Is MP3 about to become obsolete?

In a word "no".

But if I didn't write BOLD headlines, would you even be reading this?

Wired's Listening Post has a really interesting post up about a new type of music reproduction/digital compression.
Unlike MP3 it doesn't work as a way of compressing and sampling actual sound, but as a way of reproducing the performance of the original. So really, in a way, I was being even MORE misleading with my post title, as this isn't so much competition for MP3 as it might be for MIDI.

So? We've been using MIDI for a while. What's the big the deal?

Well, checking out the samples on the post, the research team (using an actual recording of a clarinet) has been able to create a MIDI-like recreation of the clarinet, (which would normally be around 32KB
in MIDI), but with this new method takes up less than ONE kilobyte (1KB).

For those of you like me, who weren't math majors, that's less than ONE THIRTIETH the file size!

Check out the post, with samples to listen to, over at Wired!
someaudioguy some audio guy audio voice over technology voice acting demo agent compression

The Perfect iTunes EQ Settings! ... ... ... or not ...

I'm rocking the Grey Album right now. It's a fun one to keep coming back to, as it's just really well done, and really raises the bar for mashups. That and being as handi-cappable as I am I never realized track 11 was supposed to be reversed.

*sigh*

Anywho, this story, linked to on 43 folders (where I caught it first), has been floating around about building the perfect EQ setting for listening to music in iTunes.

Open the equalizer, and from the pop-up menu, select “Make Preset.”
Call it “Perfect,” because it is, and set the following levels, from
left to right (skip the Preamp section):
db +3, +6, +9, +7, +6, +5, +7, +9, +11, +8 db

Which looks like this:


Which I get, as supposedly MP3 strips info out of your music, specifically really high, and really low pitched noises. The reason being that we shouldn't be able to hear those noises, but I believe they do affect the sounds we can hear. The smaller the file (or lower the bitrate) the MORE information is cut out.

Well this post over at Idolator has a really well written response to the "smiley face" EQ setting:

"The perfect setting equals no setting, just good quality rips and good speakers. People work HARD to get stuff sounding the way that they want it to--we don't just mix any way we want. I think bass and treble knobs are plenty. Put it this way: If you don't like the colors in a movie, you don't adjust the tint in your TV. You just don't like the color. It's not totally analogous, but it's the choice of the director--or the musical artist--however misguided, to make that sound the way it is. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Admittedly not all speakers are made the same, so compensations can be made. But a perfect setting--theoretically--is a flat one."

Which looks like, well, this:


Now this is major! If you dont go slumming with really low quality mp3's (so you can fit more songs on your 80GB ipods), then you shouldn't really need EQ per se, that is if you're interested in the sounds that the musicians intended for you to hear. I tend to rip to 320Kbps, with high quality (read slow) and with a really high thread priority on CDex. I've never had any issues listening on my Senny CX300's, and I do tend to leave the EQ flat...

Here's the 43Folders Story I found.

Here's Idolator's response.




It still really bothers me that people try to measure mp3 players by number of songs. That measurement is usually derived by squashing music to within an inch of its life.
I mean the first ipod had a 5GB hard drive and held "1000 songs". By comparison, today's 4GB Nano holds (wait for it ... wait for it) "1000 songs"!?!?!?
Even though it's 20% smaller??? What happened with that extra gigabyte of space???

*Sheesh*

Are MP3's "Good" or just "Good Enough"

I always laugh when I see car commercials touting "mp3 quality sound" or iPod integration as some high water mark for audio fidelity. Just like how it drove me crazy watching the old Dodge commercials with a vapid wife loudly proclaiming "It's gawt uh deeveedee!" (PLAYER YOU WHORE! It has a DVD PLAYER), I don't think most consumers really understand what an MP3 really is.

The San Francisco Chronicle has a pretty decent write up on what mp3's are, and they get the perspectives of several Grammy award winning recording engineers. You can image they aren't that satisfied with the current state of digital compression.

"When even the full files on the CDs contain less than half the information
stored to studio hard drives during recording, these compressed MP3s represent
a minuscule fraction of the actual recording. For purists, it's the dark ages
of recorded sound.
"You can get used to awful," says record producer Phil Ramone. "You can
appreciate nothing. We've done it with fast food."

...
These studio professionals bring their experience and expensive, modern
technology to bear on their work; they're scrupulous and fastidious. Then they
hear their work played back on an iPod through a pair of plastic earbuds. Ask
Ramone how it feels to hear his work on MP3s, and he doesn't mince words.
"It's painful," he says.
MP3s have won the war of the formats because of technology, not because of
their audio quality. "It's like hearing through a screen door," says
neuroscientist Daniel Levitin of McGill University, author of "This Is Your
Brain on Music." "There are lines between me and what I want to see."

Article also goes on to talk about what your brain might need to do to fill in the gaps left by current mp3 tech (does it need to work harder?), and compares it to the early days of portable radios.

MP3 Music - It's Better Than It Sounds

My own experiences, I've learned to stop worrying and kind of love the mp3. It's universal, ubiquitous, and easy. Also there is something to be said for WHERE and HOW you listen to music.

If you think you're hawt stuff then you should try this music quiz. Can YOU tell the difference between compressed and not. I shoot almost perfectly 50%, and that's only on my Senny hd25-1's.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Can you Tell the Difference?

So you engineers think you're hot shite yeah?
Well give this little test a try!

Can you really tell the difference between a 128Kbps AAC and the original? I have to admit I only got half (two out of the four test songs), and only then because of song selection (one of the four was very obvious for me). Audio compression sure has come along way from the first generation 96Kpbs mp3's found on the original Napster.

Give it a try here. It's a lot harder than it sounds...