# Better Sounding Music?



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Do we really need better sounding music and will we notice the difference if changes are made? What do you think?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/h...urite-music-could-sound-even-better-1.2806366



*High fidelity 2.0: How your favourite music could sound even better*


*Sony believes that consumers can hear the difference*

By Anand Ram, CBC News Posted: Oct 26, 2014 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 26, 2014 5:00 AM ET









Many audio experts believe that in the last few decades, consumers have opted for convenience over sound quality when it comes to enjoying music.



Neil Young's Pono player2:41



Pono's FLAC format: can you hear the difference?1:42




*Related Stories*



Spotify streaming music service launches in Canada
Songza bought by Google to bolster search giant’s music service
Neil Young's Pono campaign is Kickstarter's 3rd biggest
Pono player: Can music fans differentiate between FLAC and MP3?





If you look at your average television, it’s obvious that picture quality has become significantly better over the years.
We’ve gone from VHS to DVD to Blu-ray in relatively short order. With every leap, the promise and delivery of higher quality video put the previous generation to shame. More importantly to the manufacturers, it has made the old technology obsolete.
So why hasn’t that happened with audio?
In the 1950s and '60s, the talk was all about "hi-fi" (or high-fidelity) sound, but since then, consumer audio has put convenience over quality. From cassette tapes to compact discs to MP3s, the push has been to fit more songs onto a device while shrinking the audio itself.


*Spotify streaming music service launches in Canada*


But at least one major manufacturer is trying to expand the sound, so to speak.
Through a new campaign called Hi-Res Audio, Sony has been touring music festivals and university campuses doing listening tests. It’s a push to promote not only richer audio, but better playback equipment.
“With Hi-Res Audio, we saw a huge opportunity,” says Karol Warminiec of Sony Canada, “because artists are getting tired of having their music shown to the masses in low-resolution format. They put in so much time and effort and it’s always compressed."
*'Lossy' files*

The idea back in the "hi-fi" era was to make the sound reproduction as faithful as possible to the original recording. The focus was on expanding the frequencies played back, reducing the distortion and noise and being able to power the equipment to get the best out of the sound.
Decades later, audio experts say an entire generation has grown up on basic headphones and lower-end players.
When we talk about music formats nowadays, we're generally referring to MP3s. Though the technology was created decades ago, it rose to popularity in the iPod generation.







Sony's MDR-10BT headphones are part of a broader campaign by the company to make consumers appreciate richer audio. (Sony)

​To sound engineers and audiophiles, the MP3 is known as a “lossy” file format, because it removes information through compression, which affects the final product, says Ian Colquhoun, founder of Axiom Audio, an Ontario company that engineers and manufactures sound equipment.
“In order to get the file size down,” says Colquhoun, “you can digitally remove information that someone who wrote an algorithm assumes you’re not really going to notice is gone.”
But Colquhoun notices. "Even from one piece of music to another, if it is removing information, it is certainly audible.”
The compression that occurs with MP3s has been advantageous in that it enables you to fit hundreds of songs on a device. It also helped deliver those songs quickly to hungry consumers in the age of slow home internet.
But it isn’t that way anymore. Hard drives are bigger and cheaper and internet speeds are faster.
“I think that if we look at the file compression algorithms like MP3, they were borne out of necessity in the early days of digital,” says Andrew Welker, research and development manager at Axiom.
But nowadays, there's "very little need for that sort of file compression.”
*Feeling the difference*

Welker believes that people who grew up with MP3s would in fact notice a difference between a song on an iPod and a higher-resolution file on more robust playback equipment that hearkens back to the hi-fi era.
"I think if you polled 100 people and put them through a basic listening test and asked their opinions on two versions of the same file, I think most people would be able to pick out the difference and say that the uncompressed one was better.”
Sony is hoping to tap into this idea. The company's Hi-Res Audio line includes the MDR-10BT headphones, which support uncompressed files and boast a frequency range reproduction of 5 Hz to 40,000 Hz.
To put that into perspective, human hearing – in the prime age of life – can only hear between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.
Even when the biology doesn’t support it, Sony claims people can tell and have been getting a good response from their tests.
“It’s not that they can hear something different, but they can feel it,” says Sony's Warminiec. “Even though the human ear can’t pick up those frequencies, the sound waves apply a different pressure."
He says that in the last decade, consumers have been "reprogrammed" in how they listen to music.
"We’ve gotten into this kind of ‘good enough’ society where it’s convenient, it’s easy, accessible," he says. "Our challenge [at Sony] is to go and show people this is what music can really sound like.”
*'Nice marketing'*

Some experts in the world of sound research, however, disagree with that basic premise.







