Letters to the Editor
-
One "learns" good sound
Until I started doing DIY recording for my brother's rock band, I didn't have the skill to tell much difference in sound quality. However, when mixing lots of different instrument audio and actively paying attention to the EQ bands, my ears started to have the ability to discriminate between frequencies and hear how they fit together better in a song mix.
It's the same thing that happens when you learn how to hear the different notes on the musical scale. As a beginner it's hard to tell if something's sharp or flat, but as you practice it becomes obvious.
Essentially I learned to hear better quality by actively paying close attention to it. I can easily discern the difference between an .mp3 and an uncompressed file format these days.
That's why audiophiles are such snobs, they feel like they have a superior skill that an ignorant listener just doesn't understand, and basically they're right (even if they're also a bit obnoxious about it)
However, for typical pop music and rock, it really doesn't matter that much. For subtle music, and when listening with a good stereo or headphones is where it's obvious. And even then it's a marginal gain. I don't mind listening to a decently encoded .mp3, it still maintains most of the important frequency info. I only have about a dozen albums I listen to in an uncompressed format and those recordings are all orchestrations.
I will say though, when one really listens to a well engineered and an impressive musical performance on proper gear it can be an awesome experience. I think that's what the audiophiles might lament most, that folks are missing that opportunity. I'd point out that such has always been the case though regardless of digital or analog recording.
-
@ fuzzynormal
However, for typical pop music and rock, it really doesn't matter that much. For subtle music, and when listening with a good stereo or headphones is where it's obvious.
I totally agree with your second sentence, but I have some problems with your first.
Before moving into film, I made my living mixing rock and pop albums. There are numerous methods engineers use when mixing rock tracks to create depth and width. Some of those methods include the use of phasing effects, such as Haas delays, M/S techniques (as previously mentioned), pitch-shifting, and use of extreme high-frequency EQ. I do this frequently with guitars, synths and some drums. The problem with the use of these methods is that, if not used properly (they usually aren't), they almost disappear in compressed file formats. I have found that an MP3 has to be above about 320kbps in order to maintain even a portion of some of those effects, but none of them maintain a completly accurate representation of the original mix. Many times, those effects play a large role in the artist's (or engineer's) intended presentation of the song.
Another thing that happens when rock and pop tracks are compressed down to a lossy file format is the mangling of the center image. Snares and other centered percussion elements lose some of their impact (snare's lose their 'crack', to use goofy industry jargon). Vocals are also effected by this, but to a slightly lesser degree. To me, any mangling of the center image is huge because that's where the most important information is almost always placed. I sometimes cringe when I listen to some of the MP3 mixes on my MySpace page because they are not an accurate reproduction of my original mix, and that's really what it's all about. The only saving grace is that those version are mostly 320.
So to say this doesn't matter that much is touch incorrect because, even though you may not know those elements of the mix ever existed, those effects are an important part of the overall intended picture.
What I do is actually mix two versions of the song - one for CD and one that I know will be heavily compressed at some point down the line.
Totally agree with you re: the audiophile comment. I hear that term and usually run the other way.
-
One "learns" good sound ... as is true for all our senses
I could not agree with the above statement more: One "learns" good sound...
Like all things in live, we only learn through exposure to diverse experiences and by carefully “recording/observing” or memorizing the experiences: One develops a critical palate for good wine or good food by tasting different wines, consciously observing the differences. However, note that there is serious effort involved in this. One does not sit down and consume different wines and expect to be a wine expert. I grew up in a wine area and like to enjoy wine, but I never carefully developed a taste for the differences, but only because I was not carefully observing the differences. Memorizing and carefully looking for differences and describing them in words are essential in developing a critical palate. The same is true for all foods: Coffee, bread, different styles of food etc.
The same thing is true for all our senses, be it smell, taste, hearing, or touching. There are always some that cannot tell the difference or better judge the quality of wines or quality of espresso against the standard Starbucks Espresso. “Which is better?” is not a simple answer. Needless to say, neither good Coffee, nor good Wines, nor Hifi are dying out. There is always going to be a small subsection of society that tries to push their senses to the limit. Life would be boring without this.
-
finally
I've been asking people for years how they can stand to listen to music from their computer speakers when much better quality is (and was, years ago) availalbe from old speakers.
Finally someone admits the sound difference (moped, Ferrarri). I'm surprised people are willing to trade sound quality for conveneince. There is nothing like feeling music in your bones based on depth and quality of sound, not volume. The tinny quality of earbuds is horrible.
-
Interior Design Has Hurt HiFi
Another aspect in all of this that I think is very related: interior design.
I'm piggy backing on other people I've read about how home designers hate big boxes because they aren't terribly pretty and take up a lot of space, not realizing of course that there are some beautifully wood-worked and designed speakers out there that also sound good. So what do we get? Tiny, pretty speaker systems that are all in one that are designed more to disappear into a room than to sound good. Or you get a Bose radio that is nice and small and sounds better than some other small things through some cheap tricks (a whole other debate there), but my point is that when people look at their house and they have to choose between 4 large black boxes, a turntable that has to be a table (you can't put anything on top of it) and their cords with at least two other 40 inch tall boxes, or they can have something small that can be hidden away and has one cord....
I'm not going to blame wives or children or whoever, but it's definitely a reason why hi-fi is suffering. But good and accurate sound simply cannot be reproduced by cheap 2 inch speakers in tiny plastic boxes. The way people are fooled is through subwoofer systems...people hear a loud thump and think it means quality, or that their stereo has extension, but of course, a subwoofer playing a large section of midrange frequencies means you've gone back to mono sound.
Other thoughts: I think a lot of folks in the "audiophile" community spend a lot of time justifying their buyer's remorse when, hey, if you like you like it, don't make up subjective terms to prove yourself, though. But digital done right can sound just as good for less money. The trick is doing it RIGHT.
As for my tube stereo wasting energy, I have a short response for you: the standby light. Whether it's an led display, a tiny led light, or anything, even if it's an energy efficient light...when my stereo is off, it's cut off from the main power circuit in my house. it draws zero current. So many modern all in one stereos have that stupid standby light (outlawed in the UK) or a clock and are passively drawing energy just so they can be switched on easier. Not to mention that your iPod charger, if left plugged in the wall, also passively draws energy. another two cents to add to the pile.