Some MP3 files DO sound BETTER on cheap playback equipment. MP3 files CAN sound good on high resolution playback equipment. MP3 quality CAN be very good - or awful - or anywhere in between and ultimately depends on the talent of the recording/mixing/mastering engineer.
Bad recordings played on my high resolution system are unbearable - even if I like the music - and I can understand why some young listeners might prefer MP3 playback on cheap equipment. Some Indie bands are very creative but not very talented at presenting quality recordings - perhaps because their Indie status makes high quality mastering equipment too expensive - or perhaps they do not have the sensibility or knowhow or experience - or perhaps they just don't care.
Arcade Fire is a good example of a great band in serious need of a good engineer or producer. The band is fairly popular among young people and even the non-MP3 files are over-compressed, and a pain to listen to on a high quality system. So, yes, the Arcade Fire generation might very well prefer MP3 playback on cheap equipment- I would.
On the other hand, some compressed files do sound good: Phil Manzanera "Listen Now" album on iTunes sounds very good - almost analog. Same with most recordings of Deep Dive Corp., or Dave Gilmour (live), or The Kills or White Stripes...
By the same token, some super high resolution files - LessLoss recordings comes to mind - are just plain awful (performance AND recording) and a complete waste of hard disk space. A super high resolution studio master is just as bad as an MP3 if the performance or engineering is not up to snuff.
I can see that younger people are not attracted to high end music playback since the software was not designed with high-end equipment playback in mind. Garbage in, garbage out.
The audiophile danger is to alter listening habits with what sounds good and forget about the rest. You just can't sell a high quality stereo system to a young person with a Jazz at the Pawnshop demo. You can't demo either with Arcade Fire. No wonder this industry has problems attracting a new generation, and no wonder why hardware producers are also getting in the software business (B&W, Naim, etc.).
On the other side of the universe, most movie soundtracks do have very good recording quality with great dynamics. I think that if you're a quality sound engineer, you'd be more attracted to movie soundtrack engineering than music engineering.
Some MP3 files DO sound BETTER on cheap playback equipment. MP3 files CAN sound good on high resolution playback equipment. MP3 quality CAN be very good - or awful - or anywhere in between and ultimately depends on the talent of the recording/mixing/mastering engineer.
Bad recordings played on my high resolution system are unbearable - even if I like the music - and I can understand why some young listeners might prefer MP3 playback on cheap equipment. Some Indie bands are very creative but not very talented at presenting quality recordings - perhaps because their Indie status makes high quality mastering equipment too expensive - or perhaps they do not have the sensibility or knowhow or experience - or perhaps they just don't care.
Arcade Fire is a good example of a great band in serious need of a good engineer or producer. The band is fairly popular among young people and even the non-MP3 files are over-compressed, and a pain to listen to on a high quality system. So, yes, the Arcade Fire generation might very well prefer MP3 playback on cheap equipment- I would.
On the other hand, some compressed files do sound good: Phil Manzanera "Listen Now" album on iTunes sounds very good - almost analog. Same with most recordings of Deep Dive Corp., or Dave Gilmour (live), or The Kills or White Stripes...
By the same token, some super high resolution files - LessLoss recordings comes to mind - are just plain awful (performance AND recording) and a complete waste of hard disk space. A super high resolution studio master is just as bad as an MP3 if the performance or engineering is not up to snuff.
I can see that younger people are not attracted to high end music playback since the software was not designed with high-end equipment playback in mind. Garbage in, garbage out.
The audiophile danger is to alter listening habits with what sounds good and forget about the rest. You just can't sell a high quality stereo system to a young person with a Jazz at the Pawnshop demo. You can't demo either with Arcade Fire. No wonder this industry has problems attracting a new generation, and no wonder why hardware producers are also getting in the software business (B&W, Naim, etc.).
On the other side of the universe, most movie soundtracks do have very good recording quality with great dynamics. I think that if you're a quality sound engineer, you'd be more attracted to movie soundtrack engineering than music engineering.