nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Has technology helped us to enjoy music?

blue note

When I was growing up I think we used to listen to music very differently. I started buying CDs in the late 90s.

Back then, you put considerable thought into what CDs to buy. I remember going into music shops and trawling through their two for £15 sections (became two for €20) for bargins. A lot of what I bought was based on knowing a couple of songs, but an awful lot was bought on reputation and recommendation.

But I think we appreciated the albums all the more for it. Anything I bought I gave considerable time to listen to. You wouldn't dismiss anything after half a song after paying a meaningful amount of money for it! I remember telling people about great finds and borrowing and loaning albums to people.

Now, everyone seems to have endless music collections which they haven't paid for. You mention Leonard Cohen to someone and they might tell you that they have his entire album collection on their computer. But collection is a very apt word - they're more collecting it than listening to it. The whole thing might be there, but if they had bought I'm Your Man in a shop they'd probably have taken time to listen to it. Having the entire collection there I think it's more likely they've never listened to any of it properly.

So with all this cheap access to vast catalogues of music, has it improved our relationship with music? Do we enjoy it more or less?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

DamagedTrax

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

I'd argue technologies like mp3 have lessened quality by encouraging compression. In many cases what people are listening to won't sound as good as a CD or vinyl.

you would be 100% correct. mp3s shave off the ultra high and low frequencies that we 'feel'.

if you open an mp3 and WAV version of a song in a DAW, phase reverse one of them you can then hear for yourself the differences between the 2. its quite disgusting what an mp3 is pumping into your ears without you even knowing it.

bnt

Cydoniac wrote: »

Spotify is great. It's massively curbed piracy. Whatever some artists claim about crappy royalty rates, don't realise how much more potential loss there is with big crowds. Hoping it lives on.

The problem with that idea is that you're treating every instance of piracy as a lost sale. This is the tactic that record companies have used for years, but it's just not true. A lot of piracy - most, I would even say - happens on a "because it's out there for free" basis, not a "I've got to have it" basis.

If piracy couldn't be done easily, what would the potential pirate do? Just what they did before home taping, or Napster: buy some of the music or movies that interest them, and do without the rest. Recorded music is not food or water, we aren't going to die without it. If it wasn't so easily available, maybe more folks would go back to making their own music. There was a time when every respectable home had a piano. :cool:

D1stant

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I still prefer holding the real deal in my hands.

I'll bet you do

DamagedTrax

bnt wrote: »

The problem with that idea is that you're treating every instance of piracy as a lost sale. This is the tactic that MAJOR record companies have used for years,

fixed that for you.

MilanPan!c

Yes with and "if"
No with a "but"

At the end of the day technology helps in some ways and hurts in others. The ratio of good/bad is dependent on the person.

gracehopper

Yes and no.

Music is more accessible, we can hear more bands we would never have come across in previous decades but having said that MP3 quality is a step back and music is more throwaway now so you devote less attention to an album.

Some albums that need more than one listen are often the ones that stay with you for years.

I feel like technology has diluted the experience a bit.

Rsaeire

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you would be 100% correct. mp3s shave off the ultra high and low frequencies that we 'feel'.

if you open an mp3 and WAV version of a song in a DAW, phase reverse one of them you can then hear for yourself the differences between the 2. its quite disgusting what an mp3 is pumping into your ears without you even knowing it.

This, exactly this! How can a new distribution method for music be offered that is so pervasive yet is unable to retain the same quality as the previous methods? This isn't advancement, it's taking one step forward and two steps back. There should be a new digital audio format that offers SACD quality in the same file size as MP3. FLAC and OGG are too big, we need a new format.

MilanPan!c

Welllll....

There's a thing called the Golden Ear Challenge that no one has every successfully passed.

The point is to try and see if anyone can, in a properly controlled test, consistently hear the difference between a CD quality WAV/high quality mp3 and any higher quality version of the same recording. The obviously corollary is that people can't tell the difference consistently between 320kps MP3 and CD quality WAV. The test material is professionally mixed/mastered.

"The unproven claim that comes up the most often is that there is a clear audible difference in sound quality between a super-high-resolution format like 24/192, and either standard full-resolution audio at 16/44.1, or a high-resolution mp3 at 320kbps.

That these claims are in fact, unproven, may surprise some people. If you’re one of them, don’t worry, you’re not alone."

www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/09/03/think-you-have-golden-ears-take-the-scientist-challenge/

J_E

bnt wrote: »

The problem with that idea is that you're treating every instance of piracy as a lost sale. This is the tactic that record companies have used for years, but it's just not true. A lot of piracy - most, I would even say - happens on a "because it's out there for free" basis, not a "I've got to have it" basis.

If piracy couldn't be done easily, what would the potential pirate do? Just what they did before home taping, or Napster: buy some of the music or movies that interest them, and do without the rest. Recorded music is not food or water, we aren't going to die without it. If it wasn't so easily available, maybe more folks would go back to making their own music. There was a time when every respectable home had a piano. :cool:

I'm fairly sure the sales would be a lot higher if piracy was out though. Having said that, bottom line is within reason, people will take the easiest route to entertainment. As I've said in threads like this before, the current situation with the film industry is broken.

Cinema; 30mins of ads before the film starts and obnoxiously high prices at times.
DVD/Blu-Ray; More trailers, and junk most people don't really want to see, sometimes unskippable (and yes, I know it can be bypassed but you're talking about the average person on their bog standard player here)
Illegal Download/Streaming service(Netflix); Watch.

If Spotify, iTunes, Steam and Netflix can show that convenience can overtake illegality and still be feasible to maintain, there is definitely a lot of change that can be done.

Capt'n Midnight

The technology is better.

Reproducing the sound exactly as it was recorded has never been cheaper.

However what's recorded these days is usually just a result of the loudness wars with very little dynamic range and a loss of clarity. Vocal harmonisers and auto tune mean that if you can talk you can be made to sound like you are singing. The peaks aren't much above the average so there is no impact , there is no WOW moment. If you are doing the 1812 Overture you want it build up until the cannons.

Early chart CD's had audible mains hum on them.

I don't like hearing singers breathing in.

OntheStrings

It's difficult to have a one sided answer to this. For me though, buying a song or album off itunes will never ever have the same effect as going out to the record shop to buy a physical copy. Clicking a button to download an album may be convenient, but it just seems a lil bit soulless.

the_syco

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Noel Gallagher talked about this recently. He said when you invest both your time in travelling to the record store and money in the actual record or CD that you'll give it more of a chance, you're not going to skip through with a click of a mouse.

There have been a couple of bands that I've seen live, that I wouldn't have gone to see without checking their music out online first, who may not even have had a CD out. Although I do agree with your point, I also have a couple of CD's that had a good review, but only one good song on it. Now, although I do youtube music, I'm more likely to goto their gigs, and buy band merc at the gigs.

DamagedTrax

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Welllll....

There's a thing called the Golden Ear Challenge that no one has every successfully passed.

The point is to try and see if anyone can, in a properly controlled test, consistently hear the difference between a CD quality WAV/high quality mp3 and any higher quality version of the same recording. The obviously corollary is that people can't tell the difference consistently between 320kps MP3 and CD quality WAV. The test material is professionally mixed/mastered.

"The unproven claim that comes up the most often is that there is a clear audible difference in sound quality between a super-high-resolution format like 24/192, and either standard full-resolution audio at 16/44.1, or a high-resolution mp3 at 320kbps.

That these claims are in fact, unproven, may surprise some people. If you’re one of them, don’t worry, you’re not alone."

www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/09/03/think-you-have-golden-ears-take-the-scientist-challenge/

i can tell the difference between 320kps mp3 and 44/16 wav. its my job. plenty have passed this test, its very easy once you know what to listen for in the high end and have a pro quality listening environment.

only a bat can tell the difference between 192khz and 88.2 but you're talking samplerates there, not differing audio formats.

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i can tell the difference between 320kps mp3 and 44/16 wav. its my job. plenty have passed this test, its very easy once you know what to listen for in the high end and have a pro quality listening environment.

only a bat can tell the difference between 192khz and 88.2 but you're talking samplerates there, not differing audio formats.

You should take the test then!

DamagedTrax

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You should take the test then!

i have on GS. documented and all.

the test linked to above claims that no one can hear the difference between mp3 320 and ANY higher format.

if a working engineer cant hear the difference between 320kps mp3 and 192khz/24bit then they need to hang up their ears. ( 44/16 wav is a different story, some engineers hear bit rate differences, some dont. if there was no difference then we wouldnt bother with dither and noise shaping to mix down.)

there are proper tests around the higher sample rate formats that clearly prove i dont have golden ears but the test mentioned above is ridiculous and more likely meant for the general listening public (in which case i agree with the results).

SamAK

Whatever about mp3 versus wav, but I definitely heard a difference when I got a proper 24 bit A/D interface. Miles ahead of the sh1tty soundcard in my laptop.

DamagedTrax

SamAK wrote: »

Whatever about mp3 versus wav, but I definitely heard a difference when I got a proper 24 bit A/D interface. Miles ahead of the sh1tty soundcard in my laptop.

exactly. proper flat response monitoring and pro level conversion instantly shows up the differences.

SamAK

DamagedTrax wrote: »

exactly. proper flat response monitoring and pro level conversion instantly shows up the differences.

Haven't got round to flat response monitors yet, only running a pair of 2-way Missions through a technics amp.

Considering a pair of KRK RP6's, then i'll be happy:pac:

DamagedTrax

we all need these bad boys :cool:

http://www.barefootsound.com/minimain12.html

SamAK

DamagedTrax wrote: »

we all need these bad boys :cool:

http://www.barefootsound.com/minimain12.html

They purdy!!!

But I see the frequency response it 20hz to 40khz, and that confuses me.

How can a manufacturer claim a frequency response of up to 40khz when the human can't hear anything above 20khz (at BEST!)....?

DamagedTrax

SamAK wrote: »

They purdy!!!

But I see the frequency response it 20hz to 40khz, and that confuses me.

How can a manufacturer claim a frequency response of up to 40khz when the human can't hear anything above 20khz (at BEST!)....?

because we feel frequencies that we cant hear and to achieve a perfect HF roll off (that makes the 20k and below sound good) we need to reach higher, eg 40k

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i have on GS. documented and all.

the test linked to above claims that no one can hear the difference between mp3 320 and ANY higher format.

if a working engineer cant hear the difference between 320kps mp3 and 192khz/24bit then they need to hang up their ears. ( 44/16 wav is a different story, some engineers hear bit rate differences, some dont. if there was no difference then we wouldnt bother with dither and noise shaping to mix down.)

there are proper tests around the higher sample rate formats that clearly prove i dont have golden ears but the test mentioned above is ridiculous and more likely meant for the general listening public (in which case i agree with the results).

Ooh! GS Link please!

DamagedTrax

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Ooh! GS Link please!

its in the pile somewhere. quite a few passed with no problem.

none passed the 88.2/192 test.

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

its in the pile somewhere. quite a few passed with no problem.

none passed the 88.2/192 test.

What's your username and I'll go track it down.

DamagedTrax

MilanPan!c wrote: »

What's your username and I'll go track it down.

to be honest chris i'd prefer not to have you know my GS user name. ive only recently unblocked you on here. i will however post my proof here once i find it.

but remeber i said mp3 & 192khz 24bit, im not claiming to hear a difference between mp3 & 44/16 wav.

Temptamperu

I have all my music on a rectangle. But remember the dark days of rewinding tapes.

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

to be honest chris i'd prefer not to have you know my GS user name. ive only recently unblocked you on here. i will however post my proof here once i find it.

but remeber i said mp3 & 192khz 24bit, im not claiming to hear a difference between mp3 & 44/16 wav.

Ooookkkk...

DamagedTrax

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Ooookkkk...

you can oookkk all you like but you know why, so dont play innocent.

DamagedTrax

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzJbjHc6bRE#t=52

i think ill listen to george massenburg over anyone else.

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you can oookkk all you like but you know why, so dont play innocent.

I'm not sure what you'd think I'd do wit your GS username.

Seems quite....ehhhh... Odd.

Anyway, it's all good.

I was actually hoping you had beaten the WAV MP3 thing - genuinely. But never mind.

If the best people can do is accurately tel the difference between a 200mb WAV file and a 10mb mp3... Well... I don't think technology is really gonna feel the hit on that one.

Anyway - no worries man.