Did the iPOD kill HiFi?
Discussion
Ever since the birth of the iPOD, (though actually a while before, search the 'Loudness War'), kill music?
I used to upgrade regularly, visit a HiFi shop as part of the weekend routine, spend time tweaking and fettling the equipment i owned, just to here the slightest nuance of ambience hidden in the background of my latest purchase?
What happened? I hear tracks regularly that i like, but on downloading an MP3 LoFi version for assessment sounds so s
te i can't bear it, no longer do i buy CDs. Oh how would i like to find something that justifies the money and time spent on my current system.
I have to say if HiFi was the equivalent of the car world we would all lust after Prius' , but we don't do we?
so here was an area the UK ruled, we built the best HiFi and had the best dealers, press, music. Still the empire has gone, the car industry has gone, what next??
I used to upgrade regularly, visit a HiFi shop as part of the weekend routine, spend time tweaking and fettling the equipment i owned, just to here the slightest nuance of ambience hidden in the background of my latest purchase?
What happened? I hear tracks regularly that i like, but on downloading an MP3 LoFi version for assessment sounds so s
te i can't bear it, no longer do i buy CDs. Oh how would i like to find something that justifies the money and time spent on my current system.I have to say if HiFi was the equivalent of the car world we would all lust after Prius' , but we don't do we?
so here was an area the UK ruled, we built the best HiFi and had the best dealers, press, music. Still the empire has gone, the car industry has gone, what next??
Loudness war killed HiFi.
HiFi is still available for most of us who are into it (I certainly am) but it's the poor mastering that pi$$ses me off. The "good" news is, I think the industry is waking up to it (albeit slowly) as some bands make point of not making crapily mastered CDs. e.g. Elbow's latest CD is incredibly produced and mastered. It just needs a few more hi profile bands and artists to make a point. The only music that should be allowed to fall into the loudness war are generic/crap "pop" music and/or singles. Albums should always be properly mastered I think.
As for MP3/AAC/etc. that's always been "convenience" music IMO. I buy the odd iTunes song and the quality is pretty good, all I rip is AAC VBR 256 and sounds more than fine.
However, when I really want to listen to music on my home stereo, I get the CD out and listen in full quality.
MP3/AAC/etc. will only "kill" HiFi when you can't get CDs anymore. This won't happen as there are enough audiophiles around to support the market. On top of that, people like the tangibility and tactility of having physical media.
A similar thing was about in the 80s/90s where people had a Vinyl version of their music and made tape copies to preserve the Vinyl for the HiFi and the tape for the portable music, in car music etc.
HiFi is still available for most of us who are into it (I certainly am) but it's the poor mastering that pi$$ses me off. The "good" news is, I think the industry is waking up to it (albeit slowly) as some bands make point of not making crapily mastered CDs. e.g. Elbow's latest CD is incredibly produced and mastered. It just needs a few more hi profile bands and artists to make a point. The only music that should be allowed to fall into the loudness war are generic/crap "pop" music and/or singles. Albums should always be properly mastered I think.
As for MP3/AAC/etc. that's always been "convenience" music IMO. I buy the odd iTunes song and the quality is pretty good, all I rip is AAC VBR 256 and sounds more than fine.
However, when I really want to listen to music on my home stereo, I get the CD out and listen in full quality.
MP3/AAC/etc. will only "kill" HiFi when you can't get CDs anymore. This won't happen as there are enough audiophiles around to support the market. On top of that, people like the tangibility and tactility of having physical media.
A similar thing was about in the 80s/90s where people had a Vinyl version of their music and made tape copies to preserve the Vinyl for the HiFi and the tape for the portable music, in car music etc.
Au contrare.
The digital media revolution has changed the way in which we consume music and has opened up an entirely new level of convenience.
Buy a CD, rip it, store it, consume it on numerous platforms at a quality at which you're happy with.
The benefits for multi point consumption in terms of multiroom and multi dwelling are simply massive.
Of course if one goes down the purchased digital media route then you're constrained by the DRM and quality considerations of what is available but that's commercial practice restricting the concept.
Digital media is here to stay, unquestionably and as such it has a very very valid place in hi-fi.
The digital media revolution has changed the way in which we consume music and has opened up an entirely new level of convenience.
Buy a CD, rip it, store it, consume it on numerous platforms at a quality at which you're happy with.
The benefits for multi point consumption in terms of multiroom and multi dwelling are simply massive.
Of course if one goes down the purchased digital media route then you're constrained by the DRM and quality considerations of what is available but that's commercial practice restricting the concept.
