Ear fatigue/sensitivity to digital music

[Michael Darnton]

I'm just one person, but for me it definitely has to do with highs. I have two sets of phones for my mp3 player, Etymotics, and Shure. The Etys are crisp, clear, and transparent, and very tiring. They're especially bad on certain things with very crashy highs, which are about 30% of the stuff in my collection. On music with just as much high, but smoother, they're fine, and I enjoy the presence. The Shures are more bassy, and don't have any of the presence in the highs that the Etys do, and are distinctly inferior, technically, but they're much easier to listen to for long periods of time.

I recently brought over some stuff from LPs--things that I never played much 25 years ago, so we can't blame worn out records, and using a new needle, and they really aren't the same--the type of highs are different, and much less than any of the digital music, and that's across the line.

I really don't think, then, that it's an inevitability of digital to be hard to take, and comparing, I think analogue isn't necessarily better, but it does seem more possible to have some really harsh stuff going on in digital highs that doesn't ever seem to happen in analogue. Maybe that's just the fault of the mixer, who has more opportunity to mess things up, since the technology enables more, and therefore, does mess up, and not the media.

[Knights Who Say Neve]

Mabye, but I find that with the same LP or CD played at the same apparant (subjective) loudness, the LP wins. This goes for classical music as much as rock, so I can't blame "crashy highs". Comparing the two AFTER they've been ripped to mp3 isn't much of a comparison. Your points are correct as far as they go- bright recordings + bright headphones = more ear fatigue- but they don't really address digital fatigue per se.

Unlike many, at a certain point I am willing to blame the medium. The industry is not interested in bringing back analog, so most who are deeply involved with it (and many who aren't) will avoid blaming the medium directly, instead claiming "operator error" or "listener nostalga", or by just refusing to hear. The assumption that digital is "superior" is so deeply held, that people act on the assumption without ever really testing for themselves if it is or not. There is not a lot of percentage in challenging assumptions that are making people money, and a lot of money has been made, and will be made, with digital technology. No one really wants to upset their gravy train.

Of course, not everyone falls into this catagory. But remember, most "facts" are created by people with things to sell. Early digital records were recorded in glorious 14 bit- and pimped as "audiophile". Don't believe the hype, and dont assume digital sounds better because it's an industry standard. The industry is about profit, not art. Take the Pepsi challenge, as someone up there did, for yourself. Trust your ears.

[centurymantra]

The digital fatigue concept has been proposed with serious attempts at discussion starting many years back; probably near the birth of digital recordings. There is one guy who was even claiming that the nature of PCM digital sound induces a borderline 'fight or flight' response in the brain. I also feel that there is a certain sense of fatigue that comes about with digital recordings...and will always love my vinyl records. It's kinda weird, but there is a certain inherent quality in some digital productions where it's almost like there is a barrier, a curtain of sorts with a psychologically distanceing effect that prohibits a full emotional connection with the music. This is more evident with specific recordings and in these cases I feel that I like the music but am just not 'getting into' it as much as I feel I should, try as I might. I have done the vinyl/CD comparison a few times with people and it's never really a debate. Vinyl always wins. In some ways, this is merely evidence of digital mastering/re-mastering quality. I've only got a few recordings in both mediums and the difference is variable. In particular there is a Gene Clark record which practically shrinks into a toneless ball of sound in comparison to the original vinyl. The recent Bitches Brew boxed set release, though, edges pretty close to 'different...but maybe not better' territory (still like the vinyl more myself though). I've got a couple more recent recordings where the vinyl and CD were release concurrently and the difference is a bit more subtle but still quite evident. This debate will, of course, continue to go on...and on....and on.

I've always thought it would be an interesting experiment to wire up an infant so that one could record their brainwave activity and see how they respond to their mother's voice in three tests; the actual voice and then an analog recording and a digital recording of the same spoken phrase. I seriously think this would be interesting and potentially revealing.

[;ivlunsdystf]

I have been idly contemplating this question all week, and I still think: No medium, vinyl or CD or otherwise, sounds anything like actual music being played in an actual room. It's all fake. Therefore, I suspect that us middle-aged people (I really can only speak for myself) prefer the sound of vinyl and cassette because we were exposed to those media early in life. Kids who were raised on 16bit CDs (or, more likely, compressed computer audio formats) will probably prefer those sounds later in life.

If you were to play a CD for Beethoven using some clever mode of time travel and stalking/ingratiation, assuming that there could be some sort of power supply brought back in time to power a CD player, he'd almost certainly say that the CD sounds like ass. That is, if he could still hear by the time you found him to stage such a demonstration.

[centurymantra]

And...coming back to your comments on cassettes. I often slip back into using cassettes on my car. They actually do sound better, but am using one of those radio-wave transmitter CD changers so the 'CD sound' is probably not much better than a sub-par radio broadcast which is also being picked up by a tuner that may or may not be so hot.

At home, I recently pulled out a Mazzy Star record I have on factory released cassette (their second recording) I hadn't listened to in ages and probably would have gotten it on vinyl, but as I recall, was only released on CD and cassette and I was a vinyl holdout for years and didn't own a CD player at the time. BTW... I wasn't that into the later Mazzy Star stuff but, for those who write off Mazzy Star as a mopey Cowboy Junkies wannabe - check out their debut record 'She Hangs Brightly'. Great, timeless music...IMHO. Anyway, I was stunned -literally...stunned at how great the fidelity of that cassette was. It was like a borderline transcendental analog experience. The record probably sounded great on any medium, but still... I normally would think of cassettes as being given little attention in the pressing stage, but perhaps, in some recordings, they are closer to a second generation master tape than a vinyl or CD pressing depending on what's done in the pressing/duplication stage. I know that old school reel-to-reel tapes are reputed to be the ultimate audiophile format because of this and have heard that, with some older recordings, the 8-track releases were actually superior to vinyl for this reason.

[bickle]

I can't believe you guys still have tape decks in your cars.
As somebody who grew up listening to music during the transition from tape to CD (I'm 27), I'm totally fine w/ CD sound, and generally consider it to be preferable to cassette b/c it's so much cleaner.
Records do sound great, but you need a way better than average stereo to really know it, imo. And you can't play them in the car or on the subway.

[;ivlunsdystf]

I can't believe you guys still have tape decks in your cars.

Yeah, and get this: I just installed it this past April. I got it at a Checker Auto Parts store for - GET THIS - just $12.99. That was the MSRP.

It doesn't work so good on a hot day.

Anyway, back to what music really sounds like. Have you ever heard an audience recording of a jam band? The people who get really into recording bands from the audience are pretty snooty about their microphones, and oftentimes they have the mics up on a big stand with one pointed at each PA stack. The recordings sound dreadful to the uninitiated, but as one who has heard way too many Grateful Dead audience recordings I can say that a well-made audience recording played back on a good stereo at high volume actually does sound pretty similar to the actual sound of the live concert experience. Yet it also sounds like ass.

Oops, I'm off topic. Anyway, bickle, thanks for throwing yourself out there in semi-support of my little theory.

[bickle]

I think you got ripped off on that tape deck, tater.
And to clarify: I think it's absolutely true that younger folks will be less apt to dislike CD or mp3 sound (I think my iPod sounds pretty good w/ the earbuds that came with it go ahead, start hatin'). However, given the experience, I don't think anyone with ears would say CDs sound better than records - it's just that records are hard to come by and tough to deal with, relatively speaking. Convenience matters, and digital is convenient.
And cheap, like recording; I record exclusively digital at home, since it's all I've got. When I do something serious w/ a band, it's almost always tape in a studio. It just sounds right, even after we put it on CD!

[;ivlunsdystf]

I am a bit of a throwback to simpler times. I do my tracking directly to vinyl.

[centurymantra]

I can't believe you guys still have tape decks in your cars.
As somebody who grew up listening to music during the transition from tape to CD (I'm 27), I'm totally fine w/ CD sound, and generally consider it to be preferable to cassette b/c it's so much cleaner.
Records do sound great, but you need a way better than average stereo to really know it, imo. And you can't play them in the car or on the subway.

