Recs

10

The Digital Revolution Killed Quality

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

We owe our senses an apology.

In the mad dash for digital convergence, we have made compromises that are cheating our ears and our eyes. We put up with "near" CD and DVD quality, just for the sake of snappy downloads or greater variety from compressed content. Now, quality hounds are about to lose another battle.

Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL  ) iPhone is overtaking Canon's (NYSE: CAJ  ) high-end EOS Rebel XTi as the most popular source for snapshot uploads to Yahoo!'s (Nasdaq: YHOO  ) photo-sharing site Flickr.

According to Flick's perpetually updated "camera finder" graph, the iPhone and Rebel XTi are neck-and-neck when it comes to populating the site with imagery.

The iPhone doesn't have a bad camera -- it's just not a very good one, relatively speaking. The new iPhone 3GS introduced autofocus and bumped up the megapixel count from two to three. However, there's no flash. There's no zoom. The quality pales when pitted against Canon's 10.1-megapixel workhorse.

The iPhone's camera may be good enough, but that doesn't mean that it's good.

Regression to compression
We settle for the sake of immediacy and ad-supported freebies. Social networking sites will take your treasured photographs and put the squeeze on their quality for bandwidth's sake. Don't even get me started on the grainy mobile uploads!

We haven't been any kinder to moving pictures. "Instant watching titles are available in multiple levels of video quality," explains Netflix's (Nasdaq: NFLX  ) website. "Netflix automatically determines the level you receive by analyzing your current Internet speed. You can't select the video quality level yourself, and the level will change from time to time depending on actual network conditions."

It's hard to look a gift stream in the mouth, because Netflix offers digital playback at no additional cost to subscribers of its unlimited DVD plans. However, sometimes you pay and still have to settle for less than the original.

Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN  ) doesn't sell movie downloads in high-def. It offers television shows in HD, but it will only spit out temporary rentals if you crave high definition. And only recently did Apple begin selling HD movies through iTunes.

Oh my bleeding earbuds
Audiophiles are suffering, too. Sirius XM Radio (Nasdaq: SIRI  ) began charging most of its subscribers for online access earlier this year, in exchange for the promise of higher audio standards. 

"The upgrading of this service allows for customers to listen at near CD-quality sound (128k) for a better listening experience," reads the site's FAQ.

It's definitely better than the original streams, but will folks really pay between $3 and $13 a month for "near" CD quality?

Then again, the sonic quality of satellite radio itself has long come under fire. "Don't get me wrong, I love Sirius' programming, but I hate the sound," wrote Steve Guttenberg in CNET's The Audiophiliac column last year. "It's grungy, harsh, with no actual high frequencies and muddy bass. The music's dynamics are squashed flat as Kansas so it sounds like a low bit MP3. Digital smigital, Sirius sounds awful, way worse than FM radio."

I'm not hating on satellite radio, because I too can't get enough of Sirius. I've been a subscriber for five years. However, championing quality on satellite radio is often a losing battle. Subscribers want more programming, yet broadening the channel list comes at the expense of crummier compression.

Sure, bitrates have improved over the past year. Microsoft's (Nasdaq: MSFT  ) Zune offers MP3 files as high as 320k. That's a far cry from the 128k standard that most online stores were promoting just two years ago. Still, the MP3 format remains all about compression, even if a smaller subset of the audience notices.

The younger generation may not care. They've grown up jamming on their muddled iPods and watching grainy YouTube videos. They will never know the joys of vinyl wax, clean air, and Crystal Pepsi.

Consumers chose quantity over quality. Until a tech company can deliver both, I say the digital revolution is a failure.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

What do you think of the digital revolution's quality sacrifices? Let us know in the comment box below.

Microsoft is a Motley Fool Inside Value selection.Apple, Amazon.com, and Netflix are Motley Fool Stock Advisor selections. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services, free for 30 days

Longtime Fool contributor Rick Munarriz is a subscriber to both Sirius and XM. He does not own shares in any of the companies in this story, except for Netflix. He is also a member of the Rule Breakers analytical team, seeking out the next great growth stock early in its defiance. The Fool's disclosure policy walked to school uphill in the snow, both ways -- and liked it!


