I’ve talked about making different file sizes available for download before. We’ve acknowledged that there are differences of opinion on the topic. For some, OGG is everything. For others, 128k is sufficient and makes things better for people with slow connections.
For some (myself included), in most instances and for most practical purposes, a 320k mp3 file ticks all the boxes. Most of the time.
But the question I often get confronted with – and it’s one that raises some real passion – is whether people (that is to say, civilians) actually care about audio fidelity anymore.
McMusic Files
I spent the weekend in the company of someone for whom mp3s were the sonic equivalent of McDonalds (my friend is French, and so most analogies are gastronomic).
McDonalds is very popular. It will fill you up. It does the job of food. But if you just experienced the real thing, you would see that it is worth the time and the trouble. It warrants your attention, and does more than meet a passing need – it enriches you and satisfies you.
Now, I’m not “one of those guys” when it comes to listening to music. I love good sound on a great stereo – but like a meal in an expensive French restaurant, it’s not something I enjoy every day. I can be very happy with 320k mp3s.
Call for backup
I do wonder if my friend had a point in terms of having a reference copy.
A FLAC, Apple Lossless or WAV file is essentially exactly the disc, minus the plastic. Having it to go back to when you decide that you’d rather listen to something as it was recorded, or just as an archived original rather than a ‘day-to-day use’ version may well be a good idea.
After all, it’s just as safe – if not safer – to have a hard drive safety version of your “original copy” (if you’ll excuse the Baudrillardian non-sequitur) as it is to have a fragile plastic disc sitting on your flammable bookcase. And if you want to re-encode for a new portable listening preference, it’s not that big a deal to return and digitally manipulate.
Certainly quicker than a re-rip in most cases.
LP, CASS, CD, DAT, SACD, DVD-A, MP3, FLAC…
The music industry seems fairly happy to sell people their entire collections in yet another format every few years – so once we’re all on mp3, that might seem the next logical leap for music retail online.
It would certainly explain why, despite the capacity to make these files available now, by and large the online retailers are dragging their feet on this particular one.
But with the tension that has long existed between recorded music fidelity and recorded music convenience, is there a tipping point at which it becomes just as easy, quick and simple to use lossless files as it is to use mp3s – which are, after all, ‘good enough’ in most typical listening environments.
High-fidelity audio formats do not, traditionally, win over conveniece formats. CDs were popular not only because they sounded better, but because they were more convenient than what preceded them. Super Audio CDs failed, one presumes, because not only were the players pricey, but the only advantage over CD was that they sounded a bit better. They were no more convenient.
MP3s on the other hand, are the most portable, handy and convenient music package around. They take up no space whatsoever on my shelf, they can be moved from place to place without effort and they just work.
Audio fidelity is a cultural issue
Is it, perhaps even, genre-specific? You don’t get too many people blasting Rachmaninov or Ornette Coleman out of their mobile phone on the back of the bus, and nor are many hi-fi buffs serious collectors of Dubstep.
House music DJs require big speakers and muscular sound systems, for which high fidelity recordings are essential. Cafe-jazz compilations, which are so often relegated to background sound in public spaces may just as well be at 128kbps.
And let’s face it – the vast majority of listening these days – as far as I can tell – is done on reasonably cheap headphones, portable devices, badly placed home stereo speakers and computer desktop monitors.
Is audio fidelity actually that “important”?
Honestly? I don’t have an answer. All I have are preferences. I’m a former sound engineer and a reformed perfectionist when it comes to this stuff. I love a sonic treat – but I am no hi-fi snob.
I’m not in a position to go back and re-rip all of my discs in better quality. I don’t even own most of them anymore. I’m stuck with thousands of mp3s and I’m reasonably happy with that.
My motto is “records are for listening to, digital files for having on“. But I understand that I’m not typical in this respect.
I suspect that giving the audience a choice is a good start – and letting them know how to use the better quality files, which are often not entirely intuitive and do not work in every player (the equivalent, I suppose, of learning which fork to use for the entree) might be a good start.
And we haven’t even begun a conversation about 5.1…
What I do know is that there are some strong opinions out there. So let’s hear what you think. To what extent is audio fidelity part of the music consumption experience?
1 Trackbacks
You can leave a trackback using this URL: http://newmusicstrategies.com/2008/11/06/is-audio-fidelity-important/trackback/
[...] is audio fidelity important? Posted by scheff on Samstag, November 8, 2008, at 15:30, and filed under Post. Follow any responses to this post with its comments RSS feed. You can post a comment or trackback from your blog. [...]
34 Comments
I tend to think the McD’s/fine dining analogy is not quite on the money. You listen to good music for the quality of the music, not purely the quality of the recording. I’d rather listen to Robert Johnson than Steely Dan! I know which is the Mackie D’s in my mind…
I wouldn’t claim that mp3s are as good as lossless formats, but honestly, I’ve never tried to A/B test – and neither have I ever sat listening to an mp3 and thought “wow,this poor quality encoding is really ruining it for me”.
Maybe I’m unusual as being a musician who’s fairly unconcerned about this, but I wonder how many people care, or can indeed tell the difference in most circumstances. There’s certainly a pressure to claim that 24bit/96KHz is soo much better than CD quality, is soo much better than mp3… but how much of this argument is due to audiophiles and engineers trying to show off how good their ears (the tools of their trade) are?
Of course, I have in the back of my brain the assumption that storage costs will continue to fall and broadband speeds will continue to rise, and soon getting your 5.1 mixed, 32bit/192KHz recording from the band’s website onto your 500TB iPod will take a matter of seconds… rendering lossy compression unneccessary. But I suppose that’s years away. Or at least a few months…
Yes, fidelity is important. But I don’t think it’s as important as we like to think it is.
Most of my band can’t distinguish between a 128k MP3 and CD audio. If I take them in my control room, and do an A/B comparison, then yes, they can hear it.
But when it comes to everyday listening, especially noisy environments like the car, I think most people can’t hear the difference at all.
That being said, I’m a big fan of providing multiple formats/bitrates for downloads. There ARE people who listen in environments where they can hear the difference — or listen with enough attention that they can hear it.
The amount of extra work to offer higher quality files is a small price to pay for the gratitude of these fans.
In one sense, audio fidelity is completely irrelevant. History supports this assertion. Rock ‘n’ roll in the 1950s was a cultural force that changed the face of “popular” music and the consumer equivalent of the iPod was the Dansette – equally lo-fi.
In another sense, audio fidelity is everything. Not necessarily in the genres that I enjoy, but I get the point that certain types of music might well fall flat – in all senses of the word – when the very life is compressed out of them.
Those two viewpoints are about the appreciation of music. But, putting my IT consultant head on and looking at music purely as data, the concept of a “pristine” copy for archiving and future re-encoding purposes is very sensible.
So, I suppose if you’re going to use the word “important” without qualifications, I’d say that it’s important if you view music as something to be archived and treasured. If you’re just after the ephemeral delights of the latest Ting Tings single, MP3 is probably fine.
It is very important, to very few people. Music is not at the foreground like it used to be. Kids don’t lay on their bed with their headphones listening all day to the new record they just bought. That was 20 years ago.
For most people, music is something you put on while doing something else. For that purpose, an mp3 is just fine. Fidelity has diminishing returns, but it doesn’t require much trouble to make it available to your serious fans.
I’m not exactly sure how important audio fidelity is to hip hop fans as well. Loudness yes… fidelity no…
but all my files are available at 320k anyway…
“Cafe-jazz compilations, which are so often relegated to background sound in public spaces may just as well be at 128kbps.”
Andrew, that is actually a very comforting thought for me. As I split my DJ styles and production styles at about 80% “cafe-jazz” / “chill-room” and about 20% 4/4 for the dance floors.
This is not to suggest that I will settle for 128k audio but it is good to have a new perspective on what quality of audio could work in specific environments.
As for the question of fidelity being important; For me personally it is similar to your own practices (but not quite as rigid). I prefer music that is as close to sonic perfection as possible more often than not…BUT, I also just want to hear the songs more than I care about the quality.
“Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright” circa 1957 (I think) on a vinyl compilation called something like “…Hootnany Greats….” or something to that effect. I love that record! I love the “quality” of the late 50′s production! The sound of that era just suits Dylan’s voice, particularly on that track.
Most of my older vinyl is from the bargain bins at rummage sales or thrift shops. Needless to say the condition of the vinyl is not top notch but I have to have the songs. (Or had to have them in the hey-day of my crate digging!)
Thanks to digital audio media I have access to some of these great songs at much better quality. This is great and I take full advantage of it but to be completely honest: As far as “Songs” are concerned, I just need to HEAR them.
My definition of “Songs” here is a piece of music with compelling melody and lyrics. Lyrics being the main reason why the quality does not matter so much regarding these “Songs”.
For instrumental music, jazz, hypnotic electronica, etc. etc. I prefer quality. I am listening for nuances and those subliminal elements you would miss with lower quality formats. Think: listening to The Orb with some studio quality headphones after an afternoon at a “shope” in Amsterdam or even a cocktail or too (though I do not imbibe). Those sounds deep within the music of The Orb, the realization that what you thought were synthesizers are actually guitars running through countess effects processors…Or the hi hats in a classic Rush epic!
That is where quality counts for me. But the Joni Mitchell, Dylan, Bowie, Rundgren, etc. etc., Even John Mayer…those “Songs” I can enjoy at most any quality of recording. But again let me emphasize that given the option I would always pick the Hi-Fi format and system.
In conclusion, Audio Fidelity is of course relative to the listener…But maybe not merely relative for the musician / engineer / producer / DJ types. (I mean of course fidelity is important to all involved in the recording of their own vested musical creations)
I weep for the kids that think of the crud pumped out by their iPod as music.Okay, that’s more than a little melodramatic, and I do comprehend the arguments about ‘listening to’ versus ‘having on’, and what passes for a suitable listening environment these days, but your question is about fidelity, which is the quality of reproduction, and quality is and has always been important. I believe it’s missing from most consumer music experiences nowadays, and its triumphant return is inevitable.The questions are how long must we wait and who will bring it to us in a convenient and affordable package.
I’m nearly 54 and I still like to hear my music in as high a fidelity as possible .. minimum 192Kbps but 320 is better …
I had a brother who worked at a high end audio shop, so its something that my 20 year old self enjoys, BUT only albums that warrant a hi fi listen. i cant tell you how many times that i have heard bad band recordings that would just sound worse on a higher end system.
I don’t like the fact MP3 (or Mp4) compression removes quite a lot of audio information from the original to be able to save space.
At least it would need to be mastered specially for MP3 compression by the recording engineer. I’m not sure that’s the case of much recordings we find in Mp3…
I guess we just need to always have the choice between different formats.
On a related subject, what do you think of making multiple masters available?
A HQ master with lots of dynamic range for high end systems, and a LQ master with limited dynamic range for cars, earbuds and computer speakers.
As long as these things aren’t physical anymore, the cost shouldn’t be much higher to do so, no?
Luckily most of the music listening audience are not audio/sound geeks so low-fi isn’t a huge problem for the industry. Infact the industry can even get away with the loudness wars as demonstrated by Metallica’s latest album. Most of their fans can’t even tell that there is distortion in the recording, while a geeky fraction seem very upset about it.
As I like rock music mostly personally I think a great song is a great song lo-fi or hi-fi…and I have great memories of listening to copied cassettes with hiss and all via my walkman :-)
Is audio fidelity important?
Sometimes, to me.
Is handpicked pepper from selected Madagascar hills important?
Sometimes, to some people.
Andrew Dubber is right by saying: “I don’t have an answer.” Though he has one. For himself.
Of course it’s not imporant itself.
But (1st) I don’t want to miss the warm feeling of an audiophile sound system remodelling the music and voice of Nina Simone as well as of Laura Marling in a way that is filling the room as it would make the whole atmosphere sounding. You CANNOT have this with MP3. Except you’re lucky to have bad ears.
But (2nd) I’m lucky to have Nina Simone and Laura Marling with me on an iPod with ridiculous headphones when I’m rushing through the city and just wish to keep myself distant from annoying things around me. You CANNOT have this with audiophile sound systems.
It’s easy, isn’t it? You could also put the question: Is music important? If you think it is, make low and high resolution formats available. To have a choice means to have double value of the music.
i actually agree with paulo, it sorta makes sense to have an audiophile mix of an album available alongside a loud mix, then everyones happy.
back on the subject of mp3 quality, 192 VBR really should be considered the absolute minimum these days, 320 is pretty close to CD quality to my ears. i also notice that the “ringy” sound of mp3s seems to be a lot less noticeable in electronic music which all sounds quite digital anyway. the hihats from a live drummer can be a different story however.
compatibilty seems to be a major issue aswell, windows media isnt too fond of FLAC and im pretty sure that a lot of listeners are using this program. wavs on the other hand dont have any ID3 tags.
just like the minidisc didnt conquer the music market and laserdiscs didnt conquer the movie market, it will take time before a new industry standard comes along but when it does the switchover will be huge. for now mp3 is the standard, people just need to stop using 128 bitrate.
Audio fidelity is important. Ask anyone who has gone deaf.
Remember the late 70′s when lug around massive ghettoblasters. Yes it was about size, volume and power but it was also about quality of sound. Suddenly a high level quality hoe sound system could be carried around with you. Sound quality mattered then and it matters now.
The ipod is the transitor radio of the new century. The technology cost ratio doesn’t make superior sound playback in a portable device feasible at this time. It’s interesting that Apple made the ipod even smaller (nano) first before making the sound quality better. Maybe that is a fault of their technology but that of earbud designers.
The bottomline for anyone who wants to compete with Apple for a piece of the new transitor radio / portable device market – make a new player that can interface withthe itunes store platform, PC and MAC computers – give it better / best quality sound of all portable digital players and then cell it for less then the ipod or at the same price point.
If I were a moblie company looking to dominate the audio / video player cell phone market I would focus on raising the quality of the content delivery.
Audio quality matters. The public will take note again when it is affordable for them to do so.
I literally couldn’t care less about having a ‘high quality’ audio file. It’s a waste of time downloading it, and then it eats up hard disk/ipod space once it’s there. I put my stuff up at 192kbps which is ample enough. Even 320kbps is too much, the file size would put me and others off.
The only time I think it’s appropriate to upload non compressed audio is for the purpose of allowing others to remix it, or if you have somehow amassed an army of anal audiofiles as your fanbase.
=)
Rob
It seems to me that arguments about audio/dynamic compression are being elided into the argument about data compression. What’s the point of playing your high quality recording on an audiophile system if it has precisely zero dynamic range and (to paraphrase Steve Albini) it sounds like a beer commercial? Or to put it another way, should you make a great-sounding, tastefully compressed track (dynamically, and datawise if you like) which is inaudible on the tube, in the car, or the myriad other noisy places people listen to music? I personally notice dynamic compression a lot sooner than data compression.
Or Auto-tune. Yuck.
I appreciate that this is off the topic off “internet musics” but if you’re going to get into audiophile arguments about digital formats, I honestly think it’s secondary to the mangling that goes on before it’s even converted to mp3…
I would estimate that 95% of people don’t care at all, and the remaining 5% make a big loud stink about it.
There are a lot of demographic factors that enter into this discussion. For your average Top 40 pop radio consumer, they could care less. They probably don’t even recognize that there’s a difference and that people like us are having this discussion. They want the song, quickly and portable. The MP3 satisfies that need, and the sound difference is not discernible to them.
