The reason why Mp3s will die, and WAV/lossless will come back.

[Pfraser]

This is just my theory.

Let's think about why Mp3s were created.

A few years ago:
1.) Computer hard drives had limited space, as hard drives were pretty small and people have a lot of other things other than music on their computer such as games.
3.) Computers were still pretty slow with transferring and copying data
4.) Hard drives with a lot of space were very expensive.

An easy fix for this, was file compression for audio and video.

The problem back then is that hard drive technology and what not was still developing so instead of making things more high quality they went they other way to save space on hard drives.

But now today hard drive technology is flying, computers are fast, hard drives are getting cheaper, etc. We can now start going the other way in terms of better quality audio. The digital era has been forced to make bigger hard drives because of DVDs, high quality video, HDTV, and video games which can be 4gb and up, blu ray is 40gigs but audio has always been sacrificed for space. no more sacrificing!

With a new Ipod, which is up to 160gb, you could have 4000 wavs, at 40mb each (did i calculate that right).
1000mb in a gb so 160 x 1000 = 160 000(mb) / 40(mb)(per song) = 4000songs

Hard drives just keep getting bigger, computers faster... internet is getting better but at a slower rate than other technology, and so on.

Just my 2 cents.

[LewisWu]

but the lcd still wants things quick an dirty... and they don't care about reverb tails.. or transients... besides, there are still a lot of mp3 players out there that don't have the storage capacity, and i'd wager those outsell ipods, any given day of the week...

i agree with you about hdd and processing speeds and price, and the whole HD "revolution" but people who care about things such as audio quality are still in the minority.

best example i can think of is the guy who goes out and buys a huge hd tv, but skimps on the sound system.. then again, other peoples' priorities are not my concern.. as i do like higher fidelity audio...

[EstateMatt]

I'm not exactly sure that the market doesn't care about reverb tails... Monster cable wouldn't be succeeding in places like radiobrokendownshack if people didn't care. If they go online looking for quality, they will be informed.

the problem is that the people really dont have an option..

I bet if you put your record up for 5 bucks and gave the following options:

High quality 600 MB
Mid grade 60 MB
Ass-licious 12 MB

you would get at least 10 percent downloading high quality. Some compression is probably necessary .. but you get the point

[Pfraser]

Well I think then what next step would be is to educate the general consumer on audio quality and to really push electronic companies to assist in this.

For instance if a consumer buys a new mp3 player there should be a audio quality pamphlet/slip describing to them in the most basic of basic words the difference between wav and mp3, why wav is better, what they will get if they use wav, etc ,etc. Also provide them simple conversion like i did of how many songs they can fit depending on how much space they have and that they could have their favorite music as wav and the lesser favorite as mp3.

we just need to put the cool back into high quality/high fidelity audio. I know I've had a bit of an influence on friends and family.

People do like better quality products they just need to know about it... education for the people!

[mdme_sadie]

The reason it's not going to change any time soon is not so much about the consumer as the distributor. It's the cost of hosting the data that would really make it prohibitive to sell WAV/AIFF files for something like iTunes. That will change but it will take a few years. The sad thing is there are better highly compressed codecs out there already (and have been for quite a while) the issue is the take up of these formats among the people that make the players.

[Bierce85]

I think the point you guys are missing is that most people just plain DONT CARE. EVERYONE likes music, but 90% of those people are just listening to the music itself, not the way it's reproduced. And most of those people are just listening to whatever the vocal hook is, or some guitar riff they like. The average person will still choose a smaller file because it will download quicker = something that actually effects their life, unlike transients or reverb tails as LewisWU said.

And you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 256 mp3 and a full bandwidth .wav through ipod earbuds or $30 computer speakers, which is what most people are listening to anyway.

[roxxon]

I must agree...
Many consumers who love music, don't give a rat's ass about high quality recording sound,
In fact I know quite a few people who honestly believe that mp3s sound as good or (gag!) even BETTER than CD-quality or album recordings.
Others are very willing to sacrafice quality for portable quantity.