Neil Young's Pono digital music player is part of a trend of giving music lovers better-quality audio. (Pono Music)

“It’s nice marketing, but doesn’t make much sense,” says Bernhard Grill of Germany’s renowned Fraunhofer Institute, one of the largest research organizations in Europe.
At Fraunhofer, Grill was part of the team that created the MP3 decades ago, and admits that at the time, "there was an urgent need to make the files as small as possible. The modems were just so incapable compared to today."
But he says one of the problems was that "people were [creating and recording music] with bad tools," which "unfortunately ruined the reputation of MP3.”
Grill says a properly created MP3 can reproduce everything accurately, and that an uncompressed file would do little to improve it.
“The real issue is the loudspeaker and the room acoustics. That will make a real difference in the sound experience.”
While the uncompressed versus compressed debate will continue in audiophile forums for years to come, it isn’t stopping the push forward. From Sony’s new line to Neil Young and his crowdfunded Pono music player, many say the time is right for a better listening experience.


*Neil Young’s Pono Kickstarter campaign rakes in $6 million*

Welker acknowledges that high-fidelity audio isn’t necessarily sexy, but with the help of recording artists, engineers and hardware companies, it could become the new normal.
“As soon as people can hear something better, they’re going to want to reproduce that in their homes. It’s an exposure thing.”
​


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2014)

This is the best way to listen to music AFAIC.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

laristotle said:


> This is the best way to listen to music AFAIC.


Yes, but that's only for small spaces like the office, bedroom or bathroom. You need something with more punch in a larger room!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I've told this story too many times, but it's a great story...

Around 1978 or so, I was at some guy's house in the Westdale area of Hamilton to either buy or sell some Dynaco equipment, I forget which. This guy was a dyed-in-the-wool audiophile. How much of an audiophile? Well, he had 18" diameter holes cut into the floor of his livingroom, so that he could sink concrete tubes from the living/listening room into the basement of his home, for "proper" mounting of his woofers with a suitable resonant chamber for reproducing the low end.

Anyways, this guy says to me, gesturing with his arm to all the gear in the room, "This stuff will all be obsolete. You'll get your music in digital form...on a chip". "Yeah, right" I thought.

As for "improvements" to music, changes in the digital encoding/decoding tend to overlook a few things:

1) A great many of the consumers this is directed towards already have significant hearing loss from extensive exposure to high SPL music thorough headphones.

2) A very large share of music listeners tend to listen to music under circumstances in which sound quality tends to be overridden by other sound or simply not attended to. We listen on the bus, in the car, while washing the dishes or vacuuming, walking down the street, riding the elevator, studying for exams, etc. Only a very small percentage of music listening is done in conditions that are favorable to paying attention to, and hearing, nuance.

3) You can have the best damn lossless coding in the world. But if listened to via poor equipment, improvements in the digital end are unlikely to be audible. I feel pretty confident in declaring that fabulous lossless encoding won't sound that great if heard through a pair of phones that required the user to push the listening amplifier well beyond its linear range. Distorted 24-bit sound doesn't really sound any better than distorted 12-bit.

The days of home listening rooms with decent 3-way speakers, and enough power and headroom to deliver robust listening levels without clipping or other artifacts, are pretty well gone, except for a _very_ small percentage of people.

4) For fans of popular music, the sound of rock IS highly compressed and distorted, only with better bass than it had 40 years ago.

5) Even where a listener does have better equipment, and favorable listening conditions, I don't know that better encoding actually improves older recordings. Do Robert Johnson or Django Reinhardt or Chuck Berry or George Szell or Jussi Bjorling sound better with lossless encoding, or will they sound the same as 96kbs MP3s?


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2014)

So rarely am I in an environment where a high quality audio source would make any difference in what I'm hearing. Even my car, which has a veeeeeery nice stereo, has indistinguishable sound between lower bitrate Rdio, high bit rate iTunes files and CD audio. So, I'm uninterested, but I'm sure there's a contingent who will care enough to keep it afloat.


----------



## dtsaudio (Apr 15, 2009)

> You can have the best damn lossless coding in the world. But if listened to via poor equipment, improvements in the digital end are unlikely to be audible.


But at least you have the option of listening to a lossless recording. Apple would have you listen to degraded music files, and tell you they were just as good, when you can empirically measure the difference, and subjectively hear the difference


> The days of home listening rooms with decent 3-way speakers, and enough power and headroom to deliver robust listening levels without clipping or other artifacts, are pretty well gone, except for a _very_ small percentage of people.


