Music is something I care about; so when the industry came up with something better than CD for playing it back, some ten years ago, I took a keen interest. There was an ugly format war – SACD vs DVDA – but when universal players appeared, that could play either format, I purchased one, along with a few examples of each type of disc.

On the whole I think they sound good, and of course they also have multi-channel capability which is nice if you are properly set up for that. I haven’t purchased either type of disc in large numbers though, mainly because of the price premium, and also because they are awkward to rip to a music server, which is how I do most of my listening. Most SACDs are hybrid, which means they have a standard CD layer as well as a high resolution layer, and you can rip the CD layer easily enough; but then you do not get the benefit of high resolution sound.

But is there a benefit, other than more care in mastering that could equally have been applied to a CD? High resolution is certainly useful for audio professionals who are processing the sound, but some argue that even CD audio is sufficiently accurate for human hearing. Two people, Brad Meyer and David Moran, conducted a series of blind tests in 2007 to prove the point: Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. In other words, they used a box that converted the output from a high-resolution player to CD-quality digital and back, and found that nobody could reliably tell the difference at normal listening levels.

Meyer and Moran’s research throws into question much of the rationale behind SACD and DVDA, which is marketed on the basis of its superior sound quality. It’s caused a debate in the audio industry, though perhaps not as much as you might expect. Some argue that the test was flawed, others that these “absurd” results prove that blind testing simply does not work. Others agree with the results and find them unsurprising. It is notable though that even critics and vendors with a stake in the audible superiority of high-resolution sound have not yet (as far as I know) come up with a repeat test, correcting the flaws they see in the original, and achieving different results, though it is still possible that someone may do so.

I wrote this up with more detail here.

A new development in the loudness wars backlash: a downloadable application to measure the dynamic range of your music.

Audiophiles have been complaining for years about the tendency of modern CD and download mastering to maximize the loudness of the music at the expense of the dynamic range. This type of compression squashes the peaks and amplifies the quieter parts to achieve a more even sound. This is encoded at a high volume level so that the music sounds as loud as possible. The idea is to make the music stand out more. Unfortunately the music also sounds less natural and loses the contrast between louder and quieter passages, making it more fatiguing and generally less interesting.

Once established though, this practice is hard to reverse, since new releases that have full dynamic range will sound quieter than average, which the industry considers risky.

Even the forthcoming Beatles remasters will be mastered to some extent for loudness. This is the careful but self-contradictory wording from the press release:

Finally, as is common with today’s music, overall limiting – to increase the volume level of the CD – has been used, but on the stereo versions only. However, it was unanimously agreed that because of the importance of The Beatles’ music, limiting would be used moderately, so as to retain the original dynamics of the recordings.

The latest counter-initiative is from German mastering engineer Friedemann Tischmeyer, who has set up the Pleasurize Music Foundation with the aim of establishing industry standards for loudness and dynamic range. Windows users can download a utility to measure the dynamic range of a WAV or MP3 file, the TT Dynamic Range Meter (a Mac version is in preparation). Higher numbers are better, and the Foundation intends to set 14 as the minimum standard, which to judge by my own measurements seems ambitious; even releases from well before the loudness wars do not meet it.

I did a few measurements. Here is one of the loudest releases of all time, Iggy Pop’s Raw Power remaster (score 2, ouch):

Here’s Katy Perry, I kissed a girl – a typical modern release (score 5):

Here’s a couple showing a progression. The track is This Year’s Girl, from This Year’s Model by Elvis Costello and the Attractions. Here is an early CD from the eighties (score 11):

and here’s the most recent Deluxe Remaster (score 7):

showing how remasters tend to boost volume and diminish dynamic range. But can anyone beat Iggy Pop?

I’ve been mulling over this comment on the Music Magpie web site:

We originally launched musicmagpie as an easy way for everyone to turn their old CDs into cash so that they did not have to be thrown away if they had decided to go digital.

Music Magpie is a second-hand CD retailer which cleverly portrays itself as green by pointing out that it is better for the environment to sell your CDs than to chuck them away. Incidentally, I chuck away hundreds of CDs every year, but they are promotional data CDs from computer magazines, conferences and the like; I doubt Music Magpie would thank me for them.

So imagine that I’ve got a lot of CDs but have now “gone digital”. I suppose if I am not tech-savvy enough to know that CDs are also digital, I might re-buy the ones I still liked on iTunes. It is more likely though that I would rip my CDs to computer before doing anything else, or “import from CD” as Apple describes it. So is my next step to flog the redundant plastic to Music Magpie, or on Amazon or eBay if I want a better price?

Ethically, I’m pretty sure the answer is no. Legally, I’m not even sure it is OK to rip them in the first place. In practice, I’m aware that lots of people do this, and I imagine that it forms a significant part of the market for Music Magpie and other second-hand dealers. Pragmatically, collectors aside, a CD is pretty much useless once you have a lossless copy and a backup, so you can understand why people sell them.

It makes me wonder why there is so little guidance on the subject, for example on CDs themselves. If I pick up a CD, I read “Unauthorized copying, public performance, broadcasting, hiring or rental of this recording prohibited.” A reasonable person would presume that it is OK to sell the CD as a second-hand item. A reasonable person, noting the existence of prominent ripping features in software from the most reputable software companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc) would presume that it is OK to rip the CD. So why not both?

I’m guessing that the reason for the silence is that industry lawyers are reluctant to broach the subject, for fear of giving away too much. For example, if there were guidance that said, “it is OK to rip”, that would concede a point they may be unwilling to concede.