The notion that technology is always improving is riddled with holes. Music has suffered in the digital age, and we should lay the blame on formats.
Both the CD and its bastard spawn, the mp3, have made convenience the priority, but at the expense of factors crucial to the consumer’s identification with recorded music. Music was first disassociated with imagery, and its tangibility reduced, with the mass abandonment of vinyl in favour of the CD. Then it was disembodied, made ethereal, and had its fundamental connection to its author ruptured with the arrival of the mp3. This break is made literal in the process of digital encoding: one is no longer ‘listening’ to music, but rather ‘hearing’ an aural snapshot of it.
This distinction between ‘listening’ and ‘hearing’ is crucial. At its heart are concerns that are usually the preserve of the deeply unfashionable science of the audiophile. Vinyl’s persistent success has everything to do with ordinary people’s implicit, almost sub-conscious grasp of the superiority of analogue sound, a sound that suckles the listener. On the other hand, the imminent collapse of the ‘music industry’ might just be to do with force-fed malcontents who, in the face of digitised music and by the even less satisfying qualities of lower bit-rates, have failed to keep coming back for more.
Cast your mind back to the first time you heard a CD. The sound was so clear, even at loud volumes. In comparison to the crackling of unloved vinyl its superiority seemed a no-brainer. But fast-forward to your first experience of an mp3 and the chances are that you gave no thought to its sound quality at all. As if by sleight of hand, convenience became everything. But it didn’t have to be like this. There was a convenience format already in existence, an analogue one that’s still throwing darts even though the landlord has called time.
If you ever get the chance to compare the sound of an iPod with a peak-period Sony Walkman, leap at the opportunity. Models to look out for especially are the (admittedly cumbersome) WM-D6C, resplendent with recording features, the legendary WM-DD9 with its twin motors and quartz-locked playback system, or the equally feted WM-DC2. Give the Walkman a reasonably well-recorded or commercially pre-recorded cassette and it will kick the iPod’s ass. Your ears won’t believe what they’re hearing: the body, the punch and the bite are quite remarkable.
Give me a .wav any day. Does anyone remember being mortified while you're pulling jammed tape from your walkman. And how they deteriorate play by play? My uncompressed wavs will sound as good they did on the day of rip/purchase when I'm in my 70s.
speaking of: http://www.tapeworm.org.uk
you're kidding me right? Quality of tape was *terrible*, nobody real had any of those high end tape players, must of us struggled with low quality walkmen… no, IPod quality is infinitely better. Just make sure you sample high enough, that's all…
… and nothing wrong with maintaining the old tape discipline: get the whole album (not just the 'hit' song/track), listen to albums in sequence, listen to the whole album, build strong/considered playlists…
Agreed on all counts. Sound quality is not just the clarity and noiselessness of the sound, it has many factors. mp3 encoding is based upon the perceptual experience, and makes assumptions on what the listener would hear if it was actually hearing it live. Analog recordings are far superior, and it should be noted, is not subject to bit rot like the digital formats. If I put a record on the shelf, I can still play it in 50 years. A file can quite easily get lost just by buying a new mp3 device, and tossing the old.
great feature! if your looking for fantastic music and artisticly packaged jewels to stuff into your decks try Oaklands Sanity Muffin tape label!
http://www.sanitymuffins.blogspot.com
Hear Hear!! Analogue formats retain subtle harmonics which the bias frequencies of the various tape types were carefully selected to complement. Conversely, the sampling rates and compression ratios of physical digital and non-physical digital formats 'gate out' those very same subtle harmonics that make music *music* rather than sound. At its best, a well-encoded mp3 is simply a very complex synthesizer's “cover version” of the sound, whereas an analogue format is the only one that can give you the real sound. Analogue is the “Original Artist”… every time! BTW You would like my own site, soundhog.moonfruit.com!
I think it's more about nostalgia for the physical object, than any possible case for the sound quality (which was derrrr-eadful in most scenarios). We're now surrounded by music, can hear tracks before the labels that have “paid” for them have even given them the nod, and music has become a kind of knowledge-sport rather than a slow burning of excitement surprise and enjoyment. How many bands are sort of all buzzed out in the 10 months between first Yuksek remix appearance on a blog and actual “album out” status is achieved. Maybe we need a slow-music movement – which cassettes would be perfect for – batteries on a walkman amounted to about 4-5 album repeats before going back down the shops. Plus you can only carry about 10 before it gets to a luggage issue…
But the sound quality was pants, particularly once they'd been through your parents' car cassette player – or 96kbps stereo as we know it now – all swooshy hi-hats and gargling vocals…
“Giving up my iPod for a week” (BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8117619.stm
Crank up Victrola is also making a comeback! this is all absolute BS, nonsense.
Also, forgot to rebut your statement about digital audio being a synthesizer and analogue being real sound. First of all, by definition it is an 'analog' of the original sound. It's not the original sound. Digital audio information is quantized but it still constructs an analogue signal coming out of your speakers because obviously our ears are analog. You can use simplified, shallow analogies but if it is just the synthesizers interpretation, it's an interpretation far more detailed then the analog formats interpretation (note, still an interpretation).