music Does music fidelity matter any more?

[Mirage 24,130]

36 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

That is because music is completely subjective based on the person.

Please try to learn to play an instrument. 

[MangoFoalix 24,898]

5 minutes ago, LarsonNumber42 said:

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.

What I meant is that music in general is subjective, I'm not talking about the sale of music and what makes the most money, I am talking about sentimental value.

Just now, Mirage said:

Please try to learn to play an instrument. 

Why?

[Mirage 24,130]

Just now, TheTaZe said:

What I meant is that music in general is subjective, I'm not talking about the sale of music and what makes the most money, I am talking about sentimental value.

Why?

You will learn very quickly it is not purely subjective. Music has order. It does have a concrete form. It has rules. Melody and harmony and timing all take tremendous skill to master.

[Brony Number 42 9,925]

31 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

What I meant is that music in general is subjective, I'm not talking about the sale of music and what makes the most money, I am talking about sentimental value.

But in the real world, I can't make my own music so I have to buy it. And if a market has music I don't like then that sucks. And it bothers a lot of people of they consider stuff they don'tcloke to be cheap and easy. Have you seen Idiocracy which featured the top selling movie "Ass"  because that's all it was? Surely that isn't merely subjective.

Edited April 8, 2019 by LarsonNumber42

[MangoFoalix 24,898]

Just now, Mirage said:

You will learn very quickly it is not purely subjective. Music has order. It does have a concrete form. It has rules. Melody and harmony and timing all take tremendous skill to master.

Again, not really. Music is music. Music by the book or music that is experimental by nature. Let's take Ambient or Dark Ambient. Ambient music itself has order but in a way that doesn't have to adhere to Music Theory technically. This can also stem to IDM (Intelligent Dance Music) that can become so bizarre in a way that it can just be called noise at some point. It's still music though.

Just now, LarsonNumber42 said:

But in the real world, I can't make my own music so I have to buy it. And if a market has music I don't like then that sucks. And it bothers a lot of people of they consider stuff they don'tcloke to be cheap and easy. Have you seen Idiocracy which featured the top sellkmg movie "Ass"  ecaise that's all it was? Surely that isn't merely subjective.

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Is this some kind of passive aggressive joke or what?

[Jeric 46,834]

It matters to some. Some just want what they like to hear.

Science doesn’t care since the recording is not the pure medium anyway. There really is no such thing as faithful. Air changes it too much to matter at the end of the day. Try recording Let It Be with a little more ammonia in the air, or at a different altitude. 

[Jeric 46,834]

More to that, the organ and bones in each working ear are not the same for every individual which had a level of perception that makes it a silly question for pretentious audiophiles anyway. 

I mean, I don’t like boxed wine either, but I’m not the asshole who looks down on people who do is if they are some unwashed fucking peasant class. Yuck! People even act like this for real? 

[Brony Number 42 9,925]

18 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

I really don't understand what you mean by this. Is this some kind of passive aggressive joke or what?

No, I'm serious. In the movie, there is a movie called Ass, and it is just an ass farting for an hour and the audience loves it. Does the subjective argument apply? If so, what does that mean?

[Denim&Venöm 16,496]

Not really. A decade ago, MP3/MP4 players were still a luxury. Any phone that had the storage for music was very pricey. Streaming services were still experimental. And mobile networks were very basic in function. Heck, many people still used CD players. So it's should be no surprise that people these days are just happy to have music on the go. I'll take listening to an audio compression of a YouTube video on my budget smart phone while on the go over waiting till I get home to listen to my cassette collection, putting up with the drudgery on the radio or especially no music at all.

Besides, unless the quality is extremely sub par, I probably won't be able to tell the differences between a cassette, CD, Vinyl, compressed or studio recording anyways. 

[Mirage 24,130]

14 minutes ago, TheTaZe said:

Again, not really. Music is music. Music by the book or music that is experimental by nature. Let's take Ambient or Dark Ambient. Ambient music itself has order but in a way that doesn't have to adhere to Music Theory technically. This can also stem to IDM (Intelligent Dance Music) that can become so bizarre in a way that it can just be called noise at some point. It's still music though.

