Audiophiles vs. Audio Files.
Wired goes into the digital divide between tape and computer-based recording. Steve Albini, as usual, is obstinately wrong about everything.
Comments
I he’s so anti- digital, why is he wearing a calculator watch?
Steve Albini is always right, about everything. And he’s right about this. And I say this as someone who does not even have a single non digital piece of music in my posession any more and has every piece of music in compressed mp3 format.
But the reason for that is admittedly and 100% because I reached a point of preferring convenience to fidelity.
I think he’s probably wrong if you’re talking about electronic music using samplers, etc. Which don’t lose anything for being plugged directly into a computer or digital system. But for recordings and sound of live, mic’d instruments he’s 100% right in terms of both the recording process and the method of conveyence to the listener.
Steve Albini is a fanfuckingtastic live performer. i’d give my pretend left testicle to see Shellac again.
mandy said:Steve Albini is a fanfuckingtastic live performer. i’d give my pretend left testicle to see Shellac again.
He’s easily one of my top 3 musical and cultural idols, if not the top. Every note he’s played on has been brilliant, his production can make even a shitty band sound good, and his spewing of vitriol both humorous and deadly serious is something I aspire to daily.
Don’t get me wrong. I love Steve Albini. But I disagree with him on a lot of things. And Kev, I’m sorry, you’re wrong about analog. You were right 10 maybe even 5 years ago. But now? The software has advanced to the point where you can’t tell the difference. Not even professionals can tell the difference.
But yeah, no disrespect for Steve Albini whatsoever.
http://gapersblock.com/transmission/lolbiniprotoolz.jpg
I like him because he produced a McLusky album.
Before I even knew him as an artist, I knew him as a producer. He was the first producer I ever knew by name cause he recorded In Utero which, for me, was the transition album between not really caring about music and caring about music.
But yeah, you could totally make an album that sounds like In Utero with today’s tools.
Yes, but to your point it’s still an approximation of that sound rather than the sound itself. No matter which way you slice it, it’s still a compressed file.
Again, I don’t care. I’m not a true audiophile and I fully believe that having easier access to more music, more conveniently, even if said music is slightly lower fidelity is a good thing. I listen to about 100 times more music now than I did when I had to physically carry around and put in cds individually, and way more than when I listened to records. But I can definitely hear a difference. Maybe it’s because I spent as much of my life listening to vinyl records as I did CD’s (which are already digital and compressed) so that my ultimate frame of reference for having started to listen to music in a mostly purely analog format affects how I hear it.
Again, I don’t argue that it’s a negligible impact and that ultimately the downside in fidelity doesn’t even come close to all the other advantages of it. I just fully believe it’s a different sound and that something is sacrificed. But ultimately it’s more of an aesthetic sacrifice like the difference between reading the same words on a kindle versus reading them in a physical book.
Kevin said:Yes, but to your point it’s still an approximation of that sound rather than the sound itself. No matter which way you slice it, it’s still a compressed file.
Did you watch the vid? We’re talking about recording techniques, not delivery methods.
If you want to talk about the actual delivery methods themselves, well, if you want your digital audio to sound like vinyl, download FLAC files instead of mp3s. They’re lossly. No sampling rate. Waveforms.
Yes, but isn’t it the same basic concept? Aren’t the individually recorded tracks still compressed? I watched the whole video but was mostly listening while doing other things so I’ll have to give it another pass.
As for the delivery method, like I said, I’m perfectly o.k. and at peace with any relatively minor loss of fidelity, especially for the sake of convenience and eliminating clutter and waste. I think the mp3 or whatever you want to call the overarching concept of music as digital files rather than physical recording is the best thing to happen to music.
And speaking of Albini, one of my favorite internet pasttimes is reading his posts/replies/etc. on the Electric Audio message board. Also, this in particular rules:
Kevin said:Yes, but isn’t it the same basic concept? Aren’t the individually recorded tracks still compressed? I watched the whole video but was mostly listening while doing other things so I’ll have to give it another pass.
No, there’s no compression on recording. There’s sampling, which you may be confusing for compression, but no compression. The thing is, most digital albums are recorded at considerably higher sample rates than a CD is even capable of producing (44.1k, whereas recording sample rates can get as high as 192k). From what I understand, most still apparently do 48k which is already higher than the range of human detection. So the whole idea of a sample rate having less detectable fidelity vs. the perfect waveform of a vinyl record or magnetic tape is bunk. Not even the best human ears out there can detect a difference.
The only argument you could have made 5 to 10 years ago was how the sounds were actually recorded — the imperfections and quirks of analog audio often gave a preferable sound, like the difference between a mic-ing a tube amp and recording direct. But DSP has gotten so good, that difference has been reduced to almost nil. You can make anything sound like anything in the digital domain now.
Now, I think, the only reason to do it analog is to force a sort of discipline that digital doesn’t demand. No question a band that can get it in one or two takes is going to have all-around better takes. But that’s more process than it is tech.
But to your point “You can make anything sound like anything” is still an after the fact approximation, no? Yes, probably inperceptible (sp?) to most ears, but a fundamental difference nonetheless? And also I don’t think the process part of it is something that can so easily be dismissed. I think how a band records, where it records, the methodology, the discipline all have an impact. And if they take the approach that they can just add something or fix something or take something out after the fact digitally, then that creates a different animal, a different approach altogether.
I concede this is minor stuff, but it all adds up to a wholly different vibe and a wholly different aesthetic.
But we’re not talking about vibes or aesthetics. What I disagreed with Albini with is that he thinks that audio recorded entirely analog sounds inherently different from it’s digital counterpart.
The point is, as demonstrated in the video, you could record two verses, side by side, one with analog equipment and one with digital equipment, and not tell the difference.
O.K. I just watched this again, more closely. A few things:
1)Albini really doesn’t come across as completely curmudgeonly on the subject. His initial statement is about mp3 versus non-mp3, which is what I agree with 100%. His other statements are for the most part fairly matter of fact and he even concedes that digital technology is a lot better now than it used to be.
2) The “test” they did wasn’t exactly scientific, but even beyond that if you think that it was, they could tell the difference 50% of the time which is not a complete blow out and could be used as evidence either way depending on your bias going in to it.
3) The engineers they had taking the test, as well as the pro-digital engineer were definitely of a different frame of mind and based off of the artists they worked with are more inclined to find the appeal in overly compressed, cleaner, enhanced digital formats. I mean yeah, guys who have worked with Justin Timberlake and Beyonce are clearly going to think that cleaner and more compressed and blemish free sounds better than the guy who works with Nirvana, Joanna Newsom, and the Pixies.
Definitely an interesting video and the subject definitely has wider ranging implications to music in general beyond just the “Is it real or is it memorex?” angle.
“they could tell the difference 50% of the time which is not a complete blow out”
You are bad at statistics. There are two choices that they got right 50% of the time, therefore, it was no better than random guessing. So yes. It was a complete blowout. Any deviation from 50% would have been more successful because it would have indicated the ability to discern one recording process from another (even if one were incorrect).
As for #3, the interesting act is that they couldn’t tell the difference. It’s not what they preferred. It was their inability to discern.
But isn’t the point they’re trying to make is that digital is BETTER? So doesn’t it also put to rest that point? If the sound is the same then the only thing that ultimately makes it better is that it makes it easier and cheaper to suck without people knowing you suck. That’s more what I took away as his point. He says that vinyl is better sounding than a compressed mp3 for finished product which is true. But the rest of the segment was him trying to say that digital recording sounds the SAME as analog, not better, which that test proves.
I’ll tell you what. Let’s leave it at this. We agree to disagree. I agree with the guy who helped craft the recorded sounds of the Pixies, Slint, and Nirvana. You agree with the guys who helped craft the recorded sound of Justin Timberlake, Beyonce, and Tenacious D.
I didn’t think that was the point they were trying to make at all. Rather, I think everyone goes into it assuming that analog is better and the result is “nope, you can’t tell the difference. Analog sounds no better.”
Fact is, when Albini recorded those seminal albums, analog was definitely the superior choice. There’s no way he could have made them sound like they do with digital equipment. But today, he could totally drop the ridiculous razor-and-tape editing method and save himself a lot of time and effort and record digitally without sacrificing sound quality. That’s what I got out of the video.
Mclusky.
Steve said:Mclusky.
That is what I’m fuckin’ talking about!
John, I’m mostly just having fun busting chops. But I definitely do think digital music as method of creating and method of conveyence are inverse as far as good to bad things about them. I think digital music files make listening to and appreciating more music much easier and that’s a good thing. The only downside is minor loss of fidelity. But I think the ease of digital recording and the ability to so easily correct things or alter things or fix things or just the ability to record so quickly and so cheaply is mostly a bad thing because too many bands put things out too quickly and too much mediocre music is too easily made and able to be cleaned up and presented as something it’s not.
Kevin said:John, I’m mostly just having fun busting chops.
Oh I know. Doesn’t make it any less fun to argue back.
I haven’t commented on this thread yet, but I will.