Deadmau5 talks HD and simple science.

It's rare that we'll publish a whole piece written elsewhere, but after Chris pinged this out a few hours ago, I couldn't help but put up the full piece. Onto Joel:

"Hello all!  I'd like to get on a topic that been bothering for a couple years now that i think should be brought to light... mp3... the digital age, the download generation.

First and foremost, We live in exciting times indeed. Although, I'll have to say it's been nothing less than a struggle to surprise people these days. By that i mean, running out to different venues all over the world and playing for people sure has changed in the past 3 or 4 years. Before this YouTube / streaming media explosion... people were more in for surprises and one off's from an artist due to the exclusivity and intimacy that only attending an event could provide.... so attending events, purchasing albums, and scouring the shops was the only means of obtaining the latest and greatest from your favorite artists.

Now, im sure im not telling you anything you didnt already know here... but i somehow feel the need to reiterate some of the finer points regarding the matter of this streaming media blitz...

Quite frankly, I kinda feel a bit bummed out that i would create something exclusive for my audiences to be "ripped" from some streaming media stie as is... moreso when the poster of the media would advertise or title it as "HD" or "High Quality" before it's release date.

In fact, Nothing makes me vomit in my mouth more than listening to anything short of a 16bit 44.1kHz Wav / Aiff file... perhaps it's just the audiophile in me... but i am actually witnessing and realizing for the first time in my life something that i have created that has been reduced to some regurgetated re-re-re-re-recording of a set and dubbed "high quality"... quite frankly im a little embarassed.

This isnt a rant about leaked tracks, piracy, copyright viloation, or severe lack of imagination, far from it. I am just trickling out a few little factoids that will hopefully point you towards being a more passionate listener.

for example, recently, as im sure you've noticed by now, i've churned out a few new songs to keep my shows a tad more interesting and evolving. FML, i think would be a suitable example.

in fact, here in front of me i have "deadmau5 - FML.wav" in all it's glory. WAV, 32bit float, 192kHz 

deadmau5 - FML
8m:09.889s
Wave IEEE float signed 32 bit, 
192000Hz 
12288Kbps, Stereo.
717 MB (752,472,064 bytes)

Funnily enough,  not even a 16bit 44.1 quality version of FML has left my hard drive... so unless you broke into my house and snagged it out of my cold dead hands, theres no "HQ" version floating about as far as im concerned....

that's about as good as its goping to get in terms of "quality"... unfortunatley... 717 meg is a bit much when it comes to transferring for purposes other than mastering / remixing.

NOW HERE COMES THE SCIENCE.

alas, the file is then dithered (not resampled) down to 16bits and 44.1kHz (standard CD quality) for the masses / distribution. (with the exception that I dither to 24 bits / 48kHz for performances)...

so, situation happens... some guy records the set @ 16 bit 44.1kHz (usually the case)  you've got my 24 bit version coming out of my DAC (Digital to Analog Converter)  then in to someone elses ADC (Analog to Digital Converter) which is only as good as the quality of the ADC.. so already the quality of the music has been compromised, and you havent even gotten it yet.

Then, whoever records a direct line from the set then encodes that to 320kpbs MAX or 128 kbps mp3 for media streaming ease. this part is a MAAASSSIIIVEEE degradation of the original signal... and has been mulched to all bloody hell. So.... then what typically happens is yet ANOTHER DAC / ADC conversion.... wheres someone rips the audio from said streaming media outlet only to puke it back onto youtube... which is 128Kbps max in "HD" mode (which is a VERY far cry from HD if you ask me... total abuse of terminology there)  shoulda jujst called it ABBDBNR...."A Bit Better Definition But Not Really".  fun times!  so... to break it down... lets take a quick look again...

Production / Final Master
↓
degraded to 24 bits for live use
↓
degraded to 16 bits for commerical release / distribution
↓
degraded to 16 bits (less accurately) when recorded off a live feed from mixer via DAC / ADC
↓
degraded to 128kbps / 320kbps when published for streaming media outlets
↓
degraded to 128kbps / 320kbps when ripped from streaming media outlet 
↓
degraded to 64kbps / 128kbps
=
a very crappy 6th generation copy that magically gets called "HIGH QUALITY VERSION!!!111ONE!!" on youtube.... you figure it out.

Or as mr. Duda says: 

"yeah more like Rendered from Ableton -> converted to Mp3 -> uploaded to myspace -> reconverted to worse mp3 -> ripped from your myspace -> converted to wav -> edited in Ableton again to run for 6 minutes -> converted to mp3 ->uploaded to Youtube -> reconverted with shiteaudio.dll" - nice one steve. :D

I just think it's time for us listeners to listen smarter, to educate eachother a little more, give the audiable world out there a bit of a quality control attitude,  LISTEN UP folks... our hearing is really a fucking complicated and beautiful thing!!!  Why not use it well?  It's like owning the most amazing sportscar and not a drop of gasoline on the planet.... Sometimes when i stick my ears out there, im really starting to fear that even the terminologic use of the words "high quality" is slowing substandardizing itself into an inaudiable heap of nonsense. If my message reaches at least one person, and benefits them in any way, i will die a happy mouse."

Any comments people?