The End of the MP3?
The MP3 format of music reproduction has long been the bane of the audio engineer’s existence. The audio quality of MP3s is far inferior to the CD quality .wav files they are usually created from. But the format has become the de-facto standard because of its smaller compressed file size and the creation of audio devices (iPod) and software (Winamp, iTunes) that are designed specifically around the MP3. Popular internet sites, like Myspace, have further degraded the consumer’s expectations for audio fidelity, in exchange for convenience and access. This recent regression has left many studio engineers wondering how important their role is, considering that almost no one will hear their work in its original form.
Quality vs. Convenience vs. Standardization vs. PriceWhen acquiring music, consumers have to make choices based on these four factors. At one point, getting copies of recorded music was time consuming and expensive. You had to spend a lot of money on a playback system (like a record player) and actually GO to a store to by the medium (crazy isn’t it). With digital media and internet delivery, the price and convenience barriers are almost zero. Most people already have a computer or reasonably priced entertainment device, and most music is free or nearly free (sometimes illegally free, but that’s another topic). And the internet makes music accessible pretty much instantaneously. If we examine current standards, it might appear that most people aren’t really willing to pay more for higher quality. But this is deceiving. The MP3 standard was created at a time when internet bandwidth was much lower and storage space was an issue. Additionally, investing in CDs and the required hardware was relatively expensive. MP3s solved these issues by offering “near CD” quality at a fraction of the cost and time expenditure. But today, there are no real technological or cost reasons why these lower quality MP3s should be the predominant product in the market. The primary issue we face now is not cost, or convenience, or quality…it’s standardization. People are invested in MP3s because of the way music distribution and playback devices have coalesced around this standard, not because of its superiority. But there are good reasons to believe that this standard is on its way out (thank the Lord Baby Jesus).
Post MP3 EraBroadband speed internet and super-cheap, nearly unlimited hard drive storage (locally and in the cloud) have made the problems that the MP3 standard solved irrelevant. It does not take 20 minutes to download a .wav (CD quality) file anymore. On average, it probably takes even less time than an MP3 did in 2001. People are now downloading full HD quality movies and TV shows, so it seems a bit ridiculous that they will still continue to settle for MP3s. Additionally, many online music services and sites are capable of streaming at CD quality or better. With streaming services, not only is storage not an issue, dealing with digital files isn’t an issue either. You don’t have to manage libraries of songs and transfer them between devices. Streaming audio only requires an internet connection, and your music is accessible at any time from anywhere. Another advantage of streaming services is that audio format standards don’t matter either. As long as your device can play the stream, service providers can play whatever quality and format they want. It stands to reason that higher quality streams will attract more customers. With the internet and internet devices becoming ubiquitous, I think the trend towards streaming music services will soon replace MP3s and the other digital “copy” formats. This is great news for us audiophiles, and for the music industry in general. Selling music as a service, rather than a copy, will lead to both increased fidelity and a sustainable profit model. I’m looking forward to the advances in this industry and the creative evolution that will come from the utilization of newer technology.
Additional Audio Quality Resources:
Alternative formats to MP3:
- Ogg Vorbis, Flac, AAC
Alternative MP3 encoders:
- Lame, Fraunhofer, Xing, Blade
High-Quality Audio Formats:
- DVD-Audio, DSD, Mofi (Gold Discs and Ultra Analog LPs)
Streaming Audio Sites:
- Lala, Spotify, Rhapsody, Grooveshark, Jukefly, Napster
- Wikipedia: Full list of online streaming music services
Share
I would love to switch back to .wavs!
I want better than .wavs!
I'm all for moving towards streaming music services. I personally use Lala exclusively for my music listening. I really like the idea that streaming providers like Lala and Spotify can tweak the bitrate they stream at depending on the user's connection. It's interesting to note that Spotify actually streams using the Ogg Vorbis q5 codec, not mp3. Standard Spotify users get 160kbps while Premium users can elect to stream at up to 320kbps. Lala streams at an average of 256kbps VBR. Very good quality.
I do believe MP3s are on the way out, but their decline will be slow at best. All of the arguments you make against the MP3 format are completely valid and well supported but there is the elephant in the room that you fail to mention - DRM.In the current digital era, the meaning of ownership is slowly being redefined especially when it comes to digital goods and DRM is a large part of it. Using DRM as a wedge, the record industry is slowly attempting to change what it means to "own" a track or record - from actually paying for the music, to paying for access to the music. Streaming services make this shift much more explicit. I'd be interested in hearing more about what you think about this shift.Personally, I would expect MP3 to remain the predominant format (declining, but still maintaining a simple majority) until connectivity becomes so ubiquitous that there is no longer a need to store anything locally. However it's going to be a while until everyone feels "safe" without a hard copy (which in the streaming era will mean a full digital copy stored locally unencumbered by DRM).
I was reading an article on Hypebot (http://www.hypebot.com/) about future digital music services and was surprised to see lots of user comments vehemently supporting the mp3 standard. It seems people still feel the need to "own" the music. This is pretty ridiculous to me considering that an MP3 is really just a bunch of 1s and 0s, not a physical product. I don't really see how people can feel a connection to a data file when the only enjoyment they can get from it is listening to it. I think this is the paradigm record companies really seek to protect since their model has been based entirely on selling "copies." But considering how people listen to music nowadays (on ipods, in the car, on the computer), this paradigm doesn't make much sense to me. It really is just an issue of more universal connectivity that will bring the end of the MP3 (although I agree, it's not going to happen overnight). Ultimately I believe the concept of being able to "own" an exact copy of a master, but not have the same rights as the master "owner" is non-sensical. I'm doing some research on copyright law for a future blog post on reforming copyright law, which has given record labels an unfair advantage in controlling and profiting from artists for so long. I think that a big appeal of selling "access" is that copyright owners will be able to get paid based on how many times people actually listen to the music, as opposed to how many "copies" they sell. This puts more power in the hands of the fans to support the music they want, because there is at least some marginal cost and time involved, but they aren't required to invest in a "copy" and all the legal baggage that comes with it.
Yes, I think offering options like different audio qualities is a huge step in shifting control from labels to consumers. In the CD era, you were required to buy a total package consisting of the disc, the music, the casing, the liner notes, and 12 full songs of the same quality. This was generally the only option available. But the digital era makes choices like higher fidelity, album liners, videos, and album tracks optional. When you buy a car you have lots of options available that may or may not be worth the cost to you. Some folks will be willing to pay for the leather seats and Bose sound system, while others will not. Like a specific album, customers are still buying the same basic car, just some will pay for extras if they are available to enhance the experience.
Hi Robert! Totally agree that we're way overdue for better mainstream acceptance of high quality sound files but I think it's going to be a slow transition. The majority of users and the industry are slow to change.I think people are still going to want to be able to save and store their music though because networks go down and there are lots of places that people want to be that don't have good networks like a cabin in the woods, your car, Costa Rica etc. The bandwidth improvements that make streaming more viable also make downloading really large files more viable too. Why can't we have both? I foresee sound equipment that works the same way that servers with removable storage work. You'll have these terabyte+ 'bricks' that you can slide in and out of a player. Storage media will continue to get better, cheaper, smaller etc. You can already get an 8 gig SD card the size of a postage stamp. Anyway, we're way overdue for a taco rendezvous. Friday? Next week? Hey, James' Vistoso Bosses group has been nominated for 4 Grammy's!! How 'bout that? I'll be at Smith's Friday night with Olde Dog - please drop in if you are in the area. I want to see your studio soon too. Talk to you soon, John
I'm looking forward to your post on copyright law. I am personally comfortable not "owning" a physical copy of the master and simply having access to listen.Your argument that the mp3 is simply 1s and 0s and not a physical product got me thinking about the differences and similarities between a physical CD, an mp3, and a music subscription service. In a sense, you can consider the ownership of a CD copy of a master and paying for access to the same material on a streaming music service to be similar - with a CD you stream 1s and 0s from a disc, with a streaming service you stream 1s and 0s from a server somewhere. It's all streaming. As you pointed out, it's much easier for the record companies to sell physical copies for a premium because a lot of people still consider the purchase of the physical record an essential part of their listening process. They may rip it straight to their iPods and never put the CD on, but they still have the physical media lying around somewhere.Like Zach said, ubiquitous broadband connectivity is key in moving towards streaming.
Hey John!I agree that bandwidth improvements will allow us to stream and download large files, but personally I don't want to have to manage my purchases AND the storage of them. I'm much happier having one step: making a purchase. After that, I don't want to have to manage my media. Let me listen to it wherever I want, whenever I want.When it comes to areas where internet access isn't available, it'd be great to have all my music available automatically. So, some sort of sync that happens in the background. With massive amounts of storage locally and mega bandwidth, my library could be synced all the time, so when I don't have internet access I can still listen. But I don't want to even know about that local library - only that I can listen any time.Hoping to make it out to the Olde Dog show, got a couple others to go to as well. Check your email!
I'm looking forward to your post on copyright law. I am personally comfortable not "owning" a physical copy of the master and simply having access to listen.Your argument that the mp3 is simply 1s and 0s and not a physical product got me thinking about the differences and similarities between a physical CD, an mp3, and a music subscription service. In a sense, you can consider the ownership of a CD copy of a master and paying for access to the same material on a streaming music service to be similar - with a CD you stream 1s and 0s from a disc, with a streaming service you stream 1s and 0s from a server somewhere. It's all streaming. As you pointed out, it's much easier for the record companies to sell physical copies for a premium because a lot of people still consider the purchase of the physical record an essential part of their listening process. They may rip it straight to their iPods and never put the CD on, but they still have the physical media lying around somewhere.Like Zach said, ubiquitous broadband connectivity is key in moving towards streaming.
Hey John!I agree that bandwidth improvements will allow us to stream and download large files, but personally I don't want to have to manage my purchases AND the storage of them. I'm much happier having one step: making a purchase. After that, I don't want to have to manage my media. Let me listen to it wherever I want, whenever I want.When it comes to areas where internet access isn't available, it'd be great to have all my music available automatically. So, some sort of sync that happens in the background. With massive amounts of storage locally and mega bandwidth, my library could be synced all the time, so when I don't have internet access I can still listen. But I don't want to even know about that local library - only that I can listen any time.Hoping to make it out to the Olde Dog show, got a couple others to go to as well. Check your email!