Is Sound Quality Really “Worse Than Ever”?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


I Can't Hear YouLast week, Rolling Stone posted an extensive (6 online pages!) diatribe against sound quality in the age of mp3s. The article seems to have two, somewhat related points: a) that music is being mastered really loud these days, and b) mp3s sound crappy. RS posits that these two factors have become a kind of self-reinforcing spiral of doom for audiophiles, a “global loudening,” if you will:

Producers also now alter the way they mix albums to compensate for the limitations of MP3 sound. “You have to be aware of how people will hear music, and pretty much everyone is listening to MP3,” says producer Butch Vig, a member of Garbage and the producer of Nirvana’s Never- mind. “Some of the effects get lost. So you sometimes have to over-exaggerate things.” Other producers believe that intensely compressed CDs make for better MP3s, since the loudness of the music will compensate for the flatness of the digital format.

Hey, Garbage is still around? Okay, sorry, that was low, I liked that band. Anyway, I have to say I’m of two minds on this topic. Yes, the radio-style super-loud mastering that’s de rigueur these days can be overdone, and I’ll be the first to admit a 128 kbps mp3 can have crunchy high end and flat bass. I’m one of those guys you hear about who still buy vinyl records for their rich, live sound, and even if I’ve purchased mp3s I’ll go buy the CD too if I really like it, just for audio quality’s sake. So, technically, yes, Rolling Stone is right, but I think they’re forgetting how things work in the real world.

First of all, let’s talk about the aesthetics of “loud.” Typical FM radio compression squashes the crap out of songs, for sure, but sometimes that enhances the music, allowing you to hear parts that slipped past you before. Radiohead’s “Optimistic,” a guitar-led track from 2000’s Kid A, seemed kind of flat and unremarkable on the CD, but on the radio it took on new life, gaining a thumping intensity and power. I seem to remember Thom Yorke said as much in an interview (still looking for that source). Daft Punk’s classic Discovery album uses hyper-compressed samples to evoke a nostalgic ’70s radio sound: the “super-flat” style is the whole point. Moreover, with radio getting more conservative and marginalized, people hear original tracks first on the internet (or their friends’ iTunes playlists) more than ever; so if an artist wants that sweet radio compression, it has to be built in. One of Rolling Stone‘s list of poorly-produced CDs, Lily Allen’s Alright, Still, is a perfect example of this: she gained fame on MySpace, her music is populist but sits uncomfortably between most American radio formats, and its almost-distorted volume gives the album a kind of punk intensity.

Quality-wise, sure mp3s can suck, but think about how most people have listened to music in the Rock Era: dusty 7″ singles, AM radio, warped cassettes that sit on the floor of your Mazda. I’ll gladly take an mp3 from my iPod, plugged directly into the car stereo, over any of those. Secondly, all musical formats until how have been limited by, well, physical attributes; the initial point of mp3s was their smaller size, but with faster internet speeds and bigger hard drives, 256 kbps mp3s (which most listeners can’t distinguish from CDs) are becoming more and more common. As technologies change, mp3s can change with us, with better-quality files available for those who want them.

Ultimately, the average listener is probably experiencing more music at a higher quality level than at any time in the rock era. And yes, thankfully, most albums are still being released on vinyl, so old fuddy-duddys like myself (and Rolling Stone writers) can continue to wonk out on super-high-fidelity.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate