Blaming MP3s And iPods For Ruining Music
from the gotta-love-the-audiophiles dept
It seems that with every new generation of music delivery, there are going to be people who complain that the quality just isn't up to par with what came before. Remember when CDs first came out, there were quite a few upturned noses who insisted the sound quality just couldn't compete with vinyl LPs. And now that mp3s are becoming the standard, folks are complaining that the quality simply can't live up to CDs. This has certainly gone on for a while, as we've noted there are even online stores that cater to audiophiles who believe that compressed mp3s just aren't worth listening to. However, now it's going even further, as the WSJ claims that some audio engineers are saying that the popularity of mp3s and iPods is ruining music. The theory is that audio engineers are using iPods and mp3s as the lowest common denominator for recordings. Since they know that so many people are going to end up hearing the song just through the cheap white earbuds of an iPod, that they don't bother to make a high quality recording that would sound better on high end stereo equipment. Thus, the claim goes, pretty much all music is sounding somewhat crappy, and it's turning people off from the latest crop of new songs. In other words, music is less popular today, because the songs are engineered to sound like crap. This seems silly. It's certainly a different argument than the industry's typical claim that downloads are killing the music business -- but it's equally ridiculous. Sure, there may be some engineers who are doing a cruddy job in engineering the music, but as one audio engineer in the story notes, there's no reason to ever engineer a song "down" to mp3 levels. Instead, you should just engineer it to a higher level and it'll sound fine on a CD as well on an iPod. However, to put the whole thing in perspective: songs compressed to mp3 level certainly do lose some quality at the margin, but there's only a small group of audiophiles who really care or will notice on a regular basis. At the same time, compare that to how much more music is being produced today thanks to cheaper production tools and easier distribution of music through the internet, and I think you could make the case that the mp3 and the iPod has done a lot more to improve music than to hurt it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: audiophiles, ipods, mp3s, music, quality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The consensus of people who actually know about this stuff (recording engineers, critics, audiophiles) is exactly in line with the cited article, as it applies to sound quality and the sapping effect over-limiting and level over compression has on the enjoyment of music.
See related articles here:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article1878724.ece
http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm
and an explanatory video here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bad music
I blame record companies and large entertainment companies for looking for the next big fad rather than looking for all of the talented artists. The proof is in the radio stations found in almost every city. Every station plays the same songs, over and over again. Are they good songs? Sometimes, but not always. Why is that? Quick money for the big companies maybe?
The more potential money they lose, the more they force us to listen to what they want us to buy. This in turn makes the people who listen to music look for other ways to discover music.
Maybe the big record companies can embrace the times, and invest in having a larger library of available music rather than hoping that one artist will make millions.
Did I just go off on a tangent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_c ompression
-GB.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Futhermore, I am not a musician or "audiophile", but I can absolutely hear the difference in the 128kbps mp3 and CD versions of a song. What lies "at the margins" is important data. It's like stripping the brightest whites and the darkest blacks from an image. What's left has less punch, more middle gray, less interest.
--D.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It ain't the technology...
I think the expression is "polishing a turd" or "putting perfume on a pig"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sound quality does not sell records
To say that no one wants to listen to new music because of the sound quality is ridiculous. There are lo-fi indie rock and hip hop movements where engineers will purposely make the sound quality bad. This music also appeals on an very emotional level because of the passion of the performance you can feel in the music. On top of this, the very first phonograph recordings sounded terrible compared to what is available today, yet people sill purchased records and phonographs. It was for this very same reason: the emotion of the performance had to appeal to the listener *despite* the poor sound quality.
The nature of recording engineering has changed, as it has for the last 100 years. To say that music is ruined because of the change subjective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Never understood....
Beside to all the audiophiles out there, live music is WAAAAY better than any CD or LP out there. And that is what I usually listen to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Which compression?
MP3, or data compression, comes way too late in the chain of events to be the issue. It's compression of intensity -- the desire to be 'punchy' and to 'cut through the clutter' -- that makes most hit music unpleasant, and actually physically tiring, to listen to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
(an attempt at an analogy :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Which compression?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They were the only digital music service provider that made internet mastering tools available to the industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not the issue
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Radio vs MP3
I certainly noticed a difference when I used my Sony Ericsson W800 to listen to music and then had to listen to the radio. Everything sounds bland in comparison, the bass was dull and the static was more perceptible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
music and quality and ...
