Does Sound Quality Matter?
 

Do musicians care about sound quality more than audiophiles?

Submitted by CyberInferno

I know metallica doesn't

Quite the opposite here: http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/i...re-analog.html

Zinger!

God damn AP. I had typed up a long response and it didn't post.

Long story short:

- 95% of my friends can't hear the difference between 128 and 256.
- the only ones who can were heavily involved in the illegal trafficking of advances/promos/etc early in this decade where you HAD to learn
- about a quarter of my friends are musicians and very few of them have any idea
- it's because an entire culture/generation was raised on (old)Napster and (old)Napster-styled P2P such as Kazaa, Limewire, etc where 128 is most common

I know "professional" DJs (ie, they book regularly at weddings, bars, etc) who have 100s of gigs of music that is no higher than 128. No one cares. No one notices. People use shitty iPod earphones (they are absolute garbage, it boggles my mind how people use them). People use FM devices to play their iPods through their radios. There is no dynamic in (most) music anymore.. everything is peaked out, fighting for your attention every second of every song. "Louder is better."

-ACA

Ha ha. I can tell you that for the most part the answer is no.

Besides, musicians who DO obsess about sound quality ARE audiophiles, so I guess the question is kind of flawed in the first place.

Writing, creating, and recording music [correctly] is more complex than most people could even imagine. While home-sound audiophiles might care about the sound that they're reproducing through their stereos/theaters, you have to keep in mind that they are only dealing with two channels (left and right) of a final product.

Artists and engineers alike have many different channels / tracks to work with then putting together a recording. Having tools ranging from compression to EQ to panning to reverb makes the recording process a bigger "mathematical equation" for the ears.

Honestly though, without musicians perfecting their sound in the studio - where would audiophiles be?

Haha. I know exactly what you mean. The fact is, when you listen to music through those shitty ipod headphones, you aren't going to hear the small details that you are supposed to hear. And sometimes those small details are what make the song so much better.

Oh, and don't even get me started on these damn speakers that are built in to the macbook. These things are absolute shit.

hah thats funny shit and NOT true. i work at a record studio and none of my clients care about my 1/2 inch tape machine that sits in the corner. no musician can pick out 800hz or even 3khz with a high Q. people are dumb these days

It matters to me... I used to believe that high volume in my ipod = better sound, I was quite surprised when my mom got me those sennheiser headphones and everything sounded so clear with a low volume

I care about sound quality because without it, I have to raise the volume and my ears kinda hurt, plus I don't get to hear all the little details that make me love music even more and that's why I end up buying more cd's and vinyls, unless I have a decent rip of an album I won't download it, I've dismissed so many albums (I ended up loving after) because of it, it's not even funny

I am no audiophile by the way

interesting

i'm huge on speakers with lots of bass, and bad quality songs sometimes annoy me.

i like the music better in high quality, but i can handle it without it.

Sound quality is key. I mean, in the current age, kids are stealing rips of low quality streams and calling them ok. That's so freaking lame. For starters, musicians craft a piece of art for you to hear and they want it to be heard as they intended. As quality lowers, that initial piece is put through a freaking combine and you get a shallow version of the rea product. Then kids bitch about how something sounds or wish it would be heavier or deeper with bass, well, that is not the problem, the problem is your rip. Coming from someone who does reviews, streams can be deceitful and if they aren't, the rips are. I have the new Thursday via private stream and it sound 3x better than the pathetic rip. There's nuances, especially with bands like thursday that you need final product to enjoy. Sure, cds are still peaked odd, but its better.

I know we can't converrt everyone to vinyl and 320 mp3s, but I hope to God teens and others learn to expect more from their "favorite bands" (which is a joke since most steal from them). If you want to steal shitty rips, might as well have the tracking version of the album because all that effort to give you the best product (not to mention money) is going to waste.

To me, sound is key. Yes, peaking everything and using the "wall of sound" idea that Spector made popular can be enjoyable simply because of the loudness factor, but thought out leveling and effects are what make an album memorable.

Consider "californication." They went for all peaks and it sounds like crap during parts of the record. Its too much. On the other hand, tracks underdone sound like crap. Yes, there is something memorable about poor quality debuts ("blue skies, broken hearts (though not a debut)," "your favorite weapon,") but in the long run, people want quality.

I think people think the want quantity over quality, but we know that's not true in the long run. So your band has 30 songs ready - who cares if it sounds like crap.

In addition, to the comment about djs wit 128 music. That is fine because their job and purpose is not to give you the little nuances of "the devil and god are raging inside." The purpose of their music is to make you shake your ass. Most the music in their collection is recorded completely peaked. There is no magic to be found underneath because there is no underneath. Its straightforward, dance or die music. Top 40 is not the place for audiophiles. However, some groups do break through.

