blog.JR.com - Read, React, Interact on blog.JR.com
Home > Cameras, Home Entertainment, J&R In The News, Music > The Death of High Fidelity

The Death of High Fidelity

marantz

Have you purchased a Billboard top 10 CD lately? If you have, more often that not, it’s probably very loud. That’s awesome, isn’t it? Not exactly. Most of the public is unaware of this, but this is probably the worst thing you could do to sound reproduction. This is done through a process called Dynamic Range Compression (DRC). In simple terms, it reduces the dynamic range of an audio signal. In a normal song, there are highs and lows. Quiet chapters, and loud chapters. With excessive DRC, all the nuance and range between different parts of the song are lost. To the untrained ear, this might sound good since records with heavy DRC are louder. However, you are not hearing what the artist intended you to hear through their music. It’s akin to going to an art gallery, and then having the curator smearing paint all over the art because they think it’s better that way. Generally speaking, many people have never heard a pristine, clean recording, so they have no frame of reference as to what something with minimal compression sounds like. The video below illustrates the detriment DRC is to modern recordings. It really hit the nail on the head.

If you’re a jazz fan, you can even test this out yourself. Buy a copy of the SACD version of Blue Train by John Coltrane on the Analogue Productions label. This version was mastered by Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray. Possibly, the two most respected sound engineers in the audiophile community today. Now, buy the standard CD version of Blue Train. The difference will be startling. The CD version will sound loud, but the dynamics are basically dead. The punchiness on the drums handled by Philly Joe Jones is just not there. The SACD version was sourced directly from the master analog tapes, so it sounds phenomenal. Remember, you own the volume knob on your stereo, thus you should dictate how loud you listen, not the sound engineer.

DRC isn’t the only problem with audio, it’s two fold. The fact of the matter is that, the better your sound equipment is, the less forgiving it is. It will reveal more flaws in your recording. If it’s a poor recording, you will hear just how poor it is. Most people listen to music on cheap earbuds or PC/laptop speakers, so sound engineers use DRC to make the music more palatable to the sub-par systems being used. For the last two decades, the mainstream has been bombarded with mediocrity in terms of audio, and we have unknowingly accepted it. From shoddy, poorly constructed speakers to headphones. Some companies even charge you a premium for poor offerings. The leader of the pack is that company that audiophiles love to hate. It’s the one that has no highs and lows. The one that uses paper cones in their speaker drivers, yet will charge you several thousand dollars.

Ultimately, nothing will change until you the customer takes a stand. Despite what people think, it’s not expensive to enjoy high quality music. Insist on high quality downloads. Forget mp3 audio, it’s the spawn of Satan. If you can, stick to FLAC, Apple Lossless or WAV. If you want to kick it into high gear, try a 24/96 recording. B&W speakers has their Society of Sound that offers high resolution downloads, including 24/96 FLAC files. High resolution disc formats like SACD and DVD-Audio are wonderful, but I realize that it may be too much of an investment for the average consumer.

In my next installment, I’ll talk about how you can easily improve the music you currently listen to, and whether vinyl is a viable option for most people.

Bookmark and Share

[Post to Twitter] Tweet This Post 

Published by Atane on October 28th, 2009 and listed in Cameras, Home Entertainment, J&R In The News, Music.

Follow comments via the RSS Feed | Trackback URL

Viewing 10 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    amen brothers!!
    • ^
    • v
    RollingStone wrote about the Death of High Fidelity in 2007, here: http://bit.ly/V4fBH and here: http://bit.ly/3BHbIg
    • ^
    • v
    Yes. It's been a major problem for many years, and it seems to be getting worse as the time goes by.
    • ^
    • v
    High Fidelity died a long time ago, way before DRC, and the audiophile community continues to dwindle. The proliferation of digital media players has popularized a number of compression formats. The basis for marketable sound to the masses isn't overall sound quality but how well the music sounds to the user. Adding better headphones to an MP3 player helps make music sound better even though it isn't necessarily from a high-fidelity source.
    High Fidelity is losing out on another level. Now that TV and Video have surround sound modes, stereo sound is beginning to flicker away. Most people don't invest in receivers and 6 or more speakers. Instead, they aim for the prepackaged surround sound audio systems. Wattage on these follow very loose parameters and, on most systems selling for less than $600, don't even broach high-fidelity. Sound augmenting video is less critically analyzed by the average person.
    The HiFi home enthusiasts had a great time as sound playback technology evolved in the 1950's to peak in the 70's through 90's. With the transition from analog waves to digital code expressions, HiFi concepts become more nostalgic - sort of like radio to TV as home entertainment. When it comes to driving the music business, it's what the music sounds like to the indoividual that sells. It seems many are opting for compressed music files. than worrying whether they're losing sound quality.
    • ^
    • v
    True. I think the decline in hifi started when people wanted speakers to be heard and not seen. So companies started making these tiny, cone, "lifestyle" speakers to blend with the decor. This essentially relegated audio to take a backseat to aesthetics.

    Then the HTIB (home theater in a box) came out, and basically sold the public a heaping serving of bovine feces. I do realize that after years of the onslaught of substandard audio being marketed to the masses, the masses for the most part just don't care about fidelity. It's an afterthought sadly.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with marcuswelby's comment and extend the thought - it's what
    the listener imagines from the music that's most important. A distant,
    mono source of audio can create an elaborate, fulfilling experience in
    the mind of the listener. It is in the mind that the action takes
    place, that's where the music lives. It is the effort the listener
    puts towards it that determines the quality of what is heard. Even
    though a person may be surrounded by rich and deep articulated audio
    environment, other thoughts and desires may completely shut down the
    sound for that person. Chasing the false god of technical sound
    performance does not guarantee that you will feel the music. And if
    you want to feel the music, you'll be able to reach you mind into the
    smallest audio source to do it.
    • ^
    • v
    You'll get no argument from me p0ps. My collection of mono lps can attest to that. However, I will disagree with your point of "chasing the false god of technical sound".

    It's one thing if a record sounds poor because it is an old recording, or because recording conditions were poor. Old blues records from Ma Rainey, Robert Johnson and Bukka White sound pretty bad technically, but that is understood given the conditions those artists recorded their songs in. I recognize that, and enjoy them for what they are.

    However, what we have today are sound engineers deliberately recording music poorly. Excessive DRC that removes the highs and lows of the tracks is not a good thing, and never will be. That has nothing to do with sound technicality. It's not how the song sounds at all. Why would I want the sound to be altered to the detriment of fidelity? That is something I just can't support, and I can't see how any music lover would support sound engineers destroying the music put forth by the artist. It's downright arrogant imo.
    • ^
    • v
    Sure. anyone in their right mind would agree with your rebuttal. But, since I'm crazy, I want to look at like this: the artist(s) & producer(s) have an audience they want to reach, the engineer(s) works with them to make the sound capable of reaching the audience through the systems and devices the audience uses. Like the studio and the reproduction equipment are an instrument the engineer(s) use to deliver the appropriate tone for the material. Like Ornette using a plastic sax, Don Cherry on a pocket trumpet to reach the audience with a sound that fits their intent.

    There is no universal standard, no reference.

    When I was a kid, recorded music was mixed to sound powerful through car AM radios. And it did, it was a great experience. Now pop music must sound good in MP3 through cheap ear buds if it's going to do it's job and have a chance to be popular. Who can say what the song is suppose to sound like?

    We're way past the day when live performance is the standard. Which mics and what settings on what kind of PA systems in what size venue is correct? There is no right way to do it.

    Only classical concert halls attempt to allow the sound of non-amplified instruments and voice reach an audience - there the sound is shaped by the hall itself. Besides, half the time they're miced anyway or playing electronic instruments.

    Most music that most people hear is recorded music, most live performances and most instruments played in public are amplified. Music is a matter of taste and tastes change. I'm only concerned about people enjoying the music. However they enjoy it.

    If you and many others want to enjoy audiofile recording and playback - beautiful. I apologize for saying you're chasing a false god. It's what you enjoy, have fun. If you want to tell recording engineers they're doing it wrong, fine, free country.

    HiFi was never alive for me. I like highly compressed recordings, through ear buds, it's what sounds good to me, today. Tomorrow may be different.
    • ^
    • v
    Any audio recording is, at best, an image of the real thing. It's nice to have around and allows others to share a reasonable likeness of the original performance. Nothing comes close to being in a good concert hall or theater. For me, even the best recording is merely a shadow of the reality. It could be edited, enhanced, and digitized. HiFi or not, it's reality shaped by a fantasy of what one implies and believes reality is. Ultimately, the sound you hear is your own personal construct.
    • ^
    • v
    As a classical music lover, I have hundreds of recordings (CDs, LPs, DVDs and Blue Rays) with music compositions that are never or rarely performed in the concert hall or opera house. Nobody would ever hear these works, some great and some merely entertaining. Also, most people can't even afford to go to live music concerts whereas right now you can purchase CDs very cheaply on the Internet, sometimes for less than $5.00 a CD if you buy a box of several CDs.

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

  • ytm-msn.com

    November 29, 2009 at 9:30 am

    ytm-msn.com... I really liked your work smallest bluetooth headphones... Please keep me informed of any and all updates about AudioMonger.com " ...

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
blog.JR.com

  • Categories

  • Pages

  • Archives

  • Our Facebook Fan Page

    J&R on Facebook
blog.JR.com is proudly powered by WordPress