Tom Petty on High Def files

He says "with MP3, you're only hearing about 5% of what I'm hearing in the studio".

MP3 is transparent enough they have to seek out particularly problematic samples to tune the psychoacoustic model further. Hydrogenaudio gave up on listening tests of encoders above 128kbps because it was too difficult for A/B/X listeners to distinguish any differences.

Art Garfunkel on his role in Caddyshack

 

With MP3, you're only PRESENTED with about 5% of what is on offer in the studio.

 

Great Video. Tom sold me. 5% for mp3 would be hard to verify. However most musicians seem to loathe mp3's.

 

It's mostly the dynamics that are truncated with MP3.

 

I just searched for Wildflowers and it is not available in hi def. Anyone know why? Also why is a hi def file more expensive then a CD? A file doesn't have to be manufactured shipped and stored.

 

Dynamic range is not affected, nothing about the levels is "truncated". You are confusing dynamic compression with perceptual codec data compression.

Many techniques are used to reduce the data rate, when the ear would not be able to perceive the changes.

Unlike simpler codes such as MPEG 1 Layer 2, or ATRAC, etc, the bulk of the MP3 research was on building models of the human hearing mechanism and refining the understanding of physiological shortcomings in our perception, and investigating and mathematically implementing ways to reduce the encoding bandwidth to take advantage of the fact that our hearing is based on bones vibrating liquid-immersed hair follicles in a tuned resonator that release electrical impulses that exhaust stored cell chemical energy, fed to a organic neural network originally evolved to detect natural threats.

The audio is split into frequency sub-bands; bits are allocated so that quantization distortion is kept below the threshold of hearing.

Audio at levels and frequencies we can't perceive doesn't need to be preserved.

Audio that would be masked by other frequencies does not need to be preserved.

Audio that would be masked by close loud transients does not need to be preserved.

Read about Karlheinz Brandenburg, he was a mathematical protege, under a professor with a background in physiological acoustics, and wrote a thesis in 1989 about perceptual coding. Due to political favoritism by big licensing lobby groups, their codec was denied roles in digital broadcasting, DVD, and other applications that would have paid royalties, and to even be included at all in the first MPEG standard, they had to include a filter bank that paid royalties to other members. After a few years of denials, they finally released MP3 code publicly that could run on a computer (when a computer had enough power to run it), and you know the rest of the story.

PS Dependence on fatal pain medications may lead an artist to bandwagon for ways to re-sell his back catalog to an aging fan base.

 

Way too harsh. Think Tom needed the money? No. He heard something he liked. Neil young also hates MP3. Could it be that they work really hard on making an album sound great and they want us to hear it the best possible way.

 

Weird, because it's clearly audible when I compare a 128 MP3 to the CD version.

You're the absolute authority here on all things that can possibly be measured, so I won't argue it any further. I'll only suggest that you gain some real experience with some high-performance gear.

 

MP3 isn't transparent at 128kbps, but dynamics isn't where I'd expect you'd detect its failures. Unlike Fraunhofer's further pursuit of acceptable quality in codecs with even lower bitrates, LAME development instead has proceeded in pursuing MP3 transparency at higher bit rates needed to obtain this, typically achieved at "V2" or "V3" for all but the most challenging passages, where entrenched shortcomings in the MP3 codec can't be overcome.

 

Same reason audio refraction crystals sell for many hundreds of dollars.

 

Why was CD 50% more expensive than LPs, and even cassettes, when manufacturing costs became lower? The artists had to fight a long fight to even get a proportionate share of royalties from the additional profits record companies realized on the inflated price.

 

When a new format is introduced wouldnt it be smart for the music industry to sell it for less -or equal to in this case- and get more people to give it a go? How many times has it happened when a new cool "overpriced" development comes along just to die before it even has a chance.

 

That is why the HD file could be great for both artist and record companies. But it has to be priced to compete.

 

Maybe, but there is a counter-argument: Metallica didn't sue Napster, and the RIAA didn't sue Diamond Multimedia (maker of Rio player), because of concerns over the quality of the music you'd hear. In fact, many advocates have attested that getting record companies to release master tape-quality audio has been an uphill battle; they don't want to sell "the crown jewels". Maybe the reason that popular music you can buy on CD is brickwalled to heck.

 

PS Dependence on fatal pain medications may lead an artist to bandwagon for ways to re-sell his back catalog to an aging fan base.

Disgusting and unnecessary. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself I suppose.

 

Warner Bros. would not release the DSD transfer done by Richard Dodd (which was done in 1999, if I remember correctly):

Richard Dodd

The SACD Project Team did demonstrate this at a number of events back in the day. SACD test pressings were made, but never went any further because of the SACD/DVD-A situation.


[Edit] - Seems there was a Pono version: Album details - Dynamic Range Database Was that not Hi-Res?

 

Interesting point. Seems like a no brainer from a consumers point of view but the industry has the own ways of dealing with things. I don't recall many artists who have come out in support for SQ either.

 

Thanks for this response. Tom spoke of a deluxe 2 disc Wildflowers before he died. This may be why its been held up as well.

 

Hi-Res, not "High Def", is any record above 44 KHz and 16-bit. Eg. 48KHz/24-bit, 96KHz/32-bit, 192KHz/24-bit, DSD, etc.

The standard red book CD 44KHz/16-bit or the mp3 are not included in the Hi-Res league.

 

Most musician's that I have known are very uneducated on the subject of audio reproduction.

While they may understand what they are playing and how to get it to sound a certain way, the subject of playback is another matter.

Most of these musician's have the worst audio equipment imaginable.

Sure, the uber wealthy among them do have nice stereo's, usually McIntosh, because they can afford it and that is what they have been sold.

As to Petty's statements, I do not agree with them.

First, where is he sitting? He is in the control room, which is a close to the actual source as you can get. He has the opportunity in that room to listen to the source firsthand, before it is trampled compressed and what ever else is done to it.

Seems to me, that I have heard CD's of Tom and his band and was not all that impressed with what I have heard.

Kind of a double standard?

Put out quality uncompressed CD's and let us have a chance to listen to your music in it's purest form and then we an talk.

Now, here sits an aging rock musician who has spent his career standing in front of powerful amps, while playing music at 115 dB and I am expected to trust his ears? I don't think so.

Most of the population have not been listening to 128MB compressed MP3 files for a decade or more.

The realities are, that when presented with 320MB MP3 files, by far, the majority can't tell the difference between the MP3 and a CD.

I still see people everyday who listen to higher resolution music on sub standard playback systems.

I'm not sure what they accomplish by doing this?

Bit rate is clearly not everything when it comes down to overall music reproduction. There is so much more that needs to be taken into consideration.

 

Yes, that was out of character to bring his personal life and passing into the discussion, and I apologize.

 

Good to hear his master tapes weren't lost in that big fire in 2008!

 

The Wildflowers 24/96 remaster was available from Pono Music before it closed down. Sorry, I don't know why HDTracks and other hi-res download sites don't have it now.

 

Incredibly uncalled for.