I know most musicians care about the sound of their instuments playing in unison rather than if the radio makes it sound good. Honestly, I think that if the band sounds great live and they can play just as well as they do when you hear the song on an mp3, then it's fine. And props to them if it sounds even better live! :-)

*shrugs*

As a musician I know that when I'm recording, getting the sound, tonal qualities, and mix right is important enough to me to literally drive me insane I spend so much time thinking about it.

once you go FLAC you never go back

i worked with trevor jones a couple of years back and he absolutely hated mp3s. he would only allow demos to be sent out if they were 100% uncompressed. i'm half surprised he didn't make me send out vinyl.

that about sums up my feelings

What he said.

HAHAHAH. Gold.

True story.

that's a great post. I would like to do conduct such an experiment in regards to people hearing out music quality. Although there is the trade off between size and quality, FLAC is pretty nice after all.

Billy Drummond is a fantastic drummer and he makes some solid points. I can't imagine settling for the shitty downloads most people go for nowadays.

I like your news posts Mike Kraft.

Quality can be both good and bad. It's nice to hear every little sound in a record now and then but some records just benefit for low quality sound. To me, it gives it a soul.

I was going to say the same thing that if they do care that much about the sound they are audiophiles.

But I understand what the question was trying to ask and I'd say there is absolutely no general answer. Some do some do not.

I also agree with the person who mentioned the apple earphones. I hate those things. The quality is subpar and I never understood how people in the commercials can move around without them falling out.
I enjoy the nuances within the music myself but am not obsessed (not an audiophile) to the point of pumping up my system in either my house or car. (mostly due to money) although my car stock stereo is pretty good and my house I have 5.1 surround on my entertainment receiver and my computer.

I am a musician and an audiophile. I win?

I really care about quality when I listen to music. I can't stand when people don't hear the difference between the quality of MP3s. I can usually tell the exact bitrate of any given MP3. My friends think I'm a freak. I tend to agree.

When I work with recording, mixing, and mastering... I only use my Audio-Technica ATH-M50s. I would never use earbuds. They ruin your hearing and don't produce quality sound.

I agree with these.

if a song sounds good it sounds good.

yea, my laptop speakers suck but these skull candy headphones i got for $10 are kick ass, so i'll stick with them

Sound quality is pretty important to me; I am no audiophile, but it still matters. That's why I still buy cd's. I rip everything to 320 mp3 and I just love hearing all the little details that go into making a song. I do download sometimes, but normally just to check it out. and then i'll end up buying it to get a decent rip.

i also can't have as much music on my iPod, but everything is still on my computer. and it sounds amazing with a pear of really good earphones/headphones. i love my shures...for me it's quality over quantity. i don't need any lossless music like flac, aiff, or wav. yet. but it still matters.

should because metal from the 80's & before sounds like shit. As I Lay Dying >>> sabbath

So this question is implying that musicians and "audiophiles" are mutually exclusive groups...sorry, studying for the LSAT, haha.

But, even with the supposed connotations (musicians as artists, "audiophiles" as technical nerds,) it still seems to me that most "audiophiles" would have some musical background (or at least an interest in music - why else would they care so much about audio?) and most musicians would be "audiophiles" to some extent - considering that sound technology is the medium of their art - at least for rock/pop music.

...What?

You make some good points. Though I think if you made people listen to back-to-back samples of 128kbps and 256kbps mp3's, they could tell the difference. I've tested myself using a blind testing program and was able to get 11/13, and I don't think my ears are that sharp.
Though I love love FLAC as well, for my iPod I'm still using "-v2" on lame 3.97 (or "--alt-preset standard" on 3.90.2 for older conversions). So I guess I cheat on FLAC with MP3?
How about that sexy guy who submitted it? ;-) j/k

You'd think so, but I think there are some people honestly care more about the equipment and encoding of the songs than the music itself. People that spend more time listening to samples encoded at different bitrates than actual music. Kinda like people who want to tune their cars to race but have no intention of ever doing so.

sound quality should matter. AILD sound better than maiden, sabbath, priest, slayer, etc.

I'd say it does.

.............it matters if you feel the need to listen to music at all. its all about clarity sonn

totally agree. also, an ocean between us was done with Adam dutkiewicz who is one of the absolute best.

I really hate overproduced shit. Quietdrive is a great example of a quality album spoiled by polish.

so true

Unfortunately I don't have enough space for all the ALAC I want on my iPod (I convert from FLAC to ALAC so I can have lossless on my iPod. yes, I can actually tell the difference.), so I'm stuck with 320 for most of my stuff. But since I refuse to change some back from lossless to 320, I'm kinda stuck with deleting things.