daemon d Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 We’ve had monumental amounts of discussion over the years regarding quality of audio, compression and loudness wars comes to mind, but so do things like the 1980’s low frequency deficit, rise in availability of low bit rate lossy formats, second rate remaster releases with good quality original mastering falling off the available lists etc. I’m not talking about inherent medium deficits like any perceived advantage of SACD or high res digital over red hat, a good high fidelity recording in any format is still recognisably a high fidelity, high quality recording. What seems clear is that the music industry at all its stages, sometimes even at the level of the artists, is not trustworthy to guarantee high fidelity music, and there is little or no real meaningful pressure that can be brought to bear to affect this attitude. Given the success of programs like the Heart Foundation Tick, the Australian Woolmark, the Buy Australian triangle and similar, I’m wondering if Audiophiles could organise themselves to apply this method. I’m not suggesting that all of these examples are well managed or reliable, but they are an effective marketing technique. For instance, what if the 6 top non-profit 2 channel audio forums were selected from a spread of countries, then from these forums, two moderator level respected members were chosen. This body is then authorised to distribute an ‘Audiophile Hi Fi Mark’ of audio quality, that a music label is allowed to use in marketing a particular recording. The Mark of Approval would only guarantee that the sound quality and mastering have no large flaws, and not relate to stylistic nuances or the fact that the music itself may not be to someone’s taste, ie it would certify fidelity, not musicality. It would also be important to keep the selection to a representative, unbiased, non-profit group, and keep the fees to use the mark to minimum, ie a nominal few dollars to cover administration only. A number of these schemes turn bad when profiteering on the use of the mark takes priority over the goal of issuing the mark to start with. Examples of this may include the Heart Tick and the Organic Produce Certification. Initially, uptake would be slow, as it was for all such schemes, but over time it would take on a life of its own, especially if the audio community made noise about it, and become a sort after thing. At this point, we have a viable means to bring pressure on the audio industry to lift their game. Is this a workable idea? How do we start? 3
Jventer Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 I personally believe that any idea to promote good quality music is good. I like the idea of giving music a Mark of Approval.
kdoot Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Interesting. You'd need some motivated, capable, credible volunteers to drive it. Probably somebody with high visibility to sponsor/promote it, but not somebody with too much of a partisan interest which would get other labels or distributors or producers offside.
davewantsmoore Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 It's a very noble cause... I'm not sure we can standardise the recording process too much .... it's an art remember. It's pretty shabby that movie loudness has been standardised for nearly 50 years ... and audio is only just making an attempt now, but it remains to be seen if R128 will be adopted in a way which actually helps regarding the DR/loudness of recorded music. http://www.pleasurizemusic.com/en/timetable-strategy seems to have failed.... which is unfortunate, as I think this is the best way (a "DR number", and then the consumer is educated to decide if that is "good"). .... otherwise we end up with a "me too" standard ("compliance" stickers on a CD) .... or a "punishment", where some type of "non-compliance" sticker (nobody in the industry would agree to this). The "me too, compliance" idea will turn into the "punish non-compliance" standard if it is well adopted/followed. It's not a trivial thing, because DR measurements require a complex decision to decide what is "good".
daemon d Posted May 27, 2013 Author Posted May 27, 2013 It does come down to opinion if you take it to fine points, but we all know a dud when we hear it. Even I, with little technical knowledge of audio, know that the Californication CD was really poor, and the Hotel California album was weird in the bass. Surely a respected set of persons could review to a 'good enough' standard, and there are guys on this forum who can demonstrate compression levels on various masters with software tools. If we left it at, "it's all creative choice and subjective opinion", we'd have what we have now, where a large percentage of mass market CDs are on the piss poor side of middlin'.
bzr Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 I agree, but to reach what is acceptable & what isn't you'll always have the "yeah but it's a classic" or "I lost my virginity to that" etc, the real meaning behind my statement is that music is at it's best when we relate to it on an emotional level & when they are involved it gets sticky! I definitely want it "& think the idea has merit, but alas I haven't the patience for it.
LogicprObe Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Good idea but some music wouldn't sound the same if it wasn't heavily compressed. 2
davewantsmoore Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Surely a respected set of persons could review to a 'good enough' standard, and there are guys on this forum who can demonstrate compression levels on various masters with software tools. If we left it at, "it's all creative choice and subjective opinion", we'd have what we have now, where a large percentage of mass market CDs are on the piss poor side of middlin'. This is an interesting discussion, and something I have been touching on very slightly in the "biggest lies in audio" thread .... From my perspective: The recording process is an artform.... and there is really no right or wrong answer. Californication was only a "mistake" if they didn't mean for it to turn out that way. Playback systems are not "art". They shouldn't be tweaked to sound "different" ... they should be made to deliver what is in the recording. The problem seems to me that a lot of us seem to want to approach it in the reverse. They want the recording artists to conform to some "standard".... and then let us tune our playback systems so things sound "good". Given the nature of the two things, this seems very strange to me. Obviously the excuse is that standardising playback systems is difficult ... and building systems to meet a standard is arduous ... and average-joe music consumer at home, wants none of that. Stalemate? 1
LogicprObe Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Speaking of 'art'...............Just reading Art Dudley's 'Listening' column in Stereophile and was nodding with agreement throughout it. Here is the article. http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-124
ellrotts Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 Great idea untill audiophiles get a hold of it, distort it with their opinions and make biased assessments to bignote themselves over the next pair of ears listening to it.
Newman Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Speaking of 'art'...............Just reading Art Dudley's 'Listening' column in Stereophile and was nodding with agreement throughout it. Here is the article. http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-124 There was some interesting SNA discussion of it here, posts #19 to #26. 1
Newman Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Californication was only a "mistake" if they didn't mean for it to turn out that way. That's right. Audiophiles don't always seem to realise that the production values that make a good sound on a high-quality audio system, do not make an appealing sound on radio, and cars, and in general for the mass audience that makes the bucks for the artists and the production houses. Californication sold big, and it was not despite the production values, it was because it sounded good to the mass audience that bought it. Playback systems are not "art". They shouldn't be tweaked to sound "different" ... they should be made to deliver what is in the recording. +1. Although, if different people like different bass levels, as seems to be shown by the research, then it makes sense for the playback system to have some bass adjustability or tone control if that's what you like to call it. 2
Newman Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Back to the original topic…… …..Given the success of programs like the Heart Foundation Tick, the Australian Woolmark, the Buy Australian triangle and similar, I’m wondering if Audiophiles could organise themselves to apply this method. I’m not suggesting that all of these examples are well managed or reliable, but they are an effective marketing technique. Personal health and national solidarity are topics that have widespread mainstream support. I think that is key to the success of these examples. Audio quality is not a topic that has widespread support, unfortunately. What exactly is the commercial incentive that would drive the music production companies to put this mark of quality on their product? I can't see much value to them in sales volumes, given the low importance of audio quality to the mainstream music audience. For instance, what if the 6 top non-profit 2 channel audio forums were selected from a spread of countries, then from these forums, two moderator level respected members were chosen. This body is then authorised to distribute an ‘Audiophile Hi Fi Mark’ of audio quality, that a music label is allowed to use in marketing a particular recording. Jeez, 2 channel? Starting at the bottom, are we? The Mark of Approval would only guarantee that the sound quality and mastering have no large flaws, and not relate to stylistic nuances or the fact that the music itself may not be to someone’s taste, ie it would certify fidelity, not musicality. ummmmm, we might be able to work through this issue, but there is a big issue here in the word Fidelity, because the question arises fidelity to what? As an artist, a musician is entitled to make music of any type of dynamic range or loudness or quietness or whatever they want. I mean, if you look at the acoustical musical forms such as classical and jazz, there is not much of an issue here. Not every single recording is high quality, I mean recent recordings, but the vast majority actually are. All the grizzling and groaning on the audio forums is really for the popular, rock, blues, musical recordings that are primarily an artefact of a production approach. There is no pure original to have Fidelity to. Is this a workable idea? How do we start? I don't think it is. I want to support the notion, but if we're talking about pop and rock music productions here, and the basic tradeoff between quality for the masses and quality for the audio lover, industry will not support something that does not have a sales return, and especially not something that would expose a contradiction and potentially affect sales to the volume market.
Satanica Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 I don't think it is. I want to support the notion, but if we're talking about pop and rock music productions here, and the basic tradeoff between quality for the masses and quality for the audio lover, industry will not support something that does not have a sales return, and especially not something that would expose a contradiction and potentially affect sales to the volume market. Yeah but how hard is it to produce a "natural version" (download only) as well as the "unnatural version" (Compact Disc) for mass produced rock/pop music I wonder? No need for physical media, make the "natural version" as download only. This would seem like a very small amount of effort. It's happening somewhat on HD Tracks now with the latest Muse and Deftones albums as examples: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=Muse&search_album=The+2nd http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=deftones&search_album=Koi 1
daemon d Posted May 28, 2013 Author Posted May 28, 2013 The sales of compressed pop / rock isn't because they sound better that way, it's based on a psychoacoustic phenomena. These may be some labels that will release that way no matter what, they just wouldn't get a hi-fi mark approval. Personally, I think that it would be like the heart tick; people would eventually gravitate towards the certified goodness, even if it doesn't taste immediately as good as the fat and sugar mix of the competition. If people wanted to make compressed god awful recordings for artistic reasons, that's they're right, they just sacrifice the right to have a hi fi mark; art requires sacrifice, everyone knows that But, dodgy mastering is usually not art, it's usually just a lack of knowledge or ability, or a deliberate play on the psychoacoustic loudness effect, which only operates at the shop floor level and is thus on the way to being obsolete now anyway.
davewantsmoore Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Personally, I think that it would be like the heart tick; Yes, but the heart tick is very carefully standardised. How will the artists know what boundaries their art needs to fall inside to be considered okay? I have no problem shaming bad records (which is what a mark of approval standard turns into once most people comply) .... but it's unfair to have a moving or subjective target. I think a potential solution would be to print DR numbers on CDs. It's easy (well not impossible) to standardise, and mandate (like ingredients on food packages. Then let the consumer decide (or ignore) their relevance. isn't because they sound better that way Devils advocate could argue this is not necessarily true. A plastic $20 beach boom box probably sounds better with compressed dynamic recordings. ... the point (IMHO) is should recording artists be compensating for that?.... No, they shouldn't. If we had "standardised" playback systems .... A manufacturer of a $20 plastic beach boombox, would be able to know how far they were out WRT the "standard" .... and they would be free to put some type of compensation in their device to make the sound "better" (eg. add dynamic compression to audio). Chickens and eggs. Oh my.
Satanica Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 I think a potential solution would be to print DR numbers on CDs. It's easy (well not impossible) to standardise, and mandate (like ingredients on food packages. Then let the consumer decide (or ignore) their relevance. This sounds like a great idea to me. 2
davewantsmoore Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 This sounds like a great idea to me. http://www.pleasuriz...etable-strategy seems to have failed :-(
daemon d Posted May 28, 2013 Author Posted May 28, 2013 It's a doomed pipe dream. The miniscule number of people who've looked at this thread can't agree, so not likely to get any agreement on a wider scale.
davewantsmoore Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 miniscule number of people who've looked at this thread can't agree The industry has to agree.
Once was an audiophile Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Speaking of 'art'...............Just reading Art Dudley's 'Listening' column in Stereophile and was nodding with agreement throughout it. Here is the article. http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-124 I hope your neck recovered from nodding
LogicprObe Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 I hope your neck recovered from nodding It was a bit sore.............but luckily, I have plenty of Nurofen Plus!
daemon d Posted May 29, 2013 Author Posted May 29, 2013 I agree with allot that was said in that article, but most of the large diameter bass driver systems I've heard don't match the description. Most were very loose and woolly in the bass. This was a common speaker design in the late 70s and early 80s, and I was always under the impression that the industry moved away from it because getting a tight bass with good attack and decay was very difficult using very large drivers.
Recommended Posts