Digital media is here to stay, unquestionably and as such it has a very very valid place in hi-fi.
Quite.
I love the convenience factor and being able to carry all my music in a fag packet sized device.
However, I do love putting a decently made CD on and listening to it on a good quality stereo. MP3 etc. simply cannot compete on this level - and nor should it attempt to. MP3 etc. is for convenience and as long as it reaches a "minimum" sound quality then it's very good at doing just that.
I love the convenience factor and being able to carry all my music in a fag packet sized device.
However, I do love putting a decently made CD on and listening to it on a good quality stereo. MP3 etc. simply cannot compete on this level - and nor should it attempt to. MP3 etc. is for convenience and as long as it reaches a "minimum" sound quality then it's very good at doing just that.
"I have to say if HiFi was the equivalent of the car world we would all lust after Prius' , but we don't do we?"
Why would we lust after the Prius ? As an audiophile this would be like lusting after an mp3 player ?? Most audiophiles are like most petrolheads we want quality and performance (often at a budget)
Linn, Naim like Rolls/Bentley ?
Lots of small UK specialists just like the car world
Personally I think you can stick both your iPod and the Prius
Why would we lust after the Prius ? As an audiophile this would be like lusting after an mp3 player ?? Most audiophiles are like most petrolheads we want quality and performance (often at a budget)
Linn, Naim like Rolls/Bentley ?
Lots of small UK specialists just like the car world
Personally I think you can stick both your iPod and the Prius
P700DEE said:
"I have to say if HiFi was the equivalent of the car world we would all lust after Prius' , but we don't do we?"
Why would we lust after the Prius ? As an audiophile this would be like lusting after an mp3 player ?? Most audiophiles are like most petrolheads we want quality and performance (often at a budget)
Linn, Naim like Rolls/Bentley ?
Lots of small UK specialists just like the car world
Personally I think you can stick both your iPod and the Prius
So you are suggesting that audiophile media players such as those produced by Linn and Logitech dont exist?Why would we lust after the Prius ? As an audiophile this would be like lusting after an mp3 player ?? Most audiophiles are like most petrolheads we want quality and performance (often at a budget)
Linn, Naim like Rolls/Bentley ?
Lots of small UK specialists just like the car world
Personally I think you can stick both your iPod and the Prius
Do you mean 'did the iPod kill hi-fi?' or 'did MP3 kill hi-fi?'
Apple dumbed down MP3 players for the mass market to make an oodle of cash out of making something not technically very good but easy to use and look pretty. The public seem to be swung more by looks and image rather than technical capability so it sold like hot cakes. 'iPod' is now the word for a generic MP3 player but shouldn't be.
If it's music quality you're into you're not stuck with MP3 and it's compressed lossy sound quality, you could get into lossless codecs like FLAC, still not as rich as vinyl but then digital music never will be.
CDs have become obsolete for me now, storing 8500 albums on physical CD vinyl would take up too much room and I'm not into swanking off with a huge bookcase full of records to impress people, CDs are a tool to get music home from the shops I can't buy in digital format (preferably FLAC, failing that V0/ 320 MP3 - won't ever touch itunes!)
Apple dumbed down MP3 players for the mass market to make an oodle of cash out of making something not technically very good but easy to use and look pretty. The public seem to be swung more by looks and image rather than technical capability so it sold like hot cakes. 'iPod' is now the word for a generic MP3 player but shouldn't be.
If it's music quality you're into you're not stuck with MP3 and it's compressed lossy sound quality, you could get into lossless codecs like FLAC, still not as rich as vinyl but then digital music never will be.
CDs have become obsolete for me now, storing 8500 albums on physical CD vinyl would take up too much room and I'm not into swanking off with a huge bookcase full of records to impress people, CDs are a tool to get music home from the shops I can't buy in digital format (preferably FLAC, failing that V0/ 320 MP3 - won't ever touch itunes!)
I think it is more fundamental than that.
By that I mean the iPod killed the music industry as we know it and the knock-on effect is to kill hi-fi.
When I was a degree student back in 1998 the industry was petrified because it was controlled by 4 or 5 'major' record labels. This was also insidious because some of the record labels also owned film production (Universal) some owned record stores (Virgin) and some even made the players (Sony).
This outside influence was scary. That said, it was profitable for all concerned including artists, and in turn there was the money around to make great music and risk on new acts.
10 years on, it is all integrated down to one thing. If you don't want to deal with Apple and get on iTunes you are dead.
