Is the recorded music industry still viable?

[John Dyson]

12 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

John, I don't question for a second the sincerity of your passion and beliefs. Perhaps your ears are very sensitive. However, IMO you exaggerate the situation considerably when you suggest that virtually all CD's today sound terrible. When you write that "...the vast majority, including HI-RES downloads are NOT good enough for a system that costs more than $500", IMO you lose your credibility. Of note, in your "rants" you rarely talk about the performance of an artist or musician.

 

I agree that most of the first CDs sounded terrible; the mastering was terrible. At the same time, most of the initial CD players on the market were incapable of producing good sound with ANY recording. Digital technology has advanced and the quality of CD playback equipment has improved tremendously over the years. To take just one example, the negative effect of jitter was virtually an unknown quantity for years. With better playback capability, many producers have created recordings that are mastered to provide vastly superior sound quality to those initially foisted on the public.

 

Every serious listener knows that the sound of live music cannot be reproduced in a home stereo system. But there are many recordings that get satisfyingly close. And there are many more that provide true musical enjoyment because they capture the essence of both the musical performance and the unique talent of the artist. One must nevertheless be selective, especially with remastered "hi res" releases.

 

I don't doubt that recordings can be improved and I admire your efforts regarding Dolby A compression. However, the "loudness wars" aside, IMO things are not nearly as bad as you proclaim. I sincerely doubt that this site would attract so many members if they shared your gloomy outlook. I also doubt that there is more than a niche market for recreating the catalogues of the major labels.

 

I have a bifurcated way of listening -- as an audiophile, the sound of CDs generally suck badly.  As a casual listener, who cares if the Cds are a little better than good FM radio?

So, as an audiophile, I have intolerance for garbage.  Anyone who spends more than a few $1k should be looking as much at the source material as the equipment quality.

 

Maybe I am talking more about the total absurdity of spending lots of money on equipment for better sound and precision, yet being satsified with the messed up CDs (relative to what they should sound.)  Think about it....

 

One of my ideas - is that one reason why vinyl hangs on comes originally from the continually mismastered CDs?

 

John

 

[Allan F]

21 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

So, as an audiophile, I have intolerance for garbage.  Anyone who spends more than a few $1k should be looking as much at the source material as the equipment quality.

 

Is it possible that perhaps you have become so obsessed with one aspect of CD sound that you are unable to "hear" the forest for the trees?

[John Dyson]

42 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Is it possible that perhaps you have become so obsessed with one aspect of CD sound that you are unable to "hear" the forest for the trees?

I don't think that I have an obscesision about the sound -- I still casually listen.  It has been a technical curiousity, and my general historical nature of problem solving and being VERY successful at doing that.  (Esp EE and software design problem solving.)

 

I see futile obscessions when systems are being upgraded to get that 'good' sound, when it can never be achieved without the 'good' source material.

 

The CD signal processing is tantamount to errors equivalent to 10% distortion -- even though it isn't harmonic distortion, the errors start at about 10-20dB down, therefore roughly equivalent to 10% relative signal errors.

Now, why worry about 0.01% electronic distortion?   I'd guess that the 10% signal errors on CD aren't far away in audibility from 1-2% of non-ugly forms of harmonic distortion.   Also, there is the several dB relative errors in the midrange and the swishy high end that ANYONE can hear, that is if they know what a live recording sounds like. (I mean, before being NR or signal processed.)

 

This isn't really about 'me' per-se, it is the relative futility there is in spending over $1k-$2k in equipment, when the source material  has far greater relative errors.

 

This is mostly the engineer in me -- not so much audiophile.  I still enjoy very casual listening to CDs, but wouldn't bother purchasing more than mildly expensive equipment to improve the sound.  All but the very highest caliber CDs are already very damaged, but not beyond repair.   Those highest caliber CDs almost do not exist in the POP space, and the damaged CDs do exist in the classical and jazz space.

 

John

 

[Rexp]

8 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I don't think that I have an obscesision about the sound -- I still casually listen.  It has been a technical curiousity, and my general historical nature of problem solving and being VERY successful at doing that.  (Esp EE and software design problem solving.)

 

I see futile obscessions when systems are being upgraded to get that 'good' sound, when it can never be achieved without the 'good' source material.

 

The CD signal processing is tantamount to errors equivalent to 10% distortion -- even though it isn't harmonic distortion, the errors start at about 10-20dB down, therefore roughly equivalent to 10% relative signal errors.

Now, why worry about 0.01% electronic distortion?   I'd guess that the 10% signal errors on CD aren't far away in audibility from 1-2% of non-ugly forms of harmonic distortion.   Also, there is the several dB relative errors in the midrange and the swishy high end that ANYONE can hear, that is if they know what a live recording sounds like. (I mean, before being NR or signal processed.)

 

This isn't really about 'me' per-se, it is the relative futility there is in spending over $1k-$2k in equipment, when the source material  has far greater relative errors.

 

This is mostly the engineer in me -- not so much audiophile.  I still enjoy very casual listening to CDs, but wouldn't bother purchasing more than mildly expensive equipment to improve the sound.  All but the very highest caliber CDs are already very damaged, but not beyond repair.   Those highest caliber CDs almost do not exist in the POP space, and the damaged CDs do exist in the classical and jazz space.

 

John

 

Do files ripped from CD's have the same distortion? 

[MetalNuts]

On 3/15/2020 at 12:02 AM, Allan F said:

I agree that the first CDs sounded terrible; the mastering was terrible. At the same time, most of the initial CD players on the market were incapable of producing good sound with ANY recording.

 

This is true.  The same CDs I have bought 30 years ago sound differently nowadays because of the improvement of players and DACs.

[Rexp]

3 hours ago, MetalNuts said:

 

This is true.  The same CDs I have bought 30 years ago sound differently nowadays because of the improvement of players and DACs.

Yes, do you prefer CD or ripped CD playback? 

[MetalNuts]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

Yes, do you prefer CD or ripped CD playback? 

 

I ripped my newly bought CDs into files and from then on I do not spin those CDs anymore.  They are left in boxes  to oxidize.🤣

[John Dyson]

9 hours ago, MetalNuts said:

 

This is true.  The same CDs I have bought 30 years ago sound differently nowadays because of the improvement of players and DACs.

Note that there is also the syndrome of naturally accomodating the mis-mastering of early CDs.   If  you buy a CD nowadays vs. back then, it will sound very close to the same -- unless the mastering is different.  The old HW wasn't fully up to snuff, but wasn't the primary cause for the material sounding different from vinyl.  I have heard recordings made using old digital converters and video tape decks, those results can sound pretty good.   As soon as the screwed up mastering process gets involved, then we have that 'digital sound' that harkens back to the '80s.

When I do my comparisons, and I do them almost all day and all of the time -- the biggest problem other than proper ear hygiene is listening too long to the mismastered material.  The 'woody' vocals, the swishy hiighs (high hats that swish excessively), that 'springy' sound -- that isn't digital sound, that is mismastering sound.   Especially irritating, if one isn't accomodated to it -- the woody vocals.  The first thing that I want to do with the typical material as sold on digital media -- turn down the volume.   I have to do it because the frequency response balance is screwed up and over-emphasizes the midrange where hearing is pretty sensitive, and the super highs where the 'springy' sound comes from.

 

In addition to the frequency spectral imbalance, the bass is weirdly distorted (when there is true bass), and the stereo image gets a bit of a hole in it somewhere between the hard right/hard left and the 45degree point from hard right/hard left.  When you compare with properly mastered material, that hole is automagically filled in.

 

For pop material, there is VERY LITTLE that isn't missmastered since digital (CDs) came out.  I have heard some MFSL stuff that was properly mastered -- so IT CAN EXIST, but it doesn't generally exist on j-random CD.  Sadly, I have also been fooled into thinking that super-well ripped vinyl sounded like a CD to me, because it also was mismastered.  I don't think that happened much until relatively recently.

 

I consider it to be very special when I can find someone who will rip sections of ORIGINAL vinyl from before the '80s -- it makes good reference material, because there is so little reliable material anymore.  And NO, I don't like the vinyl sound, but I do like the fact that some vinyl is definitely mastered normally -- and gives a good reference for when trying to correct the mismastering.

 

John

 

[Rexp]

13 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Note that there is also the syndrome of naturally accomodating the mis-mastering of early CDs.   If  you buy a CD nowadays vs. back then, it will sound very close to the same -- unless the mastering is different.  The old HW wasn't fully up to snuff, but wasn't the primary cause for the material sounding different from vinyl.  I have heard recordings made using old digital converters and video tape decks, those results can sound pretty good.   As soon as the screwed up mastering process gets involved, then we have that 'digital sound' that harkens back to the '80s.

When I do my comparisons, and I do them almost all day and all of the time -- the biggest problem other than proper ear hygiene is listening too long to the mismastered material.  The 'woody' vocals, the swishy hiighs (high hats that swish excessively), that 'springy' sound -- that isn't digital sound, that is mismastering sound.   Especially irritating, if one isn't accomodated to it -- the woody vocals.  The first thing that I want to do with the typical material as sold on digital media -- turn down the volume.   I have to do it because the frequency response balance is screwed up and over-emphasizes the midrange where hearing is pretty sensitive, and the super highs where the 'springy' sound comes from.

 

In addition to the frequency spectral imbalance, the bass is weirdly distorted (when there is true bass), and the stereo image gets a bit of a hole in it somewhere between the hard right/hard left and the 45degree point from hard right/hard left.  When you compare with properly mastered material, that hole is automagically filled in.

 

For pop material, there is VERY LITTLE that isn't missmastered since digital (CDs) came out.  I have heard some MFSL stuff that was properly mastered -- so IT CAN EXIST, but it doesn't generally exist on j-random CD.  Sadly, I have also been fooled into thinking that super-well ripped vinyl sounded like a CD to me, because it also was mismastered.  I don't think that happened much until relatively recently.

 

I consider it to be very special when I can find someone who will rip sections of ORIGINAL vinyl from before the '80s -- it makes good reference material, because there is so little reliable material anymore.  And NO, I don't like the vinyl sound, but I do like the fact that some vinyl is definitely mastered normally -- and gives a good reference for when trying to correct the mismastering.

 

John

 

Maybe start a new thread on Why CD Sucks

[John Dyson]

15 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Maybe start a new thread on Why CD Sucks

Perhaps, more that there is a real business opportunity - even if the volumes aren't super high, it isn't like tooling costs are needed anymore.  So, all the cost is remastering and a distribution mechanism.   Basically, HDtracks could take their catalog, do a proper remaster on the material, and sell truly superior product.   Eventually, the market would follow -- there are lots of frustrated audiophiles spending megabucks on their systems, mostly improving the sound in the margins.  There ARE megabucks sitting out there in the over 30 crowd -- they are frustratedly spending money in the only place where they can find ANY improvement (however relatively marginal.)

 

Even though, superficially it seems like it is off topic, I am claiming that if someone does the proper mastering rework, there is a viable business.   I think that HDtracks is missing the mark.

 

The music business in general could get a shot in the arm (however small) by simple improvement in quality.  Maybe a two layered product -- the existing messy loudness wars/bad mastering version for car radios and cheap ear-buds, and a high quality version for real listening.

 

John

 

[Rexp]

46 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Perhaps, more that there is a real business opportunity - even if the volumes aren't super high, it isn't like tooling costs are needed anymore.  So, all the cost is remastering and a distribution mechanism.   Basically, HDtracks could take their catalog, do a proper remaster on the material, and sell truly superior product.   Eventually, the market would follow -- there are lots of frustrated audiophiles spending megabucks on their systems, mostly improving the sound in the margins.  There ARE megabucks sitting out there in the over 30 crowd -- they are frustratedly spending money in the only place where they can find ANY improvement (however relatively marginal.)

 

Even though, superficially it seems like it is off topic, I am claiming that if someone does the proper mastering rework, there is a viable business.   I think that HDtracks is missing the mark.

 

The music business in general could get a shot in the arm (however small) by simple improvement in quality.  Maybe a two layered product -- the existing messy loudness wars/bad mastering version for car radios and cheap ear-buds, and a high quality version for real listening.

 

John

 

While I agree the majority of digital mastering is diabolical, most members on this site seem quite happy so hard to see any appetite for major change. 

[John Dyson]

25 minutes ago, Rexp said:

While I agree the majority of digital mastering is diabolical, most members on this site seem quite happy so hard to see any appetite for major change. 

Knowledge is power.  People really haven't realized that they were 'sold inferior product'.   The better sounding stuff really does sound better -- and people DO pay for the properly made MFSL remasters.   There should be no reason to have to go to MFSL -- the material and signals are all there for the distributors to process.

 

* peoples hearing have gotten used to the woody sounding, swishy, bad stereo image cr*p.  It is a waste to spend $2k or more on a system, yet use 'Victrola' quality material :-).

 

The reason why I use ABBA, for example, isn't for marketing reasons -- I am not selling anything anyway.   I use ABBA because it is SO DIFFICULT to cleanly process.  If something can cleanly process ABBA -- it can process ANYTHING cleanly.

 

The good results on good material, like my 'Crime of the Century' blow everything else out of the water.  I suck badly at mastering, and my ham-handed proper rework can produce results on par with the best mastering engineers.   The difference is, the 'mastering engineers' are somehow coerced to produce that inferior product.

 

One real exception about quality are some good examples I have found on MFSL.  They tend to actually properly master their material -- at least, sometimes.

 

It still stands -- there IS a market for non-garbage, as-artist-intended recordings.

 

John

 

[Rexp]

Crime of the Century is one of those lp's that is a great test for vinyl systems, it sounds much better as the system improves Abba not so much. 

[John Dyson]

14 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Crime of the Century is one of those lp's that is a great test for vinyl systems, it sounds much better as the system improves Abba not so much. 

ABBA is usually mastered poorly.  With your permission, I can send you an URL of some interesting sounding ABBA... (Must do so privately as these are not restrained in length or quality in ANY way.)   Mind you, it IS ABBA, but with few of the normal unintended 'sound defects'.  Let me know, and it will appear in your mailbox poste haste.

PS: I do have to admit that the entries in the repository are only 16bits -- but I have space limitations.  I have 24bit versions at 88.2k, but there is really little difference.

 

I am actually doing a 'Crime' redo as this is being written.  The last time I did a 'Crime', it was several months ago with more immature software, and still was getting pretty much rave reviews.  The new version should be incrementally better.  I'll also let you know when 'Crime' is done.

 

John

 

[Richard Dale]

7 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Perhaps, more that there is a real business opportunity - even if the volumes aren't super high, it isn't like tooling costs are needed anymore.  So, all the cost is remastering and a distribution mechanism.   Basically, HDtracks could take their catalog, do a proper remaster on the material, and sell truly superior product.   Eventually, the market would follow -- there are lots of frustrated audiophiles spending megabucks on their systems, mostly improving the sound in the margins.  There ARE megabucks sitting out there in the over 30 crowd -- they are frustratedly spending money in the only place where they can find ANY improvement (however relatively marginal.)

 

Even though, superficially it seems like it is off topic, I am claiming that if someone does the proper mastering rework, there is a viable business.   I think that HDtracks is missing the mark.

 

The music business in general could get a shot in the arm (however small) by simple improvement in quality.  Maybe a two layered product -- the existing messy loudness wars/bad mastering version for car radios and cheap ear-buds, and a high quality version for real listening.

 

John

 

HDtracks don't own the rights to mastering the content they sell. They sell what the record labels give them.

[John Dyson]

4 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

HDtracks don't own the rights to mastering the content they sell. They sell what the record labels give them.

I wonder if they can process the material?  I do know that I was very disappointed a long time ago when I last bought something from them -- then I asked the 'guy behind the curtain.'   He said the same thing to me -- that they just sell what they are given.  That is ashamed.

 

John

 

[Allan F]

5 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I wonder if they can process the material?  I do know that I was very disappointed a long time ago when I last bought something from them -- then I asked the 'guy behind the curtain.'   He said the same thing to me -- that they just sell what they are given.  That is ashamed.

 

It's not complicated, John. HDtracks is a distributor, not a producer. 🙂

[John Dyson]

3 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

It's not complicated, John. They are a distributor, not a producer. 🙂

That is a statement of a fact, but what does it really mean?  Are they contracturally unable to complete the material, or must they continue to sell essentially incomplete works?   Is there something limiting them legally, or is it just a matter of their choice?

 

One can choose to continue to be mediocre, or maybe there is a disability somewhere (that is, a binding contract that they cannot change the recordings.)   The ONLY reason for my judgement is that I felt cheated at the time and tend to be laissez faire about those matters -- but ended up with good test material for my own, later purposes.

 

John

[Richard Dale]

3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I wonder if they can process the material?  I do know that I was very disappointed a long time ago when I last bought something from them -- then I asked the 'guy behind the curtain.'   He said the same thing to me -- that they just sell what they are given.  That is ashamed.

 

John

 

I think the whole idea of paying more for music delivered at a higher resolution is broken. And the business model of HDtracks depends on that. If you download an album from Bandcamp you can choose a high resolution, such as 24/96 if available, and that is just a personal preference. It costs the same as a lower resolution format.

[John Dyson]

Just now, Richard Dale said:

I think the whole idea of paying more for music delivered at a higher resolution is broken. And the business model of HDtracks depends on that. If you download an album from Bandcamp you can choose a high resolution, such as 24/96 if available, and that is just a personal preference. It costs the same as a lower resolution format.

Oh -- I agree about the 'resolution' thing, because it is mostly bogus.   Hi-res improperly mastered material is still improperly mastered.  Just being hi-res doesn't solve the fundamental problem.   What is the benefit of 'normally' (faulty) mastered high-res material?  More noise and tones above 20kHz.   (Really, it is amazing to look at that stuff on most pop hi-res that I have seen -- distortion splats, signal interference from communications devices, etc.)

This is why HDtracks should think about doing something that actually makes their product better.  Of course, it is none of my business, but when I realized what 'Hi-res' is in reality, I couldn't think of an honest business model -- it implies higher quality, but instead it is essentialy the SAME quality.

 

John