Tom Petty on High Def files

Yeah. Looks like this video was just part of the PR attempt around NY and his Pono project back in 2015. RIP Mr. Petty.

A shame really that they had to resort to this kind of unrealistic hyping up of hi-res and making MP3 worse than the sound quality really is. Nonetheless, the part that Petty referred to with needing to "turn up the volume" with hi-res is important and of course speaks to the importance of the audio production itself, judicious use of things like dynamic compression, and maintaining good dynamic range in the final mix. A real shame that Young, et al. could not explain it like this. Instead they tried unsuccessfully (thankfully!) to play the numbers game like how 192kHz "sounds like God" or some awful comments like that.

To this day, I would not be surprised if NY still hangs on to 24/192 as some kind of indicator of sound quality. He has a book coming out (To Feel The Music). I hope he has developed insight into a more accurate way of messaging sound quality. Also stop nonsense ranting about digital vs. analog and the ills of streaming. I'm not sure how influential he is in the music world beyond mostly older music listeners in any event...

 

Seriously. Thank you. Best to have trod a mile or two in those shoes first.

 

I appreciate Tom Petty's negative reaction to low bit rate "thick" sounding MP3.
It takes some of the beauty out of the signal.
When you live music and hear your own hard fought "sound" being made fake like an orange juice concentrate compared to the real thing---it bugs you.
24/192 has better treble and less smear.
It isn't as good as a proper analog transfer.
But 24/192 is the best digital I have heard so far.
His statement about 5% was just an off the cuff exaggeration IMHO.
I sometimes don't get bothered at all listening to 320K MP3.
It sounds a bit "chunky" but has a nice fat boost to the vocal midrange.
Problem is that a lot of the upper band clarity goes away at 320K.
When I relax and listen this makes me angry at what I am missing.
My two cents.

 

Whatever format you are listening too .. you are not hearing what they heard in the control room. Mastering has the ability to dramatically change the way a final mix sounds.

When I had my studio, I used to always add a master bus compressor and a EQ towards the end of the mix to get an idea of what the final master would sound like. However, I never printed them to tape (or Protools).

 

Technical perfection (what did they HEAR in the control room?) misses the point.
Playback is a "performance" just like watching a movie.
You never ask yourself in the movies "gee---I wonder what this looked like at Skywalker Studios when they worked it over?"
Nope.
You judge it by how it plays on YOUR video setup, some play better than others and this is obvious.
Same thing with audio.
But just like video---4K LOOKS better than 480i DVD---all things being EQUAL.
And 24/192 "LOOKS" like better audio when I play it back on my set.
Most of the time.
Mastering and camera used (or in this case---audio equipment used be it analog or Rupert Neve or WHATEVER) has a lot to do with it.
But I want it to look the best it can.
So that's why I prefer high res.
Now if YOU can't see the difference between 4K and 480i DVD that's another story.
It's obvious on MY set.
Just as 24/192 is obvious on MY set.
Now I shall sit here and await all the experts who want to tell me my comparison is deeply flawed etc etc.
It's my opinion and I'm sticking with it no matter what youse low res Kolboynicks say...

 

I have a Creative 24/96 external sound card, using JRiver. I also have a vintage Adcom GDA-700 that is 20 bit/48khz max sample rate. With JRiver, I can down sample 24/96 files to 48khz and the Adcom passes them no problem.........and sounds as good or better than 24/96 on the Creative. So the quality of the DAC and component plays a big factor here, not just sample rate. Besides, 95% of my digital collection is 16 bit anyway(ALAC lossless).

 

I play 320k files in my car, and enjoy the convenience. At home it is usually vinyl, or a cd-r needledrop.

 

Yup.
Low bit rate still has a place as it uses so much less data.
But on a good set the higher resolution of well, high res, really makes it more musical.
For example---I have a 2600 watt RMS high power PA system downstairs in my rehearsal room.
It sounds tremendously "exciting" and has JBL PA speakers with 15" commercial subs and is all heavily equalized to give it clarity and a "huge" punchy dance hall vibe.
You can hear EVERYTHING like sitting in the front row at a live concert and did I mention it is EXCITING?
BUT.
After five minutes it wears me out unless I am drinking heavily (which is what it is designed to mimic---a "club" PA system, that is).
My four times more expensive "far field" AUDIOPHILE system upstairs using Harbeths is much less in your face and is a bit "polite" in comparison.
But boy you can sit there and drink in music for hour after hour without one bit of fatigue.
And the images are holographic and come out of total darkness.
Unlike the PA which is ALWAYS LOUD.
You know what?
I bet 99% of civilians would think the big PA was the BETTER system!
I paid all that extra money upstairs so that I could RELAX and listen to MUSIC.
Downstairs I listen to live bands which get me up out of my seat.
Different systems---different goals.
THAT reminds me of the difference between high res and MP3.
They are for different purposes.
One is for listening (high res).
The other is for "drive-by" easy streaming on the cheap.
I love them BOTH!
My two cents.

 

I think 'MP3' (and it's attendant issues -- phase-y cymbals, smeared acoustic guitars, etc.) has become shorthand for generally low bitrate files of some kinds. I'm told that higher bitrate MP3's are okay...

I use 128 AAC for uploading CDs into my 20-year-old iMac, due to very limited hard drive capacity. They sound fine, in fact I can't hear any difference from original CD to CD-R when I a/b on my home setup. These days, I use those files to load up a 16-gigabyte thumb drive for listening in my car.

 

When CDs first came out, musicians like Alan Parsons proclaimed that "consumers can finally hear the same thing we are hearing in the studio". But that was back when if you wanted to release a fully digital CD (DDD), the tools you had available to drastically alter the sound were rather limited, and the Loudness War hadn't begun yet.