music Does music fidelity matter any more?

[Mirage 24,137]

I'm in the audio business and many have noticed that the latest generation of music 'consumers' don't seem to care about fidelity. Fidelity means 'faithful', and it is used in music reproduction to mean simply, 'a faithful representation of the recording'. I'm sure most are aware of the various digital formats, such as mp3, which compresses the music information for smaller file size and for lower streaming bandwidth. With technology such as compression, and bluetooth earbuds and streaming services like iTunes and the like, it seems that the living room stereo system with a CD player, or even analog sources like LP turn tables and the like, is going away (save the filthy rich). This trend seems to have desensitized the masses into accepting music that is only a fraction of it original content. That is, compressed music, along with relatively cheap and low power players (headphones) means that people are listening to music that has lost approximately 80% of its fidelity! Is there no more appreciation for listening to music that is carefully and faithfully represented as the artist intended?

How many of you have ever listened to you music on a real, powerful, component stereo system? How would you describe your experience?

[The Historian 515]

I like my music but I am not really an audiophile, which it sounds like you are so you'll have a stronger reaction to compression and the like. To be honest, I've given a listen to uncompressed music on a good stereo since my dad has a baller one from the late 70s or early 80s. In all seriousness, I didn't have any different of an experience listening to FLAC on there versus MP3 on my bookshelf speakers. Sure, my earbuds and car speakers are meh at best but I still get the tunes I want so I don't see the point in trying to "maximize my listening experience" with expensive shit I don't need or even really want. Suffice to say, most people are happy just listening to their favorite tunes.

[The Kaeya Simp 13,968]

Music fidelity (beyond the music sounding good) doesn't really matter

[SharpWit 2,472]

I'm confused, do you mean like listening to music on it's intended format rather than just any easy means of access? What are some things lost due to compression?

I've had good headphones and bad. Some just play the song enough to hear, others make an experience of it.

[Venomous 18,813]

@Mirage

Becase this thread is discussing music, I will be moving it to Media Discussion with the appropriate tag.

[TBD 17,228]

I don't have the best of the best, but I do still buy CD for the best quality than downloaded songs cannot produced. So I like listening it on the stereo because it produced a better sound. 

Edited April 8, 2019 by TBD

[Mirage 24,137]

1 hour ago, SharpWit said:

I'm confused, do you mean like listening to music on it's intended format rather than just any easy means of access? What are some things lost due to compression?

I've had good headphones and bad. Some just play the song enough to hear, others make an experience of it.

Great question!

Generally, compression does two things to save space/bandwidth:

1) amplitude compression. Also known as 'crest factor', the difference between the loudest parts of the music to the softest are brought closer together. What happens is the music loses its dynamics. Listeners usually compensate for lack of dynamics by playing it loud, and so what you are left with is a purely loud playback with very little detail and no 'presence' or 'imaging' (that is, the instruments sound all crumpled together, instead of in their own spaces).

2) frequency compression. Similar to video compression, mathematical anomalies are heard as noise and distortion, much like pixelization and fuzziness of video compression. In more severe cases, the frequency bandwidth is reduced, so the low and high end of the sounds are filtered out, leaving mostly midrange sounds. This makes the music sound rather harsh, and fatigues the ears. So by mathematically encoding (and decoding) the data, reducing its frequency bandwidth and reducing bit depth (resolution), a lot of space is saved.

 

[Flutterstep 46,303]

I’m someone who listens to music mainly for the sound design. That said, anything MP3 and beyond with wired headphones or stereo is fine for me. If it sounds poorly produced or ripped from an audio converter, I don’t care for it.

[MangoFoalix 24,898]

Since someone is going to bring it up. There is no major difference between high fidelity digital music and let's say a vinyl record.

As someone who has a custom DAC for my computer at home and two pairs of headphones, one for travel and one for home. I have experienced many different headphones and can say that the quality of the components in headphones matters greatly for enjoyment of them music, at least to me it does.

Then again, most people really can't tell the difference between lossy and loseless audio to be fair since their ear is just untrained to do so.

[Brony Number 42 9,931]

@Mirage Thank you for this discussion. I have been thinking the same thing for years. How many people are aware of super audio cds (SACD), DVD audio, or Bluray audio more recently? Not many.

My brother has a high end set up, with good speakers and receiver. I have a Oppo 205 4k player (best on the market). We have various SACDs, DVD audio, and Bluray audios. So far we are set for 7.1 sound and adding more for Dolby Atmos compatibility.

Sadly, most music is only done at CD quality. I buy CDs 1) for the higher quality over mp3, 2) for the album art, 3) to support physical media. We have some classical music on SACD and it sounds great.

Most people just don't understand the difference. And there is a big difference. It doesn't help the most music today just sucks.

[MangoFoalix 24,898]

Just now, LarsonNumber42 said:

Most people just don't understand the difference. And there is a big difference. It doesn't help the most music today just sucks. 

I have to thoroughly disagree with the statement that most music sucks nowadays. Yes, most top 100 music is trash but there is plenty of music being made today that can eclipse what has been done in the past. With audio technology becoming increasingly complex, most music nowadays sounds better than let's say something from the 80's audio wise.

[Brony Number 42 9,931]

4 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

I have to thoroughly disagree with the statement that most music sucks nowadays. Yes, most top 100 music is trash but there is plenty of music being made today that can eclipse what has been done in the past. With audio technology becoming increasingly complex, most music nowadays sounds better than let's say something from the 80's audio wise.

I don't mean technically, I mean artistically. High quality sound doesn't matter if a person is just going to listen to whatever pop the industry had manufactured for the week.

[Mirage 24,137]

11 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

I have to thoroughly disagree with the statement that most music sucks nowadays. Yes, most top 100 music is trash but there is plenty of music being made today that can eclipse what has been done in the past. With audio technology becoming increasingly complex, most music nowadays sounds better than let's say something from the 80's audio wise.

Actually, the technology is far more simple. What is happening is software is taking over acoustic instruments, and even electronic components, like keyboard synthesizers and drum machines. The modern way of doing things is with a couple of microphones, a computer and a software audio editor. The sophistication is magnitudes simpler now because there is no need for a studio, musicians, an engineer, a producer, an editor or publishing. Without the digital domain, everything had to be done by hand - even mastering (like literally scouring hours and hours of recordings and clipping the tapes with razor blades, etc).

The quality of music has not changed (that is, the digital domain hasn't made things worse), however, the mainstream listener consumes far more sub-quality music than ever before. Why? Because it's cheap and/or free. There's also very little incentive to put a high level of production into music anymore because of the internet. Music artists talk about this all the time. You can now record, master and produce in your living room. And since the consumer, as demonstrated above, does not really care much about quality, but rather accessibility, there is almost no incentive to invest in high quality recording and mastering.

26 minutes ago, LarsonNumber42 said:

Sadly, most music is only done at CD quality

This is spoken from experience. It's true. Most recordings are mastered for 16 bit, 192kbs. There's almost no reason to get any better than that for the mainstream. There's just no demand for it.

Furthermore, about music as an art then and now - obviously, that is very subjective. I don't want to crack that egg!

[MangoFoalix 24,898]

8 minutes ago, Mirage said:

The quality of music has not changed (that is, the digital domain hasn't made things worse), however, the mainstream listener consumes far more sub-quality music than ever before. Why? Because it's cheap and/or free. There's also very little incentive to put a high level of production into music anymore because of the internet. Music artists talk about this all the time. You can now record, master and produce in your living room. And since the consumer, as demonstrated above, does not really care much about quality, but rather accessibility, there is almost no incentive to invest in high quality recording and mastering.

This I just can't agree with. Musicians don't just go and say "why even try to mix and master well because the listener doesn't care anyways". True, you don't need thousands of dollars in equipment but saying that musicians don't care about the quality of the sound put into their music is just flat out wrong.

[Brony Number 42 9,931]

2 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

This I just can't agree with. Musicians don't just go and say "why even try to mix and master well because the listener doesn't care anyways". True, you don't need thousands of dollars in equipment but saying that musicians don't care about the quality of the sound put into their music is just flat out wrong.

I'm no expert, but what about the fact that people call themselves "musicians" when all they do is sit at a computer and mix techno (or whatever the kids call it these days). I think a musician should play an instrument. You could argue that it is subjective, but I think there is some objective measure somewhere. Surely there is a difference between a symphony and some guy in his bedroom remixing the Zelda theme.

This cheap music means real music (as I will call it) gets less attention.

[RDDash 18,866]

I could rip the CD in the highest bit rate possible but honestly it would only give me the large MB/min file size. I just would not hear the difference between CD quality and loose MP3 files

Edited April 8, 2019 by R.D.Dash

[MangoFoalix 24,898]

3 minutes ago, LarsonNumber42 said:

I'm no expert, but what about the fact that people call themselves "musicians" when all they do is sit at a computer and mix techno (or whatever the kids call it these days). I think a musician should play an instrument. You could argue that it is subjective, but I think there is some objective measure somewhere. Surely there is a difference between a symphony and some guy in his bedroom remixing the Zelda theme.

This cheap music means real music (as I will call it) gets less attention.

Stating it as some guy remixing the Zelda theme is really sweeping under the rug a lot of talent that goes into EDM and just saying that "some guy sitting infront of computer and mixing techno does not take talent" is absolutely preposterous. Just because they may or may not use an actual instrument in their production doesn't make them any less of a musician than someone who is conducting a symphony.

[Brony Number 42 9,931]

5 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

Stating it as some guy remixing the Zelda theme is really sweeping under the rug a lot of talent that goes into EDM and just saying that "some guy sitting infront of computer and mixing techno does not take talent" is absolutely preposterous. Just because they may or may not use an actual instrument in their production doesn't make them any less of a musician than someone who is conducting a symphony.

Is there any objective measure of ability? I think there is, at some point. 

Edited April 8, 2019 by LarsonNumber42

[MangoFoalix 24,898]

Just now, LarsonNumber42 said:

Is there any objective measure of ability? I think there is, at some point. 

Your entire argument is subjectively based on your biases. I'm just trying to defend the point of the people like myself that thoroughly enjoy electronic music genres.

[Mirage 24,137]

13 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

This I just can't agree with. Musicians don't just go and say "why even try to mix and master well because the listener doesn't care anyways". True, you don't need thousands of dollars in equipment but saying that musicians don't care about the quality of the sound put into their music is just flat out wrong.

That's not what I said. I said that there is no demand for it. Look at the start of the topic - the first two replies sum it up.

Some musicians do care, others not so much. They not much different than listeners, culturally. I'm actually on the side of musicians that care - people are not listening to their art the way they intended it to be heard. In order to really appreciate high quality music, you need high quality media, a good source, pre-amp, equalization, power amplifiers and big speakers.

My point is consumers don't demand it, they don't buy it and in effect, don't support high fidelity listening and consuming. I think it is a shame because many artists put their heart and soul into high quality music and recording...but only very few appreciate it enough to buy it and support it. Because of that, artists and publishers don't go through the trouble of publishing the high quality media, like SACDs or even lossless music files. I know audio engineers (I'm a junior engineer) and they are the ones that say it's not worth mastering over 16bit (for most recordings).

[Brony Number 42 9,931]

10 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

Your entire argument is subjectively based on your biases. I'm just trying to defend the point of the people like myself that thoroughly enjoy electronic music genres.

Somewhere between me going beep boop beep with my computer sound effects and a full symphony orchestra, there is a line, or a slope from no talent to genius. I don't think Mozart's work, for example, can be put in the same category as the guy on the street corner beating some buckets. There is a difference, and somewhere between falls a lot of music of varying talent.

I can't take away that you like what you like, but I think talent is still a thing.

Edited April 8, 2019 by LarsonNumber42

[Mirage 24,137]

7 minutes ago, LarsonNumber42 said:

Is there any objective measure of ability? I think there is, at some point. 

There is. In general, it is measured by appreciation and how much cultures adore it (imitate it).

4 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

Your entire argument is subjectively based on your biases. I'm just trying to defend the point of the people like myself that thoroughly enjoy electronic music genres.

Not really. I mean, you could not compare Green Day to Led Zepplin. There's no level playing field when it comes to ability - some musicians have superior ability over others. Let's be real.

I listen to EDM regularly. Some of it is truly epic and brilliant, and some is meh. And some is pure trash. 

[Brony Number 42 9,931]

Why does music have a different standard when it comes to ability? If one person can do basic algebra and another person is a math genius, we don't say they are both equally  mathematicians. Same with someone who draws a stick figure versus painting a realistic portrait. Logically, we can apply a similar standard to music.

[MangoFoalix 24,898]

2 minutes ago, LarsonNumber42 said:

Somewhere between me going beep boop beep with my computer sound effects and a full symphony orchestra, there is a line, or a slope from no talent to genius. I don't think Mozart's work, for example, can be put in the same category as the guy on the street corner beating some buckets. There is a difference, and somewhere between falls a lot of music of varying talent.

I can't take away that you like what you like, but I think talent is still a thing.

Again, the way you view it makes it sounds like you completely disregard the people who like to do something other than classical and orchestral. A full symphony orchestra includes many many many more people than one artist. Even with some collaboration that can include 3 or 4 artists. Also again, "beep boop beep with my computer sound effects" and "guy on the street corner beating some buckets" is a very close-minded approach to music that is different from what you enjoy.

3 minutes ago, Mirage said:

Not really. I mean, you could not compare Green Day to Led Zepplin. There's no level playing field when it comes to ability - some musicians have superior ability over others. Let's be real.

 I listen to EDM regularly. Some of it is truly epic and brilliant, and some is meh. And some is pure trash.  

Comparing Green Day and Led Zepplin really isn't a fair comparison. They are both two very different bands with very different sounds. Comparing something like Trivium to Killswitch Engage is more of a fair comparison.

1 minute ago, LarsonNumber42 said:

Why does music have a different standard when it comes to ability? If one person can do basic algebra and another person is a math genius, we don't say they are both equally  mathematicians. Same with someone who draws a stick figure versus painting a realistic portrait. Logically, we can apply a similar standard to music.

That is because music is completely subjective based on the person. Math is ground in reality and facts.

[Brony Number 42 9,931]

34 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

That is because music is completely subjective based on the person. Math is ground in reality and facts.

I don't think so. That would imply that all music has the same value. Is there a difference between someone giving a dollar to a guy beating buckets and thousands of people paying $100 per ticket to see a concert? Surely you can't just say it's all subjective and therefore there is no difference. Market forces alone indicate that there is some value, otherwise people wouldn't pay.

To bring it back to topic, if "cheap" or "easy" music becomes popular, there is less demand for "expensive" music. So if someone likes symphonies in 7.1 96kHz 24 bit sound then he might not get much of it.

Edited April 8, 2019 by LarsonNumber42