Audiophiles' audio fails

NPR ran an online quiz to see if people could really tell the difference between high quality digital music files and lower quality ones. They can't. Sorry, Pono and Tidal.

Vinyl isn't all that

Who doesn't have a vinyl fetish? It's so shiny, isn't it? And handily wipe-clean, too.

But there's another a kind of vinyl fetishist, which is the one who insists that music is "better" when it's reproduced by bouncing a needle on a groove in a circular disc. Because it sounds better. Because it's more authentic.

That's actually not true, though, says Marc Edwards, who knows a thing or two about audio fidelity:

[W]e’d send every single release off to be mastered for vinyl, and receive an acetate (a one off copy), a test pressing (initial pressings using the vinyl master), or the final release pressing and be able to compare it to not only a 16bit/44.1khz master of the exact same recording, but we were also often able to compare directly to a 24bit/44.1khz master and 24bit/44.1khz pre-mastered version of the exact same song. And all typically on studio nearfield masters and really nice headphones.

His verdict? Vinyl isn't superior. Here's a sample:

Not only does vinyl have a narrower frequency response, but that response curve changes based on side length and how close to the center of the record the needle is. It makes sense when you think about it — the record player spins at a constant rate, but the distance the needle travels and the amount of data is lowered as you get closer to the center. This is why most releases put the important tracks early in the playing sequence. This is really, really obvious if you have a record handy. Focus on high hats or cymbals, and move the needle to different positions to hear how drastic the effect is.

Vinyl often has issues with sibilance as well (“s” and “t” sounds in vocals). The solution is to run an aggressive de-esser as part of the vinyl mastering.

Now, the cussedness and fragility of vinyl adds something - crackles, pops, a scratch from that time you accidentally dragged the zip of your vinyl catsuit over the turntable while Screamdelica was on it - and that is character you don't get with digital. But the things that make vinyl special are actually the same things that reduce its audio fidelity.

The artwork, though? That's always better on a twelve inch square space.

Spotify really, really want you to open your wallet

Spotify are starting to look increasingly like Gill from The Simpsons, desperately sweetening the deal to try and get people to upgrade to premium (i.e. paid.)

They're now desperately pinning their hopes on "CD quality streaming":

A statement from Spotify claimed that the quality was the highest of any digital music service, and Spotify founder Daniel Ek added that an unequalled bit rate has long been an aspiration for the application.

"Providing great sound quality has always been an important goal for us," he said. "Now, we're taking the next step in offering an unparalleled listening experience."

Although, frankly, unless you're listening through expensive speakers, and have good hearing, you probably won't notice the difference much. And given that Spotify at 160kb/s tends to give me the odd stuttery-buffery blip, I suspect that trying to shove twice as much data down exactly the same connection would make matters worse, not better.

Metallica admit new single sounds rubbish

It was, perhaps, only to be expected: Metallica might have embraced digital downloads to promote the new album, but not to any great quality:

"METALLICA fans,

"My name is Benjamin. I work in fan support for Mission: Metallica.

"I am sorry for the bulk e-mail, but we've heard from quite a few of you regarding the sound quality on the single release of 'The Day That Never Comes'.

"The source of the problem, as you might imagine, goes all the way back to the creation of the track from master — but this is not how it will sound on the album.

"We've identified the source of the problem to prevent it in any subsequent singles released in advance of September 12.

"If we can have another one put together and sent out prior to that date, there may be a higher-quality release of 'The Day That Never Comes' made available, but I can't guarantee it at this time."

I love that "as you might imagine" chucked in there. The strange thing, of course, is that the fault on the track - loud distortion and clipping - appeared on the version released through iTunes and to radio. Since everyone who heard it noticed, the conclusion has to be that nobody involved with Metallica could be bothered to listen to thing all the way through, or, indeed, wanted to.

Trent Reznor calls Radiohead

Although there might not seem to be too much difference between Trent Reznor and Radiohead's pay-if-you-like models for album releases, Trent Reznor reckons he's actually purer that Thom Yorke, on the grounds that the Nine Inch Nails downloads are of a superior audio quality:

"What they did was a cool thing; I think the way they parlayed it into a marketing gimmick has certainly been shrewd," he told ABC's Michael Atkin. "But if you look at what they did, though, it was very much a bait and switch to get you to pay for a MySpace-quality stream as a way to promote a very traditional record sale."

"There's nothing wrong with that - I but don't see that as a big revolution [that] they're kinda getting credit for."

"What they did right: they surprised the world with a new record, and it was available digitally first. What they did wrong: by making it such a low quality thing, not even including artwork ... to me that feels insincere."

'Not including artwork' - yes, because a small thumbnail of an album cover to pop up on coverflow really does add something to the experience. And since Radiohead allowed people to pay what they believed the downloads were worth, surely you can't argue that people didn't get what they paid for? The very opposite, surely?