and I think to myself how few people could tell the differences or even care if they could. Now, maybe the point is that the typical music enthusiast isn't supposed to notice these things, but I think it's more that they simply like what they hear or they don't, and either way it's unlikely that the details of audio quality will be a factor. It's an emotional response to the melody, lyrics, beat or some combination.

This, in my experience, is not true at all. Audio quality DOES play a big role in how people like the song. It's true for live music so why not for music that you listen to at home?? I mean, no matter how good the band is and how good songs they have, hearing them live trough a PA that sounds horrible just pisses people off.

The most common comment I get from people at the youth media center, when they download stuff off the net from fellow non-professional, "been doing music for 2 years", people is:

'..good song but it sounds very much home-made..'

These songs are, of course, usually very poor sounding and the fault is not always in the quality of the plugins used but rather in the production/mixing. However, everybody with some experience using great quality outboard gear knows how much easier it is to dial in a sound, that benefits the mix, than doing the same with poor quality effects. Good quality forgives more = less chance of very poor mixes.. well, maybe not.

Heck, even my girlfriend, who has no experience about audio production and doesn't even care, hears the difference AND gives valuable comments about different effects and synths. She usually is spot on with the comments, without using any audio terms at all. She's also commented several times that she'd like to listen to the song more if it only had a bit less 'home-made sound' to it. It kills the feel and emotion when the audio quality is bad.

It's rather common to underestimate the audience. Let's not. Besides, it should be enough that you, yourself care about the end result, no?

- bManic

[bmanic]

.. the youngsters are more concerned with the image of owning an i-pod than the actual quality of the sound their listening to. I have to confess though, I did spend 6 years in the Hi-Hi industry and have had access to some very nice bits of kit over the years - something which a lot of people don't get exposed to. But in all that time the one thing that struck me was, that if people do get the chance to sit down and listen to a great recording on a half decent Hi-Fi set up all of them could appreciate the difference.
Perhaps the Hi-Fi industry itself has killed sound quality with the introduction of the Sony Walkman back in the seventies - Was this the beginning of the end?

This is what my friend calls 'the McDonaldisation of Music'. The 'value' of music itself has gone down, a lot. Like you said, image and listening to what your mates listen to, so that you fit in the gang, is the new thing. It used to be cool to be the kid in school that found new interesting bands and showed them to the friends.. now I guess a kid that surfs around the net to find unique music is more likely to be teased as a nerd or freak because they don't listen to *insert current popular band* here.

Kids = money, the BIG money, so that's what everybody is chasing.

just my humble opinion and view on the subject,
bManic

[metamorphosis]

a good pressing of vinyl that's been analog through all the stages of recording and mastering sounds better than a cd

This has been said before, but consider this - how many people have high quality (NOT SL1200's - there consumer grade) turntables, equiped with the best cartridges and pre's going to monitor grade speakers, to take full advantage of the extra quality (hell - how many people have turntables these days). Point is that the industry goes where the money is, and if the money says it should sound good on the radio, as an mp3 and on headphones, then thats what it does...

I have never liked the sound of records, even on good systems. Tapes are better. It's just that people get used to a particular 'sound' (i.e reduced bass and distorted treble) and end up associating that subconsciously with their favourite music... I do it too, but with mp3s- then I get the cd and somehow it sounds too "present"- but I get over it...

[The Chase]

^^just shows that it comes down to simple preference. I cant stand tapes. They degrade too fast and via hiss. I LOVE the vinyl sound...

[Sonic Assault]

a good pressing of vinyl that's been analog through all the stages of recording and mastering sounds better than a cd

This is a common complaint leveled at CD. The main reason for this is that due to its mechanical shortcomings all turntable/cartridge combinations impart their own sonic character upon the sound in the form of low frequency noise - this tends to make the sound warmer (and some say more natural), but make no mistake its still distortion. CD, on the other hand suffers from distortion at the other end of the scale due to it's resolution at high frequencies, sounding more brittle. When CD was first released it suffered due to the fact that most systems were set up to overcome the shortcomings of Vinyl and as such it made CD sound thin and lacking in bass. The balance has in someway been addressed as professional mastering is now tailored for CD and the Hi-Fi industry has taken account of the differences between the formats

(NOT SL1200's - there consumer grade)

The SL1200 wasn't designed for sound quality or the consumer market as such - It's main attribute being it was built like a tank (you could practically stand on the platter without damaging the thing), which was something DJ's needed at the time as there was nothing else on the market which could put up with the abuse the scratchers were demanding from their tables - Technics and Stanton made a killing.

[ericj23]

the thought of some dj's standing precariously atop a 1210 as the platter spins realy amuses me

set it at 45 for pete tong - this would hopefully send him flying