Is the Trend to Lower Fidelity Irreversible?

[Anderton]

Let's face it, overall fidelity of music playback systems has not improved over the last few years, but decreased due to earbuds, data compressed formats, cheapo D/A converters in consumer gear, etc.

 

But there are really several issues involved here. The first is whether the majority of people actually care about fidelity per se. Maybe it really is true that the most important thing is to "write a better bridge" because once the melody and lyrics (if applicable) are in place, everything else is way less important to the listener. Think about it: When cassettes were around, they sounded awful but we still listened to them because if nothing else, they reminded us of what the song was supposed to sound like.

 

Another issue is whether the average consumer has ever heard high-quality audio in order to make a valid comparison and to realize what they're hearing isn't all that great. If you'd never seen a TV before in your life and you saw one in black and white, you'd think it was pretty cool - as long as you didn't know color TV existed.

 

Couple these issues with whether people have sufficient leisure time to just listen to music rather than have it be a soundtrack to something else (movies and TV have trained people to listen to music in that context, too), and the space/money to set up a really nice system, and it makes me wonder if the trend to lower fidelity is irreversible for the foreseeable future.

[Anderton]

And I should also add...the commercial failure of "improved" systems like SACD are also an indicator. People didn't seem to feel they needed anything better.

[A. Einstein]

Most people do not hear a difference between high and low sonic qualities.

[Geoff Grace]

I think generally, people prefer portability to fidelity; but they'd rather have a higher fidelity portable playback system than a lower fidelity one. That's why they were willing to lug around boom boxes and give up lighter transistor radios.

 

We're already seeing an improvement in the fidelity of downloadable music for sale online, so I'd say the trend to lower fidelity has already begun to reverse.

 

As for people buying cassettes instead of LPs, I believe it was due to that format's portability. When the equally portable, but higher fidelity CD came along, cassette sales dwindled. People even paid more for CDs than cassettes because the extra fidelity was worth the cost.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Ernest Buckley]

And I should also add...the commercial failure of "improved" systems like SACD are also an indicator. People didn't seem to feel they needed anything better.

 

I was just thinking about this yesterday... I`ve been listening to Lady Antebellums new album, "Own The Night". I even started a thread over at GS about how much I loved the record. The songs are exceptional and the sound of the record is just fantastic. Then I realized... I don`t actually own the CD, I downloaded the record from iTunes so I`m not even listening to it in its best form.

 

Yes, the formats have improved but I think for the most part, even people like myself who can hear better than most average listeners is starting to get used to bad sounding records. Again, the new Lady Antebellum record is outstanding so I`m not referring to that one when I say I`m getting used to bad sounding records, I was thinking more along the lines of Mat Kearneys new record, Young Love where I love the artist even though the record sounds like crap. I`m still listening.

[Geoff Grace]

I think most people would agree that poorly recorded great music is preferable to greatly recorded poor music.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[MrKnobs]

I think generally, people prefer portability to fidelity; but they'd rather have a higher fidelity portable playback system than a lower fidelity one.

 

This.

 

Terry D.

[gubu]

I'd like to think that this is a cyclical thing. That in 5 or 10 years time, things will have come back around to where we were at the dawn of the cd age - fidelity and quality were paramount for consumers and manufacturers back then.

Also, as has been widely discussed on these forums, the time is not far off when digital audio transfer and storage will be fast enough and compact enough to allow for the general use of hifi formats instead of lossy ones for the ordinary consumer.

 

However, a lot of music is being produced these days by people who don't care about the same things that engineers used to care about maybe 20 years ago, i.e. dynamics and fidelity. There are albums with great audio quality being produced today but these are massively outnumbered by musical product which seems to have been created by people who want every single mix element slammed right up to the front of the speakers. No offence, the mixes are great and most of what you hear these days has been really well recorded, but it often sounds more mechanical than musical.

[nice keetee]

 

I think most people would agree that poorly recorded great music is preferable to greatly recorded poor music. Best, Geoff

 

 

Playback/listening to sounds we like even as 24 bit peoples we like to listen to what we like on a 2" speaker versus a 2' speaker.

[Ernest Buckley]

Playback/listening to sounds we like even as 24 bit peoples we like to listen to what we like on a 2" speaker versus a 2' speaker.

 

Craig,

 

Can you translate again for me?

 

Thanks,

EB

 

[nice keetee]

Record at 24/96 etc., it will be degraded to 320 mp3 anyways. But I like the original to be pristine for my own ears. :

[philbo]

 

I think most people would agree that poorly recorded great music is preferable to greatly recorded poor music. Best, Geoff

 

 

I think you nailed it. Except maybe change recorded to 'reproduced'...

[Anderton]

I think most people would agree that poorly recorded great music is preferable to greatly recorded poor music.

 

Yes, but that's kind of like the presidential choice we get every four years

 

I'd rather have greatly recorded great music, played back over a great system.

[Lee Knight]

I haven't read any of the responses to the OP yet.

 

I'm going to be sacrilegious. I don't mind. I love hi-fi. Really love it. Hearing The Planets through a McIntosh powered set of Magneplanar speakers being driven by a high end turntable/cartridge combo was a life changing experience for my 19 year old ass 30 plus years ago...

 

...and yet, I get so much joy today hearing a YouTube filtered rendition of Albert King's Born Under a Bad Sign or Dylan's Highway 66 or some discarded Miles takes. Now, I've said here, that lo-res audio codecs drive me nuts. But, whatever is happening with the YouTubes... well... it doesn't bug me.

 

I like hearing Toscanini's 50's mono recordings sometimes more than high fidelity modern versions. Most times. So, really... for me it comes down to the lo-fi aspects not interfering with my visceral reaction to the music. And maybe enhancing it like vinyl has in the past? I suspect that the very things that drive lo-fi can be overcome with time and ingenuity. But in the meantime, I'm willing to share my music, ironically, via... YouTube. And I do.

 

Am I nuts?

[nat whilk II]

I speculate that part of what's going on is another instance of the medium being the message, or rather being the music in this case.

 

Case in point, my son, early 20s, a huge music fan. From my vantage point, it looks to me like he's the one always finding the new bands, talking other kids into coming to Austin to see bands, forever scouting the music blogs, and is always listening to dozens of new bands I've never heard of, and I kinda keep up with the new stuff pretty good for an old guy.

 

So what does he listen to most of the time?? His MacBook Pro speakers. Which to me is like taking a telescope to the beach so you can look at the beautiful women through the wrong end of the thing. I ask you...why would such an idea ever occur to anyone as a good thing to do?????

 

He's been exposed to hi-def music all his life - I had a very high quality stereo system for the first 10 years of his life, and a home studio with expensive playback monitors, etc. for the next 10+ years of his life.

 

I don't give him a hard time at all about this, but I do try to show off extra-fine sounding material via my studio monitors when it comes along. Maybe he'll catch the bug, you know? Maybe? But I'm a very low-key music evangelist.

 

Back to my speculations:

 

1 - there's a buzz that people get from just owning and using the latest Apple (and other top shelf) toys. This is part of the "medium is the message" thing. Everyone else also listens to these pathetic (in sound quality terms) toys. So it's a social thing, too.

 

2 - people sample music now a lot like you get the little samples at Costco. A big part of the music experience is kind of interwoven with the shopping/sampling/browsing experience. The sit-down-and-concentrate experience is getting to be a rarer and rarer activity. 3 minutes? Don't you have to check your various devices like at least 4 times in 3 minutes? Oh...got a text...just a minute....

 

3 - this is hard to describe, this next thing. I think of it as the video-game approach to leisure time. Input, coming in a stream, changing constantly, lighting up different neuron areas in quick sequence, tickling the vaguest and ephemeral associations that have no time to develop into a moment of focused awareness - this mode of living, there's something addictive about it, something obsessive, something irresistable to the younger crowd. More and more input coming in flashes, faster and faster through a tinier and tinier iris of perception. It's like a roller coaster for your consciousness. Who has time to savor the details? Details are not the point, and sound quality is a detail.

 

But I hope this is all just on a wheel and it will turn. When today's kids are all 30-something and need music to help them get away from life instead of providing a psuedo-immersion into some sort of virtual life...maybe they'll slow down and discover TIMBRE.

 

nat whilk ii

[Lee Knight]

good post^^^

 

I still get lost in my 7506s. I still want some Mageplanars and a great amp and front end.

[Ernest Buckley]

1 - there's a buzz that people get from just owning and using the latest Apple (and other top shelf) toys. This is part of the "medium is the message" thing. Everyone else also listens to these pathetic (in sound quality terms) toys. So it's a social thing, too. 2 - people sample music now a lot like you get the little samples at Costco. A big part of the music experience is kind of interwoven with the shopping/sampling/browsing experience. The sit-down-and-concentrate experience is getting to be a rarer and rarer activity. 3 minutes? Don't you have to check your various devices like at least 4 times in 3 minutes? Oh...got a text...just a minute.... 3 - this is hard to describe, this next thing. I think of it as the video-game approach to leisure time. Input, coming in a stream, changing constantly, lighting up different neuron areas in quick sequence, tickling the vaguest and ephemeral associations that have no time to develop into a moment of focused awareness - this mode of living, there's something addictive about it, something obsessive, something irresistable to the younger crowd. More and more input coming in flashes, faster and faster through a tinier and tinier iris of perception. It's like a roller coaster for your consciousness. Who has time to savor the details? Details are not the point, and sound quality is a detail. But I hope this is all just on a wheel and it will turn. When today's kids are all 30-something and need music to help them get away from life instead of providing a psuedo-immersion into some sort of virtual life...maybe they'll slow down and discover TIMBRE. nat whilk ii

 

 

Nicely put.

[SoundMuppet]

Very interesting dscussion and there was something on the BBC website talking about headphone sales http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9565041.stm

 

I have to say that while I really do love a high quality sound, you do have to consider the environmental factors of listening to music. Even a Hi-Fi system can sound crap if it's in the wrong space. Loaded your car with high end equipment? unless it's a Rolls Silver Shadow or something equally quiet, your going to loose something to the background noise (try listening to something while a kettle boils....all that white noise really kills the sound). In this day and age of listening to music on the go, at work, in the car etc etc, mostly the resolution or bit rate is probably sufficient to keep the majority happy while they try and tune out their fellow workers, commuters and family.

 

I have to say, it's been a 'very' long time since I last just sat there and really listened to an album front to back.

[Lee Flier]

Eh I don't know. I didn't think cassettes were all that horrible, and I don't think MP3s (when properly encoded) are all that horrible. And kids used to hear a lot of new music on AM radio, even while some of the best hi fi systems were being made at the same time. Because let's face it, if you're in the car or walking your dog, fidelity isn't the point. That doesn't mean you can't also appreciate very high fidelity in the right context. And maybe that isn't particularly valued right now, but a lot of that is because there are so many recordings being made that sound like ass. You don't want to hear them on a great system and turn them up because it will just sound painful.

 

I think it will all come back around eventually though - definitely a cyclic thing.

[Geoff Grace]

Yes, but that's kind of like the presidential choice we get every four years I'd rather have greatly recorded great music, played back over a great system.

Well, sure. You're not alone there.

 

What I'm driving at in my two posts above is that I don't think the trends we're talking about here say as much about people's values as they do about people's priorities.

 

Here are the priorities that I see governing the marketplace:

1) The quality of the music composition/performance--If the music isn't compelling in the first place, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's portable. People won't want to hear it at all, let alone take it with them.

 

2) Portability--If they like the music, they'll want to be able to hear it wherever they go.

 

3) Fidelity--People don't want poor fidelity to get in the way of their enjoyment of the song. In fact, they'd probably like the fidelity to enhance their enjoyment of the song, unless it stops them from taking the song with them.

 

In other words, I think fidelity is important to people, just not as important as song quality or portability. The marketplace has even demonstrated fidelity to be more important than cost, as long as the cost of improved fidelity isn't dramatically higher.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[nat whilk II]

Eh I don't know. I didn't think cassettes were all that horrible, and I don't think MP3s (when properly encoded) are all that horrible. And kids used to hear a lot of new music on AM radio, even while some of the best hi fi systems were being made at the same time. Because let's face it, if you're in the car or walking your dog, fidelity isn't the point. That doesn't mean you can't also appreciate very high fidelity in the right context. And maybe that isn't particularly valued right now, but a lot of that is because there are so many recordings being made that sound like ass. You don't want to hear them on a great system and turn them up because it will just sound painful. I think it will all come back around eventually though - definitely a cyclic thing.

 

I agree that uber-high fidelity is not a requirement all the time by any means. In fact, it's kind of nice if it remains a treat to some extent. But listening to music at low fidelity is like listening to something that suggests music to you, or reminds you of music, but isn't really the music itself. It's like the Cliff Notes version, ya know?

 

OTOH, in line with what the other Lee said above - sometimes a lower fidelity in audiophile terms is part of the particular effect. Personally, I think Born on the Bayou sounds best on a screaming AM car radio, windows down, riding shotgun along the highway on a summer afternoon, a couple of beers under the belt. And the Toscanini Brahms - it's like an old exquisite black and white photo from another century, evoking an entire Romantic world long gone, very magical.

 

But lo-fi-as-part-of-the-experience is I think the exception that proves the rule. It's extra-musical factors that enhance the Creedence and Toscanini experiences I've described here, not the music per se.

 

It's a strange world where you find yourself trying to explain that music that sounds better sounds better.

 

nat whilk ii

[Anderton]

Eh I don't know. I didn't think cassettes were all that horrible

 

Seriously now...maybe ones you made, on a nice deck. Pre-recorded cassettes used high-speed duplication, and I never heard a pre-recorded one that was even close to tolerable. And frankly, I think that's one of the reasons home taping took off. If a friend had an album, and you had a cassette recorder, it was almost impossible not to create something way better than a pre-recorded cassette from a major label.

 

And kids used to hear a lot of new music on AM radio, even while some of the best hi fi systems were being made at the same time.

 

But as a point of historical accuracy, a lot of those older AM radios (which used tubes and output transformers ) were pretty big, had 4- or 5-inch speakers, and made at least some attempt at baffling. Aside from the lack of highs inherent in AM transmissions, they were far better than what you hear out of today's laptop speakers.

 

The transistor radio started the trend toward convenience/lo-fi...tiny speakers that had no bass response, but you could carry it around with you.

 

But really, the question isn't whether there's a place for portable music with compromised fidelity - there definitely is - but whether that will start becoming the norm to such an extent that it sets the contemporary standard for "fidelity." Check out this link, here's the pertinent quote:

 

...Berger then said that he tests his incoming students each year in a similar way. He has them listen to a variety of recordings which use different formats from MP3 to ones of much higher quality. He described the results with some disappointment and frustration, as a music lover might, that each year the preference for music in MP3 format rises. In other words, students prefer the quality of that kind of sound over the sound of music of much higher quality. He said that they seemed to prefer "sizzle sounds" that MP3s bring to music. It is a sound they are familiar with.

 

That's the main issue I'm talking about here...if people start to prefer lower-fidelity sounds because they've been conditioned to accept those as the norm, then the trend to lower fidelity may not be cyclical if consumers don't, as a matter of course, also have access to high-fidelity music.

[Beck]

I won

[BushmasterM4]

Im still using 30 to 40 year old Sansui, Pioneer, Polk, and Akai equipment. But I do listen to mp3's on my pc and on a very old ipod. For me the key is to use headphones instead of buds and nice computer speakers, to make the mp3 listening tolerable. I use Klipsch Promedia 3.1 for my pc and the inexpensive Sennheiser HD202's cans for my ipod. As far as the younger generation and fidelity. I do agree that they are conditioned by todays lack of, well, nice stereo equipment, and compressed and limited to the max music. Before recording, I like to play older vinyl or R2R to these young kids and get their reaction . Its like their eyes have been opened for the first time.

[A. Einstein]

Any of you believes all that has significance to the end consumer?

 

I assume today all purchasable music is produced to the best sonic quality available at this time. If you want to buy 24-bit masters, there is market for that too, but then you also need the playback equipmet which reveales the extra sonic qualities.