Firstly, for the convenience of the buyer, higher and lower bitrate files should be included. Not everyone has an iPod with a enormous hard drive. Including (yes, I know yuck) 128kps .mp3s would be appreciated by those fans with small-capacity mp3 devices. It would only be an extra 20 minutes of work, and would save fans the trouble of doing it themselves (if they even bothered to do it — we want people to not just buy our music, but to listen to it, a lot).

Secondly, I constantly find people telling me that I have “bad ears” if I can’t hear the difference between a high-resolution mp3 and a .wav file. It’s the same with people who insist I should record at 96kHz as opposed to 44.1kHz. I can’t hear the difference. “Well, you probably have hearing damage,” they reply. I never believed that, and in the April 2008 issue of Mix magazine, I finally got some backup that my hearing may not be the problem.

The article, entitled “The Emperor’s New Sampling Rate,” describes a study in last September’s Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. It compared high-resolution audio formats (SACDs and DVD-As) with ordinary 44.1kHz, 16-bit CDs. I’ll excerpt one paragraph that nicely summarizes the results (hopefully, this is fair use…):

“The number of times out of 554 that the listeners correctly identified which system was playing was 276, or 49.82 percent – exactly the same thing that would have happened if they had based their responses on flipping a coin. Audiophiles and working engineers did slightly better, or 52.7-percent correct, while those who could hear above 15kHz actually did worse, or 45.3 percent.”

The author describes the method of the study (double-blind, with meticulous attention to the signal paths, subject selection — audio engineers, nonprofessional audiophiles, audio engineering students, etc.).

Admittedly, this is a study between a very good format and a very, very good format, but I have to wonder, if faced with a well-designed, double-blinded study, how discernible is a 320 mp3 from a wav file? Or a 256 from a 320 mp3?

Certainly, a 128 mp3 vs. wav is pretty easy to hear, even my “bad ears” can hear the difference, at least if the material in question has any cymbal hits or other high-frequency instruments.

Much of the audio-recording media is about how to squeeze a little more sonic quality out of your gear — buy that $900 preamp, rather than the $200 preamp you’ve been struggling with, forget those 300-dollar mics, you need a 1200-dollar Neumann.

I wonder how much time and money is wasted trying to improve the signal chain, when the time could have been put to better use honing ones songwriting or practicing ones instrument. Maybe spending the money on a 2000-dollar mic/preamp combination could be better spent on instrument lessons from a really good music instructor.

Like many independent musicians, I’m now recording my own material, and it’s very easy to get caught up in “gear lust.” But I have to say, I’d rather listen to a 96kps mp3 of a really compelling song — the kind of song that can bring tears to my eyes, or makes me want to sing along at the top of my lungs — than a mediocre song in a high-resolution format.

The confluence of “recording engineer” and “recording artist” has been a wonderful, empowering thing, but I think there’s a danger of losing the art. We should be mindful of it. After all, it’s all about the music, or should be.

perhaps theres some marketing scope for ‘pro’ versions of songs for sale to professionals. as you say, some people already do it..

mmm serato…

Peace
Leary

One issue to consider though is that if all my music were encoded at 320Kbps I’d only fit half as much on my ipod and therefore I’d be reluctant to put it on.

For instance this morning I had to delete two albums from the ipod in order to make way for a 320kbps one.

I know I could reconvert it etc etc. – but it’s all hassle and for my listeners at least there really is no point exceeding 192Kbps – it’s quick to download and doesn’t take up too much disk space.

The ZIP file point is very good – I always do this – although believe it or not some people do need educated as to what it is!

Great post. Cheers.

320k is more than ample I reckon. *Most* people really dont notice the difference even between 128k files and a cd. Of course a bunch of us do, and people that listen to drum n bass and the like certainly do. Depending on the complexity and frequency range of the music, most people really dont notice.

I agree on your point about offering a high quality FLAC or similar. Theres audiophiles everywhere, but most people dont know what it is. Good to offer though, cos the people that only want the lossless quality, are *probably* the people that also talk about your music online.

and word up to the tags, you dont make people guess the names of your tracks on a cd do you.

Cheers
Leary

Consider also that two of the most popular digital stores, iTunes and Amazon MP3, offer their downloads at a baseline of 128k and 256k, respectively. Amazon’s files are also variable bit rate.

I offered MP3, Ogg and FLAC files on my website for a few years. In that time, I sold no Ogg and only a handful of FLAC. I eventually dropped Ogg because the cost to host and maintain those files exceeded the income they generated.

And in the end, faced with purchasing from my own store vs. a known venue like iTunes, most of my customers opt for the latter anyway.