The Textbook Zealot

Recently I came across a few internet discussions about Neil Young's initiative which aims to promote a higher resolution audio standard than the CD.

Some claim its true purpose is to create a new milking cow for the music industry using the higher audio resolution as a facade to hide the true intentions.

Others applaud Neil Young's move because they welcome a standard which significantly improves upon the old CD-audio standard, which is PCM audio with a 16-bit resolution sampled at 44.1 kHz.

One thing I noticed about these discussions is the incredible religious zeal some have with regards to the 'almighty truth of science'.

They tend to ridicule those in favor of a higher resolution because 'their science textbook explains we cannot hear above 20 kHz so any higher sample rate than what the CD offers (44.1kHz, which means it is capable of reproducing frequencies a little over 20kHz) is ridiculous, and furthermore, many cannot hear the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit of the amplitude of a waveform, so it's a 'waste of time and effort to change the current CD standard for audio' which in their opinion is just fine.

If they are confronted with someone who feels that 'something is lacking in CD quality audio', then it's always either because the listener is 'imagining things', or it's because 'there is something wrong with the  equipment'.

In their view it is not possible to experience something lacking in CD quality audio which is (partially) caused by the resolution, because their science textbook Bible shows it is impossible for the human senses to detect this, so therefore anyone claiming that a CD sounds cold is either listening to the audio through inferior equipment, or they simply are prone to suggestions of their imagination.

And so Neil Young as well as those who favor a higher resolution audio format receive quite a lot of flak.

'Well, you know those artist types, they tend to reason with their emotions instead of being rational creatures, and a solid rational analysis of scientific issues falls beyond their intellectual capabilities.

When they talk about scientific issues they simply are clueless and don't understand it at all'

'Neil Young and associates are just money leeches promoting a PR-fable to fatten the wallets of record companies who are given a new chance to sell once again their old back catalogue.

It all just a conspiracy for gullible fools, and the artists agreeing with Neil Young are either part of the con game, or they are just typical artistic airheads too stupid to realize someone is manipulating them'.

While it is true that record companies will indeed have a new opportunity to sell the old catalogue again, to assume that Young's move is just a con-game for the sake of reviving the finances of record companies by means of lies is quite an accusation, and in my opinion not true.

And aside from the question whether or not Neil Young's initiative features the ultimate audio format (although it certainly is much better than the outdated CD-standard I absolutely do not think it is the ultimate audio format), the tone I read in the writings of the disciples of the science textbook posing as musicians/composers/ producers/and-what-not is one of profound bigotry and arrogance, a true robotic mindset which has conformed itself to the dictates of the religion of science.

The problem with science is that today's fact is tomorrow's error, and today's knowledge is tomorrow's ignorance.

So any religious fervor based on the acceptance of certain 'scientific facts' is a house built on shifting sand, incapable of withstanding the storms of time.

We may have a scientific model which describes what happens when we hear a signal with our ears, but I ask you, are you sure this model is complete, can we be certain that this model describes all the aspects involved in the process of hearing and perceiving a signal?

Or could it be that perhaps other factors are involved in the process of listening to music, factors we have not included in our model yet which play a significant role in how the brain processes audio signals?

Furthermore, how do we listen, and how does this affect our perception?

If we consciously try to detect the difference between fragment A and B, are we listening in the same way as when we do not try to detect differences but rather seek to enjoy the music?

And if indeed there ARE differences, in what way do they affect the way the brain processes the audio signal and how we experience the outcome of this process?

And if we have a Spirit (and I KNOW we are Spirits living in a physical Body), how does the Spirit affect our experience of listening to audio?

I just want to point out a few murky areas which may play a role in how we experience our exposure to audio signals in a particular format.

I certainly would not be too quick to jump to conclusions based on 'scientific facts', especially since we live as analog human beings in an analog reality, and the digital realm is based on 'slicing up' analog signals in order to be able to process the slices in the digital domain.

Our entire human Body, Soul and Spirit are primed to get the most out of the analog information which our Creator put in our environment.

The digital realm by its nature only takes (samples) a small portion of this analog information and assembles this limited amount of approximated information back into an analog signal.

That is why I am a great proponent of higher resolutions in both audio and video.

Why retire in self-complacency based on textbook models when the option to explore hidden avenues of science is at your disposal?