Many years ago, the role of patron of the arts was assumed by a new class of elite. Instead of spending their excess money to enrich the world about them, they hunted down the talent, signed them to contracts and made billions of dollars shoving it down our throats. The birth of RCA, Epic, Motown and many other 'robber barons' like them.
Now, we are revolting against those 'barons' and looking for a new model. I hope that model doesn't turn out to be every hack and wannabe artist throwing their works out with no patronly filter to help us find the good stuff easily.
If the existing patron class would make some simple changes, most of us would have little to complain about.
TO RIAA and its members:
1 - DO YOUR JOB! Filter out the crap. Don't think you can keep shoving drivel like Spears, Lohan and totally amateur garage bands down our throats while you get richer and richer.
2 - Pay the artists for a job well done. Keep less of the money for your fat pockets. Pay the good artists and dump the bad ones. Popular doesn't mean good, except to the money-grubbing accountants and never-rich-enough super-egos. Put the melody back in music.
To the public:
1 - Show some taste and appreciation for a fine art. Don't buy music because somebody tells you it's what's hot. Listen a few times before you buy, and buy what little good stuff is out there. Support the good artists. Nobody really wants to listen to Ms. Spears sing, she has no musical talent. All she has is a flabby body to shake in your face. She HAS to lip-synch so she get get at least half her dance moves right.
2 - Demand more from the big labels. Tell them how poor their talent pool is.
3 - Don't steal the really good music - it's worth paying for. Don't steal the bad stuff, either. Why risk it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Its $$$$$$ thats killing our exposure to good music.
If it doesnt sound a certain way, or isnt catchy enough, or the big labels dont own it, its not giong to get played on the popular stations.
Music isnt created from the heart/soul any more. Its engineered to get millions of listeners, be catchy and buys its way on to the radio.
For example. Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger by Daft Punk. The original is a much better song than the Kanye West version, with retarded rap "lyrics" over it, that gets alot of air play.
Your average person does not know the difference between just listening to a song (aka just listening to lyrics or the fun parts) and actualy listening to a song like an audiophile does (aka listening to the dynamics , clarity, creativity, instrument seperation, imaging, staging). Its 2 very different ways of listening to music, and most people dont want to take the effort to do the 2nd, so MP3's to them are no better than CD's.
Then you have what people listen to music on. Stock car stereos, walmart $100 boom boxes, BOSE, and other HT in a Box.
Combine all that and you have a perfect recipe for crappy music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Let me try: I blame the toilet paper manufacturers. Everyone who hasn't had to wipe his ass with his hand or some dead leaves don't know what they are missing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
... and by the way ...
The best CDs will always beat an MP3 because of compression losses in the latter.
That said, the upper range of available quality in MP3s is more than good enough for almost 100% of the listening needs of the average listener. Only a few have the ears, appreciation for music and the playback system to need more than the very best MP3, best CD or good LP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dad?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i agree
and... yes, mp3s are bad. I have 10,000+ songs in itunes, but no cd's to show for it. sometimes i look and wonder - and lately, its not even worth downloading. I dj for hobby, i purchase cd's and here and there some LP's. Yea, there is a diffrence.
People should buy cd's. Also its the artist, some crappy songs is what is killing the music, "The way i are" i belive is a good song and some of the oldies (i am 17).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As I was reading Mike's blog, I interpreted "engineer it to a higher level" as a higher level of quality, not loudness. Call me crazy, but snippets like "...that they don't bother to make a high quality recording that would sound better on high end stereo equipment.", where "high quality recording" and "sound better" (not sound louder) are used do seem to make me conclude that interpreting "engineer it to a higher level" in any different way is malicious and/or intellectually dishonest.
Not to mention the fact that the Loudness War you refer to originated a long time before mp3 and the iPod came along. So to drag that into this seems a stretch at best...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ipod and MP3 impact on music
Audiophiles and audio engineers will continue to listen music using the best they can afford to get the most from the recording.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It ain't the technology...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
#3 hit it on the head
why is there even a discussion about quality? we (the consumers) are all being screwed by the record industry. the price of cds is still overpriced. Cassette tapes took time & material to produce -- vinyl too. cds can pressed for a fraction of the cost of the other two mediums. consumers should be receiving a DVD in 24bit/96khz to please even the audiophiles. i am sure the audio is recorded in AT LEAST this quality (hence why you get special re-releases priced higher sometimes). I don't hear audiophiles complain about the quality of their dvd movies ...so they are pacified & everyone else gets a good quality recording (whether you can tell difference or not). But of course that makes too much sense & is ethical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: music and quality and ...
Hey Mitch Bainwol, your cover's been blown, you shill!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sound quality
It is true that MP3s are a revolution in the music industry, but it is also true that the sound quality of mp3s is worse than cd´s and vinils. If music is going to be mostly listened to in ipod headphones, that is what the audio engineers are going to mix to. There is no need of an acoustically engineered control room for mixdowns anymore, a laptop + protools + ipod headphones is all you need.
Like I said, I hope this helps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Move to Europe...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
have you guys seen this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you really care that much
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: MP3 & MPEG4
The keys to improved audio compression should a high frequency rate which determines the sampling rate-per-second (44.1MHz is Audio CD quality), and the data should be recorded at a higher bit sampling rate. Average MP3 audio is 16-bit, some are 24-bit. The higher the bit sampling rate is the higher the amount of audio data can be captured per second. Compression algarythms which chech for sound ranges above human hearing can remove this from the recordingm filters can remove other external sounds, thus you get higher compression along with a high quality recording. Or at least that's how an ideal audio compression format is supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the real killer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Two Additional Audio Issues
2. If I remember correctly EE Magazine did a teardown/analysis of an iPod and determined that the iPod was additionally EQing the music to have it sound better on an iPod than a competing MP3 player that was set for a flat response. So that adds yet another layer of distance from the artists/engineers original intention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Real Audiophile
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: MP3 & MPEG4
This isn't about audiophiles whining that MP3s don't sound as good as CDs; it's about obvious intentional dumbing-down of the music *before* any such conversion occurs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: sound quality does not sell records
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What?!
Utter rubbish! Where did you get that from? For starters, there are a few stages in recording between the instruments being played and the conversion to mp3. Almost all professional recordings these days are multi-tracked and then mixed so that there is a suitable balance between the instruments. Even if it's a live recording, the person who invented a microphone that could pick up just one instrument when two are playing would be a very rich person. So would a person who could devise an algorithm to perfectly separate out different instruments in a recording. mp3 ain't that clever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I blame advertisements....
The trouble was, some audio engineers realised they could make their songs stand out in the same way. And once a certain percentage of mastering engineers were doing this, others felt they had to follow suit otherwise their songs would sound 'lost' on the radio.
For a while, artists would release a radio edit for broadcasts. In some cases, this might be a radio-friendly 3-minute version of a 4 - 5 minute song, but it would also be more heavily compressed than the version released on vinyl or CD.
Where ipods and mp3's come into it - people are less frequently listening to whole albums - more often, they listen to random sequences of songs by various artists - so again the problem is one of the songs 'struggling to be noticed' by sounding as loud as possible.
So it is true in a sense that music has suffered. It has lost one of its fundamental emotional qualities - dynamics. This is not the only recent loss - most bands these days record to a 'click track' - an electronically generated ticking that the musicians keep in time with, generally set to a constant tempo throughout a song. Thus music has also lost variation in speed, to some extent.
Find any oldish piece of piano music. Not Elton John. Something like Chopin. It's full of instructions to gradually or suddenly speed up, slow down, get louder / quieter. The music sounds vastly better this way, and it is these qualities that are being lost in today's sterile music studios. Not all music, but most of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Bleh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what I do as a music-lover.
than the standard fare one finds on the net or that friends
use to rip in thier mp3 players.
Its like my own little "preservation" technique...
