Books, Movies, Music & Entertainment - The Death of High Fidelity

Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.




View Full Version : The Death of High Fidelity


Poppaspoke
12-30-07, 01:51 PM
In the age of MP3s, sound quality is worse than ever

ROBERT LEVINE

Posted Dec 26, 2007 1:27 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print

David Bendeth, a producer who works with rock bands like Hawthorne Heights and Paramore, knows that the albums he makes are often played through tiny computer speakers by fans who are busy surfing the Internet. So he's not surprised when record labels ask the mastering engineers who work on his CDs to crank up the sound levels so high that even the soft parts sound loud.

Over the past decade and a half, a revolution in recording technology has changed the way albums are produced, mixed and mastered — almost always for the worse. "They make it loud to get [listeners'] attention," Bendeth says. Engineers do that by applying dynamic range compression, which reduces the difference between the loudest and softest sounds in a song. Like many of his peers, Bendeth believes that relying too much on this effect can obscure sonic detail, rob music of its emotional power and leave listeners with what engineers call ear fatigue. "I think most everything is mastered a little too loud," Bendeth says. "The industry decided that it's a volume contest."

Producers and engineers call this "the loudness war," and it has changed the way almost every new pop and rock album sounds. But volume isn't the only issue. Computer programs like Pro Tools, which let audio engineers manipulate sound the way a word processor edits text, make musicians sound unnaturally perfect. And today's listeners consume an increasing amount of music on MP3, which eliminates much of the data from the original CD file and can leave music sounding tinny or hollow. "With all the technical innovation, music sounds worse," says Steely Dan's Donald Fagen, who has made what are considered some of the best-sounding records of all time. "God is in the details. But there are no details anymore."

The idea that engineers make albums louder might seem strange: Isn't volume controlled by that knob on the stereo? Yes, but every setting on that dial delivers a range of loudness, from a hushed vocal to a kick drum — and pushing sounds toward the top of that range makes music seem louder. It's the same technique used to make television commercials stand out from shows. And it does grab listeners' attention — but at a price. Last year, Bob Dylan told Rolling Stone that modern albums "have sound all over them. There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like — static."

In 2004, Jeff Buckley's mom, Mary Guibert, listened to the original three-quarter-inch tape of her son's recordings as she was preparing the tenth-anniversary reissue of Grace. "We were hearing instruments you've never heard on that album, like finger cymbals and the sound of viola strings being plucked," she remembers. "It blew me away because it was exactly what he heard in the studio."

To Guibert's disappointment, the remastered 2004 version failed to capture these details. So last year, when Guibert assembled the best-of collection So Real: Songs From Jeff Buckley, she insisted on an independent A&R consultant to oversee the reissue process and a mastering engineer who would reproduce the sound Buckley made in the studio. "You can hear the distinct instruments and the sound of the room," she says of the new release. "Compression smudges things together."

Too much compression can be heard as musical clutter; on the Arctic Monkeys' debut, the band never seems to pause to catch its breath. By maintaining constant intensity, the album flattens out the emotional peaks that usually stand out in a song. "You lose the power of the chorus, because it's not louder than the verses," Bendeth says. "You lose emotion."

The inner ear automatically compresses blasts of high volume to protect itself, so we associate compression with loudness, says Daniel Levitin, a professor of music and neuroscience at McGill University and author of This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession. Human brains have evolved to pay particular attention to loud noises, so compressed sounds initially seem more exciting. But the effect doesn't last. "The excitement in music comes from variation in rhythm, timbre, pitch and loudness," Levitin says. "If you hold one of those constant, it can seem monotonous." After a few minutes, research shows, constant loudness grows fatiguing to the brain. Though few listeners realize this consciously, many feel an urge to skip to another song.

"If you limit range, it's just an assault on the body," says Tom Coyne, a mastering engineer who has worked with Mary J. Blige and Nas. "When you're fifteen, it's the greatest thing — you're being hammered. But do you want that on a whole album?"

To an average listener, a wide dynamic range creates a sense of spaciousness and makes it easier to pick out individual instruments — as you can hear on recent albums such as Dylan's Modern Times and Norah Jones' Not Too Late. "When people have the courage and the vision to do a record that way, it sets them apart," says Joe Boyd, who produced albums by Richard Thompson and R.E.M.'s Fables of the Reconstruction. "It sounds warm, it sounds three-dimensional, it sounds different. Analog sound to me is more emotionally affecting."

Rock and pop producers have always used compression to balance the sounds of different instruments and to make music sound more exciting, and radio stations apply compression for technical reasons. In the days of vinyl rec- ords, there was a physical limit to how high the bass levels could go before the needle skipped a groove. CDs can handle higher levels of loudness, although they, too, have a limit that engineers call "digital zero dB," above which sounds begin to distort. Pop albums rarely got close to the zero-dB mark until the mid-1990s, when digital compressors and limiters, which cut off the peaks of sound waves, made it easier to manipulate loudness levels. Intensely compressed albums like Oasis' 1995 (What's the Story) Morning Glory? set a new bar for loudness; the songs were well-suited for bars, cars and other noisy environments. "In the Seventies and Eighties, you were expected to pay attention," says Matt Serletic, the former chief executive of Virgin Records USA, who also produced albums by Matchbox Twenty and Collective Soul. "Modern music should be able to get your attention." Adds Rob Cavallo, who produced Green Day's American Idiot and My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade, "It's a style that started post-grunge, to get that intensity. The idea was to slam someone's face against the wall. You can set your CD to stun."

It's not just new music that's too loud. Many remastered recordings suffer the same problem as engineers apply compression to bring them into line with modern tastes. The new Led Zeppelin collection, Mothership, is louder than the band's original albums, and Bendeth, who mixed Elvis Presley's 30 #1 Hits, says that the album was mastered too loud for his taste. "A lot of audiophiles hate that record," he says, "but people can play it in the car and it's competitive with the new Foo Fighters record."

Just as cds supplanted vinyl and cassettes, MP3 and other digital-music formats are quickly replacing CDs as the most popular way to listen to music. That means more conven- ience but worse sound. To create an MP3, a computer samples the music on a CD and compresses it into a smaller file by excluding the musical information that the human ear is less likely to notice. Much of the information left out is at the very high and low ends, which is why some MP3s sound flat. Cavallo says that MP3s don't reproduce reverb well, and the lack of high-end detail makes them sound brittle. Without enough low end, he says, "you don't get the punch anymore. It decreases the punch of the kick drum and how the speaker gets pushed when the guitarist plays a power chord."

But not all digital-music files are created equal. Levitin says that most people find MP3s ripped at a rate above 224 kbps virtually indistinguishable from CDs. (iTunes sells music as either 128 or 256 kbps AAC files — AAC is slightly superior to MP3 at an equivalent bit rate. Amazon sells MP3s at 256 kbps.) Still, "it's like going to the Louvre and instead of the Mona Lisa there's a 10-megapixel image of it," he says. "I always want to listen to music the way the artists wanted me to hear it. I wouldn't look at a Kandinsky painting with sunglasses on."

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.

As technological shifts have changed the way sounds are recorded, they have encouraged an artificial perfection in music itself. Analog tape has been replaced in most studios by Pro Tools, making edits that once required splicing tape together easily done with the click of a mouse. Programs like Auto-Tune can make weak singers sound pitch-perfect, and Beat Detective does the same thing for wobbly drummers.

"You can make anyone sound professional," says Mitchell Froom, a producer who's worked with Elvis Costello and Los Lobos, among others. "But the problem is that you have something that's professional, but it's not distinctive. I was talking to a session drummer, and I said, 'When's the last time you could tell who the drummer is?' You can tell Keith Moon or John Bonham, but now they all sound the same."

So is music doomed to keep sounding worse? Awareness of the problem is growing. The South by Southwest music festival recently featured a panel titled "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like ****?" In August, a group of producers and engineers founded an organization called Turn Me Up!, which proposes to put stickers on CDs that meet high sonic standards.

But even most CD listeners have lost interest in high-end stereos as surround-sound home theater systems have become more popular, and superior-quality disc formats like DVD-Audio and SACD flopped. Bendeth and other producers worry that young listeners have grown so used to dynamically compressed music and the thin sound of MP3s that the battle has already been lost. "CDs sound better, but no one's buying them," he says. "The age of the audiophile is over."


dauphin
12-30-07, 02:01 PM
fascinating...I knew something like this was happening, but I had no idea of some of the details and reasons. It's like all music has been given the Phil Spector Wall of Sound treatment.

linux_author
12-30-07, 02:55 PM
"The age of the audiophile is over."

- along with the age of courtesy, family values, manners, customer service, common sense, frugality, saving, art appreciation, physical activity, and art appreciation...

- ah! the good ol' days of single regenerative receivers, separate transmitters, continuous wave communications, and homebrew antennas!

:-)

p.s. interesting article, tks!


pedex
12-31-07, 09:40 AM
when the bitrate standards were set for CD's they used a rate just barely over the absolute minimum needed for the theoretical reproduction of the sound sample, its been all downhill ever since even though the data storage tech of putting data on a disk has gotten good enough to where they could easily raise the standards to something more reasonable

PhilThee
01-01-08, 02:55 AM
I was aware of this way back when they changed the popular format from albums to tape, then to cd.

It's a sad deal and as they state many younger people who drive the sales of newer music simply don't know and some don't care. They just want loud music.

Well I do too but I want range, emotion, and finesse with it. Yes you can have it all. You just need to go back to the old "Inferior Format" to get it :(

Try to talk to someone addicted to their MP3's and they tell you it sounds great to them.
Yea, I guess "Great" sounds sterile and boring now days.

PhilThee
01-01-08, 03:02 AM
when the bitrate standards were set for CD's they used a rate just barely over the absolute minimum needed for the theoretical reproduction of the sound sample, its been all downhill ever since even though the data storage tech of putting data on a disk has gotten good enough to where they could easily raise the standards to something more reasonable

Yes all too true. Now they drop even more of what they think we can't hear to get a smaller package.
The ambiance and range is lost even in heavy metal.

In some older heavy metal I swear you could hear the pick hitting the strings some times.
It's all gone now.

FOOLS!!! :mad:

I've probably spent $7,500.00 in CD players to get some of the small sounds back off a CD but they keep remixing the damn CD's and eliminating the little bits I'm trying to pull of the CD's so they just sit there now :mad:

Naim CD3
Nain CD5 with Flatcap2 Power Supply
Naim CDX with XPS Power Supply
Sony DVP-S9000-ES

Poppaspoke
01-01-08, 06:34 PM
when the bitrate standards were set for CD's they used a rate just barely over the absolute minimum needed for the theoretical reproduction of the sound sample, its been all downhill ever since even though the data storage tech of putting data on a disk has gotten good enough to where they could easily raise the standards to something more reasonable

I don't think the problem is with the Fourier approximations used in the original
bitrate calculations. The problem is with producers and sound engineers who are
uncomfortable with silence between the notes.

In musical terms, just think of Willie Nelson singing Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain with
a simple open-sounding acoustic guitar accompanying his voice. Then compare that sound
with Keith Urban (or most any contemporary pop artist) with a mushy sound-scape that
obliterates the sound of individual instruments.

FatguyRacer
01-02-08, 08:42 AM
Yes all too true. Now they drop even more of what they think we can't hear to get a smaller package.
The ambiance and range is lost even in heavy metal.

In some older heavy metal I swear you could hear the pick hitting the strings some times.
It's all gone now.

FOOLS!!! :mad:

I've probably spent $7,500.00 in CD players to get some of the small sounds back off a CD but they keep remixing the damn CD's and eliminating the little bits I'm trying to pull of the CD's so they just sit there now :mad:

Naim CD3
Nain CD5 with Flatcap2 Power Supply
Naim CDX with XPS Power Supply
Sony DVP-S9000-ES

All is not lost. Just buy the right CDs. Fagen and Becker oversaw the remastering of thier entire catalog and i can assure you that all those Steely Dan CDs sound fantastic. I even have a 5.1 Audio DVD of Gaucho and its awesome.

I do agree about the mastering. One glaring example was the first time i stuck A Perfect Circles 2nd release Thirteenth Step in my CD player and nearly blew my ear drums out with the opening riff of the first tune, The Package. I was pissed!

Nowadays i find myself listening to more jazz.

pedex
01-02-08, 01:03 PM
I don't think the problem is with the Fourier approximations used in the original
bitrate calculations. The problem is with producers and sound engineers who are
uncomfortable with silence between the notes.

In musical terms, just think of Willie Nelson singing Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain with
a simple open-sounding acoustic guitar accompanying his voice. Then compare that sound
with Keith Urban (or most any contemporary pop artist) with a mushy sound-scape that
obliterates the sound of individual instruments.

actually it is, the bitrate was set at 44.1khz I believe, max frequency good audio equipment and human ear can handle/hear is 20khz, rule of thumb for accurate digital sampling you need a sampling rate equal to 2X max frequency but that is the minimum, 3x or 4x works much better if you really want a decent result

then you get into the lossy codecs used like mpeg3 which kills both the high end and low end even more

when CD's were invented and standardized they were faced with a density problem on the disks themselves vs having a reasonably sized disk and still have decent storage of data on the disk so they compromised and set the sampling rate as low as they thought they could get away with

if they were to do it again with today's tech and methods available I would assume they would probably up the sample rate and use a lossless codec and dump the ".wav" format altogether, the high end response would be better and the files smaller with less loss of info in the analog to digital conversion, it would also leave the people doing the mixing more headroom to work their magic and still preserve the sample well enough to get a good result

the same sort of thing is occurring and has occurred in the video realm as well, MPEG2 isn't all that great of a codec but it is mainstream and standard despite alternatives being available these days which are much better, what's interesting in the video realm though is the standards set at the time were better than what the equipment playing them could display, with audio equipment that hasn't been the case

sean3089
01-02-08, 01:59 PM
Turtable quality is better than ever. We still haven't reached the limit of what can be retreived from vinyl. As long as Grado, MacIntosh, Linn, Nordost, et al are in business, there's hope.

NAD 4020
Wharfedale Diamonds
Thorens TD 166
HD speaker cable

lotek
01-02-08, 02:55 PM
Turtable quality is better than ever. We still haven't reached the limit of what can be retreived from vinyl. As long as Grado, MacIntosh, Linn, Nordost, et al are in business, there's hope.


yah, but how much new vinyl is being produced?
Give me a good piece of shiny black vinyl on a Rega turntable and
I'm a happy camper.

Marty

DM4
01-02-08, 03:34 PM
yah, but how much new vinyl is being produced?
Give me a good piece of shiny black vinyl on a Rega turntable and
I'm a happy camper.

Marty

There is a great deal of vinyl being produced. Go to www.acousticsounds.com

noisebeam
01-03-08, 08:48 AM
I wish every music player (home stereo, PC, portable player, car*, etc.) had a compressor. I wouldn't use it, but at least others could instead of having it forced on me at mastering.

http://www.digido.com/other-audio-articles/loudness-war-explained.html

*yes some car stereos have this option

Al

PhilThee
01-04-08, 07:56 AM
Turtable quality is better than ever. We still haven't reached the limit of what can be retreived from vinyl. As long as Grado, MacIntosh, Linn, Nordost, et al are in business, there's hope.



However the prices are higher than ever too.

DM4
01-04-08, 11:11 AM
However the prices are higher than ever too.


Prices can be very high, however they can also be very reasonable. For example the Pro-ject and Rega tables, with an arm and cartridge can be had for only a few hundred dollars. These tables perfrom much better than any available even a few years ago.

Again, see www.acousticsounds.com

Namenda
01-04-08, 11:50 AM
Prices can be very high, however they can also be very reasonable. For example the Pro-ject and Rega tables, with an arm and cartridge can be had for only a few hundred dollars. These tables perfrom much better than any available even a few years ago.

Music Hall tables are in that same group. I get great sound with a simple set-up:Music Hall mmf-2.1, Benz Micro cart, Channel Islands pre-amp, Marantz receiver, JMLabs speakers, and Audioquest cables. Better than any CD sound I've heard. Not as loud, maybe...just better.

sean3089
01-04-08, 12:35 PM
Grado still makes a $40 cartridge.

You guys have inspired me. I'm going to stop buying bike stuff that I don't really need, and start buying stereo stuff I don't really need. First purchase: Audio Quest interconnects.

Elkhound
01-04-08, 12:38 PM
When an LP is first pressed, the quality of the recording may be superior, but unless you use archival protocols, pops, clicks, hum, and other garbage will creep in as there will be wear-and-tear on the disc.

Namenda
01-04-08, 01:16 PM
Grado still makes a $40 cartridge.

You guys have inspired me. I'm going to stop buying bike stuff that I don't really need, and start buying stereo stuff I don't really need. First purchase: Audio Quest interconnects.

I had a Grado Black. Not bad at all. I sold it used for the same money.

DM4
01-04-08, 03:19 PM
When an LP is first pressed, the quality of the recording may be superior, but unless you use archival protocols, pops, clicks, hum, and other garbage will creep in as there will be wear-and-tear on the disc.

WRONG!!!!

Any surface imperfections, such as pops, clicks, and surface noise are present when the pressing is made. No additional noise "creeps" in unless you mishandle the record. If you avoid scratching the surface and keep oily fingers from the grooves and your table is set up properly then the record will forever sound as good as the day you first played it.

Most vinyl used today is very quiet. Cleaning the record reduces any surface noise dramatically. I like the VPI record cleaning machines.

I have many records that are over 30 years old that sound as if new. One in particular that I was listening to recently was Bruce Springsteen's, The Wild, The Innocent, and the E. Street Shuffle.I purchased the record when it was originally released in 1975. It still sounds utterly phenomenal. The three back-up female singers on 4th of July, Asbury Park are unbelievable.


I am still amazed at the amount of detail and definition in recordings from the 70's and 80's that can be revealed with good, modern equipment.

For what it's worth, I am using a Linn LP12 w/ Lingo power supply, Alphason HRS100MCS arm and Benz ruby catridge.

Ceramic bearings are all the rage now in cycling. The Alphason arm uses ceramic bearings.

-=(8)=-
01-05-08, 07:06 AM
I feel bad for people who havent experienced vinyl.
There is no comparison. To get a digital 'image' you
need to chip away at the byte. Why would you want some
engineer telling you how Live at Leeds or Get your Ya Yas out
sound ?

PhilThee
01-06-08, 03:28 AM
Damn some of you guys got some nice gear. I got tired of the high cost and bowed out.

I'd still love to have a nice TT. I was once an audiogon regular. Not buying and selling but reading.
Those mid level Rega TT's sure do have a decent rep and I was told to get one if I was on a bit of a budget.
That was about 5 years ago.

Anybody want to purchase a sweet Nam CDX? It's been doing nothing but sitting unplugged in a heated room for about 4 1/4 years.

Brillig
01-10-08, 07:43 AM
Nowadays i find myself listening to more jazz.

Jimmy Bruno quit his record label and started his own for one single reason-compression. He was fighting over the compression used on his recordings and he couldn't get the label to cooperate.

It's the age old battle, art vs. commerce. Labels feel they have to up the compression (and limiting) to sell more records. Artists hate the loss of the subtlety and dynamics.

Brillig
01-10-08, 07:46 AM
I feel bad for people who havent experienced vinyl.
There is no comparison. To get a digital 'image' you
need to chip away at the byte. Why would you want some
engineer telling you how Live at Leeds or Get your Ya Yas out
sound ?

Bu there's no reason a digital version can't have the same level of detail. (Especially as the resolution of the digital versions continue to increase.) Engineers record and master for vinyl just like they do for digital.

The problem is with recording engineers and mastering engineers, not with the format.

DM4
01-10-08, 06:27 PM
Bu there's no reason a digital version can't have the same level of detail. (Especially as the resolution of the digital versions continue to increase.) Engineers record and master for vinyl just like they do for digital.

The problem is with recording engineers and mastering engineers, not with the format.

Digital audio has more problems than just the engineer. I will admit that digital audio has improved dramatically since its introduction, however there are issues that are simply inherent to the format.

