Skip to content

Why “Worse is Better” .. a point many pundits miss

The old teeth gnashing about the prevalence of “good enough” technology is making the rounds again, for some reason. This is an issue that comes up from time to time in the tech world, and it’s always an interesting discussion.

It’s no secret that I’m on the side of “Worse is (often) Better”. I’ve ranted repeatedly about this both in person and in various online forums. I’ve talked about “good enough often is” so many times with colleagues and the like I’m sick of even having the argument anymore.

But the biggest reason why “good enough often is” can be summed up by the reasons why mp3s became the success they are today. To a trained ear, the format has some limitations, and even my crappy hearing can sometimes tell the difference. It certainly is inferior to the technical quality of the average CD.

However, in my world I’m never in a position to actually HEAR the difference unless I’m listening for it. Most of my music listening takes place either in transit from place to place (be it by car, bus/train, or other conveyance), or as background in my home. In either place, I’m in an “imperfect environment” anyway, so “good enough” is just that. Even if I had lossless files playing on a THX-certified player with a $300 headset, I’d still be in a noisy environment, with the 60db of traffic noise around me dulling my low-frequency hearing into oblivion.

“Good enough is” precisely because most of the time we’re not in a laboratory. Most human beings spend their days in environments (be they work or play) that are never going to be “perfect listening rooms”, so using an audio format that is lossy doesn’t matter.

You can look at every other situation were “Worse is Better” and come to the same conclusion. Large laptops (“desktop replacements”) are not as powerful and have inferior displays to desktop machines, but are more portable.  Netbooks are desirable over than large laptops to some, precisely because a large laptop is cumbersome to balance on your knee on the bus, even though netbooks are typically slower and have inferior ergonomics than larger laptops: tablets are even “better/worse”, as are smartphones. Monoaural audio devices like Bluetooth headsets often have slightly better range and are not insignificantly cheaper than their stereo counterparts, even though the monoaural Bluetooth profile offers less fidelity.

The trick is finding the tipping point where worse gets better. There’s a saying in the photography community that says “the best camera is the one you have when the shot appears,” an axiom that proves how wrong I was about smartphone cameras (synopsis of that opinion: they’re shite, always will be, and therefore worthless). Even the crappy camera on my original Palm Treo 650 (“1.2 megapixels”, but that makes it sound better than it really was) was “the one I had when the shot appears” in more than one occasion. Flipping through iPhoto I find a lot of really good pictures I’ve taken with whatever camera I happen to have in my hands.. which usually is a smartphone. Meanwhile, my $1200 digital SLR kit sits collecting dust in my closet.

Are the photos technically inferior to what I can do with the digital SLR? Most certainly. I can complain all day about the “noise” in the camera phone photos, the sloppy focus, the lack of depth of field, and even the quantization errors in the often sloppy JPEG encoding. But I have the shot, where I wouldn’t have the shot if I had to find my DSLR, take it out, warm it up, and shoot.

But the greater point? I have to “switch gears” to even notice the imperfections in the photos. After they’ve been printed on my (“good enough”) inkjet printer and housed in a small frame, I still get a lot of enjoyment out of many of the photos I’ve taken of events and loved ones with.. well, quite shitty cameras. Old 110 film was “good enough” for many in the 70’s, even though it was inferior in most ways to 126 film (and not to mention crap compared to 35mm).

I guess in this regard I should have looked to my own career path as an example, and I didn’t.  VoIP, be it Skype or whatever, is a great example of how “worse is better” has played out.  The “old telephone network” was engineered for robustness.  In our post-Bell System world, we view it as way over-engineered.  VoIP is, in many ways, way worse.  The audio quality can be inferior, it requires a reasonably well engineered network (or at minimum “over-engineered” bandwidth) (contrast that to conventional dialtone, which works at insane distances over very poor quality cable), and is very ‘portable’.  Oh, and because of a lot of competition in the sphere and the economics of the product, essentially free.

“Worse is better” only because the people who define “worst” as solely being some artificial (and often just perceived) advantage a legacy technology has.  Vinyl records are far inferior at technical sound reproduction than any digital method with a reasonable sample rate, period.  End of story.  There’s no arguing that from a purely scientific stance.  Even high bitrate lossy codecs can provide more accurate sound reproduction than vinyl, at a significantly reduced “cost” and at lower maintenance.

Vinyl may “sound better” (and I’d argue that as well), but it isn’t technically superior in any scientifically measurable way.  The irony: those who think that presence is a desirable trait in audio (mostly because they don’t have any high-frequency hearing anymore) and don’t like “brilliance” think vinyl is subjectively superior to both CDs and MP3s.  But that’s only because they’re applying the “worse is better” ideal.  Poor fidelity reproduction is better than precisely, scientifically engineered reproduction.

And that’s the point.  The point is that the word “worst” is misapplied.  It’s not really worse.  It’s just the rules of what’s required is redefined by each generation of user.  Modern music listeners are willing to sacrifice a small amount of fidelity for considerably more portability and accessibility.   Music isn’t something they listen to in their living room turned listening room.  It’s become a part of their daily life.   Many non-geeks now have digital music libraries that far exceed even what an audiophile would have had 40 years ago, in both quantity of “albums” and the genres it spans.

“Survival of the fittest” is a much better way of wording “worse is better.”  Fitness is defined by the environment: smarter but ugly can often win over dumb and beautiful.


  1. Brian Enigma wrote:

    Back in my day, we listened to rock music on AM radio (The Mighty 690, I believe) and got the same enjoyment out of it as on casette tape, vinyl, CD, and MP3. When something such as music gives you an emotional response, it doesn’t really matter what the quality is. See also: mixtapes after several generations of copying/mixing and VHS tapes (especially on SLP speed), also after generations of copying.

    I like my smartphone camera. It’s encouraging me to take much more pictures than I did when I was lugging around my one-shot camera (which was a far cry from an DSLR, but still good nonetheless).

    Sunday, January 2, 2011 at 9:26 am | Permalink
  2. Timmay wrote:

    Vinyl has CD (red book spec) beat in terms of frequency response. Easily measurable, natch.

    Monday, January 3, 2011 at 8:57 am | Permalink
  3. feedle wrote:

    However, I can count on one hand the phonograph record players manufactured that were capable of taking advantage of the theoretical better frequency response of vinyl.

    Note “theoretical.” Much (if not “most”, or at least as close enough to “all” to represent every consumer mass-pressed phonograph record made) of the content was recorded using equipment way below the thresh hold of RedBook CD’s specs. Additionally, the words I used was “fidelity”: and that’s the important distinction. Wow, flutter, rumble, etc. are all important to accurate sound reproduction: and in these categories vinyl always fails.

    Oh, and I forgot to mention that the frequency response of vinyl worsens with every playing on a conventional gramophone (laser pickup systems don’t have this disadvantage, but at that point… fdjddfa;lkjdj;aksld;ljfakds;lkfajd;lfads fasdo;nuga;va;novatotysp)

    Last point: vinyl’s frequency response isn’t flat. That’s exactly my point: it’s a very low FIDELITY medium compared to CDs. That makes it, from a strictly scientific stance, “inferior”.

    Monday, January 3, 2011 at 10:57 am | Permalink
  4. TIMMAY wrote:

    Based on your first sentence I think it behooves me to introduce you to some excellent turntable manufacturers still producing today … Thorens, Technics, Rega, Dual, Woodsong, Teres, Oracle, Verdier, PBN, Sota, Avid, Basis, Amazon, J A Michell, and a few dozen other turntable manufacturers produce entire lines of units that, as long as you’re not skimping on the cartridge, can produce usable (not just measurable) frequencies out past 30 kHz. As you may know, CDs have a hard ceiling at 22.05 kHz and mp3s roll off around 16 kHz.

    I have four turntables by above makers with various MM/MC carts and phono stages that can spike a spectrum analyzer in those frequencies with ease. Hell, two of my Nakamichi tape decks can, too 🙂

    Your saying that vinyl “always fails” in the wow/flutter/rumble department or that its “frequency response isn’t flat” tells me that this introduction is long overdue. Now if I can just find cash to fly you to Dallas for a demo we could set the matter to rest …

    Tuesday, January 4, 2011 at 11:32 am | Permalink
  5. tex avery wrote:

    Timmay sounds like the kind of guy who spends $150 on HDMI Monster Cables and $300 speaker wire for ten-foot speaker runs.


    Wednesday, January 5, 2011 at 6:46 am | Permalink
  6. feedle wrote:


    .. and you wonderfully missed the point. My point wasn’t that vinyl can’t (given a lot of engineering and patience) be good. My point is that it ISN’T.

    I can, for a fraction of the cost, engineer a digital system that will outperform any analog system you care to mention in the stats that matter to 99.999% of consumers and even nearly all the pros. Frequency response above human hearing? Doesn’t matter. Portability? Matters. Content availability? Matters.

    There might be a handful of phonograph records manufactured that would produce measurable results on your high-end gear, even if you could perceive the difference (which you can’t). There are millions of CDs produced that all meet Redbook standards for performance, from the production studio to the speaker.

    Again, though, that misses the greater point. Who cares about listening to the .000001% of recorded material on your perfect phonograph? Most humans on this planet have such deficits in their hearing, are listening in imperfect environments, and playing content that was recorded using low fidelity methods anyway that.. it doesn’t matter.

    Wednesday, January 5, 2011 at 11:43 am | Permalink
  7. feedle wrote:

    Tex Avery:

    “b..b..b..b..but, the skin effect make such a difference! And I have to get the cleanest digital signal possible from my Blu-Ray (720p upscaled to 1080p) player to my 60″ LCD TV!”

    Wednesday, January 5, 2011 at 11:50 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.