The science they quote shows nothing of the sort, of course.
Behold the latest steaming load of horsh*t from the vinylphile camp
[a href="http://mic.com/articles/104250/what-the-internet-has-done-to-your-love-of-music" rel="nofollow"]http://mic.com/articles/104250/what-the-internet-has-done-to-your-love-of-music[/a]
Research shows that musical quality has a huge effect on emotional response. A recent study performed by audio researchers at DTS divided a group of listeners into two groups — one that watched a video accompanied by standard stereo 96-kbps sound (Spotify's default audio setting) and the other group listened in 256-kbps audio format. The responses in the brains of the group listening with the 256-kbps audio were 14% more powerful on metrics measuring memory creation and 66% higher on pleasure responses. And this was just 96 to 256 kbps.
A good bourbon enhances the experience for me, although it probably doesn't improve memory creation.
It seems like all these articles have something in common:
the conflation of lossy data compression with dynamic range compression.
My favorite part is when the author tries to recruit Poppy Crum to his cause, but is forced to note
To her mind, though, the benefits of streaming in terms of access and broad music appreciation far outweigh the potential negative effects of streaming habits on our emotional experience.
The way he glides past that 'elephant in the room' is almost Amirian.
But this compressing process strips about 91% of the actual musical data and fills in the gaps using algorithms. The volume is then jacked up to make up for this lack of distinctiveness, and the resulting waveform is barely recognizable.
Clueless twit.
But this compressing process strips about 91% of the actual musical data and fills in the gaps using algorithms. The volume is then jacked up to make up for this lack of distinctiveness, and the resulting waveform is barely recognizable.
Clueless twit.
I thought this was supposed to be basically an accurate representation of what is actually done with most commercial MP3 files. Is it not true? Do the files not commonly go through both data compression and also dynamic compression?
I stopped reading when they started on the standard "lossy compression is bad" diatribe.
But the start of the article - where Poppy Crum gives her concerns about our change in listening habits - struck me as right on the button. Back in the Good Old Days, buying a record was a moderately significant event. We were choosing to invest something in it, and so we gave it the attention it deserved. As Poppy says, repeated and careful listening meant that we were able to derive the maximum return on our investment.
We must have all experienced cases where an album seemed initially unremarkable, but after repeated listenings turned out to be very good indeed. (Some examples off the top of my head are: Amarok by Mike Oldfield, Wild Orchids by Steve Hackett, Amused to Death by Roger Waters, Nostradamus by Kayak). Had I briefly sampled any of these wonderful works on a streaming service, they would have been dismissed and forgotten, and as a result I would have denied myself the pleasure they have given me.
So the way we listen to music is VERY important. A delivery medium that requires that we make some kind of effort (go to a shop and buy a CD or LP) will provide greater rewards than one which is cheap and fleeting (streaming). It has nothing to do with whether it's digital, analogue, or lossily compressed. What's required is that we are encouraged to actually *listen*, rather than treat music as ephemeral auditory wallpaper.
Do the files not commonly go through both data compression and also dynamic compression?
The files are compressed because MP3 is a lossy format. It has nothing to do with dynamic compression. That has to do with the masters used to create them. It isn't some automatic step that is done when creating MP3s.
I love this one:
Vinyl records are estimated to play at a whopping 1000 kbps. Music might not just have lost its revenue when it switched to digital; it may have lost its emotional power too.
Estimated by the brilliant minds at Yahoo Answers, that is.
Never mind that the much-maligned CD delivers an even more "whopping" 1411kbps, so it must automatically be better than vinyl, really.
In a way, I actually feel sorry for these people who can only get emotionally involved in a piece of music unless it was physically read off the surface of a piece of plastic using a needle.
A good chunk of the internet consists of information-free written-for-pence-in-minutes click-bait articles. I don't think I've ever seen one that was accurate (about any subject), so I wouldn't worry specifically about this one.
Cheers,
David.
Do the files not commonly go through both data compression and also dynamic compression?
The files are compressed because MP3 is a lossy format. It has nothing to do with dynamic compression. That has to do with the masters used to create them. It isn't some automatic step that is done when creating MP3s.
I understand that they are two different, mutually independent things and that MP3s do not "have to" be dynamically compressed. But this actually is what happens to most commercial MP3s we find on Spotify is it not? For consumers of these files this is a real problem right?
I understand that they are two different, mutually independent things and that MP3s do not "have to" be dynamically compressed. But this actually is what happens to most commercial MP3s we find on Spotify is it not? For consumers of these files this is a real problem right?
I have doubts that any streaming service adds DRC. Most likely, their lossy files were sourced from either very modern masters or remasters done within the last 10-15 years. They would tend to be loud. However I've downloaded lots of $5 albums from Amazon and you never know what you'll get. Some of them had very high DR values. It all depends on their source.
Is there a link between excessive dynamic compression and listener fatigue?
1) The volume can jump wildly from track to track on Pandora.
2) It's difficult to find a CD that hasn't been subject to heavy DRC for at least the last decade.
3) The ubiquity of vinyl being sourced from a different master that was not compressed is grossly exaggerated. Claims that specific titles were sourced from a different master that was used to create the CD counterpart are often (typically?) wrong.
But this compressing process strips about 91% of the actual musical data and fills in the gaps using algorithms. The volume is then jacked up to make up for this lack of distinctiveness, and the resulting waveform is barely recognizable.
Clueless twit.
I thought this was supposed to be basically an accurate representation of what is actually done with most commercial MP3 files. Is it not true? Do the files not commonly go through both data compression and also dynamic compression?
Our hearing strips away huge amounts of data before it reaches our brain. If the lossy compression is throwing away stuff that we are going to throw away anyway before it reaches our brains, what difference does it make? Ignoring this shows a complete lack of understanding of psychoacoustic compression.
And is the waveform "barely recognizable" in a properly controlled DBT/ABX listening test, or only in ways having nothing to do with hearing?
Is there a link between excessive dynamic compression and listener fatigue?
I would like to know more about listener fatigue in general. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listener_fatigue) says it's not even a clinically recognized state. Anecdotally, my 25 minute commute to work is more pleasant having sought out dynamic versions of the albums I like. There probably isn't a singular cause though.
Back to what streaming services offer, I can think of an example where an Amazon MP3 album (probably the same version they stream for their service) was exactly the same master as the old CD, at least according to peak and DR values. I bought Prince's
Purple Rain (don't laugh) via Amazon MP3 and a couple years later I found an old Made-in-Japan CD. They turned out to be the same mastering. I felt stupid but at least it was nice to get a physical copy. I think the same thing happened with Motley Crue's
Shot at the Devil.
I especially liked that his reference link for vinyl being equivalent to 1000kbps was Yahoo Answers. (h/t to the commenter who pointed it out. Who can go through all that drivel to find out?)
Meanwhile this has been done at the radio station for broadcast long before mp3s existed!
...speaking of the means to hear music in a way that makes it less indelible. And if you didn't like the song you had the option to change the station.
2) It's difficult to find a CD that hasn't been subject to heavy DRC for at least the last decade.
Classical CD's (the ones I've bought at least) have been fine.
But this compressing process strips about 91% of the actual musical data and fills in the gaps using algorithms. The volume is then jacked up to make up for this lack of distinctiveness, and the resulting waveform is barely recognizable.
Clueless twit.
I thought this was supposed to be basically an accurate representation of what is actually done with most commercial MP3 files. Is it not true? Do the files not commonly go through both data compression and also dynamic compression?
Our hearing strips away huge amounts of data before it reaches our brain. If the lossy compression is throwing away stuff that we are going to throw away anyway before it reaches our brains, what difference does it make? Ignoring this shows a complete lack of understanding of psychoacoustic compression.
And is the waveform "barely recognizable" in a properly controlled DBT/ABX listening test, or only in ways having nothing to do with hearing?
I was not making any pro or con argument about the use of data compression. I was only asking whether or not the article was stating true facts about the files on Spotify being both data compressed AND dynamically compressed.
Do the files not commonly go through both data compression and also dynamic compression?
The files are compressed because MP3 is a lossy format. It has nothing to do with dynamic compression. That has to do with the masters used to create them. It isn't some automatic step that is done when creating MP3s.
I understand that they are two different, mutually independent things and that MP3s do not "have to" be dynamically compressed. But this actually is what happens to most commercial MP3s we find on Spotify is it not? For consumers of these files this is a real problem right?