Look, the subjective argument doesn't lend anything to discussion. If you really believe it is purely subjective, then you can't disagree with our point of view either. At this point you're just disagreeing. The fact is, music is technical, it does have rules, and if some performers risk breaking them, it's their thing...but it is not equal, just because it is different.

1 minute ago, Jeric said:

More to that, the organ and bones in each working ear are not the same for every individual which had a level of perception that makes it a silly question for pretentious audiophiles anyway. 

Us audio engineers and electrical engineers are well aware of that. It's called psychoacoustics. It's not a silly question at all. It happens to explain a lot about what sounds we find pleasing and what we do not. It's also well known that the human ear has a non-linear frequency response, which musicians compensate for naturally, and engineers compensate for with equalization and mixing.

6 minutes ago, Denim&Venom said:

Not really. A decade ago, MP3/MP4 players were still a luxury. Any phone that had the storage for music was very pricey. Streaming services were still experimental. And mobile networks were very basic in function. Heck, many people still used CD players. So it's should be no surprise that people these days are just happy to have music on the go. I'll take listening to an audio compression of a YouTube video on my budget smart phone while on the go over waiting till I get home to listen to my cassette collection, putting up with the drudgery on the radio or especially no music at all.

Besides, unless the quality is extremely sub par, I probably won't be able to tell the differences between a cassette, CD, Vinyl, compressed or studio recording anyways. 

Great post. Thank you.

However, I would say that the experience between a quality component stereo system, and a little cassette tape boom box, is a very different experience indeed!

[MangoFoalix 24,898]

4 minutes ago, Mirage said:

Look, the subjective argument doesn't lend anything to discussion. If you really believe it is purely subjective, then you can't disagree with our point of view either. At this point you're just disagreeing. The fact is, music is technical, it does have rules, and if some performers risk breaking them, it's their thing...but it is not equal, just because it is different.

Just because it's different doesn't mean that it's less equal though. I'm done with this though, I know now that what I say won't really make a difference.

[Jeric 46,834]

4 minutes ago, Mirage said:

Us audio engineers and electrical engineers are well aware of that. It's called psychoacoustics. It's not a silly question at all. It happens to explain a lot about what sounds we find pleasing and what we do not. It's also well known that the human ear has a non-linear frequency response, which musicians compensate for naturally, and engineers compensate for with equalization and mixing.

As someone who works side by side with them I’m very well aware of that. You posed the question. You were given an answer. It also is the same answer that exists for my generation, since you set the question up as if it’s somehow it’s different. It isn’t. Most people don’t care. Why? Because once you have something that tastes good and something that also tastes good, you don’t turn down one just because you have better. In all the things that run through the average persons mind when listening to music, they aren’t focusing on the engineering. 

9 minutes ago, Mirage said:

However, I would say that the experience between a quality component stereo system, and a little cassette tape boom box, is a very different experience indeed!

Yeah vinyl is better than both though. 

[Jeric 46,834]

To circle back to this topic, it should be made clear that I firmly believe that there are fewer things more empowering than grasping the intricacies of a something we are invested in. It can be frustrating when we see things with a breadth and depth that is remarkable to us, but others are ignorant or ambivalent when we try and share expertise. 

[Olly 1,008]

16 hours ago, Jeric said:

To circle back to this topic, it should be made clear that I firmly believe that there are fewer things more empowering than grasping the intricacies of a something we are invested in. It can be frustrating when we see things with a breadth and depth that is remarkable to us, but others are ignorant or ambivalent when we try and share expertise. 

I'll add to this by saying that being able to understand and grasp the complexity of a complex thing can give you profound appreciation of it. But someone who has no such understanding won't be able to find as much to appreciate. This applies to things like visual art and classical music too. 

In any case, this topic has given me something to consider. I've never put any thought into fidelity... the extent of my knowledge about it was lo-fi= low quality, hi-fi= high quality. But considering I love sound I should start paying more attention. The way we listen to things does have some effect on us, even if it's not a major one. Listening to my dad's vinyl record collection was a good experience, but not for the reasons some people would tell you. I didn't really notice any real "superior" sense of sound quality when listening to vinyl as opposed to an mp3. But it did force me to listen more attentively, since I had to set the record up and stop it when it finished, and flip it when one side was finished playing. That made it hard to be distracted by other things, which meant I spent more time simply listening. But there's also a sense of "naturalness" to listening to something embedded on a physical object which is hard to explain. 

So, rather than saying something is simply "better" it's probably more accurate to say it's "different". Most people are probably fine with what they're used to, but some of us like to experiment with different options, and it's nice to have options. 

[Mini 451]

no one really cares about a crystal clear audio experience; they just want to listen to their song at a reasonable quality, which MP3 files and Apple earphones provide

[Mirage 24,130]

4 hours ago, mini said:

no one really cares about a crystal clear audio experience; they just want to listen to their song at a reasonable quality, which MP3 files and Apple earphones provide

And how many have actually heard a powerful, high fidelity system?

I find the quality demand very confusing...it seems that sheepish, fleeting and disposable trends trump a deliberate independent lifestyle that demands high quality from the things they enjoy, or even work with.

[Sunlight Glisten 368]

Id always been cheep. A songs a song was how I veiwed it. I won some real headphones at a work giveaway and wow. So much that I have been missing all my life. The base, the clarity, no static fuzz. I had only ever used free airplane headphones before. I bet the songs were still cheep and compressed too. I can now see why beats and the like have a market even though they are just being used for youtube downloads. 

[Trot Shuffle 3,578]

I love randomly putting in page numbers and seeing what comes up.

It is nice to listen to anything through a big, powerful playback system but most people don't have access to that, but yes it really is a cool experience.

Ironically, considering the advancements of technology (over the past 20 years especially), you'd expect there to be cheaper high quality speakers or whatever else that are very, very affordable for the everyday consumer but nope. It's all about marketing looks and comfort. Well, okay, I think that's a bit misleading (not the marketing thing, that's always on point). Overall, the audio reproduction quality has gone up but the curves are kind of stupid. They love to randomly push lower frequencies like +3 dB high past a certain frequency, say 70 Hz as an example, roll off the mids (like a V-shaped valley somewhere in the middle) then push the highs also around +3 dB to give the illusion that it's "high fidelity" or whatever marketing they want to use. All of that of course varies between specific units. But, admittedly they are good enough for casual listening (though may need a custom EQ adjustment depending on the style and genre). (Also, the other popular curve where they have poor bass reproduction and wiggly mids and highs.)

This is why "flat" frequency response monitors even exist in the first place. It's not to make everything super duper high fidelity so you can hear the little reflections from a reverb of a guitar when it ducks behind vocals. It's so they can make sure it can play the most important parts of songs (situational and contextual, varies from artist to artist and song to song) can play well through tuna cans and powerful systems.

Audio engineers will spend most of their mastering session catering to where and what everyone is listening to music on. Today, more often than not that would be streaming through their phone wirelessly through some wireless earbuds or some sort of wireless speaker. The biggest consideration today is knowing what these different services will do to your music as they all have different loudness targets to make it more comfortable and less jarring for listeners when songs switch between each other.

CDs, as cool as they are, were not convenient enough despite being able to provide some of the most high fidelity audio that can be provided. The other formats have their own drawbacks as well, like vinyl records sound the best when they get played the first time. After that, they degrade over and over. You can tell a record was loved by its owner based on how bad it sounds (warps, skips, wobbles, just about every unintentionally nasty thing you can expect). And, believe it or not, EDM loves their vinyl still. Might sound crazy, but it's part of the culture. More specifically, House and Drum and Bass still sell vinyl presses as much as they possibly can.

An interesting situation, my mind goes straight to when Napster and Limewire were still the big hubs for pirating music. "Some" people didn't want to pay for music, they can go online and obtain it there, right? I think this is where tolerance of lower fidelity versions of songs started. People were uploading and sharing music with varying levels of file compression (alongside other issues like improperly named songs or, most notably for EDM, just ripping the song from a fuzzy or messy "Pirate Radio" session). As long as people could sing and casually jam out to a song they like, they could care less about how much dynamics they could hear. This isn't even considering their computer speakers or headphones, which I would say were not great for that time period so it wouldn't matter if it were in a lossless or lossy format. Lossy was preferred because of very low storage space (especially compared to today) and bandwidth (dial-up hell). Doesn't help that YouTube allows people to just upload whatever, so people have uploaded heavily compressed versions of songs online. I would say more care into higher quality uploads on YT really began past 2015, well... at least in the songs I like to listen to from before that time.

 

 

The way an artist intends their song to sound is going to vary depending on the song. If they're singing, they're intending for you to hear everything they're saying so you can sing along too. Any prominent melody will also be prioritized. Nothing more and nothing less. Artist intention, truthfully, is not about high fidelity playback. An artist intends their song to be enjoyed by others the way they structured their song and prioritized certain elements. They really could care less if you're listening to it through the best sound system ever created or through cheap earbuds. They're fine with whatever as long as you can hear what they want you to specifically hear. Concerns only come up when an element they want emphasized is being choked out by other elements. Regardless if you're an EDM bedroom producer or a stubborn guitarist, there are considerations specific to what you want for each song. This is why it's recommended to listen to one's work through as many sources as they possibly can before releasing it publicly.

For instance, if I'm trying to make a rock song but my vocals are being masked by the guitar tracks, well that's not what I, as an artist, intend for people to hear (muddy mess) because I want them to hear both my vocals and the guitar so I would need to go back to the drawing board to stop them from clashing ("set and forget" mixer track volume adjustments, sidechaining and automation, blah blah blah whatever works). Same if I'm an EDM producer making techno or whatever else. If my song is played in the club and all I hear is the kick drum, that means my kick has too much low end and it's masking the bass, melody, and drums. So I would have to make my kicks shorter or let them sit at slightly higher frequencies and potentially sidechaining if the bass is playing at the same time as the kicks. Different contexts and styles ask for different techniques to address potential issues but the idea is still the same.

There are a few songs I like which are not technically speaking high fidelity, but they sound great anyways because they had an exceptional hook and arrangement.

If it sounds good, then it is. Simple as that. High fidelity of course is a consideration but it doesn't completely direct how a song will sound when it's released. It's just part of a larger process to ensure it's enjoyable for everybody, anywhere. Just make sure the main elements or focus of a song can still be heard regardless where it's being played or what it's being played through. The appreciation from fans and the general public shows when they're singing along, dancing or simple taps and bopping to the groove.

THAT is what "as an artist intended it" means. The intention is to release something when you're content with the results and see people enjoy that work (dancing, singing along, playing it for others etc.) regardless how "high" or "low" fidelity it may sound.

In other words, high fidelity matters up to a point. It is of consideration but fun vibes take priority regardless what style and genre it is. People don't care about fidelity as much as they care about groove and melody (or simply put, I guess vibes). They show their appreciation when they're in tune and jamming along.

 

 

Also, I saw a bit of "If you can't play an instrument then you're not a musician" attitude here. It's sidetracked from the discussion of high fidelity audio but this is, truthfully, a mean gatekeeping thing to say.

Shaming others is not helpful in the slightest. It doesn't encourage anyone to play an instrument and may stop them completely from wanting to learn and pursue music as a career or hobby. And, if it does push one to learn, then it's for reasons of resentment (a "I'll prove you wrong" attitude in a negative way) or fear of not being able to fit in as a musician and possibly never touching it ever again. They should be playing an instrument because they want to, not because someone told them they have to so they can fit in.

Realistically, if someone who has no music experience were to jump into recording their own music, they'll be using their typing keyboard and mouse (there are settings that allow this to emulate a piano keyboard) and later a physical MIDI piano controller if they want to take it further. They'll want to learn all things songwriting if they do take it more seriously beyond randomly clicking and jamming out to a 4-bar loop in the middle of the night.

For instance, telling someone they should stop and get on a "real piano", well that's hurtful. It may not be a "real piano" but they're trying their best to emulate it with a cheap MIDI controller and a free piano instrument they got online. Not the highest quality, sure, but it does the job. They're working with what they got and they're enthusiastic enough to learn, so why not encourage it instead of beating them down?

 

[Mirage 24,130]

Long read...but good points.

 

If you read more carefully, the reason I brought up playing an instrument was not to imply that one can't experience or enjoy music because they aren't a musician. It was about the 'mere subjectivity' of music. It's not completely subjective. Learning to play an instrument helps you understand what music is and what it isn't.

I don't appreciate this mentality that things aren't worth learning or studying - you just do whatever you want. Like back in school when kids would complain about learning math, because 'I'll never use this shit in real life'. Oh really? It's one thing to be ignorant, quite another to defend your ignorance as virtue.

If you choose to be the person who uses the hard work, skill, art, and dedication of others, while condemning it - well, I'm sorry to hear that. You're severely limiting yourself - cowering in shallow water. That is - you're perfectly willing to use ear buds, cell phones, computers, automobiles, etc - all of which require HIGHLY SKILLED and educated people and companies and risk and investment and hard work and dedication and learning and more learning and talent and criticism and mastering - but you don't you ever need to do such things in your own life and contribute to society?

Sad.

People are amazing. You are amazing. Explore your potential and work hard. Reciprocate to your society. Things will get better.

Anyway - it's a good analog to high fidelity music. It takes a lot of effort and knowledge to build a good sound system. Far more dedication, more fulfilling experiences, and far more fun, than ear buds and a phone. This isn't to criticize listening to ear buds and a phone per se, it's simply to show you aren't swimming in the deep end of the pool, just wading in the shallows.

[Trot Shuffle 3,578]

Fair, valid points and I get where you're coming from, but it really is subjective and it feels like a closed-minded statement. You're dismissing a large audience like this.

What I think you're more confused or frustrated with is with certain people's attitudes about different topics rather than the overall consumption of it. Their existing knowledge or drive for more knowledge also is affected by their attitude.

If someone is sitting on a neutral or positive stance (like I see in this thread), then that's fine and they don't deserve to have shade thrown their way. However, unwanted criticism, constructive or not, is not appreciated especially when it's coming from someone who has never picked up an instrument or specific instruments that they're criticizing. I think that's when it's fine and understandable to tell someone to "learn to play an instrument first" because why should they have the right to criticize something if they never bothered to try?

And, forcing someone to appreciate something when they're clearly not interested is also toxic. If they're not interested, it's best to stop telling them that they're unintelligent for not wanting to learn about it or whatever. Leave them alone. If you were in their shoes you'd probably wish they would leave you alone too.

To me, it's more of an individualistic exploration and not something I would expect of everyone to do for everything they consume. Everyone loves music but not everyone has to learn an instrument to enjoy it. If they're enjoying the media then that's all that matters. You should only be acquainted with psychoacoustics, sound physics, and audio engineering if you're making the content on top of consuming it.

Like, I shouldn't be allowed to watch movies then if I don't know about the technicalities of directing, screenwriting, propmaking, etc. And, that's honestly a dumb thing to tell others too.

I, like many, enjoy movies from time to time but I don't need to necessarily know how and why they got to specific scenes. Of course it's cool to learn about it but it won't change my life in a drastic way, if at all. Like a "fun fact". I also don't need to watch movies exclusively in fancy theaters. It's a better experience but it's not necessary to enjoy a movie if I'm on my couch and want to watch it on my phone or laptop or wherever else. I'm still enjoying that media regardless where it's being played. Also, a fancy theater won't save a poorly written and directed movie. A bad movie is a bad movie even if it's in crisp clear resolution with immersive audio channels.

Just like with music: a poor recording and arrangement won't be saved on the best high fidelity sound systems available no matter how much you try. However, a good recording and arrangement is tolerable on unideal systems, because simply put, it's a good song! And that's the ultimate goal, is it not?

 

 

So it seems this is more of a general, open-ended question about how much someone should explore the technicalities of something in order to appreciate that something. That depends on the individual and their experience with others who are more knowledgeable in a topic they want to learn about. Positive experience brings them in, negative ones push them away, and neutral doesn't really spin any wheels but it's not like they'll drop and resent it.