Slashdot Mirror
Music Listeners Test 128kbps vs. 256kbps AAC
notthatwillsmith writes "Maximum PC did double-blind testing with ten listeners in order to determine whether or not normal people could discern the quality difference between the new 256kbps iTunes Plus files and the old, DRM-laden 128kbps tracks. But wait, there's more! To add an extra twist, they also tested Apple's default iPod earbuds vs. an expensive pair of Shure buds to see how much of an impact earbud quality had on the detection rate."
These people couldn't even draw a reasonable conclusion employing logic, I fail to see how they could conduct a reliable test...
To our subjects' ears, there wasn't a tremendous distinction between the tracks encoded at 128Kb/s and those encoded at 256Kb/s. None of them were absolutely sure about their choices with either set of earphones, even after an average of five back-to-back A/B listening tests. That tells us the value in the Apple's and EMI's more expensive tracks lies solely in the fact that they're free of DRM restrictions.
Does this remind anyone else of the old story about the frog?
Scientist makes frog hop, frog jump four feet. Cuts one leg off, frog hops three feet. Researcher notes removing one leg makes the frog hop one foo less. Cuts another off, notes the frog hopes only 2 feet. Cuts another off, notes frog can hop only one foot when it has one leg. Cuts off remaining leg and when nothing he can do will incite he frog to hop, puts in notes "removing all legs from frog makes it deaf."
The DRM makes absoilutely no difference. In fact, I'd wager a DRM wrapped CD would still sound like a CD and a DRM wrapped 256kbps aac would still sound (and measure) exactly like an unprotected one. The difference in sound should have absolutely nothing to do with the absence or presence of DRM except under the most demanding (ie one of those uber high end systems with a golden ear where the most minute fluctuations in power supply coupling can aler the most minutely revealed parts of the sound... and probably not even then in a double blind abx).
DRM is simply a container, not a codec technology... but of course that doesn't suit the "cold, dead hands" anti DRM agenda so in fashion - so let's just make a completely insane conclusion and hope no one notices...