Poor quality, well-defined
In the the Times Business section today there’s an article about the hard road faced by the HD radio business. The idea of HD radio has always struck me as…wait, it’s never actually struck me at all. I used to be an audiophile, but most of the radio I listen to now comes exclusively from the passenger side door of my car – it’s just a sound that makes its way over from somewhere off to my right. I can usually make out the intentions behind it. My expectations for sonic fidelity in radio are low, in other words. And I actually care about sound, or I used to. What about everyone else, people raised increasingly on mp3s? The vast majority of digital music is an offense against decent sound-mixing, but it was especially poignant to read this story this week, after I’d been struggling for several days to listen to the wonderful Fleet Floxes album – which I’d recently downloaded from Amazon – on my iPod. While a lot of the mix is sort of muddy, the lead guitar on every song is a glassy jangle. It is literally painful to hear through headphones. This is an extreme case, but it is emblematic of the overall crap we’ve become accustomed to as consumers of music that was either not mixed for digital format or crudely, crassly mixed, according to the needs of digital playback through plastic earbuds. So where’s the untapped market for HD radio? It’s people who are listening to song files that have had the definition compressed out of them, songs that were engineered with this mutilation in mind from the start. As I write this, I recall that I really was struck by something when I first heard the term ““HD Radio,” an association with that other genius invention, “Internet TV.”
If you like graphs and sound snobbery, check this out from Bob Weston:
http://www.chicagomasteringservice.com/loudness.html
What they do to music these days is a travesty.
— rortybomb · Apr 9, 08:28 PM · #
I will refrain, for now, from going on my focal plane and exposure latitude rant.
— Tony Comstock · Apr 9, 08:35 PM · #
Or this commentary on the supposedly new digital re-masters of the Beatles catalogue. Does any major band besides Radiohead really care about well-engineered sound? (That’s not a rhetorical question.)
— Alan Jacobs · Apr 9, 08:35 PM · #
And by the way, it’s posts like this one, and not suggestions that chan and KM get a room and go down on each other, that keeps estrogen levels low on TAS. There’s nothing better than gear wank to drive away chicks.
— Tony Comstock · Apr 9, 08:42 PM · #
Tony:
I disagree. I liked this a lot! I don’t do “gear wank,” but I’m totally down with talking about gadgets in context: media is an experience that gadgets produce.
— Dara Lind · Apr 9, 09:37 PM · #
Then I’m quite sure Matt will be delighted when all of your female friends pile onto this thread with professions of the various affronts to their sonic sensibilities perpetrated by the move to the digital acquisition and delivery of music and attendant effects on aural quality. I, for one, will imagine them wearing Brazilian bikinis while they type.
— Tony Comstock · Apr 10, 07:40 AM · #
Yes, Tony, but also while relating how they grew upset at the poor sound quality of music that indicates, deep down, that we have the same tastes and might well be soulmates! “You can’t stand the brittle highs in the awesome new Animal Collective? Neither can I!” (Serious apologies to Dara, who makes a real point. And, to be honest, I’m not equipped, so to speak, for much beyond rudimentary gear wank anymore. I just know what hurts my ears.)
— Matt Feeney · Apr 10, 09:41 AM · #
Actually I was talking about the other Matt, and should have made that clear.
In fact, I am deeply interest in how technology effects art. For example, for a producer of the best “bang for the buck” instruments is an acoustic guitar. The reason is that even very high end synthetic guitars sound like shit, and good guitarist are a dime a dozen. Using a real guitarist instead of synthetic orchistra is a cheap and easy way to make your sound track stand out.
— Tony Comstock · Apr 10, 10:25 AM · #
It’s funny, but of all the albums on my iPod I’m pretty sure that “In Rainbows” is the one that sounds the worst in terms of quality. So much buzzing of speakers and loss of definition.
I’m no audiophile, though, and I have no idea how to tune an EQ or whatever. Is there a course on this, or do I have to go find some 60-year-old hi-fi junkie and listen to his nonsense about vacuum tubes?
— Chet · Apr 10, 02:43 PM · #