Perfect question for you.

[rockeratheart]

I had a lengthy conversation with a friend recently who is an educated musician, thinker, and otherwise scholarly individual. This began as a conversation about the music business in many facets, and ventured into the audiophile realm.

Our main topic was about the recording process. With major recordings, and I would argue a huge percentage of them, catering to mixing and mastering with mp3 downloads in mind, new "good" recordings are harder to find. Many articles have been written of interviews with musicians who are frustrated with the recording process and how it is becoming more common for nuances and stylings to be lost.

I'm wondering how long record companies are willing to pay for a recording that so few people will pay for when the "dollar download" market is the biggest.

I know many people here use old recordings, and download lossless formats, but honestly, new music, even lossless files, are going to be gone, IMO. Don't get me wrong, I'm sad to think that, but I do.

Thoughts?

Ben

 

[Lagonda]

I owned a commercial recording studio in Miami about 10 years ago. Got in to the business out of my love of music, and high end audio. I observed how the process of making music changed, from bands booking studio time and spending 2-6 weeks or more with professional mix engineers and producers into buying pro-tool computer setups and recording most tracks at home or in a garage!
The cheap digital recording setups have made it possible to make decent sound at a low cost. But once the tracks (often to many) have been laid down this way, no mastering studio can make it sound really good!! I understand that money once spent on recording one album can now finance the home studio for future use, but the finished product rarely sounds the way we audiophiles like it!
The best recording come from small niche labels like Linn, but these rarely have the budget to attract the most interesting artist, hence the many great recordings of boring music!! My advice is to purchase live recordings, and hope they were not messed up in production/mastering! The sad thing is that it will probably get worse, as labels loose major income to piracy , and are lees wiling to spend big money on the recording proccess.

 

[amey01]

It's a worry - it certainly is, but I do think it is a little early to predict yet.

We can only go on, supporting great recordings and great quality. If enough people support it, it will survive.

As for the mass market - they are fickle. Who knows whether 128K MP3 will be enough for them, or something else might happen.

I would like to think something like this will ensue:
* Storage will increase to make higher quality much more feasable;
* and the MP3 market will reach saturation;
* manufacturers will start to look for ways to re-sell to people what they already own;
* they will look for ways to differentiate that are easy to do on paper - bigger numbers on paper look impressive;
* Now's the catch - hopefully - bitrate/quality will be part of this. 96K looks more impressive than 44.1, doesn't it?

I can just see Apple in 5 years time -
* This new iPhone v15 supports 44.1K FLAC;
* This new iPhone v16 supports 48K FLAC;
* This new iPhone v17 supports 24/96;
* etc.

Interestingly enough, the BBC recently ran trials of higher quality on the Proms broadcasts (only 320k, but it's a start). The reception to this initiative was astronomical. (Just search for "proms bbc broadcast quality").

Note I haven't mentioned the record companies in all of this. I think (and hope) they will fade into insignificance. The reason for this has nothing to do with quality, but with what they produce [ie. what they choose to sign and subsequently record]. It is all mass-market, "flash-in-the-pan", generic rubbish. People are sick of it already (other than teenagers) and hence their slow demise. Add to that the fact that they've failed to meet market expectations on just so many levels.

So recording quality will be up to the artists - to perform themselves and record how they see fit, to best represent their work. That can only be a good thing, compared to a record company, who will only sign them if they are generic enough to sell millions, then make them sound even more generic before a studio session, then compress and make the resulting recording sound like every other!

So, in the final analysis - I hold hope. But who knows?

 

[rockeratheart]

I have been a part of several recordings, but don't know enough about what it takes to make a quality recording. I know it costs money, I know what you have to have done, just don't know how to do it. So I am curious if having music produced on a smaller level will still make recordings that have soundstage and image, etc. I also don't have a system that allows me to compare recordings well anyway. Just thinking. I know some turntable diehards who struggle finding good new music in record form. In one way or another, technology has already changed this business so much anyway. Just afraid of it happening in my time. My favorite genre, two guitars, bass, and drums straight ahead rock is pretty tough to find now. At least new stuff anyway. ho hum.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

ben

 

[amey01]

But once the tracks (often to many) have been laid down this way, no mastering studio can make it sound really good!!

I don't really see this as too different to what the large record companies produce - that is, generic, plastic-sounding, highly compressed, highly processed rubbish!

On the plus side - I think there are more artists that care about quality than there are record companies. So if we leave it up to the artists then that can only be a good thing - both artistically/musically and for SQ.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Just read a snippet from the recent Stereophile magazine.

Bottom line is that fewer and fewer people are actually "listening" to music as a dedicated activity. MP3, IPod, video games, you tube, cell phones, etc.

I think most people, and more as we go forward, will continue to see music as a "background" activity thereby diminishing an already niche market that takes music seriously.

I'm not at all optimistic about the future of high quality recorded music.

There's little or no commercial profit. And we all know what happens when that occurs.

However, I am glad that I listen mainly to jazz and classical. Seems those two genres seem to recognize that well produced music has value.

The dumbing down of our society continues.

GG

PS: I always wanted to be a dinosaur.

 

[amey01]

I understand your point here – yes, with so many entertainment options, music today is certainly only one of many.

But,

Bottom line is that fewer and fewer people are actually "listening" to music as a dedicated activity. MP3, IPod, video games, you tube, cell phones, etc.

This, I disagree with. It is the opposite. With the iPod, more people than ever are inviting music into their lives. It’s a fashion item - for music. It’s a mass-market appeal item - for music. It’s a popular teenager item – again – for music! More people today have iPods than had Walkmans in the ‘90s, ghetto blasters in the ‘80s, plastic record decks in the ‘70s.

And following – the iPod is also a device in which you tune out from other distractions, dedicating your attention to the music. Granted, some people still read or play with their cell phone while they’re listening, but that has always been the case. How many people actually sat down and dedicated their attention to a ghetto blaster?

We're a niche - always have been, always will be. But whenever there is something with mass-appeal, there will always be small niches that demand better. Same goes for cars, restaurants, etc.

Fine dining “foodies” aren’t ever going to eliminate McDonalds and turn every dining establishment into a “silver service” experience. But by the same token, they shouldn’t feel threatened that their fine-food hobby is going to go away, just because another popular fast-food establishment opens up.

But what’s significant in recorded music is this – “will the niche provide sufficient impetus for the whole?”. As per the above, I think [and hope], just maybe…..yes!

 

[MPS]

While the technology has made it possible to improve quality in low budget editing, storage and distribution chain the real issue remains in the recording process itself. Low budget studios can't have the finest microphones or mic-preamps or the selection of those necessary for the ultimate sound quality possible in the finest studios with their resources.
With music downloads and faster broadband connections increasing the future looks brighter and oddly enough leaders in digital playback systems are now home theaters equipped with HD audio, same group of ppl who hardly ever complained the reduced SQ of DD-audio are now the market target (lol!) for highest SQ in digital consumer audio.
Marketing can created the "need" for higher quality digital audio in the future but it will not be able to recover what was originally lost in the recording process.

 

[Rich]

I'm wondering how long record companies are willing to pay for a recording that so few people will pay for when the "dollar download" market is the biggest.

I know many people here use old recordings, and download lossless formats, but honestly, new music, even lossless files, are going to be gone, IMO. Don't get me wrong, I'm sad to think that, but I do.

Thoughts?

I think this is a lot of worry over nothing. Today's ipods are equivalent to yesterday's transistor radios. Kids have never cared that much about sound quality. Just listen to some of the classic rock music recorded in the fifties and sixties on your high end system and cringe. Much of it was recorded with terrible sound. But the teens loved it. And lets face it, do you really care whether Brittany Spears new single is mastered with perfect imaging and soundstaging of instruments? Different levels of quality exist to cater to different markets. Music is ultimately a form of art. And there will always be artists that strive to be better than the mainstream drivel that passes as art. And they will continue to produce incredible works of art.

People love to lament about how the "old way of life" is vanishing and things will never be the same. But things always stay the same, even as they change. People have been predicting the demise of the vinyl album for the past thirty years, but album and turntable sales are quite robust today. Just as high-res quality recordings will be available for purchase well into the future, on CD, SACD, and as a download. It may not be mass-produced by the big record companies if they can't make a big enough profit over their investment, but it will always be produced by independent artists and smaller companies that have a passion for what they do. It may be harder for you to find, but you will just have to work harder to discover the artists and small recording companies that produce great music. And then support them with your dollars. Check out Mapleshade's recordings. Or try CD Baby to discover some great independent artists. Music Direct and Acoustic Sounds offer tons of great recordings, many in high res formats. Also, there are numerous internet sites offering tons of great music in the form of high res downloads, such as HDTracks, iTrax, Naxos, and literally dozens and dozens more.

What is changing is the paradigm of the dominance of the few big record companies controlling all the content. Many smaller companies are emerging and offering plenty of high res music to fill the audiophile niche. And there are tons of emerging independent artists that care about the quality of their recordings. The difficult part of this change is that you have to work a little harder to discover the talent. But there is plenty of it out there, believe me. And it isn't going away anytime soon.

So I wouldn't give up on the idea of being able to acquire great, well-recorded music just yet. I would instead work harder to educate myself about the different sources of high quality music and try harder to discover new artists that produce it.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Adam and Rich,

Appreciate your more optimistic perspective and I really hope both of you are right.

For me, at this time and in the near future, I have no desire to go to a server system despite some people's claim that SACD's are stupid.

CD sales are way down and it's existence, at least from the major labels (as Rich points out), is doubtful.

People buying downloads, I believe, are more apt to buy a single cut or two versus the entire album. Many Ipod users, I believe, use the "shuffle" feature and / or use music for distraction and background entertainment versus actually "listening" to the content.

And god forbid listening to an entire album. A very rare occurrence amongst the public these days.

My Supervisor pulled out his Iphone and said to me "listen to this, I think it's great" and he was being serious. Many others I know would heartedly agree. Sounded, of course, like manure.

I had an avid "music loving" friend over last Saturday night. We listened to Mahler's Second symphony in its entirety. Total time about 90 minutes. And then we continued on for another 90 minutes. How many people do that? Very few I suspect.

I'll quit my whining and somehow hope that the future is not so bleak but I think listening to music for the vast majority of folks is much like the political arena. Many sound bites with little substance.

GG

 

[slowGEEZR]

Adam and Rich,


For me, at this time and in the near future, I have no desire to go to a server system despite some people's claim that SACD's are stupid.

GG

Gordon, it's not that SACDs are stupid, it's that they can't be ripped (AFAIK). Context is everything.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Steve,

SACD is, for me, an amazing technology with numerous advantages.

The definition of the word is senseless and lacking in intelligence. I agree that within the narrow context of ripping, the use of this word may be appropriate.

However, the fact that they can't be ripped is one very finite aspect far outweighed by the many benefits the media has to offer.

Gordon

 

[amey01]

within the narrow context of ripping, the use of this word may be appropriate.

I agree DSD is absolutely fantastic technology.

Although (to be fair) it is debatable what exact advantages exist over, say, 24/192, and indeed what bitrate an ideal DSD stream would operate at. In fact, there are very few direct-to-DSD recordings, so quite a lot of material (if not analogue) would have been 24/192 (or less) at some point. But that can be a discussion for another thread.

Unfortunately, for a lot of us (well me, definitely - and others, anectdotally) , ripping is not "narrow" context. It is a significant factor in how we play, enjoy and use our music collections. Quite simply, no rip = less play than the recording otherwise deserves. And what really is stupid is the amount of non-hybrid SACDs - now that really is stupid.

I enjoy my SACDs immensely, but playing them really does feel like - well - imagine going back to a cash-only society.......

To qualify - (like you) - I do listen to entire works and albums on a regular basis.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Fair enough Adam.

Thanks for the very thoughtful response.

Gordon

 

[JonFo]

As long as some artists, like Steven Wilson (of Porcupine Tree) are passionate about quality of sound and how it's heard in concert or at home, I believe we'll still have choices that enable us to enjoy our systems.

I'm currently listening to the DVD-A of Deadwing and loving it. I do listen to entire albums and classical pieces that last >60 minutes. But I admit, that often it is while surfing the web.

So it's really up to us, the passionate audiophiles to support the artists that do produce quality products and purchase and recommend them.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Steve,

SACD is, for me, an amazing technology with numerous advantages.

The definition of the word is senseless and lacking in intelligence. I agree that within the narrow context of ripping, the use of this word may be appropriate.

However, the fact that they can't be ripped is one very finite aspect far outweighed by the many benefits the media has to offer.

Gordon

Precisely my point, the word was used only in that narrow context and not as a general lambasting of SACDs. Totally agree with your comments on SACD advantages.

 

[FOUNTAIN]

Being able to rip a SACD to my Mac would be very advantageous as Steve and Adam have stated. After browsing through some titles recently I was really disappointed that I could not rip the SACD in its higher resolution form. My library would grow with new purchases if this ever comes to fruition. BTW many thanks to you Steve for all of your help and advice in getting me set up with my server. It has been a blast! :rocker::music:

Glen

 

[Jimna]

Just to be clear, SACD's CAN be ripped. The software is out there if you have the internet savvy to find it.

That being said they are a extremely narrow part of the bigger picture in the music industry, and frankly are on the endangered species list. Its becoming hard to find the medium or hardware to play it, so the whole discussion on SACDs is sort of moot point.


I also think that its rather short sighted to say that only big name studio's can bring high quality recording to the market. Aren't they the ones killing dynamics and waging the loudness war? As the evolution of the music industry continues to unfold it has proven the opposite, small no name home based studios are the ones bringing quality sound AND quality content to the the table these days. Granted in the beginning of the evolutionary process lots of poor quality recordings came from home studios(and still do as anyone can buy a home studio in a box off ebay, but those aren't making it to the market anymore either), but that has changed drastically. To believe that only corporate studios can make audiophile quality recordings is as foolish as to believe that the price of a hifi system will dictate how good it sounds as well. Wilco's album Sky Blue Sky is the perfect proof of just that, an outstanding sounding record made far from the industries "high end" studio - a studio that will soon be having a fire sale on their way to liquidation.


Evolve or become extinct. I bet there were lots of stubborn dinosaurs that had wonderful points on why they didnt need to move with the times too.

 

[amey01]

Just to be clear, SACD's CAN be ripped. The software is out there if you have the internet savvy to find it.

Where, what, how?

I didn't know the hardware to read them was even available?

And what is my DAC going to do with a DSD stream? In fact, what is any DAC priced on the correct side of a dCS Scarlatti or Elgar going to do with a DSD stream?

So that would mean converting to 24/192?? Please enlighten?

Evolve or become extinct. I bet there were lots of stubborn dinosaurs that had wonderful points on why they didnt need to move with the times too.

Were they same stubborn dinosaurs that didn't blindly follow the "perfect sound forever" mantra and have saved analogue audio?

 

[Jimna]

Where, what, how?

So that would mean converting to 24/192?? Please enlighten?

I had to look into this as I dont have any SACDs anymore(or the software since its of no use to me), but your in fact correct. The software apparently converts the DSD stream to 24/192 files. The software in question is available on demoniod BTW. I need to hit him up for a SACD and the ripped file to A/B test the results.