Does It Matter Whether We Own Music?

[negative potential]

Take the time to watch this brief, 10-minute video by Ted Gioia. It raises important questions about the preservation of our cultural legacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmm1yq5Q4FE

[Mo Noyz]

I tried to watch that when it was posted on another forum, but had to bail about 7 minutes in because his physical presentation was too damn annoying.

To me it’s an anti-streaming declaration disguised as a thoughtful plea. My guess is he has an absurdly overpriced audio system full of bells, whistles, and snake oil, and thinks LPs are a superior media to CD. With digital being the death of high fidelity audio.

Either way, my counterargument would be, how many of us own tv and movies? Yet there are almost countless tv stations, digital, and streaming media that offer up almost everything committed to film.

[J.F.]

My guess would be if there's persistent interest in particular music it won't disappear, while I think multiplication in physical form versus digital storage doesn't make the difference. At some point I redefined for myself an external harddrive just as a very advanced CD in a metal/plastic box - CDs are just data carriers as well. In the end also LPs are. Ok - those are products getting passed on over generations, but looking around in the www this also starts to happen in archival places with music in digital form.

Streaming services don't make music collectors go away (who are said in the video to be a big part in keeping the flame of music preservation alive). I see streaming services more as some sort of self-programmed radio which doesn't affect what passionate and focussed music collectors do - masses of which exist even in 2018.

I'm sure there's a lot of past music that disappeared from cultural awareness despite being physically multiplied. Since it disappeared we might not know it existed in the first place which allows us to say look - the old stuff is all still there. No, it's probably not, despite coming from the age of physical music products. Not sure my logic here comes across, but who says that our perception on that level is accurate and complete at all?

[Mo Noyz]

There’s also a reasonable argument to be made that if something truly does disappear, it was likely shit to begin with. Yeah, one man’s trash and all that nonsense. Supply will always rise to meet demand.

[Wombatz]

here in germany you have to buy classic movies on dvd/blu if you want legal access to a good collection, can't stream them.

in the end it matters to those to whom it matters, and i never understand why one would want to ascribe low motives to one of the other persuasion. for me it matters, and it's a library thing (insert pretentious reference to benjamin's 'unpacking my library' here), i want to be surrounded by stuff which reflects my cultural persuasions, and in turn it will inspire me to follow certain trains of thought, to deepen certain fields of interest, or to generally feel in the tradition of.

[J.F.]

There’s also a reasonable argument to be made that if something truly does disappear, it was likely shit to begin with. Yeah, one man’s trash and all that nonsense. Supply will always rise to meet demand.

That was one basic train of thought of mine, only with many more words in my version.

If music disappears over the decades, it's probably based on its quality, not on the way it is consumed / stored.

[Zeno Marx]

A couple of points to what has been posted.

1) There's no death to high fidelity in digital. While compression, loudness, and digital tools have been misused and abused, there's an argument to be made that digital is another level of high fidelity. High-resolution transfers that are at least technically closer to the masters than any physical format can be (24bit, 24/48, 24/88, 24/96, 24/192). And because there is a substantial audience and consumer base for digital libraries and archiving, both labels and audio gear companies have been making it is easy to integrate digital into high fidelity home audio systems. If this person in the video is implying otherwise, they are mistaken.

2) anti-digital, with the implication it kills anything, is also mistaken and reveals a misunderstanding. Yes, some need a physical thing to be engaged, but more and more, that is not the case. Enthusiasm for both the music and collecting music isn't destroyed or lessened. Speaking for myself, but also having seen the ravenous appetite for music no lesser, since going mostly digital, my enthusiasm and interest in music has only grown. It has downright exploded and fractured into so many new territories.

3) The physical object is no less temporary than the digital. It may seem otherwise, for now, but it's simply not true. Vinyl has the longest shelf life, but it will degrade like everything does. The necessity to transfer to another format is there. Digital archiving is the future of all formats. The Smithsonian is digitizing its archives, for its archives. Not only for the sake of preservation, but it can then also share those archives with the public. A source of revenue and a library otherwise never exposed to the public.

4) The only thing that can kill music, or art in general, is the lack of interest and demand. Period.

[Mo Noyz]

Just to clarify a couple of points, “high resolution” digital is 100% bullshit, as 16/44.1 fully captures everything audible to humans.

And digital is indeed higher fidelity than analog due to having far less second order harmonic distortion. Oddly, there are people out there that have the incorrect belief that digital has a “sound”. It does not. It’s just a storage medium. It will only play back exactly what you commit to it.

[bryan]

Just to clarify a couple of points, “high resolution” digital is 100% bullshit, as 16/44.1 fully captures everything audible to humans.

And digital is indeed higher fidelity than analog due to having far less second order harmonic distortion. Oddly, there are people out there that have the incorrect belief that digital has a “sound”. It does not. It’s just a storage medium. It will only play back exactly what you commit to it.

Umm... but what is this based on? 16/44.1 is considered capable of reproducing up to 22Khz for perfect waveforms. When it comes to the "imperfect" harmonic- and transient-rich waveforms in real music it does matter. Digital tends to sound brittle - it does have a distortion and it is less forgiving than analog for complex waveforms because its distortion is not harmonic.

[Mo Noyz]

Wait, so you're saying that people can her frequencies above 22.5kHz? And 96dB of dynamic range is more than any recording will ever use. Even the wildest Classical recordings tend to max out around 55dB.

And digital distortion is almost nonexistent. Less forgiving, yes, but that is what fidelity is about. As close to perfect replication as possible. If it weren't superior to analog in that regard, it would have never gone into wide use. Or if it had, it would have quickly faded into obscurity.

[negative potential]

Cool contributions in this thread. I don't really have any thoughts in response.

Well, except that I'm baffled by vinyl nostalgia. I can understand vinyl enthusiasm by people who actually grew up purchasing music on the format and who thus have large collections they aren't willing to part with, but anybody spending 20 dollars/euros on reissue vinyl today (usually made from digital masters) is a complete chump when you can usually get CDs of classic major label jazz/classical/rock catalogue for like 5 dollars/euros and then just rip to FLAC.

"But album art looks better on vinyl!", I agree, so if I want to look at album art, I'll buy one of those deluxe format art books like "Blue Note: The Cover Art" or whatever.

[bryan]

Wait, so you're saying that people can her frequencies above 22.5kHz? And 96dB of dynamic range is more than any recording will ever use. Even the wildest Classical recordings tend to max out around 55dB.

And digital distortion is almost nonexistent. Less forgiving, yes, but that is what fidelity is about. As close to perfect replication as possible. If it weren't superior to analog in that regard, it would have never gone into wide use. Or if it had, it would have quickly faded into obscurity.

My point was really just that the specs present an idealized case for digital. Sorry but this is gonna be qualitative, but my ears have found that digital hasn't been so kind to the sound of distorted guitars and rock music that is rich with noisy transient sounds, for example. I don't think the specs capture this problem. Perhaps this is largely due to issues with poor digital to analog conversion and the solution could be to get some really expensive high end audio gear but no thanks (though one day I'd love a decent stereo setup again).

Also, I spent some time recording stuff to ADAT machines back in the day. Despite the specs being the same as CDs, at 16 bit / 44.1 Khz, their sound was most definitely brittle and could be unpleasant on the high end of the frequency spectrum as compared to pro analog tape machines. I wouldn't call the harsh high frequency spectrum that plagued digital recording for a long time accurate to what was being recorded, again despite the specs. Higher fidelity and better sound is why the standard shifted to 24 bit / 96 KHz for digital recording although everything still ended up on CDs at 16 bit / 44.1 KHz. Yes, there is a mismatch there...

As far as digital being superior to analog and this is why it goes into wide use, that's not necessarily true. For example, everyone mostly listens to compressed digital formats because they are convenient not because they are accurate.

[Zeno Marx]

Trust your ears, not specs. And, obviously, listening depends on lots of things. Playback gear. State of mind. Mood. Expectations. Skepticism. You know, the psychological game. A person who thinks all speakers sound the same...all amplification sounds the same...all beer tastes the same...all wine tastes the same...there's no sense in a discussion with that type. If someone doesn't want to perceive the details, they won't.

As for the production, studio work, mastering, transferring...not enough weight is given to the person, or people, doing that work. It's not a completely scientific process, because again, there are ears involved. If the person hears or prefers this or that type of sound, then the work is biased in those ways. Sounds obvious, right? It is obvious, but I don't think people realize, or recognize, the significance. And then there is their gear. When I was messing around with running a label, I wouldn't let certain people get near the mastering. I didn't care for their ear, their gear, or both.

I'll be honest, I don't understand the fascination with vinyl or cassette if the master is digital. If listening to it off vinyl or cassette is somehow viewed as an EQing or home-effects stage by the listener, I find that to be silly. As if a plastic or tape is an elixir for digital.

[Mo Noyz]

Wait, so you're saying that people can her frequencies above 22.5kHz? And 96dB of dynamic range is more than any recording will ever use. Even the wildest Classical recordings tend to max out around 55dB.

And digital distortion is almost nonexistent. Less forgiving, yes, but that is what fidelity is about. As close to perfect replication as possible. If it weren't superior to analog in that regard, it would have never gone into wide use. Or if it had, it would have quickly faded into obscurity.

My point was really just that the specs present an idealized case for digital. Sorry but this is gonna be qualitative, but my ears have found that digital hasn't been so kind to the sound of distorted guitars and rock music that is rich with noisy transient sounds, for example. I don't think the specs capture this problem. Perhaps this is largely due to issues with poor digital to analog conversion and the solution could be to get some really expensive high end audio gear but no thanks (though one day I'd love a decent stereo setup again).

Also, I spent some time recording stuff to ADAT machines back in the day. Despite the specs being the same as CDs, at 16 bit / 44.1 Khz, their sound was most definitely brittle and could be unpleasant on the high end of the frequency spectrum as compared to pro analog tape machines. I wouldn't call the harsh high frequency spectrum that plagued digital recording for a long time accurate to what was being recorded, again despite the specs. Higher fidelity and better sound is why the standard shifted to 24 bit / 96 KHz for digital recording although everything still ended up on CDs at 16 bit / 44.1 KHz. Yes, there is a mismatch there...

As far as digital being superior to analog and this is why it goes into wide use, that's not necessarily true. For example, everyone mostly listens to compressed digital formats because they are convenient not because they are accurate.

I don’t know, brother. Only the first generation of CDs sounded thin and brittle to me, and that was because engineers simply hadn’t mastered any particular technique for the new medium.

As for the ADAT, there had to have been a problem somewhere in the chain before that, or it had a garbage A->D converter. As I noted before, digital has no “sound”. It simply stores whatever you record to it. If you record an analog mastertape to digital media, it will sound exactly like the analog tape at playback.

The use of 24/96 during the mastering phase is used simply for dithering. Bouncing it back down to 16/44.1 will not make any difference at the playback level. It already has a bit depth and sampling rate well beyond the range of human hearing, and a dynamic range that no recording I’m familiar with would use.

You have to keep in mind that a bit depth of 24 gives you 144dB of dynamic range. Not only is that four times more than the average recording uses, it would also be quite painful, as the point the human eardrum ruptures is 150dB. A sampling rate of 96kHz gives you a maximum frequency of 48kHz. Unless you’re playing music for your dog or pet bat, there is nothing there that can be heard. No musical instrument creates frequencies much higher than 16kHz, and once humans reach adulthood, the best they can hear is usually around 18kHz.

So yes, by all means use 24/96 for dithering purposes during the mastering phase. But for playback 16/44.1 already covers it all, and with a lot of room to spare.

Hell, how many speakers have you seen with frequency responses high than 20-22kHz? So even if there were instruments that could create frequencies higher than 22.5kHz, and we were able to hear them, there are no transducers available to play them for us.

[Mo Noyz]

Trust your ears, not specs. And, obviously, listening depends on lots of things. Playback gear. State of mind. Mood. Expectations. Skepticism. You know, the psychological game. A person who thinks all speakers sound the same...all amplification sounds the same...all beer tastes the same...all wine tastes the same...there's no sense in a discussion with that type. If someone doesn't want to perceive the details, they won't.