This bubble was just burst when today (9/13/07) i learned
about the LOUDNESS WAR. I feel like my ears have been slowly
raped for about a decade....its quite the bummer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: sound quality does not sell records
I have noticed that I spend much less time listening to CDs. They just annoy me after a while. They're either overly compressed or full of aliases in the quiet sections. I simply cannot enjoy listening for hours as I do with analog formats. Heck, the best compressor I have is putting the two-mix through my Revox in record/repro.
However, sound quality is not the issue when it comes to poor record sales. People download what they like because they're tired of paying $20 for one good song and an hour of junk and out-takes on commercial CDs.
I shall continue to record and mix in the best quality the client can afford, even if the end product does turn out to be on an iPod. As I said, I have to listen to the project for hours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What?!
Here is some info for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_masking
http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The diference is more noticeable if you compare a good (original with a good pressing, not a bootleg) 45 vinyl (yes there is also sound quality differences between 33 1/3 and 45 rpm records) and the mp3 version of the same song. You not only will hear the difference, you will FEEL the difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i need this item
i am juliet rose and i am urgent need your item for my son who secure an admission into university in abroad ,who birthday is coming up , i am kindly to pay sum $900Usd for the ipod because of the urgence of the item asap and for the payment to be done asap get back to me with this details
Name:
Address:
Country:
Zipcode:
Tel no:
Regards,
2) valid email adress .........
i want it fast , cos he is on my neck and soi want the business to fast asap so you can contact me by my email address(betadays10@yahoo.com)
THANKS
REGARDS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ridiculous
However, I'm no moron, and I'm pretty damn observant. MP3 may be a compressed audio format, but there is no question that the quality of a professionally recorded song played back from a computer through high-end speakers sounds better than one played back from a vinyl record, cassette tape, or in some cases even a CD.
The fact that this is even a debate is purely frustrating. This doesn't have to be broken down into terms of data and mathematics. If you listen to a vinyl or a cassette, the audio is muffled, distorted, and almost drowned out by static feedback. Each progression in format has reduced this feedback--not to mention individualized frequencies of songs so that effects like treble and bass can be tweaked effectively.
Digital audio (maybe not necessarily mp3s) is by far the best quality of recorded audio available to the world today, and if anyone seriously thinks that any obsolete format beats it in quality, then being an "audiophile" straight-up sucks. Because if I had to live with the real perception that vinyl record audio sounded legitimately better than the formats available today, I think I would just give up on music.
I still don't understand how this is even a question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ridiculous = ignorance
The nonsense here is your ignorance on the topic. It isn't the medium in which the audio quality is being chopped, it is currently in the mastering of the Album. Before the Album ever even hits CD or MP3, the compression is being blown up which means the dynamics are completely neutered. The loss of audio quality will never be known to the listener because the dynamics simply don't exist in ANY format the music is being played in. This is being done purely to get bands noticed on the radio and myspace, and nothing more. The studio compresses the master to the loudest possible volume, to the very decibel. Publishers know that if their band gets noticed on the radio, they are more likely to sell CD's. This makes the music industry more lucrative, but does absolutely destroy the value that customers receive from the product.
Music is an art form. It is not ethical to chop off the audio dynamics of something produced by a musician. This causes harm to one of humanity's remaining virtues. Please do not contribute to this argument with personal reflections of which medium is superior, such speculation is completely off topic and dilutes the argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ridiculous
Why do audiophiles continue to chose analog over digital? While I cannot creep into everyone's mind, I'm willing to bet it all lies within the actual mastering of the music. In this case, the audio format is irrelevant. Vinyl is an inferior medium in my mind, but there's absolutely no question a properly recorded/mastered LP will trounce a lousy recorded, poorly mastered CD (or any other digital file). So you see, specifications aren't what they seem to be.
Digital audio is one of the greatest things to have ever happened to music, but it's NOT used to its fullest potential. Isn't it pretty sad?
By the way, a person doesn't need a "$7,000" stereo. There's more budget, quality (GASP!) systems in the $500-1000 price range than ever before. Brands like Cambridge Audio, NAD, Music Hall, Rotel, etc. And you can actually build a pretty DAMN good system of used components if you do a search on that Audiogon website
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]