Let's put it this way, if everyone owned audiophile quality home sound systems, stereos...MP3s would likely die a quick, brutal death.
But, the majority of people who buy music do not own decent stereos.
A lot of people have no clue as to what a good quality sound system really sound like.
They are used to listening to mp3s on mediocre playback sound systems.
And to many people, their love of music and specific songs and artists runs far deeper than high fidelity playback or quality sound, alone.

Also, factor into the mix that, much of the new music is recorded and mastered at slammed levels. The way many modern music releases are currently recorded and mastered, it appears that the music is often geared to appeal to listeners and owners of mp3 playback equipment.

I hate the mp3 format, I would rather buy CDs or records any day, than download mp3s, even free of charge.

It very, much reminds me of the BetaMax vs VHS video recorder wars.
Where longer tape play-record time won out over much better higher video-audio quality amoung the public masses.

That being said...Most people wouldn't notice much if any difference between the sound of an mp3 or an audiophile-mastered CD or album played on their home audio systems or those owned by most of their friends.

I honestly don't know if a rival format to mp3 came along, with an equal amount or storage capability and far better audio quality...If most consumers would change from the mp3 format, to the new sonically better format.
The masses as always are usually ignorant, in general.
Some people simply do not know any better.
While others, simply do not care.

I really hate the old saying," Ignorance is bliss."
But as far as many things go in this life...
That old addage often rings true.

I personally don't see the mp3 format dying a quick death any time soon...
I sure wish that it would, regardless.

[idrinkalot]

i don't see why anybody would put wav files on their ipod when a perfectly good format called flac exists
that being said.. if a user has a choice between 100 albums in lossless or 20,000 in mp3 format which do you think they're going to choose? especially when itunes still wants to sell and rip things at 128cbr.

[idrinkalot]

Originally Posted by roxxon

I hinestly don't know if a rival format to mp3 came along, with an equal ampunt or storage capability and far better audio quality...If most consumers would change from the mp3 format, to the new sonically better format.

ogg vorbis. open source and free.. but no drm protection so labels will never embrace it.

[subatomicpieces]

It doesn't bother me a bit that most people would consciously choose convenience over fidelity. A good recording still sounds better than a bad recording, even on a shitty playback system/format. I just keep making the best sounding recordings I can. It's really none of my business how people choose to enjoy them.

[into the white]

I agree...unless the only way I can find a song is to buy it on itunes, I personally have a high enough quality recording of it to listen to it in all its glory myself. It doesn't really bother me that most people don't care about quality, as its unlikely that these people are the ones producing the music. I can listen to music lossless, and unless something threatens that, then it is pretty much irrelevant to me.

[Joe Porto]

I think the mp3 is like AM radio. It's a necessary step to eventual high quality music broadcasting/distribution over the net.

Apple has already released "iTunes Plus" which are 256k bit non DRM releases of certain EMI recordings (such as Pink Floyd), and have offered an upgrade path to those with the 128bit versions. I like this idea, provided that as technology advances, a cost effective upgrade path is available (unlike vinyl>CD upgrade, which was full price).

IMHO, It's not that people don't care about quality, it's simply that people care about convenience over quality. Once convenient high quality music is available, the masses will embrace it.

[Pfraser]

Exactly Joe, consumers take whatever is fed to them... I would rather feed them quality then crappy. Yea most consumers don't or can't hear the difference but music is about affecting peoples subconsciousness as much as it is to make them dance or head bash or whatever and all the little differences, like the reverb tails, can help make a difference. 100 pennies in a pond makes a dollar but right now there are only 10 pennies in the pond.

[johnnybregar]

Imagine how long it would take to download a
CD of full resolution wav files.... and then copy it to your iPod.

[Pfraser]

Today it would, but remember there are people who devote their lives to internet technology and making things faster.

And today... probably about 40m -2hr if you are on cable and depending on the speed of the server.

[six_wax]

To care about high-fidelity playback, you have to have a good listening environment. (Most consumer headphones, car systems, and computer speakers don't even qualify, mp3 is plenty good enough for those listening situations.)

If mp3 is "good-enough" for those situations --which make up 90% of the time people are listening to music-- why would you expect them to care about high-fidelity?

So, *when* would it matter? When they're at home, with video-games, tv, movies (not to mention family, friends, etc) and other attractions contending for their attentions? There's too many other options these days for even *owning* a great playback system to be priority.

There have to be occasions when people are in environments with good systems, and are primarily inclined to music... before high-fidelity will really be in demand again...

Additionally, the industry has seized every opportunity/outlet to market uninspiring music to people. You're having (often mediocre) music shoved down your throat with every commercial, ringtone, soundtrack, game... Are you really left hungering for a dedicated listening experience? I suspect this not only devalues peoples perception of the value of the "experience of music", but also makes them less likely to seek it out...

Throw in to the mix the fact that while computer storage and processing speed has grown in accordance with Moore's Law --but bandwidth has been essentially constant for a DECADE. Want to download a hi-rez audio file? It's going to take a minute...

There's a lot of factors, but when you add them all up, you can see that it ain't changing overnight...

[joelpatterson]

Yeah. Really. There's two sides to the issue, but if the question is what most people will mostly want most of the time... you can fool them, easy.

[johnnybregar]

Originally Posted by Pfraser

Today it would, but remember there are people who devote their lives to internet technology and making things faster.

And today... probably about 40m -2hr if you are on cable and depending on the speed of the server.

Ya - if things get 6x faster, then that means they can download 6x as many mp3's in the same amount of time as they do now... :-)

[Pfraser]

At the rate of how fast technology is developing, I wouldn't be surprised if this were possible in a few years.

[Gravity]

Originally Posted by six_wax

To care about high-fidelity playback, you have to have a good listening environment. (Most consumer headphones, car systems, and computer speakers don't even qualify, mp3 is plenty good enough for those listening situations.)

If mp3 is "good-enough" for those situations --which make up 90% of the time people are listening to music-- why would you expect them to care about high-fidelity?

So, *when* would it matter? When they're at home, with video-games, tv, movies (not to mention family, friends, etc) and other attractions contending for their attentions? There's too many other options these days for even *owning* a great playback system to be priority.

There have to be occasions when people are in environments with good systems, and are primarily inclined to music... before high-fidelity will really be in demand again...

This is a big one.... So many people are told by Joe Idiot at Future Slop, Best Fry etc... that the home theatre in a box is the best thing since anything ever. Ignoring that fact that none of those systems meet even the barest minimal standards for Dolby... People believe they'll get "Great" audio experiences for less then $1000 all in.... It's nuts... Quite frankly, I'd like to eradicate Bose and all their snake-oil gimmickry from the face of the planet.

Until good playback systems come into style again, the delivery format isn't going to matter.

[idrinkalot]

uh a full resolution cd is still only 700M, and usually flac gets it down to 300-400. this won't take more than 15 minutes over a decent server.

[idrinkalot]

and there are entire communities on the net dedicated to users sharing nothing but flac files over bit torrent (and there are tons even at 24/96).

[Savernake]

I'm pretty confident Apple will announce a lossless side to their itunes store within the year. When they do that, we'll all start buying from there, and slowly the public will want more. They will hear about how lossless is 'better' and want it, even if they cant hear the difference. Imagine all those young guys who read gadget mags, and it says how this lossless is 'beter' - they just want it anyway. Sounds like us reading our gear forums... ;)

[Soulbrother]

"I think the mp3 is like AM radio."

Comments like this show you how far removed you are from the ordinary consumer. You are an audio proffessional and thus cannot see the wood for the trees.

The 'consumer' as we refer to it, is not ignorant and unable to tell good from bad quality, it is simply that he is more interested in enjoying music than in minor quibbles about sound quality.

Lets face it, a 192 K Mp3 would not prevent anyone from fully enjoying whatever emotions are in a recording (which let's face it dudes, is ultimately the whole point of what AEs do for a living), though I grant you that a 96 K mp3 would.

SACD, and DVD-Audio have flopped because most people are more interested in enjoying music for the emotional effect that it has on them: Music, sound, lyrics, and the whole meaning of the band for them. 192 K or above mp3 is not gonna get in the way of this.

This is no more 'ignorant' than a man who loves his wife deeply , despite her having gone a little saggy over the years.

[Pfraser]

I don't care what those brainwashed consumers want, I know what's good for them. We are the doctors, they are the patients.

Lossless is the future, why wouldn't it be. When we aren't limited to internet speeds, storage space, speed, etc. Why wouldn't we use lossless. Mp3 was just a temporary fix for the digital side of music - a band-aid.

[streaky]

Good post and I agree with everything said by all - I've been thinking for quite a while, if hard drives can be so tiny yet hold so much information and internet speeds are so quick, then why aren't punters already listening to full res files?

OK maybe the technology is not quite there for wholesale consumer...er...consuming, but it would be great nevertheless to see an option on download sites of a full quality file that costs the same, maybe it would make people start to steer away from crappy sounding mp3s. I hope Apple try it for a trial period and see how it takes off, it'll never happen properly until someone tries, and it becomes the norm.

Apologies if I've repeated anything that was said above.

[into the white]

If 320 kbps mp3s became the standard, would you guys be upset?

[Joe Porto]

Originally Posted by Soulbrother

"I think the mp3 is like AM radio."

Comments like this show you how far removed you are from the ordinary consumer. You are an audio proffessional and thus cannot see the wood for the trees.

You have taken my comment out of context. I am not comparing the quality of mp3 to that of AM radio. I am comparing the level of technology. The quality of an .mp3 is based on delivering a convenient transferable file across the internet, and storing it within the capacity of todays storage devices.

I am not an audio professional. I make music for personal gratification, not for money. I have an iPod. I listen to .mp3s. I'm an ordinary consumer. As a consumer, I would be willing to pay a discounted fee to upgrade my purchased iTunes collection to a higher quality format. I hope I will have that opportunity.

[centurymantra]

There's a lot of great comments being made here and it's hard to deny that people will simply take convenience over quality a great deal of the time. Heck, I even do this sometimes, although I can't imagine excepting a 128kpbs or even 64kbps file as 'good enough'. The fact that extra cost isn't even involved and folks aren't willing to allocate a couple extra minutes and a few bleeps of hard drive space is a sad reality IMHO. The fact that people generally aren't aware of what quality can and should be is also true and so evident by simply strolling through a Best Buy. Quality does (often) cost some money though, and this is a very big point.

Getting back to the point of selecting lossless over MP3 though, which doesn't cost money. I often see the mantra repeated as a sort of nose snub to the audiophile sensibility that people "care about music more than quality". This comment often bears it's own stamp of elitism and I will HUGELY beg to differ on this as I strongly feel that (outside of that fringe audiophile community get on sound more than the actual music) to care about the quality IS (like most things in life) to care about the music. The brutal reality IMHO is that the opposite is often true and most of the people out there actually don't give a shit about music. For a vast majority, it's a commodity to consume and dispose, often serving as little more than lifestyle support or audio wallpaper for their digital life soundtrack. It often seems like so many people are more into the idea of having a jillion MP3s jammed onto their megagig player rather than truly being actively into the music they have. That is my own somewhat (well actually REALLY) cynical outlook, although I'm still kind of optimistic about a tide turn...for some of the reasons stated above. There are still of tons of people out there that are into music, in spite of the fact that music has lost a lot it's socio-cultural significance. Some of these people are even into the convenience and do actually get into the jilliion gigs of MP3s that they own.


*gets off cynical high-horse*


*goes home to put a record on the turntable*

[noiseflaw]