Discuss: Many prefer the sound of MP3 over hi-fi audio

[Garritan]

Techdirt (http://techdirt.com/articles/20090302/0130073943.shtml+)is reporting

Every so often we have a story about how audiophiles freak out about how awful MP3s sound, and how they're "ruining music." We tend to joke about those stories, and then the audiophiles come out in the comments and scream about how we're totally clueless and if we only spent six figures on our own stereo system, we'd feel the same way. So, I'm sure they're going to be upset to hear that a growing number of young folks actually prefer the sound of MP3s to other, much higher "quality" systems. The theory is that they're so used to hearing the sound associated with MP3s, they are more comfortable with it and prefer it. In fact, the article notes, some believe the same is true of those who believe that vinyl's sound quality is so much greater than other formats: much of it is actually because they're so used to the sound quality associated with vinyl.
Are standards devolving? Or are MP3s good enough?

What do you think?

[pcor]

Hey Gary,

My hearing has been slowly deteriorating for years, so I am not probably the best to comment. I was one of those who was told that vinyl was superior to digital about 10 years ago. I suppose on the first few playings that might have been true with the right equipment, but as they deteriorate from repeated playing even I was able to notice it. Depending on the music I can no longer hear the difference if the sampling rate of the mp3 is high enough (like on the kury/bacos mp3s in another thread). At the same time I am sure that some can, just like sometimes I can hear the difference with an dvdaudio disc. It depends on the music and the playback equipment. I do not think that my laptop speakers are good for showing differences that may occur. Just my 2 cents.

Paul

[Hippie]

This is gonna be fun.


Let me get this foundation track recorded and I'll be back. :samurai:

[Larry G. Alexander]

Generally speaking, the average human ear is just not that discerning. A dog maybe, but not a human. A person who tells you that he can distinguish between the sound of an mp3 and any other music recording media is probably fooling himself (or herself) and is engaging in a bit of wishful thinking.

[rbowser-]

Very interesting, Gary!

I think this finding that young people seem to prefer the sound of MP3s could possibly mean that people's ears Are discerning enough to hear the differences between various forms of recordings, otherwise how could they have a preference? - Or are the young people in that study saying they prefer MP3s only out of a kind of "brand loyalty," and their preference has nothing to do with the actual sonic differences? They'll also say they much prefer Boxer shorts to briefs - and that's just an example of the fashion world selling them on a totally arbitrary preference.

- Side note--You older guys, my age, did you Ever think you'd see the day when Boxers, which we used to consider "old man" style and extremely dorky looking would somehow become In again? Still amazes me!

I think a lot of this underscores how people are creatures of habit, and we all tend to prefer what we're used to. People who still prefer the sound of vinyl, even though that sound is Very easily demonstrated to be full of imperfections--hum, rumble, scratches, surface noise - they're being nostalgic and wanting to stick with the sound they grew up with. That's an easy preference to understand.

Young people also tend to detest black and white movies. I've been around young people (under 30 shall we say?) who get agitated and moan and groan, leave the room--unable to watch B&W because it's so different from what they're used to. They can accept B&W as a special effect - since it's often used in MTV videos and modern films as an effect rather than just a medium choice. But it's again just what they're used to. They tend to also dislike eating vegetables, and can be very stubborn to attempt expanding their taste palettes.

When I make an MP3 copy of my own music, if I leave the settings to the medium ones used in most online MP3s - I can clearly hear a difference, because distortion creeps in, and muddiness simultaneously with rough-edged harshness. If I move the MP3 burner's controls to full quality, then it's much more difficult to distinguish the copy from the original .wav file.

Regardless of how many people are finding the difference between full tilt recordings and MP3s to be subtle, I still can't imagine ever going directly to MP3s for archiving my music - the way a lot of people are apparently now doing.

There are some thoughts on this. Interesting stuff!

Randy

[nikolas]

A HUGE THANKS TO GARY!

You had no idea, Gary, but you just provided some further bibliography for my thesis! )(~

Here's a part of my thesis, referring to the piece called Unique, and is developed while feeding this very forum at the same time (http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65251)


... Unique is a piece of music which exists only in recording, even the score has been provided for the scopes of the PhD research and examination. There's no need for a score, and by no means the work is playable in front of a live audience. Either way the objective of this music is to remain a single copy of recorded work, and under these requirements it can utilise any studio technique or effect needed to accomplish the envisioned aesthetic environment.


The Internet and the widespread use of the mp3 format (a format using a form of lossy data compression), has brought the decline of audible quality in music listening. A music item that would be created with high fidelity in mind, by using the most up to date advancements in music and computer technology and composed in such a way as to accent all those characteristics which would be lost in an mp3 conversion, could possibly be created in vain for a world which no longer cares for such attributes.


It's of high importance that the composer should be aware of the medium he/she's working on and the instrumentation she/he has been given. These are the very ground rules, the foundations from a practical point of view, on which a composer will build his/her music and are pretty much indisputable. Under the same sense, perhaps the composer should also be aware of the audience he's writing for, as it certainly happens in more marketable media, like pop music, or film music.


But for an audience moulded over the years to not care for high fidelity and perfection in the sound they're listening to, might they have been also fixated away from contemporary music as well?...


I think that it's very relevant today!


In all honesty you need 2 things to be able to notice the difference between a "good" mp3 and a CD quality wav file: A good pair of ears (and your attention of course) and good reproduction of the sound.


I'm a composer, I've been dealing all my (short compared to some of you) life with music and I deal with it professionally at a high level. When I'm out, I'm listening to crappy mp3 files and I don't mind at all! I don't expect my mp3 player, the crappy headphones and the noise in the tube or out on the street to give me a chance to notice the lossy quality of mp3s... In my $3000 monitors and my control room in my home studio, I certainly mind mp3s (lower than 192 kbp, I'm not such an audiofille) and I prefer the quality of the CDs...

[nikolas]

in fact, the article notes, some believe the same is true of those who believe that vinyl's sound quality is so much greater than other formats: much of it is actually because they're so used to the sound quality associated with vinyl.Unless mistaken, BTW, vinyl is analogue and CD is digital, so there's every sense preferring an analogue recording, than a digital one (considering that the vinyl player goes through a normal amp and not some digitized, etc....)

At least I think so

[RichR]

What? :mad: no way... mp3's are good for getting the general idea across*(), but not for full musical sound depth. I liken it to the 1950's when 45 singles were the big thing. We listen for the biggest hits and danced to them at sock hops, but they were no where near the quality of even my grand dads old Philips console that would even record your voice on soft vinyl platters. And certainly not the quality of a good audiophile speaker system with cross-over networks that sent high frequencies to tweeters, middle range frequencies to mid-sized cones and low frequencies to 16 inch plus woofers! Now that was a sound to behold!!! :wow:


Certainly doesn't match the quality of an iPod with earbuds. :hp:

[Pingu]

For me it all depends what the music is.

I hear terrible aliasing / quantisation artefacts in things like cymbals, piccolos, high strings, etc. Even the best resolution of mp3 or wma doesn't come vaguely close. There are some sounds where I probably can't tell though.

[JonFairhurst]

It all depends on the bitrate. Personally, I can't listen to most Internet radio stations for more than 30 minutes. I get fatigued. The sounds are without depth and harsh.

On the other hand, some of the better encoded demos are fine. I can listen to them with enjoyment, though I don't typically string enough together to burn out.

It's kind of like noise reduction. Reduce noise by a small amount and you hear the noise reduced with no discernible distortion. Reduce by too much, and the sounds are garbled and "underwater."

I don't mind high bit rate MP3s for end distribution. I wouldn't record, mix, and master with it though!

[BenNichols]

Generally speaking, the average human ear is just not that discerning. A dog maybe, but not a human. A person who tells you that he can distinguish between the sound of an mp3 and any other music recording media is probably fooling himself (or herself) and is engaging in a bit of wishful thinking.


Depends entirely on the bit rate of the mp3, and even at 320bps it is still possible to hear the difference. mp3 encoding is not perfect, there are little glitches and aliasing errors in it. I can hear them when i bounce a track to both high-res mp3 and .wav. Its clear that mp3 is 'inferior' in sound quality even with other digital mediums. (Inferior if you dont like it that is!)

At 24 i think i still count as a young person (well, i can dream), and ive been brought up on digital media. In fact i have little experience of analogue reproduction of sound, but even tho im used to digital, i can still feel and hear its harshness, and often i dont like it.. I believe analogue is generally warmer, but of course it all depends on what the artist wanted.

my 2.

[rolifer]

If I was listening to a piece of music I have never heard before, I probably would never be able to tell whether it was a MP3 or any other high quality version.
But if it was a piece of music composed by me, I know that I would prefer it to be of the highest quality possible.

Most of those that were interviewed for that study have probably been listening thru earplugs a good part of their life and have already lost half of their hearing capabilities and don't even know it.

Ron

[AlanPerkins]

Here is a more left-brained response:

MP3's to me feel like they are missing out on the depth and substance. Kind of like comparing black and white to colour.

I sense the loss and it leaves me feeling completely unsatisfied, whereas a high-quality loss-less recording touches something deep inside.

I think MP3s are a scourge; they are robbing a generation of what music is meant to be.

[bigears]

Hi All, Another point that factors into this discussion is the existence of
"loudness wars". The phrase loudness war (or loudness race) refers to the music industry's tendency to record, produce and broadcast music at progressively increasing levels of loudness to attempt to create a sound that stands out from others. I think some of the preference of young people for mp3's (and highly compressed sound) could be related to this. There could be some preference for it just because it's louder.

Here's a telling illustration from wikipedia, 4 wave forms of the Beatle's song "Something" in four different releases over a period of time:
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll30/jtan232/Cd_loudness_trend-something.gif

[robh]

I had a friend who was an audiophile - kept upgrading his equipment as money allowed. Eventually, he realized he was listening to his system and had at some point stopped listening to the music! He sold his expensive equipment and got your basic consumer stuff, and now he enjoys the music again.

IMO, MP3's are good enough for portable players and internet "listening rooms".
I have never bought anything from "iTunes" as I prefer to buy something tangible, and higher quality - (even if it is ever proven that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference!)

Rob

[Serge]

In my youth I listened on vinyl Led Zep 1 again and again and again. 30 years later I bought the Cd version and at the first listening the music seems very cold with a lot of holes. After some listenings on Cd I guess that my brain filled the holes.

SergeD

[JonFairhurst]

Here's a telling illustration from wikipedia, 4 wave forms of the Beatle's song "Something" in four different releases over a period of time:
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll30/jtan232/Cd_loudness_trend-something.gif
1993 was apparently a very good year. It looks like they actually provided wider dynamics than before. 2000 must have been the year of the limiter.

[bigears]

I just read a really funny quote from Phil Ramone:


"You can get used to awful," says record producer Phil Ramone. "You can appreciate nothing. We've done it with fast food."

[Steve_Karl]

My analog vs digital revelation was with a project called "Speckless Sky" by Jane Siberring.
I originally owned the vinyl and many yrs. later found the CD for a bargain so I bought it.

Vinyl, just by the nature of the medium, is incapable of capturing the full range of sound that the human ear can experience. It limits the range by rolling off the highs and lows. Dynamic range is also limited by the noise floor being much higher than that of a CD.

The "Speckless Sky" LP was warmer, having less highs and less lows and less dynamic range than the CD. It was and still is very obvious.

Of course, the CD was remastered and choices were made as to the final EQ of the project. Infact, it was remastered more than once and I happened to get a copy of an other release and it was different than the first one I found.
One could choose to release it again on vinyl but the limitation of the medium would make it impossible to get close to the range of either of the CDs. My guess as to why some say vinyl is superior to cd is that they like the limitation because it accentuates the more "human" aspects of the performance by masking the extremes. Most emotional content is in the mids. ( Think of where it impacts the body. )

I have an extensive collection of classical performances that I've purchased of CD. The first thing I do when the CD gets here is rip it to mp3 to make it easy to get to on my PC. MP3s are fine with me in this type of situation because I'm listening to the performance and not the recording.

Right now I'm listening to Mahler's 4th, mp3, 160kbit through Auratones with a sub and also have my earplugs in while playing scales on my un amplified electric guitar and it's great. I can "feel" both things happening and all is good.

Everything is relative!

P.S. The reason why I use earplugs when playing un amplified electric guitar is that they limit the highs a great deal, ( plink plink ) allowing the warmth of the tone coming from the body of the guitar to impact my core in a stronger way. It's my way of simulating an analog amplifier at a low volume.

[P.T.]

I think CD's sound better than vinyl.
The problem isn't with digital but rather that digital is more open to abuse.
When they maximize using limiters that reduce the dynamic range and, when pushed far enough, begin to distort the entire recording.

A properly made CD with the signal peaking at 0db with no maximizing sunds better than vinyl.
There is more clarity, no hiss, no pops and clicks and no surface noise that you can hear grinding away through the entire recording (easily hearable through headphones).

[Hippie]

Yea, this goes back to the "loudness wars" in digital recording. You've probably heard about Metallica's new CD. It was brought to the mastering house SO digitally compressed that the engineers couldn't do anything with it, and they put it out "as is."

Well ------ Metallica's fans cried bloody murder, and there is an Internet petition to get them to remix it and remaster it. From what I've heard, people say that it just sounds like complete NOISE, and not good noise. Their publicist says "It's the newest, most radical thing in sound! We LOVE it!"

I'm sure their ears are blown out by now, so how do THEY know? This has gone WAY over the top, and if this continues dynamics as we know them are history.

I bought a pricey Waves mastering program, and NEVER use it. I prefer to use my own ears to find peak levels.

Anyone want to buy some brand new Waves software? Oh --- I guess you can't resell software, so I'm S.O.L.! :D

Ern :hp:


LOL


I remember that. LOL

[Leaf]

The Mazda, I recently crashed (may she rest in peace), had a Bose stereo. CDs sounded much much better on that Bose than they did on my home sound system, a Sony (or any of my friend's home sound systems).

I'm sure the tremendous difference was because the Bose and it's speakers were tuned just right to allow you hear all that was present on the CD, and the others are giving only some of it.

Can't see how they could really prefer an MP3, if they had heard a CD on a good system, so i agree they have probably damaged their hearing.%-

If so, kinda sad because they'll never know what they missed.

[JonFairhurst]

And then there's 192/24...

I bought a nice DVD player with DVD-A compatibility a number of years ago, and I got one DVD-A disc (Fragile by Yes.) I also have the CD. The biggest technological difference is the image. The CD image seems to be on a one dimensional line between the speakers. The DVD-A image is tall and deep. More than anything, however, I hear the differences in the way the discs were mastered.

If I sit in the sweet spot and pay attention, there's no doubt that the DVD-A sounds better. But that's not how I listen. I often multitask. The only music that I listen to with obsessive attention is my current composition/performance/mix in progress. Sometimes I play along with recorded music, but that's a different kind of critical listening.

I haven't bothered with any more DVD-As. The player lives with the TV now, rather than with the stereo.

[SeanHannifin]

I like the first comment on the link to the article:

BEGIN SARCASM

It's almost like quality is....subjective!

*Shock, gasp!*

END SARCASM

Hahahaha... I think that pretty much says it all. :D

[JonFairhurst]

Can you really buy DVD-A discs commercially? If so, and they're 192/24, I'll run to Circuit City right now and buy a player and a few DVD-A's to check out! ;)
I'm not sure if they're still available. DVD-Audio and SACD (1-bit, super high res) fought each other to a standstill.

In theory, SACD is best if you engineer the perfect recording for a classical concert and let the "tape" roll. For digitally processed stuff, DVD-A makes more sense to me.

Here's a review site with many DVD-A and SACD titles:
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/reviews/dvdaudio.asp

Here's a player that plays both SACD and DVD-A.
http://www.amazon.com/Harman-Kardon-48-Player-Connectivity/dp/B000N1AWWW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1236662162&sr=1-1

There are probably great deals on older, high-end DVD players that handle DVD-A and SACD discs.


BTW, I've heard that "Fragile" (one of my faves) really doesn't have much highs on it, say, beyond 10k. Is that true? :confused:
I wonder how many highs I have left in me above 10k. ;)

Frankly, the beauty of faster sample rates is that it includes more precise phase information, hence, the better imaging.

Consider that if you get the sample rate fast enough, you only need one bit! If that's the case, then 192kHz is better than 96kHz is better than 48kHz simply because it acts as a kind of noise reduction. You're "averaging" four samples over time to create one good audible one.

[SteveMitchell]

Heh, of course, I like to fool myself and sit here and protest to myself how all this MP3-compressed BS sounds awful. But yet I have doubts as to whether I can REALLY tell the difference 'tween "full-fidelity" and that crappy "MP3-compression", variable-bitrate or not.

It soothes the ego to say "oh, that MP3 compression sounds like caca", but until it can be proven w/empirical data actually documenting aural differences, I have doubts.

I've reached the point now that I download high-resolution MP3's of my favorite Telarc recordings from Amazon (VBR or higher), convert them to WAV files, and add my own ideas as to what sonically sounds "REAL".

I'm an audiophile in my genes, but truthfully, I never took to the idea that folks could discern "height" in a recording that was made with 2 or 3 mics.

Just to state, I'm also a "double-blind" testing fan, and until someone can provide me with empirical data showing conclusively that that MP3's suck, and they can prove it, I'll continue downloading HQ VBR MP3's from Amazon.

Stevemitchell

[Jerry W.]

There is a class at Berklee called "Critical Listening"

It is a GREAT primer on acoustics, recording techniques, microphones, studio setups, mixing, etc. But it also teaches you how to listen for things you normally wouldn't even think about as a casual listener. I HIGHLY recommend it.

I mention that because before I took that course, I really couldn't tell much of a difference between CDs and (well encoded) Mp3s.

But when you know what to listen for, you can totally tell the difference between CDs and Mp3s. And, as has been said here in above posts, to me, it FEELS different too. The development in my ability to hear mixes and discern the sonic recipes that make up a song truly surprised me. You can train yourself to be better at listening for that stuff.

But... as has also been stated, you can get to a point after upgrading to the $$$$ sound systems, where you allow your enjoyment to be ruined by the experience of listening to music on inferior equipment. I have several systems, as I am sure we all do, with which I listen to music. In my car, (Toyota Camry standard sound system), my home theater, (mix-matched with high end and cheapie as possible components), my music studio setup (surprising how good it sounds, as I dont have standard studio monitors), my ipod, etc. While I prefer my studio setup, I actually have learned how to just enjoy the music no matter which system I am listening to. Sure, some "specific to the system" qualities irk me sometimes, depending which one I am listening to, but for the most part, I try to allow myself to appreciate what I am listening to, despite the system I am on. I have heard enough of the same music on all these different systems to allow for their deficiencies.

Glad you mentioned Wildflowers, by Tom Petty. That CD is one of several in the Critical Listening course. I never appreciated him much before having to analyze that album.

Jerry

[Raymond62]

Stupid remark: what happened to Mp1 and Mp2? What is it anyway?
More stupid remarks: it all depends on your listening environment, your living room, your car (great, because the echo's are ruled out by the shape of the interior), your ears, the weather (moisty or dry), your perception and your "mental translation".

If you have a wave editor look at the wave form presented on the screen and see how MP3 rules out some peaks, while being converted. This information is lost forever, and from there you are listening to music or any other sound having some electronic listening aid behind your ears, so to speak. ( I mean these things: http://www.iphoneclub.nl/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/siemens_triano.gif).

Since inflation, this was my 5 cents,

Raymond

[rbowser-]

Well, folks like us who listen to our own work over and over in detail as we work on a project are likely to be more sensitive to the artifacts introduced by MP3 compression than the public is in general.

Haven't we all made an MP3 of one of our masterpieces only to groan over the aliasing grunge that happens during complex sounds like cymbal rolls, and the blanket of wool that ends up draped over everything?

"BEGIN SARCASM

It's almost like quality is....subjective!

*Shock, gasp!*

END SARCASM"

--Amusing, but >gasp!< sonic verisimilitude* can also be objectively charted. :)

Randy
* typo originally - Sean asked WHat the heck?---I saw that I didn't spell it right. It's basically a synonym for something faithful to the truth.

[SeanHannifin]

sonic vermisilitude can also be objectively charted

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "vermisilitude" mean? Can't seem to find it in the dictionary... :confused:

[rbowser-]

well, Sean, there's a good reason you couldn't find it in your dictionary--I spelled it wrong! hehe. Kind of a dorky word, somehow it's been in my vocabulary forever, But I did typo out on it.

Here ya go:

Verisimilitude - having the appearance of truth.

I left out the first "i." OH well!

EDIT: OH man - I was seized by a dyslexia fit when I wrote that! More than just missing the first "i" - it's a mess. Sean, you shamed me into fixing my original post. :o

Randy

[SteveMitchell]

Wow, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. I had a Tascam 80-80 twenty or so years ago - sold it.

Stevemitchell

[SeanHannifin]

Verisimilitude - having the appearance of truth.

Aha! Even correctly spelled, it was a word I didn't know, so I learn something new! :D

[JonFairhurst]

I tell ya what I'm gonna do:

Buy a big backpack; put my 15 ips Tascam reel-to-reel in it; hook up a solar panel; plug in my Bose noise-canceling headphones; and go jogging!

Why stop there. Become a triathlete. The bike will make things easier, and the swim will be... interesting. ;)

[dominick]

Just to state, I'm also a "double-blind" testing fan, and until someone can provide me with empirical data showing conclusively that that MP3's suck, and they can prove it, I'll continue downloading HQ VBR MP3's from Amazon.

Stevemitchell
I wonder if someone might be interested in doing a pole about this subject, by posting a short orchestral passage in wav, and maybe 128 kb/s and 192 kb/s MP3 versions as well (not revealing the file type for a double-blind test). We could then vote as to what file we thought was the best in sound quality.

Most modern sound cards and amps produce great sound quality. Speakers or headphone quality is nearly always more important than the source. However, all speakers and headphones have different sound profiles - some are better at bass, or higher frequencies, or detail. Then there is how your god given ears, their age and amount of previous abuse interpret these sound qualities. Not to mention the time of day, or your level of fatigue. Has anyone noticed that what they composed late in the evening, didn't sound so good at another time?

I bet that most adults, especially those of us over 60, couldn't tell the difference between the 128 kb/s MP3 and a wav file. The same would go for a 20 year-old who has spent a few years with high volume Ipod listening in a noisy environment, to drown out the ambient sounds.

In the end, people may prefer what they are used to and what is conveniently or most economically available. Over the years I thought my listening equipment at the moment was great, until I would try something new. Most recently, it's not been the sound card or amp, but the upgrade in the quality of my headphones. I guess my ears are officially old now - I have tried putting various various 128+ kb/s rates of MP3 files and a wav file of the same recording in an MP3 player folder, set on random. Could not tell the difference using iAudio 7> Beyerdynamic DT880.

[bigears]

There's an old expression "seeing is believing." Finally someone is making a real attempt at doing something about the "loudness war" and is starting a campaign that may affect the entire industry.

This non-profit site offers an analysis, a plan and a free downloadable "Dynamic Range meter" VST to use in your own system.

http://www.dynamicrange.de/

If you care about recorded music and would like to see the "loudness/compression" trend change, please check this out. John

[Karl Garrett]

Lets face it the thing that binds the folks on this forum together is primarily music. It is only natural that we would care about the quality of the sound of the work we do. So I'll bet that at least 90% of us can tell the difference between mp3s and wav or aiff files if played on the same system. I'll bet though, that in the general public, those numbers would be reversed. For the most part they just don't care.

If it is true that the young people as a group determine the popularity of music, and if the music that I heard in the coffee shop this morning was supposed to be what is popular, most of the youth of today aren't any better at discerning quality music than my generation was. I hardly think the quality of the sound makes much difference.

I only feel sad that as they get older and some of their tastes in music improve, that they have enough hearing ability left to enjoy it no matter what it sounds like.