First of all, no matter how you cut it the digital recording process takes discrete samples of a continuous analog waveform, so there will always be quantization error. Quantization error causes audible artifacts. Dither, the practice of adding noise, helps mask these artifacts. Then there is clock jitter (timing inaccuracies) during A/D and D/A conversions. Frequency response is limited by the sampling rate. This requires that we filter frequencies above the Nyquist limit. Filters introduce nasty things like ringing and phase problems. There are several other problems, but by now you get the picture.

Vinyl playback has its issues also, but most of these can be overcome by properly setting up the turntable and exercising good record care. Finally, analog errors are much less obnoxious than digital errors.

The biggest asset of digital format is convenience.

marqueemoon
01-11-08, 03:25 AM
There's a lot to be said for convenience. I love music and I love good recording and reproduction, but I'm more excited about listening to music than I have been in years thanks to my iPod, YouTube, and Pandora to name a few.

These formats sound like poo but that's not the point. I have a video on in the background of Ambulance LTD playing some small club that somebody shot with a digital point-and-shoot on some crap computer speakers, but the MUSIC is good.

The same goes for for recording. I just tracked some drums at my new band's practice space through a garbage board into a digital recorder that makes use of some serious compression. The nicest mic was my EV RE20 on the kick drum. I used a Radio Shack mic on the snare. I considered hauling some nicer mics and preamps down there, but like spending crazy money at a "real" studio there reaches a point where it becomes a big EVENT and everyone becomes obsessed with not screwing up.

Do the results of this recording session compare in fidelity with a "real" studio recording? No, but I didn't have to deal with some engineer insisting on micing every piece of the kit then gating the hell out of it to try to get more "punch" and tame the resulting phase nightmare. I took about 20 minutes setting up mics, and then we went for it. We even did the scratch guitar track just using the room sound from the drum overheads. This was our first experience recording together but already everyone is more satisfied with the results than their previous effort in a "real" studio.

I'm pretty bored with the analog/digital debate. Here's the real problem. It has never been easier to suck the life out of a human performance than it is right now. Autotune? Beat Detective? Why play or sing with dynamics anymore? It will get automated and compressed in the mix anyway and crushed in mastering. It's just gotten stupid. Who wants to hear every detail of a performance so perfect it's completely dull.

I would hate to see the market for quality recordings dry up but it wouldn't be the end of the world if hearing music live became the "high fidelity" standard. Maybe I'd actually get paid for doing what I love once in a while.

Brillig
01-11-08, 06:55 AM
Digital audio has more problems than just the engineer. I will admit that digital audio has improved dramatically since its introduction, however there are issues that are simply inherent to the format.

First of all, no matter how you cut it the digital recording process takes discrete samples of a continuous analog waveform, so there will always be quantization error. Quantization error causes audible artifacts. Dither, the practice of adding noise, helps mask these artifacts. Then there is clock jitter (timing inaccuracies) during A/D and D/A conversions. Frequency response is limited by the sampling rate. This requires that we filter frequencies above the Nyquist limit. Filters introduce nasty things like ringing and phase problems. There are several other problems, but by now you get the picture.


But as the resolution (sampling rate) increases, the digital estimation of the analog waveform approaches (but never achieves) 100% accurate reproduction and the quantization errors become extremely rare and minor.

It's analogous to digital photography in many ways.

graeme
01-11-08, 03:10 PM
First of all, no matter how you cut it the digital recording process takes discrete samples of a continuous analog waveform, so there will always be quantization error. Quantization error causes audible artifacts.
.

But doesn't analog tape
recording also sample in effect because of its use of a.c bias?

DM4
01-11-08, 03:57 PM
But as the resolution (sampling rate) increases, the digital estimation of the analog waveform approaches (but never achieves) 100% accurate reproduction and the quantization errors become extremely rare and minor.

It's analogous to digital photography in many ways.

Sampling at a higher rate will increase resolution in terms of frequency bandwidth, however higher sampling rates will not reduce quantization error.

Higher sampling rates increase bandwidth by allowing you to capture higher frequencies. The sampling rate needs to be slightly greater than twice the highest frequency that you intend to capture. Red Book CD standards set the sampling rate at 44.1 Ksamples/sec. This provides for a high frequency of 22 KHz.

Increasing bit rate reduces quantization error. 16 bit resolution provides 65536 discrete steps. As the analog signal is sampled the amplitude of the signal is assigned to one of these 65536 discrete values. When, at the time the analog signal is sampled, it falls between one of these discrete values it is forced to the adjacent lower or higher value. This is quantization error. Quantization error is always present. With greater bit rates it can be reduced.

An audio signal is not really analogous to a photograph simply because the photograph is static and the audio signal is dynamic and continuously changing with time.

DM4
01-11-08, 03:59 PM
But doesn't analog tape
recording also sample in effect because of its use of a.c bias?

No. The analog tape records a continuous signal. There is no discrete sampling involved. The signal captured by the analog tape is a varying AC voltage. A DC bias may be placed on the tape to raise the overall level of the recorded signal.

Brillig
01-11-08, 08:29 PM
Sampling at a higher rate will increase resolution in terms of frequency bandwidth, however higher sampling rates will not reduce quantization error.

Higher sampling rates increase bandwidth by allowing you to capture higher frequencies. The sampling rate needs to be slightly greater than twice the highest frequency that you intend to capture. Red Book CD standards set the sampling rate at 44.1 Ksamples/sec. This provides for a high frequency of 22 KHz.

Increasing bit rate reduces quantization error. 16 bit resolution provides 65536 discrete steps. As the analog signal is sampled the amplitude of the signal is assigned to one of these 65536 discrete values. If the analog signal is between values it is forced to the adjacent lower or higher. This is quantization error. Quantization error is always present. With greater bit rates it can be reduced.

An audio signal is not really analogous to a photograph simply because the photograph is static and the audio signal is dynamic and continuously changing with time.

Yes, I meant bit rate.

But the same issue arises in photography. You still have artifacts and quantization error that approach meaninglessness as you increase the resolution.

sean3089
01-11-08, 09:26 PM
IPODs are great fun -- you get to hear all your favorites again. Unfortunately, it sounds like someone is scraping their fingernails on the blackboard at the same time. After a while, no matter how good the music is, I have to turn it down, then off.http://www.tsto.com/isroot/TSTO/SiteImages/2598.jpg

cycle17
01-11-08, 11:22 PM
I used to have a bunch of vinyl and enjoyed listening to albums. But out of convenience...I now have a music library almost entirely of CDs and MP3s. While I'll agree that there is a certain "tone" that vinyl has that is missing from digital recordings, there is just no way that I'd ever go back to vinyl records. Way too much hassle to keep up a turntable and vinyl records. I have some reasonably priced audio equipment from the late 80s and some very nice vintage speakers that make most of what I listen to sound nice on CD. Thought the audio quality of MP3 is not what a true audiophile would find acceptable, the convenience of carrying my music anywhere with me far outweighs other factors.

neilG
01-14-08, 12:31 AM
I would hate to see the market for quality recordings dry up but it wouldn't be the end of the world if hearing music live became the "high fidelity" standard. Maybe I'd actually get paid for doing what I love once in a while.

What passes for live music these days won't help much in recalibrating listener's ears, IMO. I've been a classical musician for thirty years and I can't believe how loud live pop music concerts are. I can't go to any more for fear of damaging my hearing. The kids these day are deaf, that's why there's no point in making high quality recording for them. That's what happens when life has to have a sound track all the time.[/rant]

marqueemoon
01-14-08, 11:37 AM
What passes for live music these days won't help much in recalibrating listener's ears, IMO. I've been a classical musician for thirty years and I can't believe how loud live pop music concerts are. I can't go to any more for fear of damaging my hearing. The kids these day are deaf, that's why there's no point in making high quality recording for them. That's what happens when life has to have a sound track all the time.[/rant]

I think in recent years some rock musicians and venues are finally starting to get it.

I agree with you in general though. It sucks to pay however much to see a show only to have to put in earplugs to make it bearable and not do any long term damage.

Brillig
01-14-08, 11:46 AM
IMO, a large portion of music has become more of a visceral experience than a listening experience (nearly all dance related, techno, heavy metal, etc.).

So it's more about the thump in the chest and the primal adrenaline release than anything.

Hopefully the remaining music that is more for the ear and the brain than the gut can resist trying to mix itself (And compress and limit itself) the same way.