We recently received an e-mail from a reader complaining about a statement that David Barker made in his introduction to downloading suggesting that there is not a great deal of difference between good mp3 quality and CD. Both Brian Wilson and I have espoused similar views on MusicWeb so the correspondent’s suggestions that “mp3 at any bitrate is rubbish for fine music” and “online services are simple rip-offs” has caused me to reflect a little on the matter. Of course, everyone is entitled to and likely to have their own perspective on the broad issue of sound quality. Obvious potential determinants of this are one’s aural acuity and the equipment used. However, I suspect that something less easy to define or measure underpins much of such differences of view – perhaps this might be called “context and expectation”.
I grew up with crackly LPs and hissy tapes which tended to sound worse the more you played them. Despite initial claims that digital sound is artificial, it has been a godsend, principally because it enables one to focus on the music rather than worrying about the quality of sound. Some people, including presumably our audiophilic correspondent, are clearly much more influenced than me by sound quality in choosing what to listen to but I suspect we all have a threshold.
I listen to quite a lot of music on the Naxos Music Library streamed at 64 kbps and through the system on my desk (Teak CD player/amplifier and B&W speakers) it sounds reasonable enough. When they had a problem a while back and the bit rate temporarily fell to 20 kbps it was excruciating – I just didn’t want to listen.
The other main place I listen to streamed music is in a static caravan in the Welsh borders which we bought a couple of years ago. This has a stereo system with speakers in the roof in every room although it was not really a factor in our choice – we didn’t even test it befor
e we moved in. So that I can keep up with MusicWeb whilst we are there we had a telephone line put in and the broadband service is much better than back in Hampshire. My son has set up an old wireless network and when I connect my laptop to the caravan stereo the results are pretty good. Len came over to visit when we were there over the summer and I put on Boult’s 1954 recording of Brahms 3rd. This had been taken off an LP and remastered, and was now being sent down a telephone wire, through a wireless network and then played via a computer and built-in caravan stereo at 64 kbps, so I suppose our expectations were low, but they were well exceeded. Unfortunately, this activity was deemed antisocial by our better halves so we didn’t get very far into the work.
So are on line services rip-offs? Well, some of them don’t make it clear what the bit rate is and/or offer a variety of bit rates within the same work, for example e-music. Classicsonline is an obvious exception and they have recently moved to 320 kbps as standard. They have also offered free upgrades of files downloaded at lower rates – when I checked the ones they have offered me, they were already at 320 kbps! Linn typically offers a range from decent mp3 to studio master files that are better than CD quality and varies the prices accordingly. It is early days yet but I would expect these things to iron out over time, hopefully before the inevitable demise of the commercial CD.
I hope you’ve noticed the picture of the caravan. We’ll be there between Christmas and New Year, heating full on, listening to the complete works of Messiaen on CD I expect. This assumes my wife hasn’t mislaid the Christmas present I bought her to give me.
Patrick Waller
Patrick
ReplyDeleteAn interesting post. I'm one of those curmudgeonly old sods who doesn't like the sound of MP3 files but there are contexts - live broadcasts and otherwise unavailable recordings for instance - where it will have to suffice.
As for expectations I am often surprised by the high quality of sound I get from the X-Fi sound card in my review PC - the Mac is nowhere near as good - and I often audition discs at my desk rather than on the stand-alone hi fi system. Indeed, pound for pound the PC probably yields better sound than my much pricier Marantz-based setup.
My other sound source is an iRiver 120, which I use to listen to music when I am away. I have tried ripping CDs as MP3s but the player is so capable that it's worth ripping the files in .wav format. Admittedly the files are much larger but the increase in general body, detail and frequency range is very noticeable.
Each to their own, I suppose. As a coda to all this wasn't there a story - possibly apocryphal - about a well-known critic auditioned the Solti Ring on a Dansette?
Now there's a challenge....
Thanks Dan. I wonder if you are referring to the stories told by John Culshaw in his book "Ring Resounding" (pages 214-9). The gist is that Birgit Nilsson was furious about the balance of voice and orchestra in the immolation scene. Culshaw never found out what she machine had played it on but to persuade her it was OK (and therefore to sing in Die Walkure) they had to demonstrate it was OK on a small machine rather than their fancy equipment (possibly a Dansette?). Culshaw then relates how a critic who had complained about lack of bass in the Decca Tristan was found to be reviewing all his discs with the bass control on zero and treble turned up. At least, I'll never do that - my Naim amplifier has no tone controls at all.
ReplyDeletePatrick
ReplyDeleteYou could well be right about the origins of the Dansette story. Culshaw's other book, Putting the record straight, is also peppered with amusing anecdotes and insights. He and his team worked hard for Decca but I suspect they had a lot of fun along the way as well.
Heresy?: The "Source" is not everything. Better an mp3 file very well played than an SACD player played through a terrible chain... say a pair of computer speakers.
ReplyDeleteDG has now started offering recordings at 'full resolution' for download (up to now it was 320, I believe) in their webshop. Linn, of course, does the same and more.
In any case, the big difference between high and mid-resolution is probably listener fatigue that sets in (or doesn't) after a few hours... not necessarily the immediate impression of the sound. I notice that I still react most violently to bad speakers above all other components in an audio chain. When at acquaintances who have cheapo compact stereos, I often just ask not to listen to music, because it sounds so pitiful. But I'd not stop listening to a above-average mp3 on good headphones.
Interesting debate, especially as it's among record reviewers. The mp3 vs CD rages on most hifi forums, particularly Hfi Wigwam, where we are told regularly that mp3 is totally unlistenable and Lossless or flac is the only way, hence why they won't advocate downloads. For my part, I reckon I have pretty keen ears and 320 kbs is completely OK - James Jolly has no trouble at this rate, and I suspect in blind tests many of these hifi buffs wouldn't tell the difference.
ReplyDeleteThe question of equipment for reviewers has long interested me, as I know of examples from past and present where the gear was of a very ordinarly standard, yet the reviewer would argue it was the 'music' that counted. Well, the counter argument is that if the record company invests millions to get first rate recording quality, how can that be replicated on third rate gear? Anyone remember that excellent BBC Music Mag article a few years ago where various peolple in the 'chain' (critics, performers, even Roger Wright) had their hifi inspected and/or upgraded. I distinctly remember Matthew Rye and Susan Tomes having terrible equipment, and not much better afterwards...
There has been a trickle down effect, where say 1k will now go a long way. But I wonder just what some of our esteemed MWI reviewers do listen on (perhaps a new thread for this...?)
Jens
ReplyDeleteAgreed, the source is only as good as the other links in the audio chain. But would anyone play SACDs through a pair of PC speakers? I hope not!
Tony
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "I suspect in blind tests many of these hifi buffs wouldn't tell the difference."
That is very true. Actually, some time ago we had a debate about this issue in a Dutch usenet newsgroup, and one contributor referred to exactly such a test performed in Germany. Even the 'hifi experts" writing about audio technique in professional magazines thought an mp3 recording was the original, whereas they assessed the original disc as inferior in quality. So that proves that people's judgement about the quality of the various formats has much to do with what they expect.
I regularly turn wavs or flacs into mp3s, with a minimum bitrate of 256. That results in very good quality.
I do find it strange that some listeners can;t tall the difference between a CD and an MP3, even when the bitrate of the latter is 320. I recently had the opportunity to hear an MP3 of Kiril Kondrashin's Mahler 6 and was immediately struck by its anaemic sound. Granted the original Melodiya CD isn't the best qualit anyway but we're talkign chalk and cheese here. The only time it could be difficult to distinguish between the two is if they are played on portable or other audio devices where the electronics are naturally limited.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a writer who often focuses on digital music (I write for Macworld, among others), I'm often astonished at those who think they can tell the difference between compressed files (at decent bit rates) and uncompressed. I've done blind tests, and can only hear the difference at low bit rates, and I know many people who have had the same results.
ReplyDeleteSo, how about I set up a test. I can encode a few different files (to have different types of instruments and ensembles) in a way that you won't know whether they are compressed or not. I can post them on my server, and you can download them, and either listen on your computer, or burn them to disc. Then you can rate them, and we'll see how well you can tell the difference.
I might even be able to get this published on Macworld, where I write a bi-monthly column, which would give some press to MusicWeb. Any takers?