Is the Sound Quality of CDs and MP3s Hindering Sales?

[philbo]

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

 

 

So.... what do you think makes the actual CDs suck?

[amplayer]

But I wonder if any of you think that the sound quality itself is affecting sales.

 

 

I personally don't think most people care much about the quality of the recordings. A great song is still a great song even if it is overcompressed or lossy compressed (mp3).

[Billster]

I think that the "ear fatigue" factor plays into it to a degree. How much can you listen to something that makes your head hurt. You might think that only happens after you've already bought the CD and played it fanatically for several hours. BUT, this has been going on for so long, people are realizing "Hey, the last 10 CD's I bought I haven't played in six months. Why would I buy more if I don't listen to what I have?" It might be subconscious, but something is making the music disposable and it's not necessarily the content (though that could be a factor too when a 74 minute CD has two 3 minute hit singles and 68 minutes of pap.)

 

Finally, the media saturation of the "next big thing" is so fast nowadays that January's big splash is October's faded memory.

[LiveMusic]

Do you think people care? Do they consciously say "This doesn't sound very good" and move on?

 

 

No, it's not an issue.

[chipmcdonald]

By marketing music based on shorter and shorter longevity cycles, the industry has cheapened the consumer's perception of the inherent value of "music".

They've shot themselves in the foot by training the public to not desire quality, but Perfectly Acceptable Mediocrity in the most readily consumable form.

Ironically (for them) as it turns out, the industry itself does not provide it in it's most consumable form and is likewise suffering because of it.

I'm going to say it again, their only hope is to push towards a *standard* of putting out new acts as integrated 5.1 Dolby surround/video. Make the medium too large to download readily, while refocusing the production aspect to something that requires more user involvement and more artist input.

That is their only chance at turning around the damage they've done.

[Lancaster]

For me , the sound quality is an issue and I dont buy CDs anymore.

 

In their race for the pinnacle of volume, the industry has deliberately destroyed the quality of their product. Much of this stuff is offensive to listen to, much less buy.

[Rabid]

I will never buy another CD that sounds as destorted and squished as the Muse release I bought.

[Super 8]

So is the general consensus that it's ear fatigue from over-compression?

[audioicon]

Do you think most listeners aren't sophisticated enough to tell the difference anyway? Just wondering...

 

I say this all the time, but off coarse who cares what I say, I haven't produced a major hit so I'm not going to blame or even think about why people don't suck up to my opinion even if it's crap.

 

Most people I know, don't pay attention to music quality. Unless, I'll say it again, unless a listener is a person that pays very close attention to the sound quality and know what a great "sound recording" is, he is not going to care if the recording is over compressed/too much bass/too much high/or too much salt.

 

Have you been to a night club/dance club lately? You basically have "teeth" irritation from the crappy sound and the "deafening" loudness from already over compressed music being played at super high volumes. But look at the dance floor! People are dancing, they don't care who produce the record or how warm it is. Or if they are losing their freaking hearing.

 

Listen to the Timberland's new album. It is so over "processed" sounds like cooking metal balls.

 

I'll conclude by saying people are buying more MP3 not for quality but for "convenience." Nobody has the time to be swiping disc, besides the age that buys music today are the "digital age." Mom and Dad are not buying music.

Kids wanna look cool, they want their MP3 player, they don't want to walk around with back packs filled with CD's.

 

So I'll answer the question by saying it's due to "convenience of the digital age." Has nothing to do with quality.

 

I hate compressed music but thats because I'm able to detect a great record, great sound and well produced/mixed record.

 

I know hundreds or college students/friends/colleagues and not one of them thinks Timberland or Maroon 5 CD is over compressed. They'll asked, what do you mean by over compressed? I don't blame them.

 

Bottom line, make a format thats cheap/user friendly and convenient and you'll get people using it.

 

 

AI

[philbo]

I going to go out on a limb here...

Since most MP3 encoders do a LPF which cuts off everything above 15 KHz, maybe that represents a dramatic improvement over what comes off the CD. Maybe MP3 IS the new vinyl???


It's illuminating to watch what people do versus what they say - -
My ex-wife claimed to love rock, as played by the local radio stations. She didn't CONSCIOUSLY object to overcompression (i.e, peak limiting) when listening to the radio, but would automatically turn it down whenever anything like that came on - - and then leave it turned down.

And I didn't really object to that - it was more pleasant to listen to wind, engine and freeway noise.

[nat whilk II]

The bulk of the music listening public is in passive-consumer mode when it comes to music. Which is made up of the following factors:

1. does this music belong to my peer-group/age-group/psuedo-tribal-identity-group?
2. do I get a cool feeling from the music in the first 10-20 seconds I listen to it before I get bored?
3. is there something sexy to look at either on the CD or the video?

1&2 will work by themselves, add 3 to the deal and it's a lock.

You might pull off some niche market sales on other criteria, such as sound quality, artistic brilliance, social relevance, all that stuff.

Another way to look at it is this...the public also takes its cue from the artists. If a massively popular artist makes it clear that he/she/they are all about social relevance or artistic integrity or sheer sonic beauty, then some portion of the public will pick that up and get into it. Yay for that.

But when the massively popular artists are all corporate productions, mass-produced on the lowest common denominators for quick upticks in revenue...you know the rest of the story.....it's feeding the live cattle with the ground-up dead cattle which leads to great profits and encroaching community rot/sickness.

nat whilk ii

[HCarlH]

Quote: Originally Posted by Anderton View Post do you think most listeners aren't sophisticated enough to tell the difference anyway? This gets my vote. Even if they can tell the difference, they won't care. The price of a CD is no match for free pirated music, even if the CD is relatively affordable.

[doug osborne]

There are a lot of reasons why CDs aren't selling like they once did: ...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...

 

 

Yes, people care, and are sub-conciously repelled.

 

I rank this below quality of music, competing entertainment, and piracy (meaning selling counterfeit CDs on the street, etc.), but way above file trading (which is *not* piracy, and most in the industry, when pressed, agree that this is revenue-neutral at worst).

 

Even typical files from iTunes on a common iPod can sound great. They can also sound like crap. Mastering or mixing can be the culprit, as can encoding and data compression. Music companies might assume that people can't hear the differnce, and music creators and fans who hate themselves might proclaim that the music industry is dead because no one cares about quality anymore, but they would be wrong.

[mobobog]

We are currently selling CDs for real fans and real listeners . All the rest, go the piracy way.

 

 

 

I totally agree... real fans...of REAL ARTISTS would never harm the artist they admire so much. But the problem is the lack of real artists today.

[alphajerk]

So is the general consensus that it's ear fatigue from over-compression?

 

 

no... i think thats a bull{censored} arguement. its {censored}ing torrents. its AOLmusic where you can go watch and listen to your hearts content for FREE. its the millionMYspace bands with loads of music for free. is a complete oversaturation of the MARKET than makes your head hurt and have ear fatigue, not over-compression. thats just a purist bull{censored} statement.

[halljams]

no... i think thats a bull{censored} arguement. its {censored}ing torrents. its AOLmusic where you can go watch and listen to your hearts content for FREE. its the millionMYspace bands with loads of music for free. is a complete oversaturation of the MARKET than makes your head hurt and have ear fatigue, not over-compression. thats just a purist bull{censored} statement.

Well i call bull{censored} on your bull{censored}.
I do however agree with the "Over saturation of the market with absolute rubbish" Point.

When i was a kid i was drawn to well recorded records. I didn't know why but i was, there was an added experience to listening to a great recording and bands with well recorded albums.
Put on Led zeppelin IV or V and listen to that drum sound to start.
The arrangements, the actual rehearsed creative band that is ALSO captured beautifully.

There was some music i liked but the recordings were not very good and i never put them on, i needed a certain level of recording qualilty to be really turned on. I heard different records as cold or warm or punchy dark etc.

I didn't know how or care how or why and i probably couldn't have had a conversation about it, but it was paramount to my listening AND BUYING.

[alphajerk]

the majority of people didnt listen to those records because of the recordings... {censored}, they dont even sound that great really. even jimi's records as cool as they sounded [from embracing technology and manipulating it] werent pinnacles of sonic integrity. or even the beatles. {censored}, put on some stooges, or some velvet underground, or some MC5, or some 13th floor elevators. all sounded like ass pretty much, but rocked your ass because the musicians rocked your ass. and if that kept you from putting it on, you missed out on a lot of cool music.

it wasnt because any of it was captured beautifully.... 1% cares about that {censored}. 99% want it to freak their {censored} out musically/emotionally... which is what is generally missing from the PRODUCT/crass commercialism put out today from the majors.

these people made music EXCITING. they made you want it to be part of your life. they made you want to go to shows. they made you idolize them. now its just has brittany shaved the day she spreads her crotch for the paparazzi.

all the really good bands these days are either independant or on boutique labels. they still play great shows. their recordings sound great and their songs kick ass....

[DevilRaysFan]

 

no... i think thats a bull{censored} arguement. its {censored}ing torrents. its AOLmusic where you can go watch and listen to your hearts content for FREE. its the millionMYspace bands with loads of music for free. is a complete oversaturation of the MARKET than makes your head hurt and have ear fatigue, not over-compression. thats just a purist bull{censored} statement.

 

 

As much as I like a good debate and would love to poke holes in this, I can't: I do firmly believe there is a truth in this and it does affect entire facets of the industry, not just sound quality/perception debates and issues...........

[Dean Roddey]

but way above file trading (which is *not* piracy, and most in the industry, when pressed, agree that this is revenue-neutral at worst).

 

 

You've got to be kidding, right? It's far from revenue neutral. The historically biggest music buying demographic, teens and young adults, are stealing most of the music they listen to, if not all of it in many cases. There's no way it's revenue neutral.

[John Sayers]

Radiohead have released their new album for free download.
You can also purchase a pack containing a CD, Vinyl and digital (whatever that means, maybe 24/96)

http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/index3.html

[Lee Flier]

 

no... i think thats a bull{censored} arguement. its {censored}ing torrents. its AOLmusic where you can go watch and listen to your hearts content for FREE. its the millionMYspace bands with loads of music for free. is a complete oversaturation of the MARKET than makes your head hurt and have ear fatigue, not over-compression. thats just a purist bull{censored} statement.

 

 

While I agree completely about the oversaturation of the market, the argument about hypercompression isn't a bull{censored} one, sorry. It's true that people will put up with a lot to listen to good music, and they don't care if it's distorted or coming out of a crappy AM radio or whatever. That's why I said, I don't think that MP3's are a problem, people obviously think they're fine (even me). But hypercompression specifically DOES cause ear fatigue and does unconsciously make people want to turn it down, or off, after a period of time. That really isn't subjective, the effect has been measured. People are initially attracted to a sound that's louder, which is why everybody started making everything as loud as possible in the first place. But when everything is the same volume they tire of it quickly. It's a dumb trend, like bad 80's digital reverb which was also supposed to make everything sound B-I-G (and didn't), and it just needs to go away.

 

Bottom line is there are a LOT of factors contributing to lack of sales, and it would be silly to think it was just one thing. The whole "oversaturation of the market" thing is a BIG factor, IMO. But I do think hypercompression is "a" factor (not "the" factor which I don't think anything is).

[doug osborne]

You've got to be kidding, right? It's far from revenue neutral. The historically biggest music buying demographic, teens and young adults, are stealing most of the music they listen to, if not all of it in many cases. There's no way it's revenue neutral.

 

 

Harvard Business School professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee and his co-author Koleman Strumpf think so The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales. When I was a kid, I knew that I was paying for my music through the ads on WLS playing on my blue Hitachi transistor radio, but for me, it was free.

 

Infringement is not theft.

 

File trading is not piracy.

 

CD sales are down, but so are book sales (and few book files are traded), newspaper sales, and many other things, for many reasons. The music industry tends to be short-sighted, and certainly is when they blame kids trading files for their own woes.

 

Bad sound is one reason why music sales are down, although as I said, probably nowhere near the number one issue.

[Billster]

werent pinnacles of sonic integrity. or even the beatles. {censored}, put on some stooges, or some velvet underground, or some MC5, or some 13th floor elevators. all sounded like ass pretty much, but rocked your ass because the musicians rocked your ass. and if that kept you from putting it on, you missed out on a lot of cool music. it wasnt because any of it was captured beautifully.... 1% cares about that {censored}. 99% want it to freak their {censored} out musically/emotionally... which is what is generally missing from the PRODUCT/crass commercialism put out today from the majors. these people made music EXCITING. they made you want it to be part of your life. they made you want to go to shows. they made you idolize them. now its just has brittany shaved the day she spreads her crotch for the paparazzi. all the really good bands these days are either independant or on boutique labels. they still play great shows. their recordings sound great and their songs kick ass....

 

 

The thing that those questionable recordings of the past feature are dynamics. Even if there's static, or weird mixing decisions, even flubbed notes, the performance is a living, breathing, dynamic entity unto itself. The worst of the music from the 1970's (when everyone says the music lost something after Woodstock, and Jimi and Janis, and Morrison died) is exemplified by being too polished because of the abuse of new multi-tracking techniques that simply were not available in the era of 4-track recording. The truth is that there was great music recorded in the 1970's, but it took time for the fad stuff to lose its prominence.

 

I suggest that in 30 years people will mock what passes for the hot hits of 2005, and "re-discover" the sort of indie and boutique label stuff that isn't as trendy.

 

Between now and then, we will continue to mock the 1980's gated reverb sound, and "re-discover" the good music that happened during that era.

[Billster]

Harvard Business School professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee and his co-author Koleman Strumpf think so The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales .

 

 

Great article. Olberholzer looks at what's happening in the market as an opportunity for the music labels to explore new methods of transacting with customers, not solely as a threat to existing models. The RIAA is baling out the Titanic with a teacup. What they should have done was miss the iceberg.

[fastplant]

The reason sales are slow is because record companies care more about the bottom line than the quality of their product. They'd MUCH rather promote a CD that cost them very little to make than to put a ton of money into recording a rock band these days. Is it any wonder that top 40 radio plays almost nothing but keyboard and drum machine based music? It's super cheap to produce. The record companies want as much of that kind of music as possible. And it all starts sounding the same after a while.