MP3 music - it's better than it sounds

[imcarthur]

Joel Selvin, Chronicle Senior Pop Music Critic
SF Chronicle Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Original Article Here

Whether you know it or not, that compact disc you just copied to your MP3 player is only partially there.

With the CD on its way out and computer files taking over as the primary means of hearing recorded music, the artificial audio of MP3s is quickly becoming the primary way people listen to music. Apple already has sold 100 million iPods, and more than a billion MP3 files are traded every month through the Internet.

But the music contained in these computer files represents less than 10 percent of the original music on the CDs. In its journey from CD to MP3 player, the music has been compressed by eliminating data that computer analysis deems redundant, squeezed down until it fits through the Internet pipeline.

When even the full files on the CDs contain less than half the information stored to studio hard drives during recording, these compressed MP3s represent a minuscule fraction of the actual recording. For purists, it's the dark ages of recorded sound.

"You can get used to awful," says record producer Phil Ramone. "You can appreciate nothing. We've done it with fast food."

Ramone, who has recorded everyone from Frank Sinatra to the Rolling Stones, was a musical prodigy who graduated from Juilliard at 16. He won the first of his nine Grammys in 1965 for the classic album "Getz/Gilberto." He is not alone in the upper ranks of his profession in decrying the state of audio, even though millions of dollars have been spent building high-tech digital recording studios.

"We're pretty happy with what we send out," says engineer Al Schmitt, winner of 15 Grammys for records by artists from Henry Mancini to Diana Krall. "What happens after that, we have no control over that anymore."

These studio professionals bring their experience and expensive, modern technology to bear on their work; they're scrupulous and fastidious. Then they hear their work played back on an iPod through a pair of plastic earbuds. Ask Ramone how it feels to hear his work on MP3s, and he doesn't mince words.

"It's painful," he says.

MP3s have won the war of the formats because of technology, not because of their audio quality. "It's like hearing through a screen door," says neuroscientist Daniel Levitin of McGill University, author of "This Is Your Brain on Music." "There are lines between me and what I want to see."

But what is the price of inferior audio quality? Can poor audio touch the heart as deeply as better sound? John Meyer, who designs and builds some of the world's best speakers at his Meyer Sound Labs in Berkeley, doesn't think so.

"It turns you into an observer," Meyer says. "It forces the brain to work harder to solve it all the time. Any compression system is based on the idea you can throw data away, and that's proved tricky because we don't know how the brain works."

It could be that MP3s actually reach the receptors in our brains in entirely different ways than analog phonograph records. The difference could be as fundamental as which brain hemisphere the music engages.

"Poorer-fidelity music stimulates the brain in different ways," says Dr. Robert Sweetow, head of UCSF audiology department. "With different neurons, perhaps lesser neurons, stimulated, there are fewer cortical neurons connected back to the limbic system, where the emotions are stored."

But Sweetow also notes that music with lyrics may act entirely differently on a cerebral level than instrumental music. "The words trigger the emotion," he says. "But those words aren't necessarily affected by fidelity."

Certainly '50s and '60s teens got the message of the old rock 'n' roll records through cheap plastic transistor radios. Levitin remembers hearing Sly and the Family Stone's "Hot Fun in the Summertime" on just such a portable radio, an ancient ancestor of the iPod.

"It was crap, but it sounded great," he says. "All the essential stuff comes through that inch-and-a-half speaker."

Levitin also says that Enrico Caruso and Billie Holiday can probably move him more than Michael Bolton or Mariah Carey under any fidelity.

"If the power of the narrative of the movie isn't there," he says metaphorically, "there's only so far cinematography can take you."

Most of today's pop records are already compressed before they leave the studio in the first place, so the process may matter less to artists like Maroon 5 or Justin Timberlake. Other kinds of music, in which subtlety, detail and shaded tonalities are important, may suffer more harm at the hands of the algorithms.

"When you listen to a world-class symphony or a good jazz record," says Schmitt, "and you hear all the nuance in the voices, the fingers touching the string on the bass, the key striking the string on the piano, that's just a wonderful sensation."

How much the audio quality is affected by the MP3 process depends on the compression strategy, the encoder used, the playback equipment, computer speed and many other steps along the way. Experts agree, however, that the audio quality of most MP3s is somewhere around FM radio. The best digital audio, even with increased sampling rates and higher bit rates, still falls short of the natural quality of now-obsolete analog tape recording.

EMI Records announced earlier this year the introduction of higher-priced downloads at a slightly higher bit rate, although the difference will be difficult to detect. "It's probably indistinguishable to even a great set of ears," says Levitin.

How good MP3s sound obviously also depends greatly on the playback system. But most MP3s are heard through cheap computer speakers, plastic iPod docking stations or, worse yet, those audio abominations called earbuds.

The ease of distribution means that MP3s are turning up everywhere, even places where they probably shouldn't. Schmitt, who has won the award more times than anyone else, is incredulous that the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences posts MP3s of nominees for the best engineering Grammy. "As if you could tell anything from that," he sneers.

For digital audio to substantially improve, several major technological hurdles will have to be cleared. The files will have to be stored at higher sampling rates and higher bit rates. Computing power will have to grow. New playback machines will have to be introduced ( Ramone thinks high-definition television is the model for something that could be "HD audio"). If the Internet is going to be the main delivery system for music in the future, as appears to be the case, Internet bandwidth will also be a factor.

"The Internet is in charge now," says Ramone, "and it has all kinds of wobbles. You have wires hanging out of windows and things like that. That's just the way things have to be because the Internet is in transition."

Meanwhile, most music listeners don't know what they're missing. They listen to MP3s on shiny chrome machines and plastic earpieces, and what they hear is what they get. But what's being lost is not replaced by the convenience.

In effect, sound reproduction is caught in a technological wrinkle that may take years to straighten out. "This is a transition phase," says McGill's Levitin. "It's having an effect on the culture, no question, but it's temporary. ... (But) it may be around for a while."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A glossary of terms that describe different types of digital audio :

MP3: What has become a generic name for compressed audio files was originally taken from a set of video and audio compression standards known as MPEG (Moving Pictures Experts Group). . There are many codecs, or compression programs (Apple converts CDs to an AAC file on iPods), but most reduce the file to about 6 percent of its original size.

WAV: The standard computer audio file stores data at 44,100 samples per second, 16 bits per sample (although recording studios are commonly equipped with 24-bit technology). WAV files are uncompressed and written to compact discs in Red Book audio, which adapts the file for compact disc players.

AIFF: Most professional audio is saved in these large files that use about 10 megabytes for every minute of stereo audio.

FLAC: This codec, favored by Grateful Dead tape traders, stands for Free Lossless Audio Code. It reduces storage space by 30 to 50 percent, but without compression. A full audio CD can be burned from the file, unlike from MP3s.

- Joel Selvin

Hear MP3 differences:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=5&entry_id=19242

[MysticLlama]

I agree, and when I listen to something important, to actually listen to an album through and do nothing else, I pull out the CD.

For just background music or casual listening, I have all of my CDs in 320k MP3, ripped straight from the discs.

The difference is there, but once you're up to 320k, it's small, and only comes out in a good stereo at a decent volume, or if you know the source material well.

In a few tests I did, most people couldn't tell the difference between the original CD and a CD burned from 320k MP3 source material. (This eliminates the hardware difference, since even an original CD played through the computer drive sounds worse than through the CD player)

There are a few CDs I have though that make it pretty easy to tell.

One of the things that bugs me is the lack of any dynamic range in current albums, there is very little quiet space between the sounds and it washes everything together and makes things the same volume when they shouldn't be. When a CD isn't mastered well, it doesn't sound great no matter what you play it from.

I have a couple of demo CDs where you can hardly tell there isn't a drumkit and bass guitar in the room with you. An they aren't SACDs or DVD-Audios. When stuff is recorded right, CDs have more headroom then they are given credit for.

[Zeke]

I still have some clean vinyl albums and they sound really full and rich. Not that I'm much of an audiophile anymore, but I used to be. I could hear a hell of a lot better back in the vinyl days, too.

I listen to my iPod thru Bose noise canceling over-the-ear phones. Not bad, but the bass is weak. When I play an old song from the 50's, it's fairly tinny compared to later music. But the real deal 45's on a record player ain't too bad.

[id10t]

Lossy vs. lossless compression.

Now I'll ask the same question that I ask my co-worker in AV who won $10 mil in the lottery - can your ears tell the difference between a $500 speaker and a $15000 speaker? And can your ears tell the difference between lossy mp3 compression and full uncompressed wav forms? and if B is yes, see A, and tell me what kind of system is required to actually hear a difference, esp. if you are playing it thru iPod headbuds...

My answers? I've shot too many shotguns, AKs, AR15s, FALs, etc. with no hearing protection over the years... no ringing, etc. but I'm sure not 100%...

[MysticLlama]

Exactly, that's why when I did a few tests, I did them hardware independant.

MP3s aren't great, but the high quality ones aren't as bas as people make them out to be. I doubt I could tell a difference between a good one and a CD playing from a computer, even with "good" computer speakers, or heck, even with a reasonably nice bookshelf set with a small reciever.

It's when I am running the big ones on the 1200w amp that it becomes obvious.

And $500 vs. $15000, a lot of people could tell that difference. $2000 vs. $15000, probably not, I certainly doubt I could. Stuff gets exponentially more expensive as it gets incrementally or fractionally better once you hit a certain level.

[island911]

Worse than MP3's et al, are cell phones. Absolute CRAP audio quality! ...But, at least it has a delay, AND is expensive.

[kach22i]

But what is the price of inferior audio quality? Can poor audio touch the heart as deeply as better sound? John Meyer, who designs and builds some of the world's best speakers at his Meyer Sound Labs in Berkeley, doesn't think so.

Music used to start revolutions, not any more.

[imcarthur]

Can’t hear the difference? Bullcrap. You can. If your 2 ears function reasonably well, then yes, you can. And yes, the 320kps ones are getting close. I’m over 50 & my ears are fried but I can still hear it. You don’t need a $100K system. With the right <$2K system it should be quite obvious as long as you start with a good quality CD but that takes superior recording, production, engineering, as well as the performance. A tall order I know.

As for our willingness to accept & actually embrace mediocrity? That’s where I have an issue.

Ian

[WolfeMacleod]

Want to try an interesting experiment?
Load the Audio clips from the article in seperate browser windows. It takes some timing, but you can start one, go to the next and start it, and go to thr third and start it. Each one should be set to start a few seconds after the previous.
It creates a very interesting spatial effect, even if perfectly synced.
MP3 compression, I believe, removes different bits of audio depending on the bitrate being used. Putting them together, it seems, replaces most of the lost bits. Or at least, it sounds that way.

If someone can't tell the difference, load the various clips into a multi-track Editor such as Cool Edit. You can switch between tracks instantly, and the diffeence it bitrates becomes immediately apparent. Layering tracks gives a fuller, richer sound. It's one of the methods that guitar players use to create amazing tracks. I don't think it's used much any more though...at least, current music doesn't sound like it.

[MysticLlama]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

... as long as you start with a good quality CD but that takes superior recording, production, engineering, as well as the performance. A tall order I know.

Originally Posted by WolfeMacleod

. It's one of the methods that guitar players use to create amazing tracks. I don't think it's used much any more though...at least, current music doesn't sound like it.

I think this is part of why MP3s are so accepted. A lot of new music at relatively high volume level, even on CD through a great system, kills my ears. Stuff recorded in the 80s, early 90s is almost universally better. Older stuff can be great too, depending on the quality of the remaster, vinyl works better than CD in a lot of those cases.

An example given was an old U2 CD vs. a newer Greatest Hits CD with a couple of the same songs. I tried it out, the old discs stuff was good to 100db+, the new stuff hurts in the 90s.

I don't know that compression hurts crap as much as good recordings. Search for the old thread on dynamic range sometime, even the remasters are sometimes worse.

Had a friend who's dad had some stuff on reel to reel, that was awesome.

[imcarthur]

Did you try an A-B with the wav vs the 32kbps (the worst one)? The wav sounds louder (more dynamic range), clearer (better inter-frequency delineation) & simply much more alive (compression=dead).

Note: Your results may vary. I output to a 17 yr old Denon POS receiver & an old pair of small bookshelf speakers.

Ian

[WolfeMacleod]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

Did you try an A-B with the wav vs the 32kbps (the worst one)? The wav sounds louder (more dynamic range), clearer (better inter-frequency delineation) & simply much more alive (compression=dead).

Note: Your results may vary. I output to a 17 yr old Denon POS receiver & an old pair of small bookshelf speakers.

Ian

Yes, I did. And I also A/B'ed the WAV alone against the 128 and 320 mp3 track combined. The combined MP3 sounded richer, using reasonable quality headphones and the Altec Lansing 5.1 PC speakers...

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by MysticLlama

A lot of new music at relatively high volume level, even on CD through a great system, kills my ears. Stuff recorded in the 80s, early 90s is almost universally better.

I'd say yes & no. The frequency balance of a recording rests with the engineer. Always did. He dials in the balance on his studio monitors (very often POS speakers btw). Popular music is typically mastered a little 'hot'. Even when they do leave some dynamic range in the mix it still leans hot. I don't know why, but it always has been. Listen to some recent Madonna. Superb production but 'hot'. Listen to some old Madonna & it's the same. Sarah McLaughlin suffers the same & many, many more.

But then listen to some Shakira. Not the radio tracks but some of the songs buried on her Engish & Spanish discs. Very good (not superb) production but not as 'hot'.

But it is rare.

Ian