I think you're framing the question incorrectly. Excessive
dynamic range compression -- a result of the 'loudness wars' -- predates the popularity of mp3 by years. It's common on *lossless* audio, and therefore it will be preserved on the *lossy* versions of the same tracks. It happens during mixing and mastering, because producers and musicians think 'louder' means 'better'.
Historically, dynamic range compression *IS* often added for radio broadcast (and, I suppose, internet streaming too). Nowadays this would be *on top of* the DR compression baked into the mastering of the source. The lossy compression aspect is immaterial to that.
So yes, I would not be surprised if Spotify streams were both lossy and dynamically compressed. But one does not cause the other. And the article conflates them recklessly.
Classical CD's (the ones I've bought at least) have been fine.
I'm sure you're right about that, and likely many (most?) acoustic jazz recordings too.
How about the mp3 versions of these titles available for purchase?
Do the files not commonly go through both data compression and also dynamic compression?
The files are compressed because MP3 is a lossy format. It has nothing to do with dynamic compression. That has to do with the masters used to create them. It isn't some automatic step that is done when creating MP3s.
I understand that they are two different, mutually independent things and that MP3s do not "have to" be dynamically compressed. But this actually is what happens to most commercial MP3s we find on Spotify is it not? For consumers of these files this is a real problem right?
I think you're framing the question incorrectly. Excessive dynamic range compression -- a result of the 'loudness wars' -- predates the popularity of mp3 by years. It's common on *lossless* audio, and therefore it will be preserved on the *lossy* versions of the same tracks. It happens during mixing and mastering, because producers and musicians think 'louder' means 'better'.
Historically, dynamic range compression *IS* often added for radio broadcast (and, I suppose, internet streaming too). Nowadays this would be *on top of* the DR compression baked into the mastering of the source. The lossy compression aspect is immaterial to that.
So yes, I would not be surprised if Spotify streams were both lossy and dynamically compressed. But one does not cause the other. And the article conflates them recklessly.
Well OK, sorry if my question was hard to understand or seemed poorly framed. But it does sound like you are agreeing with the basic facts stated in the article that you found so objectionable. Why do you find it so objectionable?
I was only asking whether or not the article was stating true facts about the files on Spotify being both data compressed AND dynamically compressed.
That is not the message the quote was presenting. The article is not stating true facts about the process of lossy compression. Saying heavy DRC is there to make up for a lack of distinction caused by the lossy encoding process is a load of bunk too!
this compressing process [...] fills in the gaps using algorithms [...] to make up for this lack of distinctiveness
The delivery method (streaming or local storage) has nothing to do with what is quoted above.
AFAICT, Spotify was mentioned in the article with reference to listening habits and data rate.
Please show me where in the article it claims Spotify uses dynamic range compression, besides the implication that it baked into the cake per the quote I gave.
Classical CD's (the ones I've bought at least) have been fine.
I'm sure you're right about that, and likely many (most?) acoustic jazz recordings too.
How about the mp3 versions of these titles available for purchase?
The few MP3's I have (mostly freebies from a Dutch radio station, the name of which escapes me) have been excellent.
Also the few non classical CD's I've bought, Godspeed, you black emperor, REM, Natalie Merchant, John Surman, Yello, so on and so forth... have all been OK, either that or I'm deaf to brickwalling... :-)
I can listen to entire albums on Spotify. In fact this is exactly how I use Spotify.
Am I losing intimacy because the format is lossy or the source material was subject to DRC? The jury is still out as to whether Spotify is actually exacerbating the DRC problem.
I can ask Poppy this next time I run into her if you like.
EDIT: As for the DTS study, I'd like to see it hold up under scrutiny, provided it is made available. To me, the suggestion of needing higher bit rates appears to be part of their narrative; at least it has in the past.
Also the few non classical CD's I've bought, Godspeed, you black emperor, REM, Natalie Merchant, John Surman, Yello, so on and so forth... have all been OK, either that or I'm deaf to brickwalling... :-)
If done carefully as to avoid audible clipping, and with the proper tools, I don't know that DRC has to be all that bad.
Here's something that's probably worth looking at:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107539 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=107539)
I've only read the first two posts, however.
Once the chance to listen to music was generally infrequent and thus tended to be a special treat. Now one has to practically hide in the cellar under a heavy blanket to get away from it - and that frequently will not work either. We, or at least people in my part of the world, are blasted with music playback virtually anywhere we go in public and it often invades one's home from neighbors or the street. It is played in most stores and too often there are even speakers at the gasoline pumps.
Quite aside from the fact that one thus has little choice about what music he is assaulted with, it is often too loud, as in the amplifier is turned up too high, and playback is of poor quality. The source is also often of poor quality, as in typifying the worser aspects of the loudness war, but commonly the environment is rather, or very, noisy and the PA system delivery is distorted.
I find that this greatly cheapens music, making me often shun it when I have a choice, even if the circumstances allow me to choose the material and the delivery I would want if I wanted some.
I can listen to entire albums on Spotify. In fact this is exactly how I use Spotify.
That would make you the exception though and not the rule. "Recently collected Spotify data illustrates how short our musical attention spans have become. There's only about a 50% chance we'll actually make it to the end of a song." Is this claim false or even in question?
Am I losing intimacy because the format is lossy or the source material was subject to DRC? The jury is still out as to whether Spotify is actually exacerbating the DRC problem.
I got the impression it was more about the folks who weren't getting to the end of the song 50% of the time. Are they losing intimacy? And it does seem that Poppy Crumb feels that they are. "True love or appreciation for a piece of music ... comes with depth of knowledge of that music," she said. She cited three important factors in creating a genuine experience with a piece of music — "repeated exposure, iterations and intent" "Those sorts of heightened emotional responses of pleasure and enjoyment and satisfaction come in a way that is counter to rapid, quick streaming and constant exposure to a lot of different things,"
She did say that this was a trade off for an increase in access and that she felt the benefits outweigh the negative effects but there is nothing ambiguous about her claim that there are these negative effects. Of course if you, as a user of Spotify are not only getting to the end of a song but are listening to entire albums then I can see how this problem is hard for you to relate to.
I can ask Poppy this next time I run into her if you like.
EDIT: As for the DTS study, I'd like to see it hold up under scrutiny, provided it is made available. To me, the suggestion of needing higher bit rates appears to be part of their narrative; at least it has in the past.
Is there any reason to think this particular study is any less reliable than your typical garden variety study? Is this a bogus study? Is the drop is SQ from higher bit rates to 96-kbps an audio myth? If so then I would say you have a legitimate gripe there.
It's not something I personally worry about. I love Spotify as a resource for new music. And who knows, maybe the reason for the 50% song completion rate is because people are using Spotify to look for new music. I do that all the time. Maybe a lot of that is people figuring out whether or not they like something before the song ended.
Well OK, sorry if my question was hard to understand or seemed poorly framed. But it does sound like you are agreeing with the basic facts stated in the article that you found so objectionable. Why do you find it so objectionable?
I think you and I read a different article...or have a different idea what 'basic facts' they are trying to impart.
Would you agree the article demonstrates its main claim that 'science shows there is only one real way to listen to music'? Or that 'digital doesn't hold up'?
The article conflates the 1) unprecedented *availability and variety* of music today via internet channels, with 2) the *sound quality*, with a supposed 3) lack of attention to/connection with music
Instead of 'blaming' 3 on 1, it blames 2. And in blaming 2, it conflates two different factors --lossy compression, and dynamic range compression. Neither of which are absolutely *necessary* to digital downloads or streaming. Lossy is the more 'necessary' of the two, for streaming, but obviously audibility of lossyness is taken as a given in the article, when it's not in reality.
Even as regards 3, does the article offer any evidence that in days of radio, people didn't routinely cut off listening to a song, or skip around from tune to tune? I surely remember them doing both. Dynamic range compression was *already* common in days of radio, too. And decried back in the day, too.
It's good that in the comments to the article, knowledegable commentors have basically called out the author's ignorance from the start.
I can listen to entire albums on Spotify. In fact this is exactly how I use Spotify.
That would make you the exception though and not the rule. "Recently collected Spotify data illustrates how short our musical attention spans have become. There's only about a 50% chance we'll actually make it to the end of a song." Is this claim false or even in question?
Is there any historical trend data to put it in context? That's the first thing you should ask.
First off, it's Crum, not Crumb.
I do not dispute the Spotify statistics and will gladly concede I'm an outlier.