To a large degree, you are correct about needing a decent rig to fully appreciate the vinyl experience. I am fortunate to have a pretty serious turntable (Clearaudio table and arm, hig-end Grado cartridge, etc.) that almost always makes people gawk when they see it so I am able to pull off analog sound really well. And yeah, vinyl is pretty labor intensive and better for audio tweakers than the 'plug and play' crowd. But I also think the plug and play mentality and culture of convenience has worked into downsizing the significance and cultural relevance of music. I sense that music has been travelling in in a downward spiral tha that has been slowly reducing it 's major role to that of a commodity to shove into a mega-gig storage device for use as a lifestyle support as much as anything else. There is still a lot of great music...more than ever really, and a lot of people serious about music. Digital storage mediums make so much possible (including my ability to have a studio), but also plays so well into the hands of the marketing powers that drive a consumer based socio-economic structure. Music is a product, but it is also art and, at it's best, a force that can shape and transform culture. I just dread the day when music has become little more than just a product for the majority of our society.

Now...back to your comments on cassettes. I agree that a lot of cassettes sound like ass and that background hiss can get pretty bad too. I have been occasionally surprised at how decent they sound though. And that Mazzy Star cassette really did blow me away...and I've got no nostalgic connection to cassette sound (which I never thought was that great). Otherwise, I would have written off cassette tapes a long time ago.

[;ivlunsdystf]

In my defense, re the $12.99 tape deck: I only bought it because it has an input jack for a micro cord so I can listen to CDs in my car without having a built-in CD player which would rattle and skip terribly due to my dreadful suspension.

[herodotus]

I will take the plunge and admit it.

Tape is cool, and it will always have a place, but I like digital more.

I hate tape noise, I hate scratches and pops, I hate the preciousness of having to clean the lp every time I listen to it, I hate expensive cartridges, stylii and tone arms. One huge PITA.

Vive la revolution.

[globalsize]

I dunno. I just got a consumer grade Panasonic reel-to-reel for a buck at a yard sale, and the sound quality is terrific.

Tape can be inexpensive, as long as you avoid going overboard. Also, one thing I've found since becoming a convert to tape is that most consumers just didn't do basic maintainence. Using a cheapo demag tape and a q-tip, a cassette can drastically increase in sound.

As a back story, I'm 20, and I've listened to mostly digital until about 2 years ago. This undercuts the theory that I would find CD's preferable. I don't. Someone mentioned the "wall" that seems to hold back digital from really punching you in the gut with sound. My entire stereo set up (JVC cassette deck, Realistic record player, a Pioneer receiver, and a Sony 3-head reel-to-reel) probably cost ~25 bucks max, all "hopelessly used" (as one yard-seller put it) gear. Yet basic cleaning techniques have this sounding like a $700 setup at Cambridge Soundworks.

What am I trying to say? Hell if I know.

[curtiswyant]

The CD vs. vinyl debate unleashes all those beloved adjectives used in the analog vs. digital recording arguments: warm, clean, soft, full and so on. I use CDs/mp3s because of the convenience but I prefer records for relaxation or make-out music. And besides, buying records is so much fun. I love getting 50 records for $5 at a garage sale if only for the awesome cover art (a "lost art" if you will). If I understand digital sampling correctly, our brains have to "fill in the gaps" between the samples while analog is a constant, linear sound wave. Even though there are thousands of samples per second, making your brain imagine sounds that aren't there seems like a bad idea. I could care less about noise...tape hiss = ambience! I don't see myself ever buying "new" releases on vinyl, just the old stuff.

[dino]

Having a friend with a record collection of over 12.000 has given me the opportunity compare vinyl to CD on quite a few recordings. As someone already noted, the highs are just different. There's just something nicer about the sound.

I have a 20 year old cassette tape of a friends band. It was dubbed directly from the two track master tape. Never been pressed to vinyl, never been digitized. Even the "for listening copy" I made sounds shockingly nice.

I too noticed that I liked cassettes from cds better than the original cds.
Not only that, but I always did like what a generation of cassette analogue did to a DAW recording. Perhaps it softens, and blurs the harshness of the ITB mix. I just don't know. I think it's time to haul out my 234. Just for a point of reference.

Dean