You folks are being a little picky. In the scheme of things, 128 AAC certainly "rivals" CD quality. The term 'rival' is used to mean "close but not as good." The vast majority of people don't notice much difference or at least aren't bothered by it. I know a lot of people in music - I'm an amateur jazz musician - and I don't know a single one who gives a crap about the difference between 128 AAC and ALC or CD quality.
Sure, there's a difference, and anyone can hear it if they compare. But it's just not that big of a deal to most people, including, in my experience, people who have probably the most sophisticated knowledge and musical abilities of anyone in the world. The only people who seem to care are the self-professed "audiophiles."
Yup. Musicians are not the best people to ask about audio quality. They fill in what isn't there, because they are interested in the music and the performance.
Whenever I read an interview in Stereophile with a musician, composer, or conductor, they ask about their music system. The usual response is that their manager got them something, and it seems fine.
The best one was with, I think, Chet Atkins. His music system was a table radio that someone soldered a phono input to. He played his lp's through that (without phono equalization!!!). He also pluged his guitar into it. He thought it was a great "system"!
Unless you have a really good HiFi system, I HIGHLY doubt you'd hear a difference in CD Quality and 128kbps AAC. I think that a lot of people THINK they hear a difference, but its all in their head. I certainly don't hear a difference, and I bet that most of you all that say you CAN hear a difference, if you were put to the test, you wouldn't be able to tell. Whoever said, "AAC is lousy" is totally ridiculous!!!!!!!
That's mostly true. It depends on the high frequency information. That's where the problems lie. If there is strong hi freq in the music, there will be a problem. If not, it may sound fine.
We did a test in my audio group a few years ago with mp3. When it got to 256k, no one could hear a difference.
I can hear a difference on my equipment, but not on all tracks. Still, I haven't bought any compressed music, and I don't intend to, even though my wife does. But, she only listens on her computer.
If Apple does sell lossless, and doesn't charge more, I will buy some.
There was a show on television that dealt with the same thing. People that were obsessed with Gourmet food, only the best! Then their friends took them out to eat and they were served TV dinners on fancy plates, and they thought it was the greatest thing in the world, because they were TOLD it was the greatest thing in the world. Only one guy was able to tell, everyone else was fooled.
That, I find very hard to believe. My wife and I cook a lot, and there is no way that we could ever be fooled by tv dinners.
I think the bottleneck of today's poor digital audio quality is the 16 bit 44 KHz. Offering downloads in CD quality will not create a revolution, it will just sound exactly like a damn CD, which is far from as good as it could be.
It would be much better to make a next generation compressed audio format based around a higher resolution audio. And make it possible for people with high quality needs to play back the songs in higher quality.. like 24 bit 96 KHz. A compressed format that could be based on AAC but offer up to 24 bit 96 KHz high quality sound. Playback quality could be scalable and in synch with the listener's audio card/equipment. On an iPod in battery savings mode it could play normal 16 bit 44KHz. On an iPod in "better audio quality mode" it could play 24 bit 44KHz... something like that.
I think the Apple Lossless format is just a preparation for a model where it'll be possible for Apple to introduce higher audio quality dynamically. The files will then be encrypted and compressed on the fly into AAC format.
There's no need for 24 96. That's far more a marketing move than anything in the real world. Going to 20 48 is all that's needed. Even that isn't sure.
There isn't any equipment on the market now, or will be in the forseeable future that can play 24 96. 24 bits is a dynamic range of 140db. 96 is a freq. range up to 45KHz. No electronics has a noise or dynamic range even close to that, and no speakers can reproduce hi freq close to that, even if we could hear it.
It is I feel important to note that just because compression is used that does not mean that there is a reduction in quality if you're careful and put quality before file size. Most DVD's are a good example of this
As far as I know, there is no lossless codec for DVD-Video. They typically use AC-3, which is lossy.
There is a wider issue here. So far iTunes has been targetted at people who download songs to listen to on their iPod, because Apple wants to sell as many highly profitable iPods as possible. For these people CD quality sound is less important.
However, roll forward a few months and Apple hopefully launches the Mac Mini home entertainment server, targetted at people who listen to music at home. In this instance Apple is targetting people who probably have a decent HiFi system and want a sound quality the same as or better than CD quality. These people are more interested in sound quality and can notice the current difference.
Imagine it: Mac Mini HES + iTunes Lossless + Broadband + Decent HiFi/Speakers = No more trips to the record store
I understand the attraction of Apple Lossless ? I'm in the process of re-ripping my entire library at the moment,
But I don't understand the attraction of Apple Lossless on the iTunes Music Store ? it's going to take ten times longer to download, it's going to be DRM'd and Apple won't be able to charge a premium for it.
I can just pick up the CD for the same price as an AAC download the next time I'm in Tescos, use the Lossless codec and I won't have to worry about fannying around with the DRM.
There's no need for 24 96. That's far more a marketing move than anything in the real world. Going to 20 48 is all that's needed. Even that isn't sure.
There isn't any equipment on the market now, or will be in the forseeable future that can play 24 96. 24 bits is a dynamic range of 140db. 96 is a freq. range up to 45KHz. No electronics has a noise or dynamic range even close to that, and no speakers can reproduce hi freq close to that, even if we could hear it.
Oops. This is crap I'm afraid. There is a very clear and audible difference between CD at 41/16 bit and audio at 24/48. There is also a clear, though not huge, difference between 24/48 and 24/96. Its not really to do with the theoretical bandwidth or dynamic range but transient timing and converter headroom.
Every session I work on now is recorded at at least 24/96.
All Hollywood orchestral sessions are recorded at 24/192.
The Apple move will allow producers in the future to encode their 24/96 masters to Apple Lossless providing iTunes tracks that EXCEED 'CD quality'
Oh, Apple only keep the delivery files on their servers; its up to the record companies and producers to keep their masters. Which is exactly how it should be. Any other arrangement has legal ramifications (eg. the Beatles case)
This is disappointing to hear -- not for the future, but for the past. I had hoped that Apple had been archiving everything in its collection losslessly all along from the start (not necessarily in Apple Lossless format per se), so that at any given time they could choose to take advantage of higher bit rates and/or improved codecs.
AFAIK Apple doesn't have all the music on their own servers.
Every single Danish piece of music is hosted by a Danish company that also has the music in WMA for the MS driven stores.
As others have pointed out, Apple Lossless is just that. It is an exact reproduction of the audio on your CD. I re-ripped my entire catalog in Lossless and it made a huge difference.
Perhaps this is a way for the labels to charge a higher price, which they have been clamoring for. 99 cents for the AAC, and whatever for lossless.
There is a wider issue here. So far iTunes has been targetted at people who download songs to listen to on their iPod, because Apple wants to sell as many highly profitable iPods as possible. For these people CD quality sound is less important.
However, roll forward a few months and Apple hopefully launches the Mac Mini home entertainment server, targetted at people who listen to music at home. In this instance Apple is targetting people who probably have a decent HiFi system and want a sound quality the same as or better than CD quality. These people are more interested in sound quality and can notice the current difference.
Imagine it: Mac Mini HES + iTunes Lossless + Broadband + Decent HiFi/Speakers = No more trips to the record store
Bingo! Match product to function. The low res TV shows and decent mp3's were always meant to be mobile formats. I don't know how much market research has been done one the percentage of people who just watch and listen on their desktops, but I bet there are more people doing it than Steve anticipated. Putting FrontRow on laptops means that lots of people use them as their media device ... I do. But it I could have a relatively inexpensive system/box that held all of my music lossless (with the dual role of being one more backup on my 100's of dollars of bought music), AND I could take it off and squeeze it into my iPod in AAC form, I could have my cake and eat it too. It seems that Apple with Airport Extreme has been perfecting the real time translation of files to different formats (scalable and efficient) that makes the whole thing transparent.
I assumed that the H264(?) format was to do this for all things video. In that way you could have hi res stuff on a box, by the TV, but also sync it with lower res for the laptop, video iPod or cellphone seemlessly during an iSync process.
The box becomes a media storage and delivery device, not necessarily the home server some people have anticipated.