320 is fine for me most of the time.
Sometimes it’s worthwhile offering low bitrates too as an option.
This is pretty much only in relation to checking out new music but sometimes I actively seek smaller files and therefore lower bitrates. If your music is only available as a whole album in a 300MB zip file and I’m getting close to the end of the month and rationing my data usage then I might miss hearing it.
Of course it’s a bit different with music I already know I want and it’s something that will be less and less of an issue as everything gets bigger faster stronger but it’s something to think about if you’re trying to encourage people to check out unfamiliar music.
Martin, you mentioned 24/96 sampling rates, have you seen this:
http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/index.html
“If your music is only available as a whole album in a 300MB zip file and I’m getting close to the end of the month and rationing my data usage then I might miss hearing it.”
Which is why I also stream whole albums from my website as well.
Obviously compression became attractive because of the limits/expense of storage.
No one listens to mp3s because they sound better than CDs/lossless.
Most people don’t care or can’t tell the difference, but I haven’t heard anyone claim a preference for compressed.
The various methods of compression will disappear as storage costs continue to decrease. A year ago there were not many artists offering lossless files. Today there are.
Mp3s were a temporary solution to a temporary problem.
It does take a pretty keen ear to discern the difference between high quality lossy and lossless files. I suggest we should have a “pepsi challenge” with a control group and then blog some results.
As an recording engineer I can tell you that the best way to tell the difference (between lossy and lossless) is to listen to the cymbals in an mp3. They always sound “pixelated” (to use an visual term) or computerized, instead of the clear crisp sound you are accustomed to hearing.
The rationale used by the recording industry (to legitimize the 44.1k sample rate) has always been “just good enough.” In other words, cheap and low storage. For anyone who has heard an uncompressed 85MB AIFF file straight from ProTools, you know that is not the case.
Many years ago when I first listened to a sony walkman through the earphones I was impressed, but when I bought an ipod, I was disappointed. These days I have both, but I find myself enjoying the music on the walkman more, whereas the ipod is just something I listen to because it’s part of the times… There’s just something smooth about the walkman, that’s the best way I describe it.
It’s interesting to consider fidelity requirements in relation to genres; some genres can take much more of a quality hit than others and still be acceptable. In terms of mp3, I find that some electronic music can be encoded at quite low bitrates and still sound reasonably good (eg 128kbps)… however, more natural sounds do need higher quality to capture the detail. A jazz recording (which has lots of cymbals) can show up obvious artifacts even at higher bitrates… however, as you rightly point out, the primary driver of technology here is convenience, not quality.
For the most part, I listen to music in my car, or on inexpensive headphones on my laptop or just my laptop speakers. I would upgrade the sound system in my car if my budget allowed it, but for the moment I don’t even have a portable mp3 player. I still listen to CD’s! For all intents and purposes 128k is good enough for my money, but I still prefer 320k.
It matters to to a smaller and smaller slice of the buying public.
Convenience trumps file size/download times.
I am bemused by the discussions on the recording technology forums I frequent. And when I look at Sound On Sound magazine.
So much money and time wasted to create a pristine recording…that will be downgraded to 128 or 192 99% of the time.
I am a music and tech geek, and I found the best compromise vinyl plus MP3. You get all the physical fun of a record, the sound of a record (regardless of whether it is better or not i enjoy records), and I can still turn it on in my car. Not a solution mainstream, but certainly within many smaller genres and indie culture.
For mainstream honestly, they want it fast, easy and cheap. CDs did it, and now MP3s do it better. Most of my friends don’t take the time to listen to quality difference and probably wouldn’t hear it anyway. Ears are untrained, and they are busy people. In this respect, until lossless format moves at the same speed as MP3, we’ll have to be accepting of MP3. It all comes down to $$, and people are willing to pay for MP3s, not high quality.
I really love Paulo’s idea of releasing an audophile mix – one that sounds good on the studio monitors, before they mangle it so that it sounds “good” on a mini-system or nowadays probably a mobile phone!
I can hear the difference very easily between even a 320kbps Mp3 and true CD quality; as Matt says, the hi-hats are always a give-away, but even the lack of texture in a clean vocal is quite noticeable. Not only does it make the music a lot less powerful and emotionally involving for me, I find I get “listening fatigue” faster the worse-quality the file or equipment.
I dislike the idea of “throwing away” this fidelity so I invested in the hard disk space to rip them losslessly into FLAC before I got rid of the disks. It only cost a few hundred quid (for a RAID5 array) and is worth much less now. However, I also have a 256kbps Mp3 version on my laptop for when I’m on the move.
Jonathan,
To be clear, I was talking about dynamic compression (range between loud and soft parts), not information compression (difference between lossless and lossy codecs)
As for information compression Andrew said it best:
Mp3s were a temporary solution to a temporary problem.
Paulo
Absolutely, that’s what I meant. It’s such a shame that so many albums lack dynamic range and are so heavily processed that when you play it on a decent system it sounds artificial.
I admire your unbiased approach to this despite being an audio engineer, I myself believe that in general, people don’t care about audio quality, BECAUSE they listen to music on crappy headphones and laptop speakers, the worst sound reproduction known to man!
If they were used to listening to music the way it was supposed to be listened to, they would know when something sounds like crap, but the fact is, most people could never tell the difference between 128k and CD.
I blogged about my opinions on this here:
http://www.jarome.com/blog/2008/08/23/poor-quality-sound-now-standard/
I think it’s sad, but at the same time, I love and fully support the convenience of digital music! And because of that, despite being an audio engineer, I rip at 320k, a nice compromise between fidelity and storage convenience. But if you offer a full quality version for a bit more money, I’ll gladly go for that option!
audio fidelity is very important to me, although i’m not a complete snob. i think this is a very important point though:
And let’s face it – the vast majority of listening these days – as far as I can tell – is done on reasonably cheap headphones, portable devices, badly placed home stereo speakers and computer desktop monitors.
talking about formats and bitrates is absolutely pointless unless we talk about this factor along with it. it does not matter if you’re listening to .wav’s or 128kbps mp3′s on terrible stock iphone earbuds. and its a huge topic of conversation among dj’s, and i always wonder ‘why are you guys so anal about whether its a .wav or a 320 when so often the sound system you’re playing on is sub-par?’ its putting the cart before the horse imo.
as bandwidth and storage capacities continue to both expand and get cheaper, this will become less of an issue. we know in the long term this will only get better. convincing people to download a file thats a bit bigger and has a different file extension won’t take any real effort in the years to come…replacing all of the highly questionable equipment most people are listening to them on is another story altogether!
as far as how important fidelity is to enjoying music…it all comes down to the music and the listener obviously. people listen to music in different ways, look for different things in music and derive satisfaction from different aspects of it. i love a great track that is well produced…it can be an almost visual experience. on the other hand big obvious aspects like lyrics are something i rarely think about (most of what i listen to is instrumental). it all comes down to what you want out of your music!
I’m an audiophile in its truest sense. As such, I’ll take the highest quality available regardless the price. Just listening to sharp transients like hi-hats and crashes on lossy makes my ears hurt.
My collection is all ripped in ALAC from CD’s, half the reason I bought an iPhone is because it can play lossless. All my vinyl is also ripped from the CD version.
Most of my friends and other musos can’t tell the difference in an A/B test, only when I point out things like “listen to the hi-hats” do they notice.
But I have large studio monitors on my computer, so I’m very much the exception to the rule.
Its great when bands release digitally in lossless, however it’s usually so rare I end up buying their album or vinyl (or both) instead.
Owen,
I reckon if everyone had nice monitors then a lot more people would be able to tell the difference between bitrates.
On a really average system I can barely tell, but with nice gear…
It’s a bit sad that people have just got used to listening to music on crappy systems but such is the way of the world.
p.s. what do you mean by “All my vinyl is also ripped from the CD version” ?