smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | jchasin@nyc.rr.com |
| Subject | Of MP3s |
| Date | Tue, 16 May 2006 11:16:26 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (5.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
An MP3 is simply a digital rendering of a song, such that the file
size is smaller than conventional (.wav) audio files. The trade-off
with MP3s is size for quality. Certainly we can all intellectually
understand the correlation between the amount of data in the file and
the audio quality of the resulting song rendering. Just like we
understand that number of pixels affects the quality of a digital
photograph, and that more pixels make bigger files.
There are two primary advantages to smaller song file sizes-- storage
and transfer. Smaller files allow for more of them to be stored on a
single digital storage medium. This accounts for the popularity of
MP3 in portable devices; I can have, say, 15,000 MP3s at 128kbs on my
iPod, or else 1,500 CD-quality .wav files. With respect to transfer,
smaller files can be downloaded or moved from machine to machine far
more quickly, because they require less bandwidth.
However, the inexorable advances in both miniaturization of storage
and ubiquity of bandwidth suggest that both benefits of the MP3 might
be short-lived. It is conceivable that in 5 years my iPod will in
fact have 10 times the storage it has now (Now it has 60 gigs; 5 years
ago 5 gigs was a ton on an MP3 device); and so I could hold all the
songs I have now, as .wav files. But for people who have digitized
their CD collections to MP3 and gotten rid of the CDs, I generally
think they'll be sorry once they have that thousand gig hard drive at
home which would have held every CD as .wav files.
In music, file transfer means downloading, and one of the best
advantages of MP3, I think, is in trial. There are many flavors of
this, but generally the idea is, download the song, if you like it,
buy the record. I assume that's the point of the Tasty Tuesday
promotion at Not Lame. There are a lot of models in which MP3s are
available to listeners either for free or in bulk, and many artists
believe this stimulates sales (and many fans believe it allows us o
spend our record money more wisely.)
With respect to file transfer, though, right now with firewiire I can
put about 45 gigs of music on an iPod from a desktop machine in maybe
90 minutes. Maybe its less, I don't know for sure. But already I've
gone from SCSI to USB to USB 2 to firewire; I'm not prepared to assume
that speed of digital transfer is fixed or capped. And as for
downloading, bandwidth has only become less and less scarce over time;
I expect my toaster to be a broadband device in 3 years. In fact,
though, the application of trial might well be the primary remaining
future benefit of MP3, with artists using inferior MP3s for trial, and
selling CD-quality tracks.
Outside of trial, the advantages MP3 presents right now owing to its
smaller file size are, realistically, temporary ones. Whereas the
degradation in sound quality is neither temporary nor reversible. (You
can't "expand" an MP3 back into the original .wav; all you can do is
make a new .wav of the degraded MP3, and when you convert that file to
MP3, you have compounded the degradation.)
It is true that many people do not perceive the difference between MP3
and .wav files. And everyone is free to make the right decision for
themselves, and not everyone has the same ears or hearing ability or
listening environment. Marketing guru Seth Godin talked about
converting all his songs to MP3 at a conference I attended in
September, and he noted that he KNEW it was a reduction in quality--
he just didn't care, because he liked he convenience and was willing
to make the trade-off. That was an informed decision, and far be it
from me to suggest he made a mistake; he knows what is important to
him better than anyone else.
Personally, I believe it is important whenever the topic of MP3s comes
up to point out the fidelity loss issue. Not because I think the
other guy who posted is unaware of it. Not because I'm a smarty-pants
know-it-all (actually, despite that). But rather because I want to
assure that the people who DON'T post-- who generally vastly outnumber
the posters on any listserv-- are presented with both sides of the
trade-off, so that they might make informed decisions.
I am active in a lot of music trading forums where offering up a
source with an MP3 generation elicits the same looks as a fart in a
bridal reception line. It simply isn't done. I know people who wince
within 10 seconds of hearing an MP3 file; its nails on a blackboard to
them. The complaints about MP3 are that they sound "thin" and tinny
(which together adds up to "shrill"), and there is a sort of swirling
that goes on at the high end, around the "s" sound in the vocals, and
around the cymbals. I don't have a golden ear by any stretch, but
over time I find the differences become obvious (with extended
listening, MP3s seem not to wear as well.)
Bottom line, I believe that there are pros and cons to MP3. Everyone
should make their own (informed) decisions on when to use MP3 files
and .wav files. But it looks a lot to me like the pros of MP3 are
temporary, while the cons are not. As a music fan, my advice to other
fans is that MP3 can enhance your enjoyment of music right now through
advantages accruing due to its smaller file size, and you should by
all means avail yourselves of that enjoyment. But too, be aware of
the quality implications of that smaller file size before you do
anything to your music that you can't reverse.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.