I imagine I'm an outlier in using the 160 kbit service as well. Have you ever attempted to ABX Ogg Vorbis at q5?
Re: DTS
The DTS study was based on brainwaves and presented as if it were marketing material. I hope I don't need to say much more. If it was specific about what encoder was used for 96kbits, I missed it.
Oh yeah, where are the brain scans comparing an iTunes download against used vinyl as shown at the top of the article?
I especially liked that his reference link for vinyl being equivalent to 1000kbps was Yahoo Answers. (h/t to the commenter who pointed it out. Who can go through all that drivel to find out?)
Ever seen this quote:
it is very unlikely that we could use a data rate close to that found in the auditory cortex (c. 500kb/s) to transparently code the features we extract in normal listening.
...and yet it happens all the time.
A great deal of modern music of a fair number of genre, or at least a great deal of what I've been exposed to, contains very little in any given song. There are a few notes of melody with accompanying instruments that is repeated over and over and over and over. There is a little bit of lyric, most often more or less nonsense, that is repeated over and over and over and over. Why does anyone want to listen all the way to the end of the track?
The science they quote shows nothing of the sort, of course.
Behold the latest steaming load of horsh*t from the vinylphile camp
http://mic.com/articles/104250/what-the-in...r-love-of-music (http://mic.com/articles/104250/what-the-internet-has-done-to-your-love-of-music)
It starts out with an interesting claim:
"Steve Jobs, the man who invented the iPod and ignited the digital music revolution, never listened to MP3s."
I'm thinking, well that's dumb he no doubt listened to MP4s, but is that what they mean?
A great deal of modern music of a fair number of genre, or at least a great deal of what I've been exposed to, contains very little in any given song. There are a few notes of melody with accompanying instruments that is repeated over and over and over and over. There is a little bit of lyric, most often more or less nonsense, that is repeated over and over and over and over. Why does anyone want to listen all the way to the end of the track?
IMO this is a false issue. I heard it for years from people who were critical of contemporary christian music which was indeed a real true blue religious argument.
Objective analysis of legacy sheet music going back centuries shows that music has always been composed of "...a few notes of melody with accompanying instruments that is repeated over and over and over and over. There is a little bit of lyric, most often more or less nonsense, that is repeated over and over and over and over."
It certainly true that the same approach has been used for a long time, and I never liked it a long time ago either, but that is hardly true of all music, not the music I incidently used to hear, nor the music I sought out and collected. I often hear the same theme, or whatever the correct musical nomenclature may be, repeated over and over in a section of a symphony, or even several different places throughout, but usually it keeps developing with each cycle, only a part at the beginning of each phrase is exactly the same. This is also true of much other instrumental music, but not true of the pop stuff.
There is a great deal of older sung music that has verses, several or many, but each is different, not a repeat of the same lyrics. There is often a chorus that is more or less identical between verses, but at least there is something to - potentially, anyway - keep one's interest going forward. Maybe the older stuff was the pop music of its day, maybe it was always more a niche thing.
Then again, a lot of what has been popular in the last 50 years fits into the multiple different verses kind of product, or is still more diverse in that there are not distinct verses but just a theme that keeps developing forward. Consider a great deal of Boy Dylan's earlier stuff. There was also music by many other artists of that time that was not the short repeating clip stuff.
Maybe there is still considerable music of that sort being created now. I hear far too much of recent pop, hip hop, rap, soul, etc. etc. that assaults me practically every time I go out of the house. Thus I have no interest in seeking out any additional modern stuff. That which I have no choice about, with an infrequent pleasant exception, is almost always as I described in my previous post. After one or two rounds, it would be nice if a fuse automatically blew and shut the darn stuff off.
In older material, or at least the older material to which I pay any attention, the music, as distinct from the developing lyrics, is often repeated in each verse of a song but, going purely on impressions, not analysis, it frequently seems more complex and more varied, less blatantly identical with each round. Not infrequently the same notes get played a little differently, at least part of the time. The bit that gets repeated is generally longer, thus there is more to it. Much or most of the newer stuff to which I am, forcefully, exposed is quite different.
There's only about a 50% chance we'll actually make it to the end of a song."
That will be me then.
I try and give a tune at least 30 seconds in total and at least 3 dips but frankly even that is usually difficult. Songs I do like go into a playlist for later but the hit rate is very low. Certainly less than 1:10.
It' a trade off. The study may or may not be right about extended repeat listening increasing enjoyment (why not disenjoyment?) but rapid selection and quick decision making massively increases your chances of finding stuff that really appeals to you.
I wonder how long you have to listen before the royalty is due? If it is playing the track at all people like me have made some not very good artists a lot of money. If it's 30 secs or longer I've been gaming the system.
Surely no one doesn't like a track at 96kbps but then decide they do at a higher bit rate?
One way to listen? Yes, sure - one must first visually inspect the gear (and, in particular, the price tag), and the delivery format - otherwise one has no way to tell good from bad.
... right?
A great deal of modern music of a fair number of genre, or at least a great deal of what I've been exposed to, contains very little in any given song. There are a few notes of melody with accompanying instruments that is repeated over and over and over and over. There is a little bit of lyric, most often more or less nonsense, that is repeated over and over and over and over. Why does anyone want to listen all the way to the end of the track?
[...]
Maybe there is still considerable music of that sort being created now.
This has been the case forever, Mr Old & Grumpy. There's plenty of wonderful music being made today; some of it is even popular. It's difficult to suggest artists though, since there's a 90% chance any music suggestion does not match the other's preferences. Try some websites like pandora and last.fm, to see what people listen to. I assure you it's not all hypercompressed conceptually void pop tunez!
making me often shun it when I have a choice, even if the circumstances allow me to choose the material and the delivery I would want if I wanted some.
I can relate to this, though. At 33, it is slowly but surely becoming my time to become the grump. Oh, dubstep! *shakes fist*
And who knows, maybe the reason for the 50% song completion rate is because people are using Spotify to look for new music.
A reasonable hypothesis.
I sometimes traipse around bandcamp just listening around, and yes, I don't often complete songs then.
As Poppy says, repeated and careful listening meant that we were able to derive the maximum return on our investment.
What audiosnobbery. I do this anyway, regardless of having a wealth of other music at my fingertips.
Had I briefly sampled any of these wonderful works on a streaming service, they would have been dismissed and forgotten, and as a result I would have denied myself the pleasure they have given me.
I understand, but there's way too much music out there to worry about what could have been. If in your life you find yourself flowing to a new genre, the music will find you.
Well OK, sorry if my question was hard to understand or seemed poorly framed. But it does sound like you are agreeing with the basic facts stated in the article that you found so objectionable. Why do you find it so objectionable?
I think you and I read a different article...or have a different idea what 'basic facts' they are trying to impart.
Would you agree the article demonstrates its main claim that 'science shows there is only one real way to listen to music'? Or that 'digital doesn't hold up'?
I think we read the same article but It looks like you stopped at "digital doesn't hold up:" The full quote is "Digital doesn't hold up: Nothing about the way we listen to music these days commands attention like or yields the quality of a physical record. Though there is a movement back towards vinyl, there's an even bigger movement towards streaming — and with it, a whole new paradigm for how we hear music."
What I took from that full thought was the issue was peoples' listening habits and how they are affected by the medium they use to listen with. And I think it does support it's main claim that being "There is a movement towards streaming and with it a whole new paradigm for how we hear music.
The article conflates the 1) unprecedented *availability and variety* of music today via internet channels, with 2) the *sound quality*, with a supposed 3) lack of attention to/connection with music
Instead of 'blaming' 3 on 1, it blames 2. And in blaming 2, it conflates two different factors --lossy compression, and dynamic range compression. Neither of which are absolutely *necessary* to digital downloads or streaming. Lossy is the more 'necessary' of the two, for streaming, but obviously audibility of lossyness is taken as a given in the article, when it's not in reality.
We definitely took very different things from the same article. I didn't see any conflation of variety and availability with sound quality. The article is about listening habits and how they affect our connection with music. This part is the center piece of the article.
"True love or appreciation for a piece of music ... comes with depth of knowledge of that music," she said. She cited three important factors in creating a genuine experience with a piece of music — "repeated exposure, iterations and intent" — which can be short-circuited in a "taste and go" environment. To her mind, though, the benefits of streaming in terms of access and broad music appreciation far outweigh the potential negative effects of streaming habits on our emotional experience.
"Those sorts of heightened emotional responses of pleasure and enjoyment and satisfaction come in a way that is counter to rapid, quick streaming and constant exposure to a lot of different things," Crum said.
Skipping and listening inattentively, then, can get in the way of building those connections: "[It] wouldn't be experienced initially, and would bypassed very quickly in a sort of 'taste and go' streaming environment."
Even as regards 3, does the article offer any evidence that in days of radio, people didn't routinely cut off listening to a song, or skip around from tune to tune? I surely remember them doing both.
The article doesn't address how people listened to the radio in the past. The article isn't about that.
How people listened to the radio in the past does not change or affect how people listen to streaming music today. Would the main point of the article, that being "True love or appreciation for a piece of music ... comes with depth of knowledge of that music," There are three important factors in creating a genuine experience with a piece of music — "repeated exposure, iterations and intent" — which can be short-circuited in a "taste and go" environment. "Those sorts of heightened emotional responses of pleasure and enjoyment and satisfaction come in a way that is counter to rapid, quick streaming and constant exposure to a lot of different things,"
Dynamic range compression was *already* common in days of radio, too. And decried back in the day, too.
It's good that in the comments to the article, knowledegable commentors have basically called out the author's ignorance from the start
Aside from not having the same kind of data about how people listened to the radio this article clearly isn't about how people used to listen to the radio. It's about current listening habits and how those habits kill peoples' connections to music.
So we may have read the same article but we read it differently. I get the feeling you were derailed at "digital doesn't hold up:"
I was 'derailed' at the title, which is arrant nonsense. There is no 'right' way to listen to music, and science has *never* said there was. It's not even the type of claim science would make.
But I read the whole article. There is nothing today, just as there was nothing in the past, to prevent listeners from skipping songs, or playing only part of a song. There is ALSO nothing preventing them from repeatedly and closely listening to songs.
And historical context does matter. I'm sure people have more content to choose from more easily and cheaply today than ever before. (That , btw, is what Poppy Crum , aka 'science' in this article, considers an overriding benefit ) Reporting how Spotify listeners listen is fine, but what is the context? *How* different is it from the past? Are non-spotify users today doing the same?
And the stuff you 'didn't see' -- e,g, conflating types of compression -- was apparently 'seen' by others on this thread, so perhaps you should read again?
This is just another half-assed , sloppily written clickbait article that wants to tell us that digital audio *and* digital audio delivery methods are bad for us.
Well OK, sorry if my question was hard to understand or seemed poorly framed. But it does sound like you are agreeing with the basic facts stated in the article that you found so objectionable. Why do you find it so objectionable?
I think you and I read a different article...or have a different idea what 'basic facts' they are trying to impart.
Would you agree the article demonstrates its main claim that 'science shows there is only one real way to listen to music'? Or that 'digital doesn't hold up'?
I think we read the same article but It looks like you stopped at "digital doesn't hold up:" The full quote is "Digital doesn't hold up: Nothing about the way we listen to music these days commands attention like or yields the quality of a physical record. Though there is a movement back towards vinyl, there's an even bigger movement towards streaming — and with it, a whole new paradigm for how we hear music."
What I took from that full thought was the issue was peoples' listening habits and how they are affected by the medium they use to listen with. And I think it does support it's main claim that being "There is a movement towards streaming and with it a whole new paradigm for how we hear music.
What I took away is that listening to vinyl generally was a lot of trouble and in the end it was also painful due to the copious audible noise and distortion. Now you can call that engagement, but I call it hassle.
CDs were a whole lot better both in terms of ease of use and also and most importantly sound quality. But you still had to play media manager.
Now my CD collection is on a media server on my household network that I access with the same digital player I use for most video. Media management is inherent courtesy of EAC and web song/track servers. When I rip it, its managed.
Does getting far better sound than LP with far less hassle than LP or CD detract from musical engagement? Does something have to hurt to feel good? YMMV.
Does getting far better sound than LP with far less hassle than LP or CD detract from musical engagement? Does something have to hurt to feel good? YMMV.
Put it like that and of course the logical response is "no, of course it shouldn't".
But I get this feeling that there is some kind of psychological factor at work, in that the more you are forced to engage with the delivery mechanism, the more you are likely to engage with the listening process. So all the hassle involved in playing an LP (or reel-to-reel tape) could actually lead you to pay greater attention to what you're listening to. CDs and cassettes reduced this engagement, and now streaming takes it down a further notch. End result: people care less about what they are listening to. (At least, that is my interpretation of what Poppy Crum was saying).
> in that the more you are forced to engage with the delivery mechanism, the more you are likely to engage with the listening process.
It seems obvious that the effect is there, but there's a breaking point where the hassle is too great and results in zero engagement, i.e. not bothering to play the music at all. This sudden death limit is different for all people, of course.
Doesn't it then become a question of how much hurt you can take? Is a bit of music listening supposed to be the reward (or a bonus, maybe) for managing to withstand the effort needed to play it? Are you a better, more engaged person if you can take more? Personally, I feel that's not right.
Easy music all the way and forever! I'll choose to engage if I so desire, but I don't want walls between me and my music. It would be like having to duel my bartender in a swordfight every time I order a drink:
"Hello, three Brand, please"
"Sure. EN GARDE!" ~schwinggg~
"...Sigh. This had better be an amazing beer. HAVE AT THEE" ~schwinggg~
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12209143 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12209143)
Though I think virtual record clubs might be better in this day-and-age.
Does getting far better sound than LP with far less hassle than LP or CD detract from musical engagement? Does something have to hurt to feel good? YMMV.
Put it like that and of course the logical response is "no, of course it shouldn't".
But I get this feeling that there is some kind of psychological factor at work, in that the more you are forced to engage with the delivery mechanism, the more you are likely to engage with the listening process.
(1) Show me a believable scientific study with that outcome, and you have a sale!
(2) Isn't there a really good possibility that engagement with the delivery format will distract from engagement with the music? Do they combine to the same favorable outcome, or do they compete?
(3) One a music library gets sufficiently large, I've noticed that just finding the recording I want to listen to can be an issue. IME a digital music server with everything logically organized solves that problem pretty well. Not being able to pull up a recording you want to hear NOW can be a BIG distraction.
(4) I can carry around a large chunk of my home music library around on my portable digital player, which helps my engagement by allowing me to listen to what I want to listen to when I want to listen to it. One of the key prerequisites for engagement is the time to be engaged, and having the music library in one's pocket helps optimize that.
(1) Show me a believable scientific study with that outcome, and you have a sale!
Of course you know I can't. I was just speculating.
(2) Isn't there a really good possibility that engagement with the delivery format will distract from engagement with the music? Do they combine to the same favorable outcome, or do they compete?
Do you mean that one can get so involved with cleaning the LP and operating the turntable that we forget to listen? I agree that there are some audiophiles whose primary concern is the equipment and the sound quality, with the music being secondary. Direct-cut and Windham Hill LPs (most of which are of questionable musical value) are good evidence for that.
But that's a separate issue. All I can do is observe that kids these days use music as an aural backdrop to whatever else they are doing, whereas when I was a kid I actually listened to an album without any other distractions. I am speculating that the investment in time and effort to get the music playing is a contributing factor.
(3) One a music library gets sufficiently large, I've noticed that just finding the recording I want to listen to can be an issue. IME a digital music server with everything logically organized solves that problem pretty well. Not being able to pull up a recording you want to hear NOW can be a BIG distraction.
When I used LPs and CDs, they were arranged alphabetically. Finding the exact album I wanted was easy. Not quite as easy as calling it up in my current Squeezebox-based system, of course, but it really wasn't a problem.
On the other hand, something that you *can't* do with a digital collection is to walk up to your LPs/CDs and randomly flit across them until your eyes fall upon something that makes you think "yes, I'll play that one". I kind of miss that. Random play from a digital collection just doesn't work the same way.
(4) I can carry around a large chunk of my home music library around on my portable digital player, which helps my engagement by allowing me to listen to what I want to listen to when I want to listen to it. One of the key prerequisites for engagement is the time to be engaged, and having the music library in one's pocket helps optimize that.
Agreed.
Just in case anyone thinks I'm some kind of Luddite, wedded to my LP collection, let me state that all my music (including the LPs, suitably digitized) is on a server, there are 4 Squeezeboxes around the house for playback, and I have a 40GB Sansa Clip+ for portable use.
I can't be bothered to use quotes for this, but: "emotional power".
Just what kind of mind bending sorcery are they referring to this time!?
Their "scientific results" weren't gathered using the scientific method.
I really like vinyl. I love listening to them, but claiming superiority seems to never get old with the old "audiophoologists".
I'm getting tired of reiterations of the whole thing, though.
I can't be bothered to use quotes for this, but: "emotional power".
It is emotional voltage multiplied by emotional current.
Watch out for the emotional resistance!
All I can do is observe that kids these days use music as an aural backdrop to whatever else they are doing
You might want to extend that observation to include most non-kids as well. Me, I like to slay oodles of demonic hordes with a little Gerry Rafferty in the background.
It's true that I need to get back to more frequent exclusive listening sessions though. I used to do that a lot but not so much anymore. I think the internet had some effect on that.
On the other hand, something that you *can't* do with a digital collection is to walk up to your LPs/CDs and randomly flit across them until your eyes fall upon something that makes you think "yes, I'll play that one".
I can totally do that with my digital collection. foo_random_pools gives me a selection of albums that my eyes can fall upon. I use it for that exact purpose. Not happy with the selection? Close playlist, regenerate pool.
Just in case anyone thinks I'm some kind of Luddite
Kids these days don't even know what a Luddite is anymore.
Science is mostly made up anyway (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/science-mostly-made-up-2013112181324)
On the other hand, something that you *can't* do with a digital collection is to walk up to your LPs/CDs and randomly flit across them until your eyes fall upon something that makes you think "yes, I'll play that one". I kind of miss that. Random play from a digital collection just doesn't work the same way.
Foobar2k and most other software players I know have an album art display option -- and I can see and scroll through a screen of dozens at a time, analogous to random flit view ;>
It is of course not the same experience overall --you don't have a tactile sense of pulling out the LP/CD from a shelf, unpacking it sticking it in the player, etc. But I can't really imagine that's the 'engagement' Dr. Crum means.
More likely, the simple fact of sitting there with the LP cover open on your lap (or less impressively, the CD booklet) is what we 'miss'.
Right from the start of the CD era I wondered why they didn't offer CD editions in LP packaging (espcially as companies were already making an outrageous profit on CDs, with their comparitively minimal packaging costs). Best of both worlds. Nowadays to get that you have to buy the 'deluxe editions ' that include actual (and to me useless ) LPs as well.
> in that the more you are forced to engage with the delivery mechanism, the more you are likely to engage with the listening process.
It seems obvious that the effect is there, but there's a breaking point where the hassle is too great and results in zero engagement, i.e. not bothering to play the music at all. This sudden death limit is different for all people, of course.
Doesn't it then become a question of how much hurt you can take? Is a bit of music listening supposed to be the reward (or a bonus, maybe) for managing to withstand the effort needed to play it? Are you a better, more engaged person if you can take more? Personally, I feel that's not right.
Easy music all the way and forever! I'll choose to engage if I so desire, but I don't want walls between me and my music. It would be like having to duel my bartender in a swordfight every time I order a drink:
"Hello, three Brand, please"
"Sure. EN GARDE!" ~schwinggg~
"...Sigh. This had better be an amazing beer. HAVE AT THEE" ~schwinggg~
Is it really that hard to play a record? I mean if hipsters can do it can't anybody? I would feel more comfortable playing records than sword fighting. Less to lose if you do it badly.
Isn't going to a concert the ultimate example of a delivery mechanism forcing one to engage? Even then you see idiots talking their asses off and recording the damn concert with their smart phones instead of actually watching it with their ****ing eyes.
I mean if hipsters can do it can't anybody?
Even then you see idiots talking their asses off and recording the damn concert with their smart phones instead of actually watching it with their ****ing eyes.
It looks very Pavlovian and deeply rooted in some real hate. Hate for what I am not sure.
Isn't going to a concert the ultimate example of a delivery mechanism forcing one to engage?
Where's the required factor of repeated exposure in this example?
I mean if hipsters can do it can't anybody?
Even then you see idiots talking their asses off and recording the damn concert with their smart phones instead of actually watching it with their ****ing eyes.
It looks very Pavlovian and deeply rooted in some real hate. Hate for what I am not sure.
Isn't going to a concert the ultimate example of a delivery mechanism forcing one to engage?
Where's the required factor of repeated exposure in this example?
Snap!! Good point. I guess it is for Dead Heads.
One of the best bits is:
Vinyl records are estimated to play at a whopping 1000 kbps.
Oh wow! A
whopping 1000kbps! That's really impressive ... until you realise that a 16/44.1 stereo stream from a CD player is coming out 40% higher at 1411kbps. It almost seems as if they're tacitly acknowledging that compressed, equalised, noisy vinyl is indeed worse than the standard digital format.
Yeah 1000kbps at 10-bit 50khz can sound quite good if carefully noise-shaped
Yeah 1000kbps at 10-bit 50khz can sound quite good if carefully noise-shaped
One of the best bits is:
Vinyl records are estimated to play at a whopping 1000 kbps.
Oh wow! A whopping 1000kbps! That's really impressive ... until you realise that a 16/44.1 stereo stream from a CD player is coming out 40% higher at 1411kbps. It almost seems as if they're tacitly acknowledging that compressed, equalised, noisy vinyl is indeed worse than the standard digital format.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the forum rules but I thought we weren't supposed to post any opinions about sound quality without the support of DBTs. Should the above post be accompanied by DBT results to support the opinions or not? I'm not trying to bust anyone here. I'm just trying to better understand how the forum rules work.
Well, talk to the aricle's author then. They're putting up the 1000 number as if it's super duper huge and clearly indicative of quality.
Well, talk to the aricle's author then. They're putting up the 1000 number as if it's super duper huge and clearly indicative of quality.
The author didn't post in this forum.
Should the above post be accompanied by DBT results to support the opinions or not?
Those claims were not in a form that could be tested. The first says something could sound "quite good", and not in comparison to anything else. Hence there is nothing to test it against. There is nothing to ABX.
The second quote was speculating what someone else (off forum) meant. The poster here didn't claim anything.
If someone tried either of the above tricks to try to make or imply a claim of their own yet avoid blind testing, they'd probably get reminded of TOS 8 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974), and if anyone could figure out a way to blind test the claim, I think they would suggest it.
Cheers,
David.
Should the above post be accompanied by DBT results to support the opinions or not?
Those claims were not in a form that could be tested. The first says something could sound "quite good", and not in comparison to anything else. Hence there is nothing to test it against. There is nothing to ABX.
The second quote was speculating what someone else (off forum) meant. The poster here didn't claim anything.
If someone tried either of the above tricks to try to make or imply a claim of their own yet avoid blind testing, they'd probably get reminded of TOS 8 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974), and if anyone could figure out a way to blind test the claim, I think they would suggest it.
Cheers,
David.
Thanks for your reply. Just a few follow up questions. How is a claim of "quite good" not testable and if it is untestable how does that make it exempt from the rules about posting subjective opinions without the backup of DBTs? Is it not a cute way around the forum rules to present what one thinks another person meant? Could someone skirt the rule by posting vicariously through other people's subjective opinions if that is allowed?
This is not on-topic. In situations like these, one should search for answers to their questions rather than steer the discussion off-topic.
Here:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=97224 (http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=97224)
PS: Accepting a simplified version of TOS #8 as saying that all things are assumed to sound the same until proven otherwise should help in determining what is OK and what isn't. In this situation, "quite good" should be interpreted as transparent or near transparent. If the poster meant near transparent as meaning he could tell the difference, then he's obligated to provide evidence. In this case however, it is clear (to me at least) that "quite good" should be interpreted as likely transparent. IOW, likely to sound the same. Now if someone wants to demonstrate otherwise, he is free to provide evidence.
EDIT #2 (major gaff!) I said it was "on-topic"? My proof reading sucks big time. WTF is wrong with me!?!
For those who interested here is a needle drop recording. One is original 16-bit 44k, another one is converted to 10-bit 50k. Since I didn't say I can hear their differences I don't need to provide an ABX log right?
https://www.sendspace.com/file/hyt1w6 (https://www.sendspace.com/file/hyt1w6)
Of course one can use samples of some classical and soft music to demonstrate artifacts like quantization noise, but even if it is audible it is not that bad, at least to my ears.
Yeah 1000kbps at 10-bit 50khz can sound quite good if carefully noise-shaped
One of the best bits is:
Vinyl records are estimated to play at a whopping 1000 kbps.
Oh wow! A whopping 1000kbps! That's really impressive ... until you realise that a 16/44.1 stereo stream from a CD player is coming out 40% higher at 1411kbps. It almost seems as if they're tacitly acknowledging that compressed, equalised, noisy vinyl is indeed worse than the standard digital format.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the forum rules but I thought we weren't supposed to post any opinions about sound quality without the support of DBTs.
The substance of the post you are objecting is that 1000 kbps is arithmetically less than 1411 kbps which is obviously like saying that 14 is greater than 10. No DBTs required!
Should the above post be accompanied by DBT results to support the opinions or not? I'm not trying to bust anyone here. I'm just trying to better understand how the forum rules work.
Sec0ond go around for this in just a few days. This is getting rediculous. No, no DBTs are required to support claims that are self-evidently true based on common knowledge.
I can tell you for sure that vinyl playback has far poorer frequency response and far more jitter than a 128 kbps MP3, and that is a fact that can be and has been demonstrated by many people using fairly simple test equipment.
Yeah 1000kbps at 10-bit 50khz can sound quite good if carefully noise-shaped
One of the best bits is:
Vinyl records are estimated to play at a whopping 1000 kbps.
Oh wow! A whopping 1000kbps! That's really impressive ... until you realise that a 16/44.1 stereo stream from a CD player is coming out 40% higher at 1411kbps. It almost seems as if they're tacitly acknowledging that compressed, equalised, noisy vinyl is indeed worse than the standard digital format.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the forum rules but I thought we weren't supposed to post any opinions about sound quality without the support of DBTs.
The substance of the post you are objecting is that 1000 kbps is arithmetically less than 1411 kbps which is obviously like saying that 14 is greater than 10. No DBTs required!
Should the above post be accompanied by DBT results to support the opinions or not? I'm not trying to bust anyone here. I'm just trying to better understand how the forum rules work.
Sec0ond go around for this in just a few days. This is getting rediculous. No, no DBTs are required to support claims that are self-evidently true based on common knowledge.
I can tell you for sure that vinyl playback has far poorer frequency response and far more jitter than a 128 kbps MP3, and that is a fact that can be and has been demonstrated by many people using fairly simple test equipment.
Yes it is getting ridiculous. But not for the reasons you give. Not really worth getting into it but it has become clear to me that the forum rules are a convoluted mess. Imagine someone saying they think a Gibson Les Paul sounds "quite good" only to find out that on Hydrogen Audio "quite good" means "transparent or nearly transparent." Makes that opinion kind of absurd since transparency isn't a quality of electric guitars. And of course if one were to say a 10,000 dollar speaker cable sounds "quite good" that would be a violation of TOS 8 and yet in compliance since "quite good" means transparent or nearly transparent on Hydrogen Audio. No worries though. If I were ever feeling compelled to talk about what sounds quite good to me I wouldn't do it here.
I can tell you for sure that vinyl playback has far poorer frequency response and far more jitter than a 128 kbps MP3, and that is a fact that can be and has been demonstrated by many people using fairly simple test equipment.
Not the best or most carefully worded example. Vinyl tends to beat mp3 above 16kHz
No worries though. If I were ever feeling compelled to talk about what sounds quite good to me I wouldn't do it here.
Well that only took you a month to figure out. I guess that's progress.
No worries though. If I were ever feeling compelled to talk about what sounds quite good to me I wouldn't do it here.
Well that only took you a month to figure out. I guess that's progress.
yeah I guess I'm just not the fastest gun in the west. But it only took a couple of your posts for me to figure out you are a prick. Somethings are so obvious that even a dumb guy like me can see it right away. I have never run into more pricks in my life than I have in trying to do a little homework on buying audio equipment.
Foobar2k and most other software players I know have an album art display option -- and I can see and scroll through a screen of dozens at a time, analogous to random flit view ;>
It is of course not the same experience overall --you don't have a tactile sense of pulling out the LP/CD from a shelf, unpacking it sticking it in the player, etc. But I can't really imagine that's the 'engagement' Dr. Crum means.
It's a pretty important aspect for me, though. Especially when I have friends over and we're looking through the collection etc. The whole process of putting a record on, is relatively elaborate to clicking on a file, or even putting a CD in. I refurbish old vinyls that have mold living in the groves sometimes. It's quite fun to do.
I have vinyls from the mid 70's that sound amazing. I'm not a very old dude, but listening to a medium that old, that sounds this good, is pretty impressive to me. I've grown up using cassette tapes - now that was something else. I remember playing with the reel-to-reel tape recorder of a friend of my dads once. That think was like a steampunk machine to my six year old eyes, that managed to deliver a super high quality sound. I kinda still want one, but only for the novelty of it.
More likely, the simple fact of sitting there with the LP cover open on your lap (or less impressively, the CD booklet) is what we 'miss'.
Right from the start of the CD era I wondered why they didn't offer CD editions in LP packaging (espcially as companies were already making an outrageous profit on CDs, with their comparitively minimal packaging costs). Best of both worlds. Nowadays to get that you have to buy the 'deluxe editions ' that include actual (and to me useless ) LPs as well.
Because putting a small CD in a big-ass cardboard sleeve would be just... dumb, I don't know, I wouldn't like it. But I hated (and still hate to this day), the polystyrene "Jewel Cases" with all my might. I have a few CDs, that were released in a cardboard case, that when closed, it was like three pieces of cardboard over each side of the CD, so it wouldn't fall out or be scratched (I don't mean that digipack nonsense, though).
I have a 3CD-set of italo-western music, that comes in a case, similar to those huge multiple-LP album cases, just in CD size - awesome.
I don't like CDs though. I've had several CD simply perish on me. Remember when they promised us, that CDs will last 100 years with no sound degradation? Yeah, well some of my CDs started disintegrating after as little as five years. I've kept them in the dark, I've kept them moderately cool and dry, but the glue used to stick the aluminium to the polycarbonate substrate simply perished after some time.
The best way to "save" a music collection is to have several identical digital copies of it. This includes RAIDs, that some of us have, or the kind of failure contingency cloud providers have these days. Redundancy is the best thing to prevent loss in case something goes awry (like house on fire, etc.), so me liking Vinyl is contradictory to that as crap. But the fact that they can perish, the fragility and the uniqueness, is what's also quite appealing to me. They're getting rare, and I guess that's what I value them for.
I can tell you for sure that vinyl playback has far poorer frequency response and far more jitter than a 128 kbps MP3, and that is a fact that can be and has been demonstrated by many people using fairly simple test equipment.
Not the best or most carefully worded example. Vinyl tends to beat mp3 above 16kHz
Not when nonlinear distortion is considered. ;-)
No worries though. If I were ever feeling compelled to talk about what sounds quite good to me I wouldn't do it here.
Well that only took you a month to figure out. I guess that's progress.
yeah I guess I'm just not the fastest gun in the west. But it only took a couple of your posts for me to figure out you are a prick. Somethings are so obvious that even a dumb guy like me can see it right away. I have never run into more pricks in my life than I have in trying to do a little homework on buying audio equipment.
It's a hard lesson, but no one here cares whether you think something sounds good or not. But don't take it personally, that's true for all of us.
If you want to discuss *why* things might sound the way they do, we're here for you, man. Subject to the Terms of Service, of course.
If you want to read lots of heartfelt opinions regarding the gorgeous/terrible sound of this or that piece of gear or audio format -- untethered from any objective backup -- you might prefer this forum (http://www.audioasylum.com/).
Because putting a small CD in a big-ass cardboard sleeve would be just... dumb, I don't know, I wouldn't like it.
Why would it matter that a small disc is in a big sleeve? Hell, it could be a 'sleeve' with *no* disc in it AFIAC, the music could come from a download. The point is to give the art and design the engaging presentation it deserves.
I don't like CDs though. I've had several CD simply perish on me. Remember when they promised us, that CDs will last 100 years with no sound degradation? Yeah, well some of my CDs started disintegrating after as little as five years. I've kept them in the dark, I've kept them moderately cool and dry, but the glue used to stick the aluminium to the polycarbonate substrate simply perished after some time.
I have *hundreds* of CDs, some dating back to the dawn of CDs, and AFIACT, none of them are 'disintegrating'. Long ago I discarded one or two 'classical' CDs that 'bronzed' due to a defect that was publicized at the time. That's it, after 30+ years of CD buying.
But I rip everything to hard drive now anyway,for the convenience of playback. And I ditch the nasty plastic cases. And of course I have backups of the drives, in various locations.
I emphatically *do not* miss the ritual of LP (I won't call them 'vinyls', sorry) playback....the de-staticing, the cleaning of disc and stylus, the adjusting of tracking forces and weights. Nor the fragility of vinyl plastic surfaces themselves. (I've recovered many a scratched CD to fully playable condition)
Beyond the loss of large-format album art, I *do* miss the way album tracks had to be 'sequenced' to give each 'side' a flow. I *do* miss the way LP format nudged most releases into the ~40 minute zone. There's far too many hour-long albums now .....
The best way to "save" a music collection is to have several identical digital copies of it. This includes RAIDs, that some of us have, or the kind of failure contingency cloud providers have these days. Redundancy is the best thing to prevent loss in case something goes awry (like house on fire, etc.), so me liking Vinyl is contradictory to that as crap. But the fact that they can perish, the fragility and the uniqueness, is what's also quite appealing to me. They're getting rare, and I guess that's what I value them for.
CDs will inevitably be rare some day and are already considered antiquated tech.
No worries though. If I were ever feeling compelled to talk about what sounds quite good to me I wouldn't do it here.
Well that only took you a month to figure out. I guess that's progress.
Well what do you expect. He's Just Asking Questions. He's Heisenberg. He's perpetually uncertain.
Because putting a small CD in a big-ass cardboard sleeve would be just... dumb, I don't know, I wouldn't like it.
Why would it matter that a small disc is in a big sleeve? Hell, it could be a 'sleeve' with *no* disc in it AFIAC, the music could come from a download. The point is to give the art and design the engaging presentation it deserves.
Well, yes, to me it kinda would. The form has to at least hint at the function, when not following it. Otherwise this would not appeal to me. You can spin this further out, like going straight for the coffee table book. Or just ditch the coffee table book, go straight for the kindle version... No wait, ditch even that and just browse the bands website on your tablet.
It's not about relevance here, it's about a certain connotation of the product.
I don't like CDs though. I've had several CD simply perish on me. Remember when they promised us, that CDs will last 100 years with no sound degradation? Yeah, well some of my CDs started disintegrating after as little as five years. I've kept them in the dark, I've kept them moderately cool and dry, but the glue used to stick the aluminium to the polycarbonate substrate simply perished after some time.
I have *hundreds* of CDs, some dating back to the dawn of CDs, and AFIACT, none of them are 'disintegrating'. Long ago I discarded one or two 'classical' CDs that 'bronzed' due to a defect that was publicized at the time. That's it, after 30+ years of CD buying.
Most of my CDs are fine, too. Hence I said
several, not
all of them. I have mid 80's CDs which are good as new, and I have late 90's CDs which stopped working (I still keep them, though). It seems there have been several errors with CD pressings. My guess is, that there are simply different suppliers of the substrate, the glue and the production process. Every once in a while there were simply errors introduced.
But I rip everything to hard drive now anyway,for the convenience of playback. And I ditch the nasty plastic cases. And of course I have backups of the drives, in various locations.
I mostly don't rip, actually. When I get an LP from Amazon, you usually get a code for a free FLAC download, which is pretty awesome. Other than that, I mostly switched to cloud based music storage. It's by far the most convenient for me. I used to rip CDs, but the last CD I bought was in 2008 or something. I went digital download from there.
I must say though, that I don't have all music in best quality FLAC, though. Some music I listen almost only to in my car or when I'm in public transport. Those files are tiny Opus files by now, so I can stream them from my cloud at almost no data transfer contingency and in real time.
The best way to "save" a music collection is to have several identical digital copies of it. This includes RAIDs, that some of us have, or the kind of failure contingency cloud providers have these days. Redundancy is the best thing to prevent loss in case something goes awry (like house on fire, etc.), so me liking Vinyl is contradictory to that as crap. But the fact that they can perish, the fragility and the uniqueness, is what's also quite appealing to me. They're getting rare, and I guess that's what I value them for.
CDs will inevitably be rare some day and are already considered antiquated tech.
Fair enough - and I think that's pretty much a given, considering most of my students refer to DVDs as "ancient technology" a;ready, without trying to be funny or hipstery.
But the thing with vinyl is, that it's so nicely cumbersome. But what sets vinyl apart, is that it's so wonderfully cumbersome, but also simple. You can "decode" a vinyl with a sewing needle and a piece of paper. The first time I've done this with my dad, I was amazed. You can't do this kind of "exploring" with a CD, you always will need a comparably complicated playback device.
If you don't like LPs, OK, I'm totally fine with that. But what I'd like to reiterate, is that this is not a debate about quality. This is merely a debate about preference.
Yes vinyl does sound good - for its time. Especially after they stopped putting everything on those cheap Dynaflex records, sound was (and still is) amazing for a record from 1972, that has been well kept. Most of my records from the mid 50's sound like you'd expect them to sound, mostly noise, with no base, and mastering so they'd withstand abuse of the styluses of the.
The whole debate about comparing it to digital media is just tiring for me. To me as an electronics engineer and programmer, it comes down to physical properties. I don't know what the frequency response is, but if anyone would show me a spectral response plot, chances are the same response can be achieved with DACs and filtering.
When it comes to things like bit resolution, it's pretty much only related to noise floor characteristics.
Whenever this debate flames up, I can only link this video: http://www.xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml (http://www.xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml)
The idiots that wrote the article should maybe watch it. But I believe that it's not gonna solve the problem here. As already stated, it's mostly geared towards the uninformed fools, that are good consumers to pseudoscientific articles like that. It's all about selling it to a hungry crowd, just so much to keep them hungry, but also not starving them.
I don't like CDs though. I've had several CD simply perish on me. Remember when they promised us, that CDs will last 100 years with no sound degradation? Yeah, well some of my CDs started disintegrating after as little as five years. I've kept them in the dark, I've kept them moderately cool and dry, but the glue used to stick the aluminium to the polycarbonate substrate simply perished after some time.
That's fine, but just because you've had this experience doesn't make CD crap because you'l find 99.999999999999999% of people have probably had no issues what-so-ever. I've not had a single issue with any CD I've ever bought. Well, except for those ones that get a bit scratched due to being put in cardboard cases that you can't get them out of.
The best way to "save" a music collection is to have several identical digital copies of it. This includes RAIDs, that some of us have, or the kind of failure contingency cloud providers have these days. Redundancy is the best thing to prevent loss in case something goes awry (like house on fire, etc.), so me liking Vinyl is contradictory to that as crap. But the fact that they can perish, the fragility and the uniqueness, is what's also quite appealing to me. They're getting rare, and I guess that's what I value them for.
RAID is NOT a backup solution!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you like vinyl that's fine, just don't go moaning at people that don't or moaning at CDs just because you have different preferences.
I don't like CDs though. I've had several CD simply perish on me. Remember when they promised us, that CDs will last 100 years with no sound degradation? Yeah, well some of my CDs started disintegrating after as little as five years. I've kept them in the dark, I've kept them moderately cool and dry, but the glue used to stick the aluminium to the polycarbonate substrate simply perished after some time.
That's fine, but just because you've had this experience doesn't make CD crap because you'l find 99.999999999999999% of people have probably had no issues what-so-ever. I've not had a single issue with any CD I've ever bought. Well, except for those ones that get a bit scratched due to being put in cardboard cases that you can't get them out of.
No it doesn't and I haven't stated that in any form. All I said, it happened (also, I've elaborated on that into a different post in the meantime).
The best way to "save" a music collection is to have several identical digital copies of it. This includes RAIDs, that some of us have, or the kind of failure contingency cloud providers have these days. Redundancy is the best thing to prevent loss in case something goes awry (like house on fire, etc.), so me liking Vinyl is contradictory to that as crap. But the fact that they can perish, the fragility and the uniqueness, is what's also quite appealing to me. They're getting rare, and I guess that's what I value them for.
RAID is NOT a backup solution!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was not referring to backups. I was referring to a reliable solution for high availability. Not once have I stated "backups". The kind of security backups I have in mind, involve LTO tapes which we've been using at the institute that I work at for the last twenty five years.
If you like vinyl that's fine, just don't go moaning at people that don't or moaning at CDs just because you have different preferences.
I wasn't. And please don't turn this into an uninformed battle about nothing.
I was not referring to backups. I was referring to a reliable solution for high availability. Not once have I stated "backups". The kind of security backups I have in mind, involve LTO tapes which we've been using at the institute that I work at for the last twenty five years.
Your quote
Redundancy is the best thing to prevent loss in case something goes awry
It isn't. Offsite backups are the only way to prevent this. RAID won't prevent you losing data in the event of a fire.
I enjoy vinyl and CD (and other formats) for the fun and curiosity of the unique features of each format. However, for the simple task of reliably and conveniently listening to music, they all have drawbacks. For example, they take too much space, and are too easily damaged.
I guess it's like owning a vintage car. There's obvious joy and interest in owning a vintage car, but it's not about getting from A to B reliably and conveniently.
Vinyl is like the vintage car. It's great. There are lots of things to love. But some of the claims of superiority are just fanciful.
Cheers,
David.
I was not referring to backups. I was referring to a reliable solution for high availability. Not once have I stated "backups". The kind of security backups I have in mind, involve LTO tapes which we've been using at the institute that I work at for the last twenty five years.
Your quote
Redundancy is the best thing to prevent loss in case something goes awry
It isn't. Offsite backups are the only way to prevent this. RAID won't prevent you losing data in the event of a fire.
I can only reiterate, that I was not referring to backups. If I was, I would've said so. Please stop turning this discussion into a senseless flamewar, nobody's going to benefit from that. You've done your damage control.
I enjoy vinyl and CD (and other formats) for the fun and curiosity of the unique features of each format. However, for the simple task of reliably and conveniently listening to music, they all have drawbacks. For example, they take too much space, and are too easily damaged.
LPs are also pretty heavy. A standard IKEA shelf is not going to hold them without warping like crazy.
I guess it's like owning a vintage car. There's obvious joy and interest in owning a vintage car, but it's not about getting from A to B reliably and conveniently.
Vinyl is like the vintage car. It's great. There are lots of things to love. But some of the claims of superiority are just fanciful.
Pretty much exactly how I see it.
LPs are also pretty heavy. A standard IKEA shelf is not going to hold them without warping like crazy.
Like many other people, I have thousands in Expedit without problems. Standard 18mm chipboard "bookshelves" don't even like books!
Cheers,
David.
I have never run into more pricks in my life than I have in trying to do a little homework on buying audio equipment.
You think it is bad now? Back in the days when audio was cool...
Well, yes, to me it kinda would. The form has to at least hint at the function, when not following it. Otherwise this would not appeal to me. You can spin this further out, like going straight for the coffee table book. Or just ditch the coffee table book, go straight for the kindle version... No wait, ditch even that and just browse the bands website on your tablet.
It's not about relevance here, it's about a certain connotation of the product.
I get what you are saying; we just disagree what the connotations 'need' to be. That's purely a matter of taste. The product I miss is not the big black plastic platters in the sleeves. It's the sleeves
But the thing with vinyl is, that it's so nicely cumbersome. But what sets vinyl apart, is that it's so wonderfully cumbersome, but also simple. You can "decode" a vinyl with a sewing needle and a piece of paper. The first time I've done this with my dad, I was amazed. You can't do this kind of "exploring" with a CD, you always will need a comparably complicated playback device.
Yes, it's pretty amazing that records work as well as they do. (Though a lot of development went into that technology too -- as dozens if not hundreds of articles in old JAES issues attest)
Yes, it's pretty amazing that records work as well as they do. (Though a lot of development went into that technology too -- as dozens if not hundreds of articles in old JAES issues attest)
Agreed. If memory serves the JAES & IEEE articles about new developments for vinyl had pretty well stopped coming about half a decade before the CD was introduced.
LPs are also pretty heavy. A standard IKEA shelf is not going to hold them without warping like crazy.
Like many other people, I have thousands in Expedit without problems. Standard 18mm chipboard "bookshelves" don't even like books!
They actually stopped making them. They have a replacement product though (which is incompatible to Expedit). The internal dimensions (of the box compartments) are the same, though.
Well, yes, to me it kinda would. The form has to at least hint at the function, when not following it. Otherwise this would not appeal to me. You can spin this further out, like going straight for the coffee table book. Or just ditch the coffee table book, go straight for the kindle version... No wait, ditch even that and just browse the bands website on your tablet.
It's not about relevance here, it's about a certain connotation of the product.
I get what you are saying; we just disagree what the connotations 'need' to be. That's purely a matter of taste. The product I miss is not the big black plastic platters in the sleeves. It's the sleeves
I miss the elaborate sleeves, but it can be nicely done in a small form factor as well: I have a Wagner classical album, that came with a hardcover 50 page book, the size of a jewel case. That I liked. But I can see how those versions are pretty expensive. And packaging a book with every CD seems not really necessary or feasible, too. I just wished they were a bit more creative. The debate about this is pretty much over due to downloadable or streaming content, though. I don't see why people would even do things like CD covers anymore (which almost were a form of art themselves), so I guess that's gone. Then again, maybe that's something that hasn't anything to do with music as such. Kinda like movie posters are a form of advertisement for the movie, and not part of the movie itself, but kind of art as well.
Yes, it's pretty amazing that records work as well as they do. (Though a lot of development went into that technology too -- as dozens if not hundreds of articles in old JAES issues attest)
Agreed. If memory serves the JAES & IEEE articles about new developments for vinyl had pretty well stopped coming about half a decade before the CD was introduced.
I remember someone telling me that there was some form of development going into it post-2000. A DJ once told me that there are quite some differences between an LP from 2010 and one from 2000. Mostly so the plastic is tougher to withstand higher stylus weights, not as prone to warping when stored at higher temperatures, etc. But obviously this type of development was not driven by large companies or institutes. In clubs things like music quality doesn't really matter, for obvious reasons. I find it funny that it's there, that vinyl is still used quite routinely, although digital controllers are taking over, of course.
I don't see why people would even do things like CD covers anymore (which almost were a form of art themselves), so I guess that's gone. Then again, maybe that's something that hasn't anything to do with music as such. Kinda like movie posters are a form of advertisement for the movie, and not part of the movie itself, but kind of art as well.
There was a time when the cover art and the music could form a gestalt -- band's albums were identified strongly with a certain consistent visual sensibility. It wasn't just advertising. It was part of the 'mystique' of the band.
e.g
(http://991.com/NewGallery/Yes-Yessongs-477518.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2qstLLlhjL8/Tgq-tGjYDJI/AAAAAAAAAzY/gQwqTPeHFS4/s1600/Pink-Floyd-Wish-You-Were-Here.jpg)
and even in a more modern era, some carried that tradition on
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Elephant,_The_White_Stripes.png)
Shrinking all that down to a CD size, or eliminating it completely, certainly does dim the mystique a bit, for me.
In Through the Out Door
Several versions of the cover under the paper outer sleeve. The inside sleeve was pigmented and would permanently turn color if gotten wet.
In Through the Out Door
Several versions of the cover under the paper outer sleeve. The inside sleeve was pigmented and would permanently turn color if gotten wet.
Sure. And the 'LZ III' and 'Physical Graffiti' covers where the physical cover *needs* to be present.
I've got a bunch of Japanese CDs that duplicate the original artwork of such albums, down to the moving parts....they're exquisite little replicas, but lack the originals' impact.
There was a time when the cover art and the music could form a gestalt -- band's albums were identified strongly with a certain consistent visual sensibility. It wasn't just advertising. It was part of the 'mystique' of the band.
...
Shrinking all that down to a CD size, or eliminating it completely, certainly does dim the mystique a bit, for me.
Could it be argued that the music video has essentially taken over this role?
There was a time when the cover art and the music could form a gestalt -- band's albums were identified strongly with a certain consistent visual sensibility. It wasn't just advertising. It was part of the 'mystique' of the band.
...
Shrinking all that down to a CD size, or eliminating it completely, certainly does dim the mystique a bit, for me.
Could it be argued that the music video has essentially taken over this role?
There is no technical reason why this could not be the case, but IME it rarely if ever is.
IME LP covers notes are generally some mixture of display art, sales blurb and tutorial. CD boxed sets can come close or even surpass the experience provided by LP covers. For DVD and BD discs their multimedia technical capabilities could do a stunning job of conveying the same information and more, but I can't recall ever experiencing this with my own media or any media belonging to friends.
There was a time when the cover art and the music could form a gestalt -- band's albums were identified strongly with a certain consistent visual sensibility. It wasn't just advertising. It was part of the 'mystique' of the band.
...
Shrinking all that down to a CD size, or eliminating it completely, certainly does dim the mystique a bit, for me.
Could it be argued that the music video has essentially taken over this role?
ack,no!