Endless Changing Platforms for Music

[mso489]

The first car I had that played music had a cassette tape player. The next had both a tape and CD player. The next had only a CD player. When I bought the current car, we thought it had no sound system until we tumbled to the fact that it was strictly bluetooth -- which I think will play thumb drives too. But what do we know? Are we having fun yet? A recent thread highlighted the fact that a significant demographic of music lovers have gone back to turntables and vinyl, although I don't think they are in vehicles. Remember when floppy disks were standard tools of desktop computers? Is this progress or just self-defeating confusion. Both, of course. Our history is dying with the loss of correspondence written on paper. Some of our electronic messages will be saved, but in a haphazard way. Vast amounts of the most vital conversation will be lost forever-- true of paper letters too, but probably less true. There were always troves discovered in attics and old chests. But in our drive for progress, we are often (not always) self defeating. In his Civil War documentary, Ken Burns pointed out that the poorer soldiers who had only pencils for writing letters left behind a better record than their wealthier brothers who wrote with fine pens and ink, because the ink faded but the pencil script didn't. Also, back to music, the new technologies have left the remuneration for musicians in a shambles. Where would you go -- outside of a big city -- for a good selection of even CD's these days? Yeah, online, sometimes, depending on what you are looking for. This is not an altogether happy picture, to me anyway.

 

[papipeguy]

Progress can be a pain in the ass. My new Volvo does have a cd player but also has capability for mp3 or whatever; which I will never use. I mostly listen to the satellite radio so that's fine by me.

 

[pappymac]

My first vehicle had a AM radio. Then I progressed to a AM/FM Radio and an AM/FM with 8 track. I had a turn table when I was a kid back in the 60s and at one time in the 70s I had a reel to reel tape recorder that would play continously for 8 hours.

 

[mso489]

Progress becomes defunct so fast, it is often hard to tell if it is even progress. Have we progressed? We can no longer replicate the technology that took us to the moon. We can come up with something different that might get us to Mars instead ... maybe ... probably in the more distant future than we think. Remember the movie "2001"? I had a theory of developmental psychology (not my field) that held that people do not so much develop toward completeness, self-realization, and wisdom as they go through life trading off one set of qualities for others, forgetting or downplaying what they have traded away, because we have no choice. Well, that's a little grim, but it makes an interesting thought experiment.

 

[iamn8]

Tis a sad day indeed when a guy like me has to be the voice of reason. For once in history, the music is about the music, not the format, the packaging, or anything else. I have 20,000+ songs on my phone that I can access wirelessly from my car or my home stereo!! Think about that for a moment....
Go back in time and share the wonders with your 16yr old self!!!! Then, while your 16yr old self gazes in wonder, tell him that your old self finds these wonders boring! While your younger self gazes at his old self, dissapointed in how jaded he'll become.... sigh. You people are insane.

 

[northernneil]

I have 20,000+ songs on my phone that I can access wirelessly from my car or my home stereo!! Think about that for a moment....

While I agree with your above statement, I also believe MSO has a good point.
In order for you, or anyone, to store 20,000 songs on your phone, you need to convert the files to MP3, which is a low quality sound file. In other words, people today are willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. So, even though the quality of recordings are improving, the platform people actually listen to music on is diminishing.
Now, with the rejuvenation of the vinyl industry, we are starting to see people get back to quality. Vinyl record force a person to sit down and listen to the album from start to finish, something people who listen to MP3's are not known to do. The quality of the sound is very high, especially when compared to MP3's, and offers some collectible aspect not available through electronic formats.
I love the electronic age when it comes to music, but I also feel it is very important that older music platform remain viable for true music collectors / listeners.

 

[iamn8]

I've read.... thousands of times about why some prefer vinyl. Obviously I can't argue with someone's personal preferences, I can argue with most people's ability to discern an MP3 file from an uncompressed file. My brother makes a living selling very high end audio equipment, but even he will confess that most people, listening to ten music files, can't pick the compressed from the non. It's in our heads. I dare anyone here to listen blindly to ten music files and pick the compressed. It's FAR harder than you think and requires VERY serious equipment to do so... I'm talking many tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[phred]

Speaking as a history major who did IT work for a museum at one point, MSO's concerns are well-founded, but perhaps a little overstated. We're about equally likely to find stashes of letters (written on archival-quality paper, with non-acidic/non-fading inks) as we are to find old hard drives or floppies that are still readable (I've got an 8-inch floppy tacked up in my cubicle as a reminder of such things - try finding an 8-inch floppy drive these days...).
Archivists are well aware of the challenges posed by technological advancements, which is why so many important documents are scanned and/or digitized in multiple formats, on multiple media platforms (.pdf, text files, .tiff images, etc.). For audio, it's only relatively recently a thing that music is recorded or notated - we have some ideas about what lur-horns sounded like (for example), but the Celts didn't leave us much in the way of lur-horn repertoire. Likewise, we've got some educated guesses about Greek or Roman music, as some early music theory was developed by the Greeks, but knowing what a Dorian mode scale sounds like is a world apart from knowing what tunes were popular among Socrates' students back in the day.
In short, ephemera will remain ephemeral regardless of technological advances - and we'll be indebted to modern hoarders and collectors for saving all manner of pop culture crap for future historians, musicologists, and cranks to obsess over... :lol:

 

[northernneil]

I dare anyone here to listen blindly to ten music files and pick the compressed. It's FAR harder than you think and requires VERY serious equipment to do so... I'm talking many tens of thousands of dollars.

I have done that test, and to me it is clear as day. Especially when compared side to side, the MP3 files sound like a wet towel has been thrown over the speaker.
As for equipment, you are 100% right. But I will make the argument, if you have a $10,000 sound system, you are not doing it justice by listening to MP3's. Hell, even some of these new headphones being released, think Beats by Dr Dre, are super high quality, to listen to and low quality music file.

 

[pipesinperu]

I love the electronic age when it comes to music, but I also feel it is very important that older music platform remain viable for true music collectors / listeners.

I'm with northernneil on this point. I know this argument is slightly tangential to mso's original point, but... I think we have to take into account what each person is looking for with regards to music and the formats we use to listen to it. Just as many pipers have (and continue to) enjoy using their one solid but inexpensive pipe to smoke their one favorite OTC blend, MP3s meet most people's general listening needs.
I think streaming services have finally hit on a halfway-decent solution for music portability. I can use Spotify in my car and carry my whole music collection with me, which is fantastic. I can remember taking long road trips just 15 years ago and having to lug a binder full of CDs with me. There is a problem in that Spotify pays the artists so little for each time a track of theirs is played, but it's still better, from the artist's perspective, than the MP3 pirating that was everywhere not too long ago, and hopefully even more satisfactory solutions will continue to be found.
BUT, for home listening, I have definitely come to prefer vinyl. As northernneil stated, different formats do affect our listening habits, and I prefer sitting down to listen to an entire album with the better sound of a good-quality record. The object itself, with the 12" x 12" cover, is also part of how artists choose to present themselves, and I think that's part of the package that has been lost with digital files. Whether that's important or not is an individual preference, of course, but I am glad to see the different formats remaining viable so that each of us can choose. In certain (pretty underground) music circles, there has even been a cassette tape resurgence, although I personally think that's just out of a sense of rebellion and a desire to fly in the face of whatever is popular right now, as I see no practical advantages at all to the cassette.
As for Nate's point, he's right that almost no one can tell the difference between widely-used MP3 compression rates unless they're using super-high-end equipment. I would argue, though, that vinyl clearly sounds better and allows an avid listener to pick out more details of the recording (this obviously depends on what music you're listening to, as the point of some music is NOT to have much "detail" to it), plus you have all the other factors that go into the listening experience, like I talked about above. Here's an interesting test to show just how little we're able to tell the difference, though:

http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
I graduated with a degree in audio engineering (completely unrelated to my current profession, of course!), and I failed the test miserably. I'm going to conveniently blame that on the fact that I was using mediocre headphones plugged into a laptop, though, haha.

 

[sthbkr77]

To be fair, there are different bit rates to mp3's that dictate the quality. something sub-192 wont be as clear as 320. That said, it's quite true that it takes GOOD equipment as well as having the ear to pick up and appreciate the fullness of a lossless format.

 

[michaelmirza]

I listen to music through Spotify Premium, which gives me access to an entire world of music of every style imaginable. But even so, I still appreciate the physical product as well, especially vinyl. Holding it, looking at the artwork, etc. It's not better or worse than digital, just different. I love music in all forms.

 

[iamn8]

I listen to music using a pair of UE900's, a very high quality pair of earbuds. If I listen to Pink Floyd and concentrate with all my might, I'll swear I can tell which is lossless, but I'm wrong. And even if I could, who listens to music that way?

As I said, I get why some prefer vinyl. I just don't find it convenient in the way I listen to music. I simply don't have the attention span to sit and listen to an entire album and if I'm honest, there are VERY VERY few albums I like in their entirety. I do have a songlist entitled LOUD, music that I listen to at high volume. These songs I have saved in a lossless format, but I doubt I'd notice if someone switched them out without my knowledge and I suspect neither would you

While in rehab, I worked at a store called Cheapos in Saint Paul. I ended up with a huge collection of music. As things turned digital, I clung to those CDs believing in their superiority, until a "friend" had me try to identify the CD track out of ten tracks of the same song. I couldn't even come close to telling and made a blind wrong guess. I sold my collection and went digital.

 

[darwin]

Seriously good phones, such as Sennheiser 650s or PSB M4Us will certainly reveal the difference between mp3s and hi-res files but the diff between Redbook CDs and hi-res is much trickier to discern.

 

[mso489]

Nate, Nate, you presume everyone has your level of acumen and can advance to the latest tech, or comb back through previous ones, to attain just what you want, musically and otherwise. If it were a frustrating, somewhat humiliating obstacle, as it is for some who just didn't grow up with it, or others who just don't think or learn that way, it is less enchanting, more ambiguous. So I'm not kvetching about the music, just the access, which for me is not so kind. For many, it's a way of life and a mode of working and playing. But not for everyone, by a long shot.

 

[iamn8]

Well then... I'm on my way over and we shall convene the digitalization of music school I'll be over in twenty minutes so get the blackboard out! Yeah I grew up at just the right time for the computer age. My parents sent me to Apple Camp as a kid. Seriously, a fact I'm still humiliated about 35+ years later. Anyways, I'll see you in a bit.
Ps. Humiliated about? Why humiliated?

 

[fordm60]

mso, as always you have a thought provoking post. For myself I find an iPod, Sirius, or Pandora to be wonderful. I find music is easier to listen to with these systems. I love the different styles of music I can sample without having to purchase the music on Sirius and Pandora. It has broadened my musical world. I love my iPod as I find music I like on Sirius or Pandora and then purchase it via iTunes. The iPod is wonderful in that I never have to worry about scratches or breaking a tape etc. If I lose or break my iPod, I just replace the iPod and all my purchased music is on iTunes which makes it easy to download and I find that comforting. I used to lose my mind when a tape broke was stolen or lost. I love the access to music I have with the new systems. I have fired too many Machineguns, been in so many live fires, riden in too many helicopters and planes, rode my Harley, etc, etc, that my hearing is not so good lol. My ears ring all the time, so I am positive I cannot detect the lower quality sound, if it exists, that has been mentioned. I do not believe I miss anything by not having an older sound recording method. I still buy the entire album on iPod out of habit and because I believe the artist makes a package of emotion and sound and I want the whole package! Plus the artists need compensation in order to continue producing music and I very much want them to continue.
I can see how the newer recording systems can be daunting to learn. I found it daunting myself. But I also believe we can all learn the new systems and making myself learn something is important. Use the mind or lose it. In the end I see what you and other posters mean and feel I understand your points. To me though the access and different types of music I now have makes up for any shortfalls. Music is something that I find amazing. It can take me anywhere and yet I never leave the room.

