October 2014

Senseless Ramblings
"In A Time Of Universal Deceit
Telling The Truth Is A Revolutionary Act." – George Orwell 

Plus... Is digital really better than analog?
Plus there's a cold war happening and you're part of it... sort of.
Article By Steven R. Rochlin

Note: This article was written in 2014. At that time the music BUSINESS was doing some questionable things (imho and that of others) before announcing their Hi-Res Audio and Hi-Res Music schemes. As such, i felt we also needed proper labeling to thwart off some of the proposed schemes, which included calling the over forty-year-old (1980) 16-bit/44.1kHz CD as 'Hi-Res'. We know that the CD is not Hi-Res, and it is not a lossless format. Since the 1980s, recording studio digital gear usually included Soundstream's 20-bit/48kHz digital audio system, and when the DVD format was launched in 1997 we had 24-bit/192kHz. We're now well over two decades past that.

  So let's being with the upcoming hi-res initiative, shall we? For years Apple has demanded record labels send them digital music that are hi-res (read: at a resolution higher than 16-bit/44.1kHz). Sure we all know the major music labels <cough> might have misrepresented <cough> the resolution of said files, since currently selling 'hi-rez' music files have been proven by various magazines, which have analyzed the frequency spectrum of said files, publishing their test results accordingly. Upsampling a CD or 44.1/16-bit file to 96kHz/24-bit does not really make it a hi-res file in the opinion of many within the high fidelity audio and recording / mastering industry. David Chesky agrees with us within the interview we did with him for Enjoy the Music.TV. CD players and DACs have been upsampling CD's 44.1kHz/16-bit audio for decades free of charge per se. Why would anyone pay yet again for virtually the exact same digital music file that has been upsampled by perhaps a lower quality algorithm? Why is it the record labels did not tell you it was the CD or 44.1kHz/16-bit file upsampled to begin with before you purchased what you felt was a hi-res file from the online music stores? I can make an 8-bit audio file into a 24-bit/192kHz one, yet that does not truly make it a hi-res audio file now does it?

As we are on the precipice of the major record labels, and to some extent HDtracks, iTrax, 2L, and others, getting some exposure per se from The DEG's (Digital Entertainment Group) possible hi-res music initiative, I feel this is an excellent time to be a bit proactive. We simply need to remind those who provide digitized audio files that if they plan to mark a file hi-res, it should state the origins of said file too. Calling an 8-bit file 192kHz/24-bit is akin to consumer fraud, and none of us would want to deal with Class Action Lawsuit as it pertains to truth in products and advertising. Not just within the USA, yet also in Europe and other countries that have a very strong and longstanding precedent in upholding consumer's rights when it comes to misrepresenting a product. So instead of just waiting it out like pretty much every other magazine seems to be doing, we here at Enjoy the Music.com want to help the music industry to more clearly, and honestly, label the future digitized audio they plan to sell called hi-res.

During the history of recorded sound, there have been many 'formats' (Edison cylinder, metal wire, magnetic tape, DAW, etc) employed to record music. Thus there is little doubt some compromise needs to be made in said labeling. Regardless, there is an 'envelope' that can broadly let consumers know what they are purchasing to keep things honest and above board. When the music industry is honest with their customers, you can rest assured that many of us within the high fidelity audio industry will applaud their effort and welcome recordings that are honestly labeled. On the other hand, if things go awry, am sure there are lawyers who love the big paycheck, and fame, that comes with winning a Class Action lawsuit against companies with very deep pockets. So, let us explore what I humbly suggest to help The DEG and major record labels achieve a sound way of labeling their digitized audio file products.

Note: The red dot tells you there are larger images and the naming is there only for you to see what they mean. Thus the red dot and text (i.e. Historic, Analog etc.) are not to be included within the image that will appear to inform consumers. They are shown here so you better understand the images' meaning. You can download the zipped psd of all files here. These are 100% freeware and no licensing fee or attribution is required.

Change the text within the circle to reflect the actual number/type, thus the example of 48kHz is '48' (as shown here) would be numerically changed to '44' for Redbook standards. Form follows function as '88' would appear instead of '96' as appropriate. At 192kHz is where 'the future' is made and surely we'll be seeing 384kHz and more within recording studios in the decades to come. These images scale nicely imho up and down for resizing and will stand out well against any background color.

Like CD labeling approved decades ago, there need to be three images. One marks the original/source file type/resolution, the next the mastering type/resolution, and last the resolution of the digital audio file being offered for purchase. Thus, if a record label used a Redbook standard CD 16-bit/44.1kHz digitized audio file and upsampled it to 24-bit/96kHz to send to Apple, PonoMusic, HDtracks, etc the three required logos would appear as below.

Of course compromises needed to be made and thus i dropped the bit depth, as odds are anything over 48kHz will be @ at least 24-bit depth. DSD files should employ the same trademarked logo that Sony uses within the same allotted logo size requirements (give or take a little for their logo width difference), as this is their own trademarked proprietary format. Yes, we can debate the sound quality of the variety of analog and historic 'master tapes', yet again compromises need to be made to keep things simple and non-confusing. Confusing consumers is the last thing any of us desire. 

"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

August 2022 Update
i highly recommended an honest labeling system as 'Hi-Res Music' was being launched. The pushback from the music BUSINESS was, sadly, as expected. Soon after this article was published, a proprietary lossy digital audio format was launched under the guise of it being lossless and authenticated. How is that going? I welcome an honest, open, and transparent discussion about music labeling. We know the music BUSINESS will probably never agree to such honesty in labeling, so let's hope premium music labels become the first to use a proper labeling system so their customers know the product they are purchasing.

The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.
-- Hunter S. Thompson

Is Digital Really Better Than Analog?
Yes, no, well, depends on who you ask and in what circumstance now doesn't it? Loved how some people panned Neil Young's recent release of A Letter Home album. "Oh no, it was recorded in some low-res booth instead of a state-of-the-art XX-bit/YYYkHz studio." Yeah, how dare an artist, who just so happens to be a creator of music, use anything other than the very best in recording equipment. They also panned the rock band Rush many years ago in a scathing article, but they did rave about Rush over a decade later so live and learn I guess. As a fan of many genera's of music, yes including the 8-bit digital variety (i.e. the original arcade game Pac-Man, Donkey Kong and the like), who is to tell an artist that they can only use whatever 'canvass' you feel is best. It is musical art ferchrissakes! That's why we call them musical artists (duh).

Yes, some people hate abstract art, other might hate cubism, and some might not ever see the genius/madness of Salvador Dali. Me? I hate everything equally, and some things more equally than others <grin>. We generally buy what we love, and don't what we dislike. That's all part of a consumer-driven economy and all that. Sure, you are free to speak your mind and argue that analog is better than digital or visa versa, yet someone else might have the other side of that debate. In the end market forces will win... only if they/you actually care about the market to begin with. Think about it.

The Cold War
Make no mistake, some publishers of magazines, not just those pertaining to high fidelity audio, are suffering. Constrained by bean counters who demand constant content that strains their writing staff, we are all only human and thus can only do a certain amount of things during a given timeline. Offering higher pay makes no difference either (imho) because if money is the motivator then one should question their real motives to begin with. If you're not already doing the best job you can, then what is holding you back? Why? How can you make adjustments to achieve whatever goal(s) you are seeking to achieve? Are your goals in alignment with whoever is keeping food on your table? Would you do what you're doing even if it did not put a single morsel of food on said table? Think about it.

So as I sit here watching the high-fidelity audio industry, it makes me smile. As a guy who came from the bottom rung with literally two pennies to his name, and enjoys being in that position (or feeling that way), it is always good to be 'hungry'. Hunger usually makes one a bit more motivated, since the world is about six meals away from possible anarchy. Go ahead and try it. Starve everyone in your town for six meals without any hope of future nourishment and see what happens. Wow, I really go off track there huh? Ok, now what was I trying to convey? Oh yeah, magazines...