I don't think Apple is going to give us lossless (for the reason mentioned above - CD burning) and because it would not be in their best business interest.
They are going to charge more for higher encode rates as time goes by. It's how they can justify increasing the price etc.
Cheers,
Ashley.
That's the big question for me-- how much more for a lossless dl than 128KB?
If lossless goes for $2 a track for "premium" quality (and this doesn't seem impossible to me, given the the pricing of very low quality video at the iTMS, and the possibility of Apple wanting a "spread" for several bit rates) then that works out to about a $10 premium over CD.
Wouldn't that be a bitch? We get trained to accept inferior dl quality at a price point, and by the time we are "allowed" to get CD quality that's been around for the last 20 years we have to pay extra for exciting "new" fidelity.
What I'd like to see, since Apple has a complete record of my purchase history, is an option to pay a small charge (say, something from 10-25 cents) to redownload higher bit rate versions of music that I've already purchased. I'd pay that even to upgrade to 192 kbps.
As far as I know, there is no lossless codec for DVD-Video. They typically use AC-3, which is lossy.
Your right, content encoded for DVD would not be considered lossless although because usually It's encoded so professionally, quality issues are usually minimal.
Yup. Musicians are not the best people to ask about audio quality. They fill in what isn't there, because they are interested in the music and the performance.
Whenever I read an interview in Stereophile with a musician, composer, or conductor, they ask about their music system. The usual response is that their manager got them something, and it seems fine.
The best one was with, I think, Chet Atkins. His music system was a table radio that someone soldered a phono input to. He played his lp's through that (without phono equalization!!!). He also pluged his guitar into it. He thought it was a great "system"!
You must hang out with different musicians than I do.
Oops. This is crap I'm afraid. There is a very clear and audible difference between CD at 41/16 bit and audio at 24/48. There is also a clear, though not huge, difference between 24/48 and 24/96. Its not really to do with the theoretical bandwidth or dynamic range but transient timing and converter headroom.
Every session I work on now is recorded at at least 24/96.
All Hollywood orchestral sessions are recorded at 24/192.
The Apple move will allow producers in the future to encode their 24/96 masters to Apple Lossless providing iTunes tracks that EXCEED 'CD quality'
No, there isn't. What you don't appreciate, and what most people don't seem to be aware of, is that there is a long way between 44/16, and 96/24. What is being heard is the difference between 44/16 and 48/20. Past that there is no tangible benefit. But you don't know that, because you haven't been fortunate enough to have heard the various rates. There has been more than a bit of experimentation in the industry with this. And I agree with John Eargle that anything beyond 48/20 is a waste of resources. Also, most recordings that are supposedly 96/24 have been edited at 48/24, then brought back up to 96/24 for the pressings.
That's one reason why most of us with very expensive systems, even those of us involved in the industry (I designed speakers and electronics for my company, and worked on live recordings), find little of merit in either SACD and DVD Audio. Those products are very much hit or miss. Some sound slightly better, but many do not. Some even sound worse.
It seems that much of the difference is in the care lavished on the recording, mastering, and even the pressing. More so than the higher rates themselves.
You must hang out with different musicians than I do.
Not really. Musicians like to think they can tell, but they are no better than anyone else, even worse.
Barbara Cook used to do advertisements for my company. A very lovely lady, and an excellent performer, but as a critical listener, no better than anyone else.
This is a pretty well known thing, also a bit of a joke in the indusrty.
There are two types of listeners.
The first type are what we call music lovers. Those listen through the equipment to the music.
Then we have the audio people. Those listen through the music to the equipment.
I try to put both hats on at different times. Musicians find it difficult to don the latter.
Not really. Musicians like to think they can tell, but they are no better than anyone else, even worse.
Barbara Cook used to do advertisements for my company. A very lovely lady, and an excellent performer, but as a critical listener, no better than anyone else.
This is a pretty well known thing, also a bit of a joke in the indusrty.
There are two types of listeners.
The first type are what we call music lovers. Those listen through the equipment to the music.
Then we have the audio people. Those listen through the music to the equipment.
I try to put both hats on at different times. Musicians find it difficult to don the latter.