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On August 18, 2009, at 3:35 PM, catoismymotor wrote:

    You have squarely identified why I don't download video or music. The quality IS sub-par. I would rather pay $12 for a CD or DVD than download the same material for half the cost because of the quality issues and the fact I want my hard copy. For the same reason I doubt I will ever own a Kindle.

  • Report this Comment On August 18, 2009, at 4:05 PM, kobbler wrote:

    your much better off with the scratchy vinal LP its a single sample you can add scratch filters in playback and get full range of sound. Do it like we did in radio days Record 1 copy and use it till it gets funky then replace it with a new copy keep the vinal for future play back as your main copy for storage.. its a single sample rate of one whole sample store in cool dry storage place for years of trouble free backup use.

  • Report this Comment On August 18, 2009, at 5:19 PM, geoslv wrote:

    Thanks for the insight. It's more than you say tho. It's not so much the sample rate, but digital in general. The way digital masters are made. Digital always loses bass in the first place. Then mp3 exaggerates the high frequencies and drops some lows. The way it's mastered is more important than the bitrate.

  • Report this Comment On August 18, 2009, at 6:11 PM, TMFMarlowe wrote:

    Eh... (speaking as a onetime working guitarist who to this day won't play through a non-tube amp)... the camera that is best is the one you have with you. I have a decent camera, but I don't always carry it. I do always carry my iPhone, and it's obviously super-easy to upload its photos on the fly.

  • Report this Comment On August 18, 2009, at 6:30 PM, MichalTod wrote:

    Compromise in the places where you can't tell the difference (or don't care) and don't compromise in the places where you can.

    I can barely hear the difference between a 320k compressed song versus a CD. As a result, I can keep my entire music collection on my phone, or a device smaller than a credit card. That's Jetsons level of technology as far as I'm concerned.

    However, in video space, I love my HD TV, and put up my nose at some blue ray discs because their quality isn't up to par. Do I watch YouTube? Sure, for things I don't get anywhere else. Not everything will go to my TV in HD.

    Is the tech a failure? Only if you're one of the unfortunate people who's standards are too high for the current compression compromises. But your time will come soon enough. Tech is still marching forward at breath taking speed, and will continue to do so for at least the next decade.

  • Report this Comment On August 18, 2009, at 6:30 PM, TaylorH44 wrote:

    SiriusXM's sound quality really went to the toilet when they merged. That's what doubling your channel line up does when you don't have double the satellite bandwidth.

    It actually promotes music sales in my case. I hear a song I like and want so bad to hear it in decent quality I go buy it on iTunes or on CD, just to hear the the whole song (referring to all the elements of the music you don't hear on SiriusXM's compression.)

    Love the convenience, hate the quality.

    I may be giving HD radio a shot. Even FM sounds better. If only I could get it without commercials.

  • Report this Comment On August 18, 2009, at 11:13 PM, brwn8484 wrote:

    We (big biz in US) has been dumbing down everything produced in US. Why do you think we cant compete with Toyota & Honda. Ditto with electronics. Now our domestic TV manufacturing. Soon nothing of value will be produced here. Thats what the American consumer wants. Even our TV and Movies are Dumb & Dumber.

    If you want quality, you have to design it and pay extra for it. We live in a throw-away society however where quality is not really desired. You can say you want about quality, but Wal-Mart isnt in business because it buys quality, Most of their products are just cheap and you get what you pay for!

    Dont like the comments... try starting a manufacturing business and see if you can make it here in USA.

  • Report this Comment On August 18, 2009, at 11:47 PM, BigVincent wrote:

    Never compare FM radio to digital satellite radio. Worst example ever.. Why you ask?

    Because FM analog signal ALWAYS deals with intermittent issues and is limited to it's range. The FCC also governs the amount of watts during what hours of the day, which FM frequency can use to whatever is that stations full watt potential. Then it deals with conflicts that are intermittent with stations of the same frequency within a particular range.

    If you don't mind intermittent static, commercials, the same song every other hour, then FM radio is for you.

    If you like playlists that are extensive, extensive explicit content, don't mind a signal cut out when you go through a tunnel, and don't mind the digital compression, then satellite radio is for you.

    Theres pro's and cons to any product in the market place, but to hear people say that FM radio is better in quality is definitely a joke in its own.

    HD radio may grow in some popularity to traditional radio, but then again I definitely won't be able to hear the local HD station I like over 300 miles away. This is why satellite prevails, because it's any time anywhere, the same station that a person is comfortable listening to any where in the U.S.

  • Report this Comment On August 19, 2009, at 12:04 PM, churlish wrote:

    Compression works in some cases, but over compression always fails. If you are listening to 320Kbps MP3 encoded with high quality, it sounds quite good. In fact, I am not sure you could tell the difference on good quality audio equipment. It would take high end audio in a 'clean' listening environment to make an A/B comparison between 320K MP3 and CD. On the other hand, very few people would fail to tell the difference between 128K MP3 and CD even on a typical home stereo setup. On an iPod? They might have trouble. But in any case, 128K stinks, 192K is not bad, and from 256K up (particularly 320K), you would have to really be listening to hear the difference.

  • Report this Comment On August 19, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Jimbowne wrote:

    Come on, is 128k really "near CD quality"? Pleeeeeeese. Lets get real here. CD audio has a bitrate of 1411k, so to say that 128k is near the quality of a CD is an absurd statement. I don't download music or listen to mp3's simply because the digital sound (other than CD, .wav, or .flac) is horrible. I am waiting until lossless music is available on blu-ray's.

    -Jim

  • Report this Comment On August 19, 2009, at 1:04 PM, wesgtt wrote:

    Excellent article and one I have been thinking about for a while especially inregard to sound quality. When CD's came out it was called "perfect sound" and I was excited... then I though why does my turntable sound so much better.. Owning an audiophile store with great equipment I learned to get the most out of CD's... And after much effort they were actually close in some cases better than vinyl...

    Then the MP3 revolution... Hopefully some wise smart young people will create a cult following in regard to preserving the artist creation and it gets picked up. Funny thing is I write music and my home studio produces some excellent quality songs only to be listened to via compressed MP's at 128K. How disappointing... At least I have a choice for myself...

    Nice article!

  • Report this Comment On August 20, 2009, at 8:13 PM, 2tipdotbiz wrote:

    SIRI Radio will rise up real soon!!!

    Search The Web: http://www2tip.biz

  • Report this Comment On August 21, 2009, at 10:51 AM, iloveretail67 wrote:

    I was one of the first subscribers to XM radio when it first came on the scene in 2003 (I believe). The sound quality was so bad that I switched to Sirius. Sirius was significantly better, but both services really lacked the dynamic range that a CD or Vinyl offers. Bass is not too bad, but the highs are simply awful. I have sent suggestions to the newly merged company to cut back on the 7 different country stations, 5 different rap stations, etc... and focus on sound quality. Less channels means more bandwidth per channel which equals better sound. I still have yet to get a response from them.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2009, at 1:25 AM, dgmennie wrote:

    These numerous debates about "digital quality" are really spining around a side issue. The core issue with ALL systems for recording music and video is ACCESS. Is there anything (in digital wonderland) you (as a consumer) can buy today that will still be supported even five or ten years from now? With music, I want to easily access recordings 80+ years old as well as the latest hits (or non-hits). The only format that even comes close to meeting this requirement is/was VINYL.

    As far as I can determine at this point, digital formats will continue evolving and changing literally forever. You (as a music fan) will be then obligated to re-create your cherished music files over and over again. The music industry thinks you ought to pay for this inconvenience, but as declining CD sales attest, consumers will have none of it. Free and/or cheap downloads (many of marginal quality) are about all they will put up with at this point.

    You want to sell somebody music you must deliver QUALITY and archival century-long ACCESS for a one-time reasonable price with a minimum of nerdy knowhow required. Digital has come a cropper on both counts thus far.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 966504, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/25/2012 7:28:31 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:00 PM
NFLX $70.22 Down -0.05 -0.07%
Netflix CAPS Rating: **
SIRI $1.93 Down -0.06 -3.02%
Sirius XM Radio CAPS Rating: **
YHOO $15.36 Up +0.01 +0.07%
Yahoo! CAPS Rating: **
MSFT $29.06 Down -0.01 -0.03%
Microsoft Corp CAPS Rating: ****
AAPL $562.29 Down -3.03 -0.54%
Apple CAPS Rating: ***
AMZN $212.89 Down -2.35 -1.09%
Amazon.com CAPS Rating: ***
CAJ $40.39 Up +0.65 +1.64%
Canon, Inc. (ADR) CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement