Letters to the Editor
-
Analog versus Digital Sound
I have owned moderately high end stereo equipment for decades, and yes analog sound is superior, some of the time. The best analog sound can't be matched by digital; however, many, many records don't sound good at all. Quality control with records has always been an issue.
Quality control issues also exist with CDs, especially early CDs. They typically sound harsh and the opposite of musical. These days, CDs are sounding much better, and the quality doesn't vary from CD to CD like it did with records.
Also, high end CD players have improved dramatically. And if you want to invest in a SACD or Audio DVD player, you're coming close to closing the gap with all but the very best of analog.
The sad fact, however, is that the exquisitely lovely sound available from the very best of the reproductive science is lost, and likely will never be heard again. This deterioration didn't start with with introduction of the CD. It started with the introduction of transitorized tape recorders in the late 60's. Listen to Miles Davis' Kinda Blue (recorded in the early 60s) for an example of what stereo sound can be. This sound is gone forever.
-
Loss of control
The digital/analog debate is pretty esoteric, since most people are not going to shell out the big bucks to get hi-fi analog when a CD-based system gets great sound for so much cheaper (and no scratched records!).
But what bugs me is the way that receivers and bookshelf systems have eliminated most if not all of the control over the sound. Ten years ago, even the cheapest portables came with a "graphic equalizer" or something of that type which allowed you to adjust the tone quality at various frequency ranges. Now, you're lucky if you get a "preset" equalizer with four or five settings: Jazz, Classical, Pop, Rock, etc. Many don't even have the old treble-bass knobs.
To me, good sound means being able to set it the way you want it, and being able to adjust for the quality (or lack therof) of the original recording. Why have they taken away our control?
-
it makes a difference if you listen closely
Actually, objectively, you can measure the frequency responses of any speaker system to determine how much distortion there is from the pure natural value. When audiophiles say MP3 sounds dead/flat, it can be backed up by measuring the response--I mean, the overtones and such are simply missing from the music when compressed. Subjectively, it probably depends on how good your ears are, what you listen for, and also the genre of music you listen to. If you want to notice a difference, pick a genre of music that makes extensive use of drum/percussion with different textures and volumes: jazz would be a prime example. Hi-hats, brushes that stuff sounds way worse on MP3---all the cool colorations that jazz drummers spend decades perfecting are almost lost. Classical also, things with acoustic instruments; the decades pianist spend perfecting their pedaling and touch don't matter that much, nor do the rich overtones of a full Steinway vs. an upright. When listening to say 80s music, the timbres aren't as noticeable for me, but a lot of little lines and motifs that are buried in the music pop out when I put on my $100 Etymotic headphones. ( Try the Cure---I once played in a Cure tribute band and was shocked to find a bunch of missing textures this way ).
The type of media matters too-vinyl vs. CD, vinyl is a warmer type of sound, CD is sterile. Do you notice a difference between digitially-shot movies and film? Same type of thing.
The emperor does have clothes on, my friend! But whether or not the difference is worth shelling out $$$ is a different matter. Though I am a semi-pro musician, I do not consider myself to be a real audiophile: I can enjoy music even if compressed and played through $30 speakers, but maybe because that is because I am partly translating what I hear into what I should be hearing. I think I am imagining what it would sound like live. The irony is that I find a lot of audiophiles are not pro-level musicians, while most pro-level musicians aren't quite as concerned about fidelity--probably because they too are doing what I'm doing.
-
http://www.austin360.com/music/content/music/stories/xl/2006/09/28cover.html
There was a fantastic article in the Austin American-Statesman a few months back, written by Joe Gross. It was concerned with the insane amounts of compression used for the last 20 years' worth of records. When Dylan said modern music sounds like shit, he meant the sound quality, not the compositions (although that's an argument in and of itself, I guess).
Instead of separation or dynamics, artists began clamoring for pure loudness - everything pushed to the center and shoved upwards. And part of the reason for that is the explosion in portable/personal listening systems. When you're on the highway or crossing a Chicago intersection, traditionally "good" sound isn't what you want; to hear everything in a sea of distractions, you need compression, y'know?
So now the radio only sounds good cranked up; low volume is a mess. iPod earphones are tiny and pump the sound in narrowly. Most computer speakers are shitty substitutes for even a cheap CD player. But this is how we consume music now; as an incremental activity. Vinyl offered a palette of sounds... there's a topography you can get from an analog source that digital find hard to match. I still buy 95% CDs for convenience, for what it's worth. I don't consider myself an audiophile (I use the computer, my car, a low-end record player & a 20-dollar CD player), but when I buy a song from iTunes I can almost always notice the loss in info. MP3s are a necessary evil; small enough to deal with/transfer, but not accurate enough to be an acceptable substitute.
I wanted to say hi-fi isn't going anywhere - and I feel like there's always going to be a swath of folks interested in timbre, range, and fidelity - but in an age when Akon writes hooks seemingly with ringtones in mind... well, these are scary times.