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."
Apple's iTunes store--in partnership with EMI--is now hawking DRM-free music at twice the bit rate of its standard fare (256Kb/s vs. 128Kb/s) and charging a $0.30-per-track premium for it. We're all for DRM-free music, but 256Kb/s still seems like a pretty low bit rate--especially when you're using a lossy codec.
So we decided to test a random sample of our colleagues to see if they could detect any audible difference between a song ripped from a CD and encoded in Apple's lossy AAC format at 128K/s, and the same song ripped and encoded in lossy AAC at 256Kb/s.
Our 10 test subjects range in age from 23 to 56. Seven of the 10 are male. Eight are editors by trade; two art directors. Four participants have musical backgrounds (defined as having played an instrument and/or sung in a band). We asked each participant to provide us with a CD containing a track they considered themselves to be intimately familiar with. We used iTunes to rip the tracks and copied them to a fifth-generation 30GB iPod. We were hoping participants would choose a diverse collection of music, and they did: Classical, jazz, electronica, alternative, straight-ahead rock, and pop were all represented; in fact country was the only style not in the mix. (See the chart at the end of the story for details.)
We hypothesized that no one would be able to discern the difference using the inexpensive earbuds (MSRP: $29) that Apple provides with its product, so we also acquired a set of high-end Shure SE420 earphones (MSRP: $400). We were confident that the better phones would make the task much easier, since they would reveal more flaws in the songs encoded at lower bit rates.
METHODOLOGY
We asked each participant to listen with the Apple buds first and to choose between Track A, Track B, or to express no preference. We then tested using the SE420's and asked the participant to choose between Track C, Track D, or to express no preference. The tests were administered double-blind, meaning that neither the test subject nor the person conducting the test knew which tracks were encoded at which bit rates.
The biggest surprise of the test actually disproved our hypothesis: Eight of the 10 participants expressed a preference for the higher-bit rate songs while listening with the Apple buds, compared to only six who picked the higher-quality track while listening to the Shure's. Several of the test subjects went so far as to tell they felt more confident expressing a preference while listening to the Apple buds. We theorize that the Apple buds were less capable of reproducing high frequencies and that this weakness amplified the listeners' perception of aliasing in the compressed audio signal. But that's just a theory.
LEAVE IT TO THE OLD FOGEYS
Age also factored differently than we expected. Our hearing tends to deteriorate as we get older, but all three of our subjects who are over 40 years old (and the oldest listener in the next-oldest bracket) correctly identified the higher bit-rate tracks using both the Apple and the Shure earphones. Three of the four subjects aged between 31 and 40 correctly identified the higher bit-rate tracks with the Apple earbuds, but only two were successful with the Shures. Two of three under-30 subjects picked the higher-quality tracks with the Apples, but only one of them made the right choice with the Shures. All four musicians picked the higher-quality track while listening to the Apples, and three of the four were correct with the Shures.
Despite being less able to detect the bit rate of the songs while listening to the Shure SE420 earphones, eight of 10 subjects expressed a preference for them over the Apple buds. Several people commented on the Shure's ability to block extraneous noise. While listening to the SE420s, one person remarked "Wow, I'd forgotten that wood-block sound was even in this song." Another said "The difference between the Shure earphones and the Apple earbuds was more significant than the difference between the song encoded at 128Kb/s and the one recorded
8/10 Picked High Bit Rate with Apple Headphones
6/10 Picked High Bit Rate with Shure Headphones
100% certainty that 10 people sample-set is too little for a Yes-No experiement.
I agree with your statement that audiophiles don't use "professional" equipment, but I disagree with your statement that studio monitors will give you the sound that the recording engineer intended. This is because, as you imply, there is a distinct difference between accurate speakers and good-sounding speakers, and recording studios use accurate speakers, while consumers, even audiophiles, are better off with good-sounding speakers.
If you working in a recording studio, you want accuracy at all costs. You must hear everything distinctly, because you need to make important decisions based on what you hear. If "it sounds great" is all you are getting from your speakers, you won't make those tough decisions (more cymbals, different reverb, more compression on the vocals, or whatever.) You'll just leave it alone and it won't be as good as it could be. However, those extremely accurate speakers that are perfect for recording studio use are NOT pleasant for casual listening. Everything is too crisp and sharp, and they will tend to make you want a break from all that detail.
When I'm working on a mix in the studio, I want everything in very crisp detail so I can make judgments; when I'm listening to the final product, I want the music to "hang together" and present itself to me as a coherent whole. There are other differences between studio monitors and "normal" speakers (for example, consistency of frequency response) but this relatively subjective factor of detailed sound vs. coherent sound is one of the more important ones I have experienced.
The recording engineer did not intend for you to listen to the music on studio monitors. Studio monitors are a tool with a specific use, and that use is not everyday listening. The attributes of a good studio monitor just don't match up with the attributes of a good audiophile speaker. This is why audiophiles buy certain kinds of speakers, and recording engineers buy other kinds. I've been lucky enough to own both kinds of speakers, and I've tried using them for the wrong purpose with less-than-stellar results. Mixes made on good-sounding speakers are inconsistent on other speakers, and music played through accurate speakers isn't as pleasant to the ear.
My truck is like a series of tubes.
Classical music usually has a wide dynamic range whilst most of the rest doesn't. The audio engineer working on a pop track runs everything through an audio volume-level compressor, bringing every sound to more or less the same volume level. In classical music it is quite normal to play certain things at the level of a whisper.
This means that most of popular music never uses the digital bits representing these low-volume whispers but confines itself to loud shouts and blaring synths, so a lot of the 'bandwidth' on a CD is wasