Log in

View Full Version : Music, piracy, analog vs digital and other thoughts


SUBMAN1
01-26-06, 10:39 PM
I'm listening to the first pure digital recording ever (Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms, sampled at 48 thousand samples a sec, with 65,535 levels of volume per track, but downsampled to CD's 44.1 khz legacy standard) and on to James Laid (Anyone remember this one?), and will be moving on to some more modern Ulrich Schnauss - Far Away Trains Passing by (trust me, I don't expect anyone to know who that is!).

Anyway - The point - It has occured to me that part of the music industry's woes as of late happen to be that they are not only releasing sub par music (managed crap is a better word based on what some manager thinks will sell over what the artist is trying to project), but that maybe another reason that people aren't enjoying music as much as they should is that the sound quality just plain out sucks (to put it bluntly)? All the pirate music BS that they talk about is just that, 'BS'. I have yet not to buy a music CD of some form of music that I like from music that I have downloaded. I mean, who can stand an MP3 quality wise? Can someone let me know if I am the only one that feels this way? Every song that I have liked ever that I have downloaded off the net and a CD exists for, I have always bought the CD for the better quality over an MP3. This turns out to be an 'increase' in sales for the music industry from my perspective since I would never have bought this stuff if I didn't 'hear' it first from an online source. Anyway, the easy blame for this is to blame it on some 'other' reason such as music pirates and redirect the stockholders attention from the real reason - they are making pure crap!!!

Still, the CD itself is rather lacking in music quality however due to its 44.1K samples a second. Only the older analog stuff is of any worth since there was 'no' limitation to the samples ubtained persay, but a limitation to the size of the recording medium like tape width. Of course, i understand that it is harder to splice tape over working with it digitally (The true reason that digital exists since analog is far superior in ever other respect except hiss - but hiss is tolerable and desired in trade for the improved sound quality that analog provides). We live in an analog world so get used to it. Digital only exits for no other reason in that it is an easier format to work with, but usually lacks in quality over an analog source in some form or fasion - it is either on or off - no in between since analog can be a pure waveform with no loss. This makes me cringe upon seeing any CD's of old analog stuff in a CD store that has the words "Digitally Remastered" which really means to the consumer as "It has worse sound than the original, but it was easier for us (the producers) to work with it".

Anyway, I picked up a Rotel RDV-1060 DVD player not too long ago with DVD-Audio capabilities (Not to be confused with 'dts') and once again I am enjoying my music, especially some older recordings before Digital, like Fleetwood Mac's Rumors, and with its 96 thousand samples a second and over 16 million levels of volume, it is like playing a game in 65K colors with all the dithering vs. playing a game in flawless 16 mill colors. It is completely night and day. Unfortunately I picked up Dire Straits too, but this is limited to 48 khz due to the digital revolution at the time it was recorded. I do have the Eagles Hotel California (The only good song on the entire DVD-A - can I return the DVD-A and pick up the DV-A single of this?) and it is recorded on the DVD-A at 192 Khz, 24 bit. It's perfect to the point where if I close my eyes, I can tell you where the guy is hitting the drums in my room and where each person is standing as if I have a private concert! Of course, i have a few dollars into my music stereo, and I am paranoid of my wife purchasing a dolly since I am conviced that the only reason I still have my speakers is that they weigh in at almost 200 pounds each! If they were less, my wife would have found a way to get rid of them ages ago!

Anyway (back to the point), I am starting to see the more modern recordings ditch the 48 khz limitation (legacy standard) and I just hope the music industry continues on this approach. To me, it never has been an issue of piracy, but more of the crap that they are putting out. If you live in the US, you almost have no exposure to European music (No more Pink Floyd's, etc) because only 1 company own almost all radio stations in the US (almost 90% of them) and they take payouts from US record companies to play a small selection of crap (over and over) so that it can sell in US markets. This is what we would call a monopoly in the US, and it affecting our ability to experience 'other' music from 'other' places like Europe. I don't doubt however that these same record companies are trying to push our same crap down the European throats either, just that I never picked up the issue with any of my European friends. I suspect they are.

Anyway, now that I am completely off on a tangent and I don't really want to catch up to Skybirds word count, I am sugning off on this issue till have more thoughts to add.

-S

SUBMAN1
01-26-06, 10:48 PM
One more thing that completely annoys me!!!! Line levels!!

Some idiot sound engineers that the music is industry is hiring without thought to experience! These guys (in the effort to make your CD louder!) increase the line levels during the recording of your CD into pure distortion! The worst I can think of lately is Enigma's last CD. At least the old stuff from the 9-'s and 90's had decent line level, but anything past to 2000's are all suspect!

-S

TteFAboB
01-27-06, 06:50 AM
You're right, but some of the music you seem to listen to I would consider "crap", while you'd judge the other way around.

Actually, I wouldn't use the term "crap", exactly because of that, I would say to me there is good music and bad music, good music is every piece I like or think that sounds good even though I wouldn't listen to it very much, bad music is everything else that I don't like at all, I know, however, that many people love things that I don't think have any bit of quality into, and I respect that, because music is a form of art, which means it must be done by an artist, and each artist does his kind of music, the music that sounds good to him.

One thing you don't mention, is the fact it's much easier to do music today than ever before.

"Digital music", this demon of yours, allows anyone to easily make electronic music, which can serve as an entrance to the world of music, a world that otherwise would never be discovered.

It takes alot of practice and dedication to play most instruments, but any random idiot can pick his cell phone and use the custom ring-tone feature to compose a little melody.

Likewise, a learning piano player can plug his digital keyboard into his digital computer and use digital software to play the songs or parts he's not yet able to play alone, or, use it to practice with a 2nd digital piano, and soon enough he'll start composing his own stuff, whatever style of music he likes.

Years ago, you'd need a real piano, which costs a fortune, and you'd have no software to help you or to have fun with or to help you compose your own stuff.

So today you can find new talent much easier, just make good use of it and like you preach, use quality recording.

Etienne
01-27-06, 08:34 AM
I don't think the qualitty of sound in a MP3 affect CD sale. Most people don't even realise the difference, unless it's a really bad MP3.

The popularity of music copying is purely economical - You can pay 20$ for a CD with one or two good songs in it, or download them for free. People aren't dumb... And they aren't rich.

I'd say that if the music industry dropped its price to a more realistic level, sales would go back up. But I'm no expert in the matter.

SUBMAN1
01-27-06, 08:20 PM
You're right, but some of the music you seem to listen to I would consider "crap", while you'd judge the other way around.

Actually, I wouldn't use the term "crap", exactly because of that, I would say to me there is good music and bad music, good music is every piece I like or think that sounds good even though I wouldn't listen to it very much, bad music is everything else that I don't like at all, I know, however, that many people love things that I don't think have any bit of quality into, and I respect that, because music is a form of art, which means it must be done by an artist, and each artist does his kind of music, the music that sounds good to him.

One thing you don't mention, is the fact it's much easier to do music today than ever before.

"Digital music", this demon of yours, allows anyone to easily make electronic music, which can serve as an entrance to the world of music, a world that otherwise would never be discovered.

It takes alot of practice and dedication to play most instruments, but any random idiot can pick his cell phone and use the custom ring-tone feature to compose a little melody.

Likewise, a learning piano player can plug his digital keyboard into his digital computer and use digital software to play the songs or parts he's not yet able to play alone, or, use it to practice with a 2nd digital piano, and soon enough he'll start composing his own stuff, whatever style of music he likes.

Years ago, you'd need a real piano, which costs a fortune, and you'd have no software to help you or to have fun with or to help you compose your own stuff.

So today you can find new talent much easier, just make good use of it and like you preach, use quality recording.

I think you missed the point - I was talking about method of encoding or recording. The idea of pluging in a keyboard and thinking 'that is digital' is not correct. The idea lies in the samples per second vs. an analog waveform.

-S

Iceman
01-27-06, 11:05 PM
Working for the 3rd largest cable co in America I understand about the differences in digital vs analog. Personally as far as bandwidth is concerned 6 digital channels fit into the space of where 2 analog channels sit.And you are right...with analog it is more robust,,,,customers can hack there cable lines with a shovel and practically cut it in half and they still will have a picture,,,crappy but a picture...whereas if our digital is not setup correctly it will freeze frames or totally go out....we prefer the digital becaue of the quality of picture and the amout of info is greater as far a a tv pic is concerned anyways...

On the note of music I hear what you are saying...I have been told by musicians that Vinyl sounds way better than digital music cd or tape whatever.

How stuff works....good topic.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/question487.gif

SUBMAN1
01-27-06, 11:27 PM
Working for the 3rd largest cable co in America I understand about the differences in digital vs analog. Personally as far as bandwidth is concerned 6 digital channels fit into the space of where 2 analog channels sit.And you are right...with analog it is more robust,,,,customers can hack there cable lines with a shovel and practically cut it in half and they still will have a picture,,,crappy but a picture...whereas if our digital is not setup correctly it will freeze frames or totally go out....we prefer the digital becaue of the quality of picture and the amout of info is greater as far a a tv pic is concerned anyways...

On the note of music I hear what you are saying...I have been told by musicians that Vinyl sounds way better than digital music cd or tape whatever.

How stuff works....good topic.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/question487.gif

Yeah - its like this - it may not be perfect with DVD-A, but the idea is to overwhelm my senses to the point where I can no longer tell the difference - and with DVD-A, for the most part, it might as well be live and standing in front of me!!!

-S

PS. The analog cable looks better to me - I can see the blocks in the digital compression on fast action sequences in the Digital version.

CCIP
01-27-06, 11:31 PM
Being a musico-phile, and at the same time - someone who's treading dangerously close to the edge of permanent hearing loss, I don't really care :P

Although for some strange reason I enjoy vinyls, it might have more to do with the covers. It'd take some seriously implicating listening material to convince me otherwise.

SUBMAN1
01-28-06, 12:08 AM
Being a musico-phile, and at the same time - someone who's treading dangerously close to the edge of permanent hearing loss, I don't really care :P

Although for some strange reason I enjoy vinyls, it might have more to do with the covers. It'd take some seriously implicating listening material to convince me otherwise.

Your need for Vinyls are a subconcious thing since your brain is craving purity and reality, though your mind doesn't truely corilate the two quite yet! In due time, you will see the light!

-S

TteFAboB
01-28-06, 06:32 AM
So a pianist should record his music in Vinyls... :hulk:

It's easier for him too to record in MP3 crap and load it into his Ipod and maybe burn it into a cheap CD.

We should always strive for quality, but not everyone is a 4-member rock band and can record music in a studio, at least not untill they start getting famous, and since you have to start somewhere...