I guess what I am saying is that you are painting a pretty broad stroke. In my experience, I am constantly amazed at often the average person gets things very wrong in audio. (a friend with a high end system was mortified when I pointed out that his system was set to mono). And I'm not sure what industry you're referring to, but Ad agency people were the absolute worst for hearing things from my perspective. But in general I am astonished at how terribly music can sound to people without them noticing. Biggest offender, distorted bass.
Without trying to brag, I am and hang with some serious musicians. I have been in studios across the country, and attended Berklee in Boston. In general, I would say that its not that musicians don't hear what you are talking about, but rather can hear "through" the imperfections of whatever sound system and hear what the music is about. I can't tell you how many times I have been with musicians who literally can tell you how to EQ a room just by standing in it for a minute. These are the kind of musicians I am talking about.
I guess what I am saying is that you are painting a pretty broad stroke. In my experience, I am constantly amazed at often the average person gets things very wrong in audio. (a friend with a high end system was mortified when I pointed out that his system was set to mono). And I'm not sure what industry you're referring to, but Ad agency people were the absolute worst for hearing things from my perspective. But in general I am astonished at how terribly music can sound to people without them noticing. Biggest offender, distorted bass.
Without trying to brag, I am and hang with some serious musicians. I have been in studios across the country, and attended Berklee in Boston. In general, I would say that its not that musicians don't hear what you are talking about, but rather can hear "through" the imperfections of whatever sound system and hear what the music is about. I can't tell you how many times I have been with musicians who literally can tell you how to EQ a room just by standing in it for a minute. These are the kind of musicians I am talking about.
I am painting a broad stroke. Obviously, I can't speak for everyone. But, I am talking about the audio and musical industries, which I know pretty well.
The hearing "through" was what I was saying. That was what I DID say. When they do that, something that they can't seem to help, they don't notice many things that others often do notice.
There have been a few musicians who, in my experience, can do that. But they have all been involved in engineering their own, and others sessions. Most others aren't even interested. They just want it to sound "right", often giving in to the producer.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
You folks are being a little picky. In the scheme of things, 128 AAC certainly "rivals" CD quality. The term 'rival' is used to mean "close but not as good." The vast majority of people don't notice much difference or at least aren't bothered by it. I know a lot of people in music - I'm an amateur jazz musician - and I don't know a single one who gives a crap about the difference between 128 AAC and ALC or CD quality.
Sure, there's a difference, and anyone can hear it if they compare. But it's just not that big of a deal to most people, including, in my experience, people who have probably the most sophisticated knowledge and musical abilities of anyone in the world. The only people who seem to care are the self-professed "audiophiles."
Yup. Musicians are not the best people to ask about audio quality. They fill in what isn't there, because they are interested in the music and the performance.
Whenever I read an interview in Stereophile with a musician, composer, or conductor, they ask about their music system. The usual response is that their manager got them something, and it seems fine.
The best one was with, I think, Chet Atkins. His music system was a table radio that someone soldered a phono input to. He played his lp's through that (without phono equalization!!!). He also pluged his guitar into it. He thought it was a great "system"!
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Unless you have a really good HiFi system, I HIGHLY doubt you'd hear a difference in CD Quality and 128kbps AAC. I think that a lot of people THINK they hear a difference, but its all in their head. I certainly don't hear a difference, and I bet that most of you all that say you CAN hear a difference, if you were put to the test, you wouldn't be able to tell. Whoever said, "AAC is lousy" is totally ridiculous!!!!!!!
That's mostly true. It depends on the high frequency information. That's where the problems lie. If there is strong hi freq in the music, there will be a problem. If not, it may sound fine.
We did a test in my audio group a few years ago with mp3. When it got to 256k, no one could hear a difference.
I can hear a difference on my equipment, but not on all tracks. Still, I haven't bought any compressed music, and I don't intend to, even though my wife does. But, she only listens on her computer.
If Apple does sell lossless, and doesn't charge more, I will buy some.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
There was a show on television that dealt with the same thing. People that were obsessed with Gourmet food, only the best! Then their friends took them out to eat and they were served TV dinners on fancy plates, and they thought it was the greatest thing in the world, because they were TOLD it was the greatest thing in the world. Only one guy was able to tell, everyone else was fooled.
That, I find very hard to believe. My wife and I cook a lot, and there is no way that we could ever be fooled by tv dinners.
Originally posted by palegolas
1 minute of audio:
Uncompressed 16 bit 44 KHz stereo = 10,2 MB
Apple Lossless = 6,7 MB
AAC 128 kbit = 1 MB
AAC 256 kbit = 2 MB (ta taa)
AAC 512 kbit = 4 MB? (eh...)
I think the bottleneck of today's poor digital audio quality is the 16 bit 44 KHz. Offering downloads in CD quality will not create a revolution, it will just sound exactly like a damn CD, which is far from as good as it could be.
It would be much better to make a next generation compressed audio format based around a higher resolution audio. And make it possible for people with high quality needs to play back the songs in higher quality.. like 24 bit 96 KHz. A compressed format that could be based on AAC but offer up to 24 bit 96 KHz high quality sound. Playback quality could be scalable and in synch with the listener's audio card/equipment. On an iPod in battery savings mode it could play normal 16 bit 44KHz. On an iPod in "better audio quality mode" it could play 24 bit 44KHz... something like that.
I think the Apple Lossless format is just a preparation for a model where it'll be possible for Apple to introduce higher audio quality dynamically. The files will then be encrypted and compressed on the fly into AAC format.
There's no need for 24 96. That's far more a marketing move than anything in the real world. Going to 20 48 is all that's needed. Even that isn't sure.
There isn't any equipment on the market now, or will be in the forseeable future that can play 24 96. 24 bits is a dynamic range of 140db. 96 is a freq. range up to 45KHz. No electronics has a noise or dynamic range even close to that, and no speakers can reproduce hi freq close to that, even if we could hear it.
Originally posted by JayCr
It is I feel important to note that just because compression is used that does not mean that there is a reduction in quality if you're careful and put quality before file size. Most DVD's are a good example of this
As far as I know, there is no lossless codec for DVD-Video. They typically use AC-3, which is lossy.
However, roll forward a few months and Apple hopefully launches the Mac Mini home entertainment server, targetted at people who listen to music at home. In this instance Apple is targetting people who probably have a decent HiFi system and want a sound quality the same as or better than CD quality. These people are more interested in sound quality and can notice the current difference.
Imagine it: Mac Mini HES + iTunes Lossless + Broadband + Decent HiFi/Speakers = No more trips to the record store
But I don't understand the attraction of Apple Lossless on the iTunes Music Store ? it's going to take ten times longer to download, it's going to be DRM'd and Apple won't be able to charge a premium for it.
I can just pick up the CD for the same price as an AAC download the next time I'm in Tescos, use the Lossless codec and I won't have to worry about fannying around with the DRM.
I don't get it..?
Originally posted by melgross
There's no need for 24 96. That's far more a marketing move than anything in the real world. Going to 20 48 is all that's needed. Even that isn't sure.
There isn't any equipment on the market now, or will be in the forseeable future that can play 24 96. 24 bits is a dynamic range of 140db. 96 is a freq. range up to 45KHz. No electronics has a noise or dynamic range even close to that, and no speakers can reproduce hi freq close to that, even if we could hear it.
Oops. This is crap I'm afraid. There is a very clear and audible difference between CD at 41/16 bit and audio at 24/48. There is also a clear, though not huge, difference between 24/48 and 24/96. Its not really to do with the theoretical bandwidth or dynamic range but transient timing and converter headroom.
Every session I work on now is recorded at at least 24/96.
All Hollywood orchestral sessions are recorded at 24/192.
The Apple move will allow producers in the future to encode their 24/96 masters to Apple Lossless providing iTunes tracks that EXCEED 'CD quality'
Originally posted by shetline
This is disappointing to hear -- not for the future, but for the past. I had hoped that Apple had been archiving everything in its collection losslessly all along from the start (not necessarily in Apple Lossless format per se), so that at any given time they could choose to take advantage of higher bit rates and/or improved codecs.