As for the production, studio work, mastering, transferring...not enough weight is given to the person, or people, doing that work. It's not a completely scientific process, because again, there are ears involved. If the person hears or prefers this or that type of sound, then the work is biased in those ways. Sounds obvious, right? It is obvious, but I don't think people realize, or recognize, the significance. And then there is their gear. When I was messing around with running a label, I wouldn't let certain people get near the mastering. I didn't care for their ear, their gear, or both.

I'll be honest, I don't understand the fascination with vinyl or cassette if the master is digital. If listening to it off vinyl or cassette is somehow viewed as an EQing or home-effects stage by the listener, I find that to be silly. As if a plastic or tape is an elixir for digital.

I actually contend that it would be higher fidelity coming from a digital master because the only distortion added would be from the playback equipment. If the source were analog, you’d essentially be doubling up on the distortion. First from the source, then from the playback equipment.

That’s not to say LPs don’t sound good, I just prefer the cleanest source and playback possible. Second order harmonic distortion may sound pleasant, but it’s less accurate than digital.

[Zeno Marx]

I actually contend that it would be higher fidelity coming from a digital master because the only distortion added would be from the playback equipment. If the source were analog, you’d essentially be doubling up on the distortion. First from the source, then from the playback equipment.

My point was more for those who think vinyl, and/or tape, are magic fixes to things they might not believe they like or label the boogie man.

I get your point about doubling up distortion, but again, I see little reason to buy records, or tapes, that were digitally recorded. In short, buying records in 2019 is nostalgic and little else (for me), and I love love love me my records. It's just not a battle I give a shit about anymore.

I was reading on another board, where the question was asked what newer vinyl albums were fully analog. Here's the problem: as far as I know, unless you have a substantial budget, and are willing to wait in a long line, there are no vinyl cutters/masterers who don't send things through digital gear to the cutting head. It's a bygone era. There might be a greater number of people mastering for vinyl, like the George Horns of the world, but the number of outfits actually cutting the lacquers for vinyl are using digital technology. BOOP! All those analog efforts are kind of choked because the industry does not operate in that favor. If there are people actually cutting lacquers via a full analog process, I'd like to know names. That isn't rhetorical, either. I'm genuinely curious who is still doing it.

[Mo Noyz]

I agree with all of that, Zeno.

As for your question, I don’t think they exist. At least, I’m not aware of any. Digital is cheaper, so it’s just smart busines.

[jon abbey]

I have hated vinyl my whole life, I used to tape LPs two to a 90 minute cassette in the pre-CD world, and since CDs came along when I was in college, I have never looked back.

that being said, is Rashad Becker at Dubplates in Berlin the answer to that question? I know he is the man for mastering to vinyl in the experimental world, but I have no idea what his process actually is.

[Zeno Marx]

Something else...GZ Press, where a large percentage of records are pressed that we buy. Unless you pay for the highest package (not even sure it is available anymore...mastering records is a real craft, and they might not employ anyone to do it anymore), they use Direct Metal Mastering, and from what I can gather, it is automated. Not only are they cutting those lacquers via digital gear, they're also digitally processing those files in an automated way, which is why they require you to submit your master by digital means, which is also why it isn't uncommon to hear odd splits between tracks. No human has ever listened to the master, and the computer didn't pick up on the track split. And then there is the question of how they're extracting the data from your CDR master. Are they using EAC or XLD properly set? Are they extracting from your master, bit by bit and exactly? I used to ask those questions to bands and labels using GZ Press and Pirates Press, and I never got a single answer. This is one reason why I never buy anything pressed at GZ. If I'm going to pay high prices for vinyl, I better be getting a premium product. I personally don't feel I am, so I don't.

[onion]

I have hated vinyl my whole life, I used to tape LPs two to a 90 minute cassette in the pre-CD world, and since CDs came along when I was in college, I have never looked back.

that being said, is Rashad Becker at Dubplates in Berlin the answer to that question? I know he is the man for mastering to vinyl in the experimental world, but I have no idea what his process actually is.

I don't think your answer lies here, but it may give a clue, hint or suggestion.

http://www.dubplates-mastering.com/faq.html#kap4_2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... GZSrvCyExM