So from a system of just 5 record labels it all comes down to one player and one huge shop to sell to all at the price they demand.
10 years ago, an artist would be able to sell a single then people would go buy the album. A decent income.
Now, the record label's cut from an iTune's song is 30p. And because they can, they just buy a couple of songs they want through iTunes. Therefore an artist may have a No 1 selling 100,000 copies, and will be left with a record label having to cover the cost out of £30,000 and the artist getting £4,000
Where does it hit - the recording. If a number 1 will net an artist a few grand, then why spend a few grand making it sound good?
Music has gone back to the production of the rich - unless the artist is willing to make their album on a shoestring.
By that I mean the iPod killed the music industry as we know it and the knock-on effect is to kill hi-fi.
When I was a degree student back in 1998 the industry was petrified because it was controlled by 4 or 5 'major' record labels. This was also insidious because some of the record labels also owned film production (Universal) some owned record stores (Virgin) and some even made the players (Sony).
This outside influence was scary. That said, it was profitable for all concerned including artists, and in turn there was the money around to make great music and risk on new acts.
10 years on, it is all integrated down to one thing. If you don't want to deal with Apple and get on iTunes you are dead.
So from a system of just 5 record labels it all comes down to one player and one huge shop to sell to all at the price they demand.
10 years ago, an artist would be able to sell a single then people would go buy the album. A decent income.
Now, the record label's cut from an iTune's song is 30p. And because they can, they just buy a couple of songs they want through iTunes. Therefore an artist may have a No 1 selling 100,000 copies, and will be left with a record label having to cover the cost out of £30,000 and the artist getting £4,000
Where does it hit - the recording. If a number 1 will net an artist a few grand, then why spend a few grand making it sound good?
Music has gone back to the production of the rich - unless the artist is willing to make their album on a shoestring.
Reading that I'd say the ipod revolution has helped the music industry.
Back in the day artists would produce 'proper' music for real fans who saved and invested in a record collection of their favourites. Now it's the Simon Cowell'eque empires churning more generic pap off the end of the sausage machine to make a quick buck - and they deserve to get ripped off for not putting the effort in.
The ipod, Youtube, internet download revolution has helped give instant worldwide publicity to many good artists who wouldn't have been able to reach these audiences without the backing of a major label.
People like Seasick Steve, Dub FX and Stig of the Dump are all very talented artists who have made more money than they would have ever thought possible through their street busking days, not because a major label pushed it out and told us that's what the public will buy but because the public found it, liked it and bought it.
It's been good to take the power out of the hands of the big record companies and people can get out there and do their own research and buy what they like, not what they are told is in vogue this week.
Back in the day artists would produce 'proper' music for real fans who saved and invested in a record collection of their favourites. Now it's the Simon Cowell'eque empires churning more generic pap off the end of the sausage machine to make a quick buck - and they deserve to get ripped off for not putting the effort in.
The ipod, Youtube, internet download revolution has helped give instant worldwide publicity to many good artists who wouldn't have been able to reach these audiences without the backing of a major label.
People like Seasick Steve, Dub FX and Stig of the Dump are all very talented artists who have made more money than they would have ever thought possible through their street busking days, not because a major label pushed it out and told us that's what the public will buy but because the public found it, liked it and bought it.
It's been good to take the power out of the hands of the big record companies and people can get out there and do their own research and buy what they like, not what they are told is in vogue this week.
I don't think you can blame Apple/iTunes, after all you can buy MP3s from Amazon, Play.com etc.
As for people buying 2/3 songs rather than albums then, yes this is happening. However the flip side is that maybe bands will attempt to make proper albums where all the tracks are worth downloading rather than 2/3 singles and a load of fillers.
As for people buying 2/3 songs rather than albums then, yes this is happening. However the flip side is that maybe bands will attempt to make proper albums where all the tracks are worth downloading rather than 2/3 singles and a load of fillers.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, we've had a lot of crap albums lately forced onto us, a lot of one album wonders from the x-factor sausage machine. The absolutely cracking albums out there are unlikely to make it into the charts because they're not backed by Ronald McDonalds mass market record companies. It's handing power to the fans rather than the fat cats.
Dibby said:
...It's been good to take the power out of the hands of the big record companies and people can get out there and do their own research and buy what they like, not what they are told is in vogue this week.
And that is where the good argument hits the fatal flaw.People only have so much time to listen to music.