 

[carbonmated]

I am not a fan a digital music. Never have been , never will be. The compression is what kills the sound. I can listen to an album on vinyl and then the same album on CD or mp3 and I much prefer the sound of vinyl. If I really want great sound, I will turn on my Marshall, plug in my Carvin and jam a bit. I have old 4,8 and 16 track recordings and new digital recordings, I always loved the old 4,8 and 16 track recordings on tape vs. anything digital. I still use my old 4 track all the time, just because I love the sound of the recording. Something organic if you will. Listen to an old Beatles album on vinyl, then the same album that has been digitally remastered, the later, lacks the organic "feel" of the vinyl. Perhaps it's just me :?:
I think much like pipe tobacco selection, music delivery systems and recording methods are very subjective. Personal taste and experience will dictate what one prefers. There is no right or wrong, just what I prefer vs. what you prefer.
Then again, if there are no live humans playing instruments and singing (with no auto tune garbage), I have no inclination to listen to the noise.

 

[iamn8]

Funny timing, but just today received a product I purchased from my brother, a Dragonfly v1.2 USB DAC. For those who have issues with digital music, this won't matter much I imagine. However, this tiny little DAC is AMAZING!!! I fixed a problem I didn't know I had. It's brilliant!!!

 

[tinsel]

l. Obviously I can't argue with someone's personal preferences, I can argue with most people's ability to discern an MP3 file from an uncompressed file. My brother makes a living selling very high end audio equipment, but even he will confess that most people, listening to ten music files, can't pick the compressed from the non. It's in our heads. I dare anyone here to listen blindly to ten music files and pick the compressed. It's FAR harder than you think and requires VERY serious equipment to do so... I'm talking many tens of thousands of dollars.

I will take that challenge, using any REASONABLE stereo or headphones, no "tens of thousands of dollars" needed.
Disclaimer: I have been a musician my entire life and have plenty of recording experience. So YMMV and I don't claim to speak for "the majority" in any way. Everything in this post is intended as a statement of opinion, not fact. I'll also note that I'm young enough that I grew up in the age of CD's and didn't discover vinyls until adulthood.
"Compression" is a complicated concept. There are dozens of different types of compression, both analog and digital. Can I pick out the difference between one analog compressor used in a recording chain VS another ... not likely. But I will guarantee you that if you take a song in it's original wave format (the way it was mastered), and another that has been converted to MP3 with no other alterations made and play them both on the same equipment I can pick out which is which every single time.
I agree with the previous poster who said that MP3 is a low-quality format. I think that they sound absolutely awful. The compression process used to convert songs to MP3 absolutely destroys the headroom, air, texture and dynamic of the song IMO.
All that being said, with most music being produced today the conversion to MP3 is hardly the worst atrocity being committed against the music. Bands began over-compressing their recordings decades ago to create a "brickwall" sound. Oasis, way back in the 90's, was among the worst offenders. Metallica's most recent album "Death Magnetic" was so badly "brickwalled" during the mastering process that I found it absolutely painful to listen to. At first it was just rock bands, but slowly the process found it's way over into pop, country, and just about everything else. At this point, it's just become "the norm" and that is very sad. A few artists/bands refuse to destroy their work in this way (Tool comes to mind) but they are the exception, not the rule. Please Google search "The Loudness Wars" for more information about using compression for a "brickwalling" effect.
MP3's gave us mobile music libraries. They have allowed many people to connect with music in new, exciting, wonderful ways. However they just simply aren't for me. As MSO alluded, it's one of many technological advancements that is both a blessing AND a curse.
When I sit down in my home to enjoy my favorite music, I prefer vinyls. It's just an opinion, I'm not saying that everyone has to agree. I enjoy the warmth, headroom, dynamics, etc that vinyls provide. When listening to newer music that isn't available on vinyl, I prefer some form of wave file over MP3.
Sorry for the long post ... but the subjects of sound quality, compression, and format are near and dear to my heart.
One last thought: I have long believed that a great song, performed well, will overcome some pretty terrible sound quality, but even the best recording and sound quality can't save a bad song. I will NEVER turn off a good song because I dislike the sound quality. A good tune is a good tune ... I don't care if it's on a stretched cassette tape, a beeswax cylinder, or a $100,000 stereo. TURN IT UP, THIS SONG IS ROCKIN!