Isn't that which should excite any true scientist (or whatever profession you have chosen), the ability to put question marks behind certain facts which are accepted as truth, and explore if perhaps there are other aspects which have been overlooked?

Isn't the quest for improvement and augmenting your knowledge part of the glamour and excitement of the profession?

It is exactly the complete lack of this curiosity-inspired attitude which I find so striking among the conformed robotic disciples of the holy science textbook bible.

They seem to hear with spectrum graphs and oscilloscopes, listening through the glasses of the paragraphs in their textbook they recite like obedient parrots.

Their science textbook determines what they should hear, and in true robotic fashion they proceed to adopt this as their holy Truth dictated by their holy Science Bible, and woe to anyone who dares to contradict what their Science Bible teaches.

That's just plain old zealous, religious bigotry wearing a different coat.

It would not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that the zeal I see in those discussions and the arrogant behavior displayed by the zealous disciples of science puts the Jehovah Witnesses' evangelizing efforts to shame.

And to make it worse, some of the zealous evangelists of the CD standard consider themselves to be open-minded individuals criticizing others if they dare to cherish a religious conviction.

Any 'artist' who has such a robotic mindset would be better off in a plain day job focused on earning as much money as possible, because that type of mindset kills the Soul and shuts out the Spirit.

I have always felt that CD audio format is lacking something, and my first experience of listening to a CD was that it felt Soulless and cold, as if it is 'hollow audio'.

Yes, it had a very detailed veneer, but it lacked 'substance'.

I didn't really like it, and I certainly do not consider it to be superior to vinyl or tape.

It's true that converters have improved a lot since the release of the CD, and the quality of the audio on a CD has improved a lot, but to make the claim that it is superior to analog audio as found on vinyl or tape simply is ridiculous and untrue.

The medium used for analog audio is usually either tape or vinyl, and both have their weak spots in terms of either hiss, wow and flutter, or cracks and ticks.

Few things are as annoying as a vinyl record which is stuck in a groove.

By their imperfections and their properties they furthermore tend to color sound, albeit I am very quick to add that the way tape colors sound is like adding delicious dressing on the salad: it enhances and enriches the color of the sound.

Not only that, but the shortcomings such as the crackling of a vinyl record or a subtle amount of tape hiss and even wow & flutter are actually included in certain digital plug-ins as features used in digital audio production.

And it's true, the crackling of a record can actually contribute to create a particular atmosphere, and the subtle hiss of tape can actually cushion the complete absence of sound as is the case with digital audio.

When the CD appeared on the scene 'digital' and 'analog' usually were positioned on opposite sides.

'Analog' was old-fashioned because it was associated with imperfect carriers such as tape and vinyl records, and it was replaced by the 'modern' and 'more perfect pristine' digital audio quality of the CD.

However, contrary to this idea, 'digital' certainly is not superior to 'analog'.

If anything, it's the reverse, because 'digital' consists of interpretations and approximations of analog signal values strung together by means of algorithms and filters, while 'analog' is, well, true 'analog', a continuous exact waveform.

With that in mind it is a pity that attempts to develop a laserdisc featuring analog audio read by a laser never came to fruition.

The idea (AND technology) already existed in the seventies, but in the early eighties big companies gave preference to the development of a digital format over the development of a successor of the vinyl record in the form of a laser disc.

And so, as the digital CD entered the arena, analog audio prepared to make its exit.

However, 'analog' never really left the building, and to this very day it is still very much alive, even thriving on the waves of a renewed interest in analog audio.

Unfortunately, if you feel there is something not quite right with the CD as I did, then there must be something wrong with you.

At least, that is what you will be told by the disciples of the holy science textbook.

'You are not accustomed to hearing so much detail', 

or, 

'You are simply imagining things because you used to listen to vinyl and now your mind is conscious of listening to a different medium'.

After all, when the holy science textbook dictates that we cannot hear above 20 kHz, then 'harmonics above 20 kHz (which most certainly are present on a good vinyl record) can be filtered away on the CD, and since it is hard or nigh impossible to consciously hear differences between a 16-bit or 24-bit resolution of the amplitude, any negative listening experience must be simply something of a psychological nature'.

So if you hear something contradicting the science bible, then you're the basket case and counseling would be the best course of action.

