«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
Is Sound Quality Really "Worse Than Ever"?
Last week, Rolling Stone posted an extensive (6 online pages!) diatribe against sound quality in the age of mp3s. The article seems to have two, somewhat related points: a) that music is being mastered really loud these days, and b) mp3s sound crappy. RS posits that these two factors have become a kind of self-reinforcing spiral of doom for audiophiles, a "global loudening," if you will:
Producers also now alter the way they mix albums to compensate for the limitations of MP3 sound. "You have to be aware of how people will hear music, and pretty much everyone is listening to MP3," says producer Butch Vig, a member of Garbage and the producer of Nirvana's Never- mind. "Some of the effects get lost. So you sometimes have to over-exaggerate things." Other producers believe that intensely compressed CDs make for better MP3s, since the loudness of the music will compensate for the flatness of the digital format.
Hey, Garbage is still around? Okay, sorry, that was low, I liked that band. Anyway, I have to say I'm of two minds on this topic. Yes, the radio-style super-loud mastering that's de rigueur these days can be overdone, and I'll be the first to admit a 128 kbps mp3 can have crunchy high end and flat bass. I'm one of those guys you hear about who still buy vinyl records for their rich, live sound, and even if I've purchased mp3s I'll go buy the CD too if I really like it, just for audio quality's sake. So, technically, yes, Rolling Stone is right, but I think they're forgetting how things work in the real world.
First of all, let's talk about the aesthetics of "loud." Typical FM radio compression squashes the crap out of songs, for sure, but sometimes that enhances the music, allowing you to hear parts that slipped past you before. Radiohead's "Optimistic," a guitar-led track from 2000's Kid A, seemed kind of flat and unremarkable on the CD, but on the radio it took on new life, gaining a thumping intensity and power. I seem to remember Thom Yorke said as much in an interview (still looking for that source). Daft Punk's classic Discovery album uses hyper-compressed samples to evoke a nostalgic '70s radio sound: the "super-flat" style is the whole point. Moreover, with radio getting more conservative and marginalized, people hear original tracks first on the internet (or their friends' iTunes playlists) more than ever; so if an artist wants that sweet radio compression, it has to be built in. One of Rolling Stone's list of poorly-produced CDs, Lily Allen's Alright, Still, is a perfect example of this: she gained fame on MySpace, her music is populist but sits uncomfortably between most American radio formats, and its almost-distorted volume gives the album a kind of punk intensity.
Quality-wise, sure mp3s can suck, but think about how most people have listened to music in the Rock Era: dusty 7" singles, AM radio, warped cassettes that sit on the floor of your Mazda. I'll gladly take an mp3 from my iPod, plugged directly into the car stereo, over any of those. Secondly, all musical formats until how have been limited by, well, physical attributes; the initial point of mp3s was their smaller size, but with faster internet speeds and bigger hard drives, 256 kbps mp3s (which most listeners can't distinguish from CDs) are becoming more and more common. As technologies change, mp3s can change with us, with better-quality files available for those who want them.
Ultimately, the average listener is probably experiencing more music at a higher quality level than at any time in the rock era. And yes, thankfully, most albums are still being released on vinyl, so old fuddy-duddys like myself (and Rolling Stone writers) can continue to wonk out on super-high-fidelity.
Comments
I also listen to LPs, but not just to appreciate audio subtlety.
1. Cover art.
2. Actual album length content.
3. I can use big freakin' speakers.
With downloads you need a computer and broadband. If you listen to music on your computer, it's like being at work - cheap computer speakers and all. I sit at a computer all day. Why would I want to enjoy music at the same spot?
Then you put the crappy little files on your ipod-like device, and you are ready for portability - and that is what this format is all about. LPs are not portable. Here you can cram a million 'songs' into a little thing and jam the music through ear buds, or if you have some style, maybe real headphones. Sometimes you may play it on your music system... maybe...if you even have one.
But that is not what it is all about. It is to drive or sit on the bus or train or jog or lie in bed with the 'songs', kind of like when you were 14 and just hearing FM radio. One song here, one song there, downloading oriented to singles, and against album length musical thought. Maybe most bands can't last an album? One hit wonders, just like the 50s?
No cover art, no musical environment, no quality speakers, not even learing the band members' names, just another 'entertainment' to break up the day. A short attention span format. For kids only.
Well, I'd rather hear that "flat 70's sound" than that intrusive, inconsiderate, rude booming that is emitted from cars and homes these days. I like quality music sound as much as anyone, but I keep it at a level where I'm not disturbing others. That's how I was raised. Why should I inflict my taste (or LACK of taste) in music on other people? I don't have the right to do that, and others don't either. Glen
Posted by: Glen on 01/02/08 at 4:43 PM Respond
God forbid anyone dare to think that Rolling Stone is just shilling for a dying media that still pays for advertising. Give me a break. There are as many 'audiophile' digital formats (mpc, flac, etc) as there are bitrates for mp3's. I rip my CD's at 320 bits. I doubt more than 3% of the world population have an ear nuanced enough to tell the difference. And for that matter, if you don't have audiophile level preamp and speakers, which 99.9% of the population doesn't, you have what adds up to another ridiculously politicized redundant story that is obviously in the interest of the media printing it. But then thats soooo 2000's... Someone get a good audiophile sample of that dinosaur roaring so we can listen into infinity once they become fossil fuel =)
Posted by: Justin on 01/03/08 at 7:14 AM Respond
Taking music advice from RS is like taking relationship advice from a hooker. This is the mag that has shilled out the likes of Fall Out Boy recently giving them 3.5 stars. Come on. They also ran a similar article on compression around 2000/2001.
One item missed is headphones. If you have an iPod, ditch the headphones and drop $50 to $100 on something better. The file size/format does not matter if you use those turds.
Posted by: kirkbrew on 01/03/08 at 8:53 AM Respond
ARCHIVE
RECENT COMMENTS
Jesus: Twitter Is a Waste of Time (1)
Lightning Joe wrote:
Finally it comes clear, why I can't rise above my unfortun...
[more]
Will Bitch Go Broke? (3)
m wrote:
actually if you go to their website you can see that they ...
[more]
Rev Run's Affirmations (2)
Ralph wrote:
Reads like a kids book, written by kids.
"Your family s...
[more]
Palin Watched SNL Skit With No Sound—And Thought It Was "Hilarious" (2)
Jules wrote:
Please don't tell me that I'm the only one in this country...
[more]
Hancock: Racist, a Metaphor for Racism, or Just Dumb? (14)
Real Deal wrote:
The movie was incredibly racist and sneaky about it.
It w...
[more]
McCain Campaign: SNL Portrayal of Palin Was Sexist (10)
Paolo wrote:
Bill, time to stop drinking the koolaide before you keel o...
[more]
Mercury Music Prize won by... Elbow? (6)
Bobbie Yelverton wrote:
I like the music but the
video is vulgar....
[more]
The Newsweek Enquirer (5)
Alice wrote:
When will those who thrill to the sport of killing with a ...
[more]
David Foster Wallace's Death Will Probably Make Wallace-Style Dystopia A Lot More Likely (2)
Party Ben wrote:
@kevin:
I know you're trying to disagree with me, as comm...
[more]
Actor's Racism on Fox Makes Even Anchors Squeamish (3)
Bill Nigh wrote:
CJ is right..:-)
The best way to show dems for what th...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33


Posted by: Elydog on 01/02/08 at 11:16 AM Respond