AFAIK Apple doesn't have all the music on their own servers.
Every single Danish piece of music is hosted by a Danish company that also has the music in WMA for the MS driven stores.
The music is stored in AAC, WMA and MP3.
As others have pointed out, Apple Lossless is just that. It is an exact reproduction of the audio on your CD. I re-ripped my entire catalog in Lossless and it made a huge difference.
Perhaps this is a way for the labels to charge a higher price, which they have been clamoring for. 99 cents for the AAC, and whatever for lossless.
Originally posted by Shaun, UK
There is a wider issue here. So far iTunes has been targetted at people who download songs to listen to on their iPod, because Apple wants to sell as many highly profitable iPods as possible. For these people CD quality sound is less important.
However, roll forward a few months and Apple hopefully launches the Mac Mini home entertainment server, targetted at people who listen to music at home. In this instance Apple is targetting people who probably have a decent HiFi system and want a sound quality the same as or better than CD quality. These people are more interested in sound quality and can notice the current difference.
Imagine it: Mac Mini HES + iTunes Lossless + Broadband + Decent HiFi/Speakers = No more trips to the record store
Bingo! Match product to function. The low res TV shows and decent mp3's were always meant to be mobile formats. I don't know how much market research has been done one the percentage of people who just watch and listen on their desktops, but I bet there are more people doing it than Steve anticipated. Putting FrontRow on laptops means that lots of people use them as their media device ... I do. But it I could have a relatively inexpensive system/box that held all of my music lossless (with the dual role of being one more backup on my 100's of dollars of bought music), AND I could take it off and squeeze it into my iPod in AAC form, I could have my cake and eat it too. It seems that Apple with Airport Extreme has been perfecting the real time translation of files to different formats (scalable and efficient) that makes the whole thing transparent.
I assumed that the H264(?) format was to do this for all things video. In that way you could have hi res stuff on a box, by the TV, but also sync it with lower res for the laptop, video iPod or cellphone seemlessly during an iSync process.
The box becomes a media storage and delivery device, not necessarily the home server some people have anticipated.
Originally posted by mrhatken
I don't think Apple is going to give us lossless (for the reason mentioned above - CD burning) and because it would not be in their best business interest.
They are going to charge more for higher encode rates as time goes by. It's how they can justify increasing the price etc.
Cheers,
Ashley.
That's the big question for me-- how much more for a lossless dl than 128KB?
If lossless goes for $2 a track for "premium" quality (and this doesn't seem impossible to me, given the the pricing of very low quality video at the iTMS, and the possibility of Apple wanting a "spread" for several bit rates) then that works out to about a $10 premium over CD.
Wouldn't that be a bitch? We get trained to accept inferior dl quality at a price point, and by the time we are "allowed" to get CD quality that's been around for the last 20 years we have to pay extra for exciting "new" fidelity.
Originally posted by Chucker
As far as I know, there is no lossless codec for DVD-Video. They typically use AC-3, which is lossy.
Your right, content encoded for DVD would not be considered lossless although because usually It's encoded so professionally, quality issues are usually minimal.
Originally posted by melgross
Yup. Musicians are not the best people to ask about audio quality. They fill in what isn't there, because they are interested in the music and the performance.
Whenever I read an interview in Stereophile with a musician, composer, or conductor, they ask about their music system. The usual response is that their manager got them something, and it seems fine.
The best one was with, I think, Chet Atkins. His music system was a table radio that someone soldered a phono input to. He played his lp's through that (without phono equalization!!!). He also pluged his guitar into it. He thought it was a great "system"!
You must hang out with different musicians than I do.
Originally posted by vinney57
Oops. This is crap I'm afraid. There is a very clear and audible difference between CD at 41/16 bit and audio at 24/48. There is also a clear, though not huge, difference between 24/48 and 24/96. Its not really to do with the theoretical bandwidth or dynamic range but transient timing and converter headroom.
Every session I work on now is recorded at at least 24/96.
All Hollywood orchestral sessions are recorded at 24/192.
The Apple move will allow producers in the future to encode their 24/96 masters to Apple Lossless providing iTunes tracks that EXCEED 'CD quality'
No, there isn't. What you don't appreciate, and what most people don't seem to be aware of, is that there is a long way between 44/16, and 96/24. What is being heard is the difference between 44/16 and 48/20. Past that there is no tangible benefit. But you don't know that, because you haven't been fortunate enough to have heard the various rates. There has been more than a bit of experimentation in the industry with this. And I agree with John Eargle that anything beyond 48/20 is a waste of resources. Also, most recordings that are supposedly 96/24 have been edited at 48/24, then brought back up to 96/24 for the pressings.
That's one reason why most of us with very expensive systems, even those of us involved in the industry (I designed speakers and electronics for my company, and worked on live recordings), find little of merit in either SACD and DVD Audio. Those products are very much hit or miss. Some sound slightly better, but many do not. Some even sound worse.
It seems that much of the difference is in the care lavished on the recording, mastering, and even the pressing. More so than the higher rates themselves.
Originally posted by blue2kdave
You must hang out with different musicians than I do.
Not really. Musicians like to think they can tell, but they are no better than anyone else, even worse.
Barbara Cook used to do advertisements for my company. A very lovely lady, and an excellent performer, but as a critical listener, no better than anyone else.
This is a pretty well known thing, also a bit of a joke in the indusrty.
There are two types of listeners.
The first type are what we call music lovers. Those listen through the equipment to the music.
Then we have the audio people. Those listen through the music to the equipment.
I try to put both hats on at different times. Musicians find it difficult to don the latter.
Originally posted by melgross
Not really. Musicians like to think they can tell, but they are no better than anyone else, even worse.
Barbara Cook used to do advertisements for my company. A very lovely lady, and an excellent performer, but as a critical listener, no better than anyone else.
This is a pretty well known thing, also a bit of a joke in the indusrty.
There are two types of listeners.
The first type are what we call music lovers. Those listen through the equipment to the music.
Then we have the audio people. Those listen through the music to the equipment.
I try to put both hats on at different times. Musicians find it difficult to don the latter.
I guess what I am saying is that you are painting a pretty broad stroke. In my experience, I am constantly amazed at often the average person gets things very wrong in audio. (a friend with a high end system was mortified when I pointed out that his system was set to mono). And I'm not sure what industry you're referring to, but Ad agency people were the absolute worst for hearing things from my perspective. But in general I am astonished at how terribly music can sound to people without them noticing. Biggest offender, distorted bass.
Without trying to brag, I am and hang with some serious musicians. I have been in studios across the country, and attended Berklee in Boston. In general, I would say that its not that musicians don't hear what you are talking about, but rather can hear "through" the imperfections of whatever sound system and hear what the music is about. I can't tell you how many times I have been with musicians who literally can tell you how to EQ a room just by standing in it for a minute. These are the kind of musicians I am talking about.
Originally posted by blue2kdave
I guess what I am saying is that you are painting a pretty broad stroke. In my experience, I am constantly amazed at often the average person gets things very wrong in audio. (a friend with a high end system was mortified when I pointed out that his system was set to mono). And I'm not sure what industry you're referring to, but Ad agency people were the absolute worst for hearing things from my perspective. But in general I am astonished at how terribly music can sound to people without them noticing. Biggest offender, distorted bass.
Without trying to brag, I am and hang with some serious musicians. I have been in studios across the country, and attended Berklee in Boston. In general, I would say that its not that musicians don't hear what you are talking about, but rather can hear "through" the imperfections of whatever sound system and hear what the music is about. I can't tell you how many times I have been with musicians who literally can tell you how to EQ a room just by standing in it for a minute. These are the kind of musicians I am talking about.
I am painting a broad stroke. Obviously, I can't speak for everyone. But, I am talking about the audio and musical industries, which I know pretty well.
The hearing "through" was what I was saying. That was what I DID say. When they do that, something that they can't seem to help, they don't notice many things that others often do notice.
There have been a few musicians who, in my experience, can do that. But they have all been involved in engineering their own, and others sessions. Most others aren't even interested. They just want it to sound "right", often giving in to the producer.