Jump to content

Is the Sound Quality of CDs and MP3s Hindering Sales?


Anderton

Recommended Posts

  • Members

There are a lot of reasons why CDs aren't selling like they once did: Digital downloads, piracy, competing forms of entertainment, etc. But I wonder if any of you think that the sound quality itself is affecting sales. MP3s seem to be a major form of distribution, and while they sound "okay," they're not as much fun to listen to as a well-mastered CD (assuming you can find such a thing these days, of course). As for CDs, well, the overcompression thing has gotten out of hand.

 

Do you think people care? Do they consciously say "This doesn't sound very good" and move on? Or do you think it's more of a subconscious thing? Or do you think most listeners aren't sophisticated enough to tell the difference anyway? Just wondering...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I disagree, I think a well made MP3 can sound fine. After all plenty of people got turned on to music via AM radio or cassette, too.

 

I do think sound quality is making sales suffer, but I think that what happens further up the chain matters a lot more than the end distribution medium. In other words if there is a band playing through crappy gear and it's recorded and/or mixed crappily and compressed to death in mastering, it's going to suck. In fact if any one of those things happen, the whole thing is going to suck. And usually these days at LEAST one of those things is happening. Something could even make it all the way to mastering without sucking (which is difficult but still happens) and then it gets squashed and that's that - it sucks. And it's all the more heartbreaking the further down the chain it got before it sucked. :lol:

 

I don't think listeners consciously know the difference, but I do think the overcompression causes ear fatigue and "mental fatigue" and they just want to turn it off, and/or not want to listen again enough to make them want to buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think that the sound of CDs, as they are mastered 'for radio' today, is one of the causes of slackening CD sales.

 

For me: It's the one major reason I don't buy anything till I've heard it on a good system.

I find the over sibilant, over compressed, overbearing cymbal crashes, and overhyped highs annoying and distracting.

I make it a practice to leave when it comes from a live act, and carefully avoid adding such noise to my music collection.

 

It's simple: they can crank up the treble till it hurts, so they do.

 

Its verifiable: hook any RTA to a system, play a song you love from vinyl, then play a song you love from CD. Note the difference in levels between 4K - 20K.

 

The last new CD I bought was from The Mates, our own Macle... Funny how it's possible to make one that sounds so good... I wonder why no one from the labels bothers to try that. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Craig,

 

I have come to the conclusion that the state of sales (the decline) has nothing to do with sound quality, but music quality. There just isn't all that much good music out there - compared to a few years ago.

 

It is (hopefully) just a temporary lull and within a few years, there with be a plethora of music out there in whatever format is the hot thing at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

II find the over sibilant, over compressed, overbearing cymbal crashes, and overhyped highs annoying and distracting.


 

I think that trend is changing at last.:thu:

 

recent productions from Mitchell Froom (Missy Higgins, Crowded House) for example are sounding really nice, smooth high end, use of dynamics etc.

I'm noticing many tracks these days sounding much better and finally bottom end is back after years of rolloff to be louder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think that trend is changing at last.
:thu:

recent productions from Mitchell Froom (Missy Higgins, Crowded House) for example are sounding really nice, smooth high end, use of dynamics etc.

I'm noticing many tracks these days sounding much better and finally bottom end is back after years of rolloff to be louder.

 

I can only hope this is true...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The "there's not good music" argument always comes up, but it's just not the case. For one, there is good music, it's probably just not what you consider good music because it's mostly for the teen generation. Some of us continue to enjoy what's out there, but most folks, as they get older, will inevitably say the same thing (and the generation that came before them said the same thing about their's and so forth.) People don't still billions of tracks of stuff that they think sucks. They steal it becasue they like it. And those few remaining folks that actually buy their music do it for the same reason. There's plenty out there, if you care to find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Dean,

 

You are right, there is plenty of great music out there. One needs to find it by themselves, though, as the commercial label-based radio-driven distribution model is in a state of latent collapse.

 

It takes some digging, since there are around 500 new albums coming out every day....

 

O brave new world, where such music lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The "there's not good music" argument always comes up, but it's just not the case. For one, there is good music, it's probably just not what you consider good music because it's mostly for the teen generation. Some of us continue to enjoy what's out there, but most folks, as they get older, will inevitably say the same thing (and the generation that came before them said the same thing about their's and so forth.) People don't still billions of tracks of stuff that they think sucks. They steal it becasue they like it. And those few remaining folks that actually buy their music do it for the same reason. There's plenty out there, if you care to find it.

 

 

except most of what i buy probably isnt reported to soundscan [or whoever is keeping track these days].... the comment is really directed towards what the majors are pushing now. it for the most part is {censored} music and kids these days are smart enough to just steal it.

 

as demetri martin told jon stewart "you buy music? you ARE old"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are a lot of reasons why CDs aren't selling like they once did: Digital downloads, piracy, competing forms of entertainment, etc. But I wonder if any of you think that the sound quality itself is affecting sales. MP3s seem to be a major form of distribution, and while they sound "okay," they're not as much fun to listen to as a well-mastered CD (assuming you can find such a thing these days, of course). As for CDs, well, the overcompression thing has gotten out of hand.


Do you think people care? Do they consciously say "This doesn't sound very good" and move on? Or do you think it's more of a subconscious thing? Or do you think most listeners aren't sophisticated enough to tell the difference anyway? Just wondering...

 

I absolutely feel like the sound of contemporary releases is keeping ME from buying.

 

Let' me cite an example: before the losers at Yahoo destroyed MusicMatch On Demand, I found three different "masterings" of my favorite ZZ Top song, "Blue Jean Blues." One, a plain old version from a regular old CD release of the origianl album sounded just fine, like the LP (certainly close enough given the givens). The second, from a remastered greatest hits package circa 2001 sounded about twice as loud, the cymbals were disappearing, the bass blossoming, the air breathing. But the most recent version from a remasterning around 2006 of the album [i think that was roughly the sequence of releases, I could have the album/greathists formats turned around] sounded UTTERLY GROTESQUE... as bad as any squashed out emo crap I've ever heard (at least there was no Autotune).

 

For those of you unfamiliar with the song -- it's a slow, moody (and whimsically ironic) blues song (with some very fine Peter Greenish lead work) and it doesn't deserve the trashed by some tin eared screwhead "mastering engineer."

 

We need a "Mastering Engineer" Hall of Shame (and, yes, the quotation marks should absolutely be part of the name of the institution).

 

I think -- at the induction -- the honorees should be tricked into attending in their finest evening attire (the tux they've been saving for that Grammy nomination), led, with great ceremony to a little cage -- which will be locked behind them and in which is only a small bicycle type seat suspended over 3 or 4 feet of icy water.

 

As I'm sure a number of you can already imagine -- there will be a large, easy to hit target lever out in front of the cage and, when one of a line of music fans steps up and pitches a hardball at the target, striking it even a glancing blow -- the honoree "mastering engineer" will be dunked into the water off his perch with his only option being to climb back up on the seat and wait for the next dunking or to shiver in the icy water while a long, long line of music lovers wait their turn.

 

Like it?

 

I thought you might.

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think -- at the induction -- the honorees should be tricked into attending in their finest evening attire (the tux they've been saving for that Grammy nomination), led, with great ceremony to a little cage -- which will be locked behind them and in which is only a small bicycle type seat suspended over 3 or 4 feet of
icy water.


As I'm sure a number of you can already imagine -- there will be a large, easy to hit target lever out in front of the cage and, when one of a line of music fans steps up and pitches a hardball at the target, striking it even a glancing blow -- the honoree "mastering engineer" will be dunked into the water off his perch.

 

Or even better, the lever could be tripped by a meter that measures the average levels of the "mastering engineer's" work, and the number of clipped peaks, and dunks him if either one exceeds a reasonable level. No one would have to actually listen to the playback except for the inductee, who has to have it blasted into a pair of headphones whilst his fate is being decided. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If the sound quality of MP3's were an issue there would be no iPod today. It would have gone the way of Minidisk and DCC players.

 

 

The "there's not good music" argument always comes up, but it's just not the case. For one, there is good music, it's probably just not what you consider good music because it's mostly for the teen generation.

 

 

I disagree. For awhile I think I might have agreed with you, and then I got XM and found lots of new stuff I liked. A good song makes all the difference, and there aren't many good songs coming out on mainstream radio.

 

I also agree with Lee that the over-compression thing is very fatiguing and makes any music less enjoyable to listen to.

 

CD's are way overpriced and have plenty of competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Or even better, the lever could be tripped by a meter that measures the average levels of the "mastering engineer's" work, and the number of clipped peaks, and dunks him if either one exceeds a reasonable level. No one would have to actually listen to the playback except for the inductee, who has to have it blasted into a pair of headphones whilst his fate is being decided.
:lol:

 

He'd never even have a chance to climb back on the seat..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think listeners consciously know the difference, but I do think the overcompression causes ear fatigue and "mental fatigue" and they just want to turn it off, and/or not want to listen again enough to make them want to buy it.

 

:thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I feel like a broken record posting this (no pun intended)

 

The reason why a lot of MP3s sound terrible is the resolution they are encoded at. This is because they load and play faster on a site. There are an abnormal mount of MP3s encoded at bit rates as low as 64 kbs. I find anything recorded below 128 kbs to sound like ass and 160 kbs and above to be pretty decent, but even my MP3s on my MySpace are encoded at low bit-rates because they will load faster in the player where a hi-res one will take forever

 

An analogy is like recording digital at 28khz as opposed to 44.1 khz, 48khz, or 96khz -- similar difference

 

Personally, I think MP3s encoded with bit rates of 160kbs and higher sound OK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you are drawing a low bow there - I listen to radio all day with music and it's usually streaming at 64kbps and even under that limited resolution I can tell whether I like a track or not and whether it's well recorded or not. Some I like, some I don't - it's not about CD, 44.1Khz or anything - good music is good music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...