I would suggest that if a major record label has thrown £500,000 behind an artist they have some reasonable talent. Therefore is you only get the chance to absorb the music of 100 artists over a year, you might find 10 good ones.
However, if you are searching yourself though 100,000 'free' artists with records made on a shoestring, where do you start? Out of those 100 you can take in you would would be hard pressed or lucky to find a 'hidden gem' out of that.
In fact the way it has evolved is that awareness has moved away from the singles chart. You used to be able to get national publicity from selling a few thousand copies and getting in the top 40. From that a 'hit' record would grow and evolve.
Now, in the industry, ironically, all that has happened it that on the iTunes catalogue, less than half of the tracks have sold a single copy. Furthermore instead of the 'Top 40' the yardstick of success or failure of an artist comes down to one thing - whether you are on the iTunes 'New Releases' list or not.
In all the models of a 'free' or very low costs business system, it does not open the system fairly through superior choice - that is merely a superficial assumption, in reality, it simply favours a monopoly.
Dracoro said:
I don't think you can blame Apple/iTunes, after all you can buy MP3s from Amazon, Play.com etc.
As for people buying 2/3 songs rather than albums then, yes this is happening. However the flip side is that maybe bands will attempt to make proper albums where all the tracks are worth downloading rather than 2/3 singles and a load of fillers.
That's the thing - the 'average' listener will never bother to invest their time in an album. It is easier not to, and just flit to the next new artist's singles. As for people buying 2/3 songs rather than albums then, yes this is happening. However the flip side is that maybe bands will attempt to make proper albums where all the tracks are worth downloading rather than 2/3 singles and a load of fillers.
You don't have to walk to the record shop to buy an album and hand over your money. All you need to do to listen to a new song is a couple of mouse clicks, your card is charged and the song is playing 60 seconds later.
People's attention is smaller as it is allowed to be. How many times do you change the channel on the TV? It's easy, all the time - but when you actually had to get up and switch it by hand, it was a lot less.
Plotloss said:
To be fair, when you had to get up to change the channel there were only three to choose from.
Come on, it was at least 4 in my house anyway... 
But this proves the point of consumption not increasing with choice. Having thousands of unknown artists to choose from doesn't make people listen to music any more than having 400 channels makes them watch TV 100 times more than when there was 4.
[quote=JustinP1
That's the thing - the 'average' listener will never bother to invest their time in an album. It is easier not to, and just flit to the next new artist's singles.
[/quote]
This always happened though, and still does. Your average consumer of music only listens to the tracks on the album they are already familiar with, they simply aren't interested in investing the time in the album tracks. The difference now being they don't have to buy those bothersome album tracks anymore. I guess the moral of the story is never underestimate how much music doesn't mean to people. Sad really.
JustinP1 is right though, for anyone there are only so many hours in the day for even the most ardent seeker of new music, let alone the average music consumer. Just because everyone can put music out there without the help of labels these days, doesn't mean they should. However thats a whole thread in itself.
As for the whole MP3/ipod issue. The record labels failed to see this coming in a way that is utterly unbelievable, they have failed in spectacular fashion at anticipating and moving with their market place, now they chase after 12 year olds illegally downloading tunes they would never have bought legally in the first place (not that it makes copyright infrigment OK, but you see my point) and don't spend the time or money changing their business model. EMI have lost a huge sum. Good, I hope the traditional recording industry collapses in on its own greedy self, it could be the best thing to happen for the music buying public.
That's the thing - the 'average' listener will never bother to invest their time in an album. It is easier not to, and just flit to the next new artist's singles.
[/quote]
This always happened though, and still does. Your average consumer of music only listens to the tracks on the album they are already familiar with, they simply aren't interested in investing the time in the album tracks. The difference now being they don't have to buy those bothersome album tracks anymore. I guess the moral of the story is never underestimate how much music doesn't mean to people. Sad really.
JustinP1 is right though, for anyone there are only so many hours in the day for even the most ardent seeker of new music, let alone the average music consumer. Just because everyone can put music out there without the help of labels these days, doesn't mean they should. However thats a whole thread in itself.
As for the whole MP3/ipod issue. The record labels failed to see this coming in a way that is utterly unbelievable, they have failed in spectacular fashion at anticipating and moving with their market place, now they chase after 12 year olds illegally downloading tunes they would never have bought legally in the first place (not that it makes copyright infrigment OK, but you see my point) and don't spend the time or money changing their business model. EMI have lost a huge sum. Good, I hope the traditional recording industry collapses in on its own greedy self, it could be the best thing to happen for the music buying public.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff