Sony have managed to slip some nifty new features into its latest Blue Ray players. These improvements allow the Blue Ray players to quickly convert video files for use onto a PSP or Sony Media Player. This is COULD be great news for PS3 owners as often this kind of software upgrade finds its way into PS3 firmware upgrades. This would mean users who use PlayTV could easily convert the files for use on the PSP without having to export to a PC or Mac first. 

The more hardware like the PS3 or computers in general can have conversion software built in the better for all of us. What would be great is if its implemented at a system level so that the moment the user tries to copy content from one machine to another, whether its video or audio, its automatically optomised for that hardware. This would take the ‘techie’ element away and result in making it user friendly to the vast majority of consumers out there.

For a while now I have been doing talks at various universities or even at the Dana centre (part of the London Science Museum), and the focus of the discussion often falls on the ‘quality’ of audio today.

In essence I find myself stating my case that the MP3 format might have helped the digital music player industry grow, but that it has held back the progress and sound quality of music for the majority of people.

The MP3 was launched at a point in history when memory capacity was limited. The MP3 format compresses the audio which results in the file taking up a lot less space. For example a CD quality file lasting around three and half minutes can be reduced from 38.5 Mb to around 3-10Mb depending on the amount of compression applied. 

Of course ‘compression’ cannot be done without a hit in the audio quality. The MP3 format in effect results in parts of the recording being removed. Normally its the part of the audio which is not crucial to the sound and ‘narrative’ of the music. This results in a range of frequencies being removed. Although not crucial to the listening experience these frequencies are noticeable, especially if played through a decent hifi rather than the standard Iphone headphones. Placed against a CD, a MP3 is clearly inferior for the majority of music genres. However, this reality has not stopped MP3 taking off and being the ‘format’ of choice for the majority of people. Apple have their own version called AAC, but this too is inferior to CD. 

Where as the visual would has not only avoided reducing quality (yes I know compression is used for digital broadcast - but it always has so compared to SD television its a win, win) but its actually gone HD and FULL HD mad. Maybe its because watching things is a primary activity, where as sound takes place whilst something else is taking place for the majority of people? However, I still believe that many people still listen to music just for the sake of listening to music, and hearing it in its full glory is something which most people would appreciate. Why else spend money on that expensive Bose Ipod dock if you don’t care about the sound quality?

Believe it or not audio HAS gone HD. We have 24 bit audio and it can be recorded and played back 192Khz (the frequency at which a sample is taken - the higher it is the more accurate the recording). Its just that, except for the production environment, these formats have failed to take off. Home cinema has helped a little as Blue Ray can support some of these formats, but for most people CD quality sound is still the best they have ever heard, and they live in a MP3 world for most of the time. 

The success of the MP3 format has been the main factor holding back progress. MP3 players were created to play back MP3s and hence new or even older alternative formats were locked out of the consumer offering. However the owner of MP3, Thomson, have now come up with MP3HD. This is excellent news!

What is great about MP3HD is that its backwards compatible with older players. So if you download a MP3HD file but your player can’t play HD files, it will still read it and just play a traditional MP3 version. However, when you upgrade your player then your files are already HD and you haven’t got a wasted download. Now these MP3HD files are not better than CD but are promising the same as CD sound, which is good. However, one assumes that the format could be extended to a FULL HD audio standard with the same backward compatible principles being applied.

The pressure to act is now with the actual download stores and hardware manufacturers to adopt this new standard. We want Amazon and co to offer MP3HD files for download and for hardware to support the files. Clearly download stores won’t jump at this despite the improved experience for customers. This is because of the extra bandwidth the stores will require to be able to send all this data to consumers. Additionally consumers will need fast broadband connections to recieve a file within a reasonable period of time. The latter of these concerns is not really relevant in most of the developed world with broadband fast enough to deliver this for most people.

The earlier concern, regarding the bandwidth download stores will have to use to deliver the files, is relevant. Indeed, this would most probably result in the files carrying a higher price. Though, this might stop the format establishing itself in the first place. Perhaps Thomson should lower any licensing fees required to use the format, at least to begin with, to help it take off?

Either way, its good to see that the quality of Audio is at last being made relevant at the consumer level and is not just an academic issue for the producers and professionals in the industry.

The demise of Spiralfrog has highlighted the reality of the ‘music for free’ model. This reality is simple: music is not free and costs to listen to and own. The record labels knew this and hence charged Spiralfrog a premium for granting access to their content. 

Unfortunately they did not have a strong enough business model and did not sell other services or generate enough income from advertising to be able to afford the music. This is interesting, as it demonstrates to consumers that the idea that there is no cost to music is phoney. Certianly Spiralfrog users now understand that there is a cost, because their service no longer exists.

However, one assumes that they will just migrate to another free music service such as Spotify. Spotify are clearly learning from the Spiralfrog story and has now announced that it will start to offer paid downloads via 7digital. 

Record labels want these new, legitimate services, to exist but then charge such high fees from them, they end up not allowing these services to bed in and grow. Hence, it is impertive that new music web ventures have a range of income sources from day one of launch. Especially in a market where advertising income on the net is down from anywhere from 2-20% depending on the sectors targetted. 

Meanwhile the Itunes music download service will start to vary the pricing structure of songs within its library. Some would argue that the timing is awful, as the industry as a whole is still struggling and we are in a recession, but the idea of increasing the COST of downloading music is interesting. Perhaps Apple is seeing if the legitimate download market is now becoming a way of life for many users rather than something to ‘play with ‘ on the side of their traditional music consumption habits. Accordingly they are testing the market to see if they can squeeze value back into certain recordings.

One thing is for sure, good music costs money to find, nurture and produce. Perhaps the re-education of the public has started?

To bring those of you who have missed this news story uptodate:

YouTube have stopped allowing UK residents to see music videos from major labels. This is because they have not been able to agree the package paid to the PRS, which is the body that represents the songwriters in the industry (not the record labels). 

In many ways, what Youtube have done is ethical. Their previous deal expired and without agreement they shouldn’t make the content available. Additionally, without knowing what the final figure is they might be worried about exposing themselves to an unknown fee to be retrospectively applied to this period of time where no deal is in place.

However, its also quite possible that YouTube is simply posturing, and showing the PRS that songwriters represented by the ‘industry’ need YouTube far more than YouTube need them. In some ways YouTube would be right, whilst songwriters whos material is being used in ‘premium’ videos are being pulled, other ‘long tail’ artists, people who are probably not even members of the PRS, are still having their content made available.

The PRS is slowly changing the nature of its membership as its now offering free membership. They want as many people to join as possible as this would, in theory, allow them to leverage that user base when negotiating with the likes of YouTube far more succesfully. 

However, one has to wonder if eventually a cultural levy might have to be placed by government on organisations such as YouTube. A Corporate license fee as it were, which is collected centrally. It would then be left to organisations such as the PRS and PPL and labels directly to negotiate with the holders of that fund, what cut they should have. 

Something has to give, as the current situation is not great for songwriters. Music has a value, and even if times have changed and the end consumer no longer has to pay, we need those that leverage that value to appreciate this and commit to principles which enshrine fair payment. 

Some artists have asked for a share of the ad revenue derived from Youtube clips, and this is already on offer to those who own the videos (which is a separate form of ownership of the song). Thats not insane, but at present the technical infrastructure for that does not really exist on sites such as Youtube. On Itunes all music is placed with ISRC codes, which means you can trace the publisher/songwriter, copyright holders etc. With Youtube, at present, none of that data is transferred, so how can they pay directly to a songwriters? They cant. Thats why the PRS has to negotiate a lump sum type approach to YouTube and then work it out from there. However, Im sure a company the size of YouTube could put the infrastructure in!

However, this is not a one-off situation. Warners recently pulled their own content from YouTube over a similar issue. So what is the solution? It might simply be that YouTube is not the right platform for professional material. Its ideal for amateur works, or previews of commercial works. However, unless they launch a commercial channel section, a proper pay to view scenario, then content owners and those that represent content owners, will just have to steer clear of the website.

Mind you, YouTube have recently announced that they will soon allow people to download content, and charge for this privilege. Perhaps that might be the middle ground? The PRS and Warners would accept a lower payment for the streaming material, seeing it as a type of preview. Consequently a fairer form of payment is transferred when the content is downloaded by the user, just as it would be in the world of Itunes.

The PRS has a simple message which is that content is made and owned by people. Real People. Most of them earn less than £5000 a year (so they claim). Its not healthy for them to have it withheld from the consumers or to have it available but without real financial remuneration.

Perhaps the answer to these issues, is not to dance around numbers but to look at the actual system and platform on offer and work together to build something that offers value for all. The Youtube model was built without having to take these issues into account, and was essentially for amateur content. Now its been adopted by everyone, yet its own business model and delivery options are not compatible with the commercial production world’s needs and that, it would seem, is the core issue. We, the content creators love YouTube, but need it to work with it to  change how it offers content with a tiered range of options. 

Is anyone having this conversation?