A Sad Musical Progression
by Ted Slater on 04/03/2007 at 2:55 PM
I bought a song on iTunes a few weeks ago, and was freshly reminded of the poor quality of music we've come to accept.
I'm not talking about the lyrics, instrumentation, production, or any of that -- I'm talking about MP3s and earbuds.
When I listen to a typical MP3, it sounds like something that's been left on your dashboard a bit too long during the hottest day of summer. The highs (cymbals, for example) are brittle, like crumpled tinfoil. The stereo spread is narrowed. And if you get a bad rip, you can hear compression "artifacts" that are the audio equivalent of JPG artifacts (see the image to the right).
I do have an MP3 server at home, but I rip my CDs as 320kbps AACs (and listen to them through my Integra/Paradigm system). Even at that rate, I still feel that the quality isn't as good as a CD.
Aside from the quality reduction as we devolve from CD to MP3, there's also a quality reduction when we use earbuds attached to your MP3 player via a 1/8" stereo plug. The amount of signal that can travel through such a small connection (the surface area that the plug is in contact with in your iPod) is significantly lower than that found on a 1/4" stereo plug or the typical copper wire you might use for your home stereo. And the quality of sound you get from an inexpensive set of earbuds is further restricting.
I understand the convenience of MP3 players. But I do pity those who've come to accept the sound that comes from them as the de facto standard of modern music. Sometimes I wonder if the devil likes MP3s, and how they diminish the breadth of aural beauty that the Lord envisioned for us to enjoy.
Just kidding. Kind of.
1. Becky F. said the following at 3:07 PM on Apr 3:
I think it all goes back to people being "afraid" of silence, or trying to be in their own world. Why do we have to have sound all the time on purpose? Why do we need to shut out what is actually going on by putting in headphones to play music that drowns out the natural sounds around us?
I love music and recordings rarely beat out live music (with the exception of some recording "artists" who sound better on their CDs than at their concerts). I can't wait until Sunday morning to listen to our small church orchestra play Easter music, sing with the choir, and play handbells, and I can't wait until next week when my husband and I get to go to the Symphony for the evening. :)
2. Becca said the following at 3:17 PM on Apr 3:
Why stop at CDs - vinyl comes even closer to natural aural perfection!
I bought an LP of the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" a few weeks ago, and not only is the cover art more than four times bigger than what you'd get with a CD, but it sounds more crisp and three-dimensional too. Hooray for analog recording!
3. DrLiz said the following at 4:18 PM on Apr 3:
Hey, not all of us have the sensitive ears that allow for such snobbery! My old CD alarm clock sounds okay to me for most things. (And I don't detect any real difference between it and listening to mp3's on my ipod).
Then again, this may explain why I don't play a musical instrument or sing on the worship team at church! The advantage of a worship team versus a choir is that those of us with marginal voices - we can blend in fine, but don't give us our own microphone - aren't pressured to join the worship team like I've been pressured in the past to join the church choir to "fill in" the space.
4. B. Minich said the following at 4:33 PM on Apr 3:
Ted,
You'll be glad to know, I think, that Apple is releasing higher quality music for 30 cents more than is being offered now. Doubling the quaility, and in addition, they'll be taking the restrictions off of the music.
Only EMI music is going to have this done at first.
5. John M. said the following at 4:46 PM on Apr 3:
Yeah, I really only use the MP3 player for podcasts. If I want to listen to music, I fire up my wife's turntable (yes!) or CD player if necessary, turn up the volume, and lay on the floor between the speakers. Music. The acceptable drug.
6. Jeremy said the following at 4:53 PM on Apr 3:
I hate to disagree, but it seems that mp3s are allowing people easier access to more music. Perhaps the quality isn't as good, but I don't think this is the case, it's a matter of personal opinion. Also, if the devil likes mp3s because they don't produce the same quality as CDs, then does the devil like people who can't sing as well as virtuosos like Josh Groban?
7. P&P said the following at 5:05 PM on Apr 3:
I'm still a fan of vinyl even though it's not an ideal media. Digital media has come quite far in the past 20 or so years, it's still got a fair way to go.
Although nothing comes close to a live performance. Instead of spending your money on a new set of high-end speakers or headphones (headphones cause horrible hearing damage, btw), create a concert fund. There's nothing like seeing the band live and it gets you out of the house. As long as I have the cash, I try to go to at least two shows a month -- more in the summer.
8. Michelle B said the following at 5:18 PM on Apr 3:
I must admit I have never listened to music on am MP3 player, and although I have plenty of CD's, I find that I rarely listen to them. I am a huge fan of live music. I love going to the symphony and am very blessed to live a mere 20 minutes from Seattle's Beneroya Hall as well as having quite a few talented musician friends.
Becky: Someone, years ago, challenged me with the very questions you asked in your post. As I began to evaluate my reasons for having music on ALL the time I realized that I was hiding from my own thoughts to avoid dealing with thought patterns that were *not* Biblical. Now I listen to music more purposefully, and because I no longer use music as backround noise I can hear and deal with my thoughts (taking every thought captive and making is obedient to Christ) more consistantly than I ever did before.
It amazes me that we, as humans, can take anything that God gives us to use for His Glory and our pleasure and twist for our own selfish gain.
9. Roberto Rivera said the following at 5:21 PM on Apr 3:
It's your willingness to take strong stands on what's truly important that makes me proud to know you, Ted. Seriously.
If you think that MP3 sounds compromised, wait until you hear uncompressed 5.1 PCM while watching a Blu-Ray movie. I am so spoiled now.
10. Amber Hooks said the following at 5:29 PM on Apr 3:
I agree with Jeremy, it is a matter of personal opinion and with apple ipods and mp3s in general, access to music is so much easier. I'm a college student and I don't have a car, so I don't have time to go to all of these different stores to see who has the cheapest price for a cd. Also, Ted, I do think that those earbud things are horrible. The sound that comes out of those things are so bad and it seems like the music is "stuck" in them. I prefer just good old headphones. They're so much better to me.
11. James said the following at 6:04 PM on Apr 3:
1/8" is perfectly fine! Also it depends on how good your source quality is. I find 128 kbps AAC audio on my iPod to be very nice (often I down-code some of my music to this from 320 kbps AAC so it'll reasonably fit onto my 1GB nano), and with a decent set of ear-buds its great. The key is the ear-buds. Do they have the frequency response needed, and how do they handle the bass?
The apple iPod ear-buds are by default meh in quality. But snap on those griffin earbud things (I forget what they're called), but things improve IMMENSELY, and I mean IMMENSELY! What does it do that helps out the sound? It gives a reverb chamber.
Also, back to the 1/8" plug thing. That's bubkiss. Surface area is very important when dealing with charge (voltage) of a signal. amplified line voltages on home stereos need that surface area to carry that amplified signal since its at a higher voltage than line-level. Same with the 1/4" stereo plugs usually, though that was the standard back when normal impedances were higher, and thus you needed a higher voltage to carry the same current (V=I*R, Ohm's Law).
With the iPod, the voltage level coming out of the headphone jack is low and the standard minijack provides plenty of surface area for the charge to travel no matter WHAT the bit-rate is. Now, what matters more for the bit rate is loss after conversion to analog. THat's where the use of gold-plating and other conductivity-improving practices come into play.
I think someone is just trying to justify CDs over mp3's and doesn't realize that his problem is that he doesn't have a good set of earbuds ;).
12. Olivia said the following at 7:43 PM on Apr 3:
Not as quality sound, perhaps, but much, much more convenient! The easy accessibility, I think makes up for any minor disadvantages. I'm so used to randomly getting on iTunes and downloading a 99 cent song that I can't imagine making a special trip to the store and paying $17.99 for a CD. Yeah, the quality of your headphones make a HUGE difference, although stereo is preferrable.
13. Laura said the following at 8:22 PM on Apr 3:
Nothing can replace vinyl. But a pair of Shure headphones (which cost so much that they have to be a gift from someone who loves you very, very much) helps a lot with sound quality.
14. Leah said the following at 8:48 PM on Apr 3:
I would totally agree (hence why I don't even settle for a portable CD player, but have a computer sound system, subwoofer included, plugged into it), but really- who cares? Why does Boundless?
15. Charles H. said the following at 8:48 PM on Apr 3:
Oh, wow! Fellow audio people! =) I thought the whole thing was bunk, until I heard The Hollies roaring through a vacuum-tube amp from long before I was born. But with that said, each format has its purpose. CD's brought hi-fi to the masses, and MP3 made it possible to distribute things over the net. Think how many people have heard the Word, and some of the great Christian teachers, because of MP3.
And hey, Ted: Try upgrading your earbuds. A pair of decent earbuds (I like the Sony 828 and 848) starts at about 20 bucks, and the difference between those and most freebies is night and day.
16. Christina said the following at 7:04 AM on Apr 4:
I agree Ted. Because of our new digital-era the aural quality of music has dropped significantly. Some people are used to it and don't mind. Some of us do, and it drives us nuts.
However, I often put my sensitive ears aside for convenience.
17. Justin said the following at 8:04 AM on Apr 4:
Even better than Vinyl records, listening to a band live is the best music experience.
However, since I can't take The Fratellis with me while I jog, I'll settle for my I-pod.
18. Ted Slater said the following at 9:15 AM on Apr 4:
Great discussion! It's cool that so many are passionate about their musical preferences!
James wrote, "I think someone is just trying to justify CDs over mp3's and doesn't realize that his problem is that he doesn't have a good set of earbuds."
No, I think my problem is that my $4,000 audio system makes it possible to hear every flaw introduced by MP3 compression (and, for CDs, every musical nuance), and my music production background makes me more critical about the sound of what I'm listening to.... ;-)
Olivia wrote, "The easy accessibility, I think makes up for any minor disadvantages."
Great point -- we're more easily able to listen to a broader array of music now than never before.
Leah asked, "Why does Boundless [care about audio]?"
Because it's a passion of mine, and reflects the vibrant creativity of the Creator.
Charles wrote, "Try upgrading your earbuds."
I actually don't listen to music through headphones, having given away my iPod a year ago. That said, I do use Sennheiser headphones on stage and Sony MDR-7504s in my studio...
19. Sina said the following at 9:16 AM on Apr 4:
I recently decided against purchasing an ipod (for financial reasons). But now that the author mentions the sound quality issues, I don't feel so bad anymore. I listen to classical music mostly so the sound quality is very important to me. I think I'll save my money and keep my sanity! Phew!
20. BDB said the following at 10:39 AM on Apr 4:
Hmmm...I feel much better about my decision not to buy the "iTunes" RAZR. I'm just happy to have a phone with a long battery life for a change. It doesn't need to play music or make espresso or...
21. Phoebe said the following at 2:09 PM on Apr 4:
I agree with Sina -- this is a tipping point for me, since I've played with the idea of getting an ipod. I love classical music, too, and if the sound quality is dubious on mp3's, I'll stay with CDs.
22. Charles H. said the following at 4:51 PM on Apr 4:
Phoebe and Sina: You can do better than the iPod. Check out some of the other players out there. I ended up with a MobiBlu cube -- not quite as easy to use as the iPod but only cost me $70, sound quality is amazing (and I'm an audiophile!), and it gets FM radio. OH -- and for those of you who are boycotting mainland Chinese products, it's from Korea. That was a big selling point for me. The iPods I've seen, unfortunately, are from the mainland.
Ted: How are you getting your iTunes downloads into your whiz-bang stereo system? Were you connecting an iPod to it through a patch cable? Do you have your computer patched through to it? Is the patch cable any good? Or do you burn the downloads to CD? Personally I have a pretty sweet system and listening to an iTunes CD doesn't sound bad at all. On the other hand, I've never owned an iPod, so I can't vouch for how that would do with the system.
23. James said the following at 8:22 PM on Apr 4:
"No, I think my problem is that my $4,000 audio system makes it possible to hear every flaw introduced by MP3 compression (and, for CDs, every musical nuance), and my music production background makes me more critical about the sound of what I'm listening to.... ;-)"
And I think your problem is your mp3 encoding.
CDs are the same as mp3's, in that they are digital. it's not as "pure" as analog, but honestly, YOU CANNOT TELL at a certain level between analog and digital just like in a movie, at a certain frame rate, that it's just a series of still photographs taken at high speed.
I think your problem is more likely your source quality. That, or the way you compress to mp3. 128kbps AAC when done on a good quality source sounds just fine.
I'm not simply saying this as a music lover, btw. My degree is a BSEE, and this very technical topic is right up my professional "alley." Now, I'm not the premier expert or anything, but I do know a good bit.
24. Ben L. said the following at 10:18 AM on Apr 5:
Finally, a topic not about dating or relationships that I can discuss without much controversy.
Let me just say a few things about the sound quality of portable music that is already widely known: every link in the chain contributes to what you finally hear – the digital music player, the file source, and the headphones. You can get near CD quality in a portable system, but it’s a matter of tradeoffs – it will cost you money and storage space.
1) The digital music player – Ipods are known by most music people to have average sound quality compared to the competition. The Ipod isn’t so great in frequency response and signal to noise ratio specs, and its DAC (digital audio converter) isn’t so hot. In addition, the Ipod’s EQ is pretty much unusable – no customization is allowed and the presets distort the sound in ugly ways (I know because I own one). Solution? Get a non Ipod player with excellent sound specs – Creative, Iaudio, and Iriver make great sounding players. However, this is probably not workable for people that already own an Ipod.
2) The file source – the practical file formats like 128 kbps and 160 really don’t sound too great compared to the original CD. Solution? Rip from a CD to a lossless format, where you will get a perfect copy of the CD with no sound degradation. The only problem then is that the file sizes will be huge, so you won’t be able to store as many songs on your player (and playing the files will drain the battery quicker). A more practical option would be to rip to a high bitrate like 256 or 320. This will still cost you in more storage space, but it is more manageable.
3) The headphones – sorry, but the earbuds that come with the Ipod or any mp3 player really don’t cut it. If you have a little bit of money and time, go do some research on some good sounding earphones for portable players, and replace those stock buds – Shure, Sennheiser, Etymotic and Ultimate Ears all make excellent sounding alternatives to those awful sounding earbuds.
With the setup most people have with their Ipods of songs ripped from CDs with the default setting of 128 kbps or the 128 kbps files from the Itunes store played through the stock earbuds, yes, the sound will be a bit underwhelming. For most practical applications, though, high quality/high bitrate file rips combined with good earphones will give pretty satisfying results.
My current setup is an Iaudio X5 playing 320 kbps Vorbis files through Shure E4c earphones. This sounds better than any setup I’ve ever had on any Ipod, and I’ve owned 2.
25. xeres said the following at 11:14 AM on Apr 5:
Ted, Here some interest for you =)
During common day of learning, my academic adviser and professor for communication studies did a seminar of the cultural impact the ipod has in our society. He also wrote a paper (the same one presented in common day of learning) on this issue, which recently won first place in the open paper competition for the Communication Technology Interest Division for the Broadcast Education Association (BEA). Our school paper wrote about this. The paper is called "“McLuhan and the Four Laws of the iPod”. I just thought it will be interesting. I found it very interesting even though I don't own one for practical and "biased" reasons.
Go to this link: http://clause.apu.edu/ under "Faculty and Staff Award winner" for more info
26. Becca said the following at 11:43 AM on Apr 6:
Here's one thing we can all love the iPod for (aside from its recently highlighted Bible-listening capacities): one of them recently saved an American soldier's life.
27. JRB said the following at 6:03 PM on Apr 7:
I think this is a tradeoff between quality and accessibility. For example, even the CD has lower quality than an LP. The LP is not a perfect rendition of a concert. Then even at a concert, there is the question of the venue. Not all venues are designed equally in regards to sound projection and interference. Even in the same venue, not all seats are equally good. In addition, even given the optimal seat, not all instruments are made equal - not all violins are Stradivarius violins. Finally, not all musicians are equally talented. So at the ultimate level of fidelity you would have the best seat at the best venue hearing music performed with the best equipment by the best musicians. Very few people have access to this level of musical enjoyment. So we trade fidelity for access. Where each person draws the line is based on a whole host of factors including money, time, and factors such as the level of discrimination of their audio processing apparatus - for example the human ears loses the ability to hear certain frequencies with aging, and not everybody has trained their ear to appreciate the differences.
However, MP3's as an avenue of mass listening enjoyment are a definite step up in quality from radio - which is how many people in the past (and currently) enjoyed their music.
A quick way to tell if you can really tell the difference is to have your eyes closed and, with as little external clues as possible, have someone else randomly play a song from the CD or from an MP3 and have you decide which is CD. Do this multiple times and see if your rate of guessing correctly is significantly better than 50%
28. Leah said the following at 7:44 PM on Apr 10:
Sina- iPods will only play certain file types anyway. You're much better off buying a cheaper, more flexible mp3 player. iPods, to me, are a waste of time and money.
29. André said the following at 2:14 PM on Jul 18:
I use an iPod, rip my cd's at highest quality VBR, and use over-the-ear AKG headphones. I have no complaints... Only thing lacking on the iPod is a graphic equalizer, but other than that, the music I listen to nowadays sounds waaaay better than it did 11/12 years ago on my walkman.