It is this kind of arrogance and bigotry which sets the tone of the discussion.

If you dare to have a different opinion, you become the emotional fool incapable of rational and analytical reason, and therefore your experiences (and those of MANY others) should be discarded as emotional projections of a delusional mind.

As if you're crazy and the robotic zealous religious fanatics are the intelligent, rational and superior experts who know better.

But it's OK if you're an artist, because artists are wacky anyway...

But how aware and rational can they be if they are not able to reflect on their own stance and notice the religious fervor with which they support their acceptance of certain 'scientific facts' which may not be complete, or even accurate?

Who in his right mind assesses the input of his senses by means of a standard textbook instead of his own intuition?

If my mind tells me something is not quite right with the sound of a CD and a textbook analysis dictates that I must be wrong, I am not so brainwashed that I accept the textbook as the infallible truth and hypnotize myself into filtering out the input of my own mind.

It is true that the mind can play tricks, but that is not the case when I write about how I experience the digital audio format as it is found on a CD.

Whether or not Neil Young's initiative is the answer or not remains to be seen.

As I wrote, in my opinion it definitely is NOT the ultimate audio format since that crown goes to a medium which is capable of carrying analog audio without displaying shortcomings of its own.

But it definitely is an improvement, since the 24-bit 192kHz format is a higher resolution and a closer approximation of an analog signal.

Furthermore, this initiative pushes the need for a higher resolution standard in audio production, which I think is great.

It means that the companies creating digital instruments such as synths and workstations also will need to think about moving a few steps up the ladder in terms of the audio resolution, something which a company such as Roland already did with their AIRA product line.

But, as I have hinted already, if you TRULY want an accurate representation of analog audio and analog master tapes hiding in the vaults of record companies, the best medium would be a medium which can carry an analog signal without affecting the quality of the sound negatively by the imperfections of the medium.

Such as the laserdisc I mentioned.

It could not hurt if the music industry were to consider exploring this avenue, especially if you consider the fact that whereas CD sales are plummeting, the sales of vinyl records are constantly on the rise.

If you give such a laserdisc the same size as old vinyl records, you have a worthy successor of the old vinyl disc in a package which also allows more room for cover and inlay art than the tiny plastic CD case.

I think Neil Young's initiative will be a push towards a higher standard of audio resolution in digital audio productions, and as such I applaud it and welcome it.

But for the 'real deal' I strongly feel that the analog laserdisc or a similar format designed to carry true analog audio is the ultimate solution.

I love analog audio because it is the closest to the analog reality we are part of, but it does not mean that I therefore have an aversion towards digital audio.

I have also listened to audio at higher resolutions through high quality digital converters, and I have to say that this experience was different from my experience of listening to the first CDs in the eighties.

Furthermore, the extent to which digital audio can be manipulated is simply amazing, and if you reassemble the digital samples back into an analog continuous signal again through high quality converters, the result can be very pleasing to the ears, especially if you go at least one step up from the CD audio standard (for example 96 kHz at 24 bit).

Software is good at supporting, emulating and manipulating an analog reality, but it still has a lot of room for improvement.

The ideal of a 'studio-in-a-box' is a nice marketing slogan, but music producers know that if you really want to make an audio signal come alive you have to take the audio signal out of the box, and route it through analog equipment such as a mixing console.

It is a pity that digital was pitched against analog in the past, because both have unique qualities of their own, and digital can serve to support and enhance an analog reality. 

It is very exciting to see digital technology mature and improve as time goes by, especially since the interaction between the digital realm and the analog realm is constantly improving to the point where the digital realm becomes a very valuable extension of our analog world.

As the interfaces and the interaction with the digital domain grow to resemble the interaction with our analog world to an increasing degree, the integration of both domains has the potential of greatly enhancing our living standard.

And of course that also can be used for Evil purposes...

So, why am I writing about digital audio?

Because the digital domain really is a new, artificial dimension we opened up, a realm which is founded on numbers and using those numbers to create a virtual reality.

Just like our own analog dimension.

Our analog dimension has been created by means of numbers acting as operators on energy so that the energy manifests in a particular form with specific qualities.

This post serves as a prelude to the next one where I will discuss in greater detail the difference between analog and digital and how the digital realm really is a new dimension.