Some decades ago, a salesguy in a high-end audio shop badly misjudged my socioeconomic status and treated me to an ultrahigh-quality recording of an obscure jazz ensemble, played on a $10,000 audio system in an acoustically perfect room. I staggered out goose-bumped and hair-raised, a newly minted audiophile wannabe. I was sure that this was just the beginning of a journey into ever-more-amazing sound experiences. The equipment in that room consisted of glowing tubes in big metal cases, vibrating domes in massive wood cabinets, and spinning platters of plastic. No doubt technological innovation would one day shrink this clunky system into something small enough to carry around and cheap enough to avoid triggering the reckless-behavior clause in my prenup. More important, I was sure that even grander realms of audio quality lay ahead. By 2011, who could imagine what sort of incredible sonic delights would await?
Technology certainly has come through in some ways. Today’s iPod Shuffle is so small that it is little more than audio-enabled jewelry. No complaints on the pricing, either; you can get a pretty good MP3 player for the cost of a newly released CD. There’s just one little snag: Today’s sound quality is miserable, worse than what I was listening to on my budget stereo 30 years ago.The biggest culprit in our sonic backsliding is the ubiquity of low-quality digital music files. “If you’re not going to listen to a high-quality recording, you don’t need a high-quality system,” says John Meyer, founder of the audiophile speaker company Newform Research in Ontario. Hey, tell my kids. They are all too happy to semipermanently install wads of plastic in their ears for the privilege of listening to near-terabytic playlists rendered in mediocre-at-best fidelity.
The music and electronics industries have eagerly catered to our growing obsession with convenience, blithely sacrificing sound in the process. All the way back in the 1980s, audiophiles were pointing out that those newfangled digital CDs lacked the subtlety and warmth of the best vinyl recordings. And the most popular versions of today’s standard, the MP3 file, have just a fraction of the potential fidelity of a CD recording.
The problem with MP3s is that they are “lossy,” which means they literally are missing some of the sound. When your brain hears sounds made up of multiple frequencies (as almost all music is), it tends to pay attention to whichever frequencies are the most readily perceived at any moment and largely ignores the rest. Most MP3 files simply leave out the subtler components of the music altogether—as much as 85 percent of what is actually recorded—in order to shrink the file size.
In theory we should not much notice what’s missing, but in practice a careful listener will find the diminished quality hard to ignore, especially when playing MP3s on a high-fidelity home stereo. To my kids this blandness has just become the standard of what recorded music sounds like: They have learned to like their music uniformly loud and stripped-down to an in-your-face artificial clarity that does away with all the warm, rounded audio undercurrents.
The good news is that the lab of Louis Thibault, director of Canada’s Communications Research Centre’s Advanced Audio Systems Group, is developing a superior way to encode music files. The technique involves plotting out how the music varies over time in frequency and amplitude, which results in a graph that depicts the music as a sort of rugged 3-D mountainscape. Visualizing a recording this way lets you describe the music in terms of geometric shapes instead of as a bunch of frequencies. That approach turns out to save a lot of file space, in the same way that describing a circle as a center point and a radius is more efficient than describing every little segment of the circle. “It looks as
if we can reduce file size by about
50 percent compared with MP3s, with the same audio quality,” Thibault says.
Turned around, this “object-based compression,” as it’s called, could provide much higher fidelity than that of a typical 16-bit MP3 in an equal-size file. Apple, meanwhile, is reportedly developing a new digital music player that can handle higher-resolution, 24-bit recordings, but who wants pricier, slower downloads that will make your existing music player obsolete? If Thibault’s compression scheme becomes standard, as he hopes it will, we could keep our 16-bit music players, and headphones could easily catch up; a decent pair of $50 earbuds already well exceed the potential of the music that gets poured into them. My kids may go into audio shock when they find out what they’ve been missing.