That number is growing(albiet slowly). It seems that the younger generation is finally catching on that junk is being thrust upon them for a not insignificant amount of money.


> the sound of rock IS highly compressed and distorted


Maybe most new rock, but there are examples of well recorded albums that do benefit from hi-rez files. 


> Do Robert Johnson or Django Reinhardt or Chuck Berry or George Szell or Jussi Bjorling sound better with lossless encoding


Absolutely.


> lower bitrate Rdio, high bit rate iTunes files and CD audio


Rdio, and iTunes are unlistenable even in a car to me. I listen to good old FM or CD

Just a point of reference here. I'm 55 years old and worked in a machine shop and stamping plant most of my working life. I was also a working musician for 20 years. While I have above average hearing for someone my age (due to proper hearing protection) it's still not as good as my 18 year old son. I can hear the difference and certainly so can he.

One more point. None of that sounds as good as vinyl.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

" do we really need it?"
yes, but for different reasons.
companies have to keep working on newer and" better" products in order to fuel consumerism. To keep people wanting to buy things. To keep people shopping. To keep the economy going.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> " do we really need it?"
> yes, but for different reasons.
> companies have to keep working on newer and" better" products in order to fuel consumerism. To keep people wanting to buy things. To keep people shopping. To keep the economy going.


I would give you 100 likes for this post if it was possible.


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

"Do we need it?" What's old is new again. It's always been there and I've never left that realm, always had a decent 2 channel system most of my life. While my hearing is not the best, I can still hear that mp3's suck the big one as well as Sirius XM in my vehicle. Even when I get it for free I don't listen, can't stand the sound.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

I have a modestly priced vintage hifi system that blows my mind. you'd have to spend a fair amount to get something NEW that is as well made, and sounds as good. but there are still companies making good audio gear

I also got an old Empire turntable approx 3 years ago. WOW!!! it sounds fantastic

since then I've been buying selective new LP titles, plus the assortment of hand-me-down/used records I've accumulated over time



the crown jewel will be my 1963(?) Fisher 400 tube amp, once it gets back from the shop/tuneup

however I also have an old PC I installed linux on & use it as a media server....using FLAC files both 16/44.1 and 24/96. I hate mp3's although I can see the convenience of them. with memory so cheap to buy these days though, why even bother? I rip my stuff to archive as well as listen to, so lossless is key priority


-->I have to say, it's a relief to be able to buy NEW Led Zep vinyl, that is mint! I have suffered through trashed old records that don't do the sound justice. even though the untrashed originals would be killer. but they are rare & $$

some of my faves are old jazz albums, recorded live off the floor. love the whole ambient room sound on those. I'm sure all the good top tier analog mixing board/mics/preamp gear they used back in the '60's helps too

I am glad playing quality audio is a topic the mainstream are getting interested in


----------



## Chito (Feb 17, 2006)

Going to resurrect this thread as there seems to be more interest in vinyl these days.

Here's my story, since having the house concert we hosted, I've moved my turntable that was connected to my desktop computer which I use for recording in the basement, to our living room upstairs. Plugged it into the Fender Passport that I was using for listening to music as well as 'karaoke' when my kids and friends who like singing come over. Well that didn't work for me. The sound just suck balls. LOL Then I also had an issue with the tonearm so I had to bring it to the audio shop I bought it 4-5 years ago. That was my biggest mistake as while I was waiting for them to look at my TT, I ended up listening to some systems in the store. The Mies i100 which is made by the store (Planet of Sound) caught my attention. Anyway to make my story short, after trying out a 22 wpc Class D integrated amp and a kijiji bought vintage Mordaunt Short ms10 and not being satisfied with it, I ended up getting the Mies i100 which led to me not being too happy with the Mordaunt Short and getting a brand new set of Andrew Jones designed Elac B6 speakers.

Now I"m thrilled. It's been over 30 years now since I've done some 'critical listening' using vinyl. I did some a/b with some lossless recordings and I thought that maybe over the years, it would've caught up with the sound of analogue vinyl and realized it hasn't. The vinyls still sounds better to me. Mind you, I realize I've lost a lot of my hearing and it's a big chunk of the upper frequency range. I had to wear my hearing aids to hear that part of the recording. Also the combination of the Mies and the Elac is amazing considering how much I paid for them. A few years ago, I would've had to buy a lot more expensive gear in order to be able to reproduce the sound that it produces.

Anyway, here are the photos!


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2017)

Chito said:


> The vinyls still sounds better to me.


Plus, there's something about that nostalgic 'pop and hiss' when you drop the needle that makes it sound better too.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Vinyl of course for an old fart like myself. The new vinyl recordings are much better than the mass-produced junk from the old daze. Heavier and precise. Very few of my old pop albums play without the needle going up&down and back&forth. My turntable is nothing special, but a new vinyl album, before the music starts, is as silent as a CD.

I really enjoy old "on-the-floor" recordings. Good mic's, properly placed, in a decent room. A minimum of mixing. The mastering engineer picks out the odd anomaly and tweaks it. EARS not GEAR.

In the "studio" I use a reel-to-reel. It ain't better. It's just what I like.

Vaccuum tube amps and large speakers. Not better, just cool.

Then it's on to YouTube -- wow! What a great song!! And such a crappy sound file!!! iPad quality playback!!!!

In the end its all about the artistic content, not the technology. For me anyway. Audiophile? Never.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2017)

KapnKrunch said:


> In the "studio" I use a reel-to-reel. It ain't better. It's just what I like.


I have an 1960 or earlier (going by a family recording, new year's eve 1960) Phillips 4 track
with RCA in/output jacks that I'll have try someday. The stereo mic needs repair.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

This tempts be to dig out my vinyl and TT, which got packed away a decade ago. So far, I'm still pretty happy with my high-end SACD player, good preamp and stasis-class power amp. But speakers are the most important part of any music playback system.

I'm a big fan of concentric drivers for a combination of home theater and music playback (especially for center channel, where horizontal MTM style speakers just don't work well, IMO). I'm surrounded by KEF speakers that produce great bandwidth and a remarkably stable, realistic 3D image. My Magneplanars aren't packed away, but the recent purchase of KEF LS50's will keep them in the background for another year or two, at least.

I like good hi-fi and movie playback. I think most people under 30 don't know what they're missing. Neil Young got that part right, IMO.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

High/Deaf said:


> This tempts be to dig out my vinyl and *TT*, which got packed away a decade ago. So far, I'm still pretty happy with my high-end *SACD* player, good preamp and stasis-class power amp. But speakers are the most important part of any music playback system.
> 
> I'm a big fan of concentric drivers for a combination of home theater and music playback (especially for center channel, where horizontal *MTM* style speakers just don't work well, IMO). I'm surrounded by *KEF* speakers that produce great bandwidth and a remarkably stable, realistic 3D image. My *Magneplanars* aren't packed away, but the recent purchase of *KEF* LS50's will keep them in the background for another year or two, at least.
> 
> I like good hi-fi and movie playback. I think most people under 30 don't know what they're missing. Neil Young got that part right, IMO.


Your TT, SACD, MTM, KEF and Magneplanars went right over my head, but I agree about the under 30 part and Neil Young.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

TT = turntable
SACD = Super Audio CD. Sadly, a dead format that Sony introduced to compete with DVD Audio, also dead. Both were introduced as better formats than CD and the .wav format. More resolution than 16bit, 44.1 kHz, like BluRay vs DVD.
MTM = mid-tweeter-mid. The design of many center channel speaker. While fairly acceptable when stacked, they produce a lot of interference and comb filtering when laid on their side, which is common to fit under TV's.
KEF = English speaker company from the 60's. Quite a few advancements in the speaker world, including the $30,000 Blade and the $100,000 Muon. They are big into concentric drivers, which place the tweeter in the center of the midrange and solve the physical problems of the MTM.
Magneplanars/Magnepan = flat panel speaker out of White Bear Lake, Minnesota. A hi-fi darling for those that love 3D imaging but low WAF (wife acceptance factor) and not much boom bass, due to no enclosure. Not a great loud rock speaker but great for jazz, classical and chamber music.

Here's a set of Blades. Note the small concentric mid/tweeter on the narrow front and woofers on the sides.










Here's a pair of Maggies (MG3.6's, I think).


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

And my education continues^^^^^^^. If only I could remember half of what I've learned since I joined GC...................


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

laristotle said:


> Plus, there's something about that nostalgic 'pop and hiss' when you drop the needle that makes it sound better too.


I've burned a bunch of my old vinyl to cd ,so I can have all the pops and hiss in my truck if I so desire.
Some even have the skips preserved for prosperity .

Best of both worlds .B#(*


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2017)

Bubb said:


> I've burned a bunch of my old vinyl to cd ,so I can have all the pops and hiss in my truck if I so desire.
> Some even have the skips preserved for prosperity .
> 
> Best of both worlds .B#(*


I did the same for my father-in-law. Even though he has a lot of the same music on store bought CD's, he prefers to 
listen to what I burned because of the 'pops and hiss' that remind him of when he used to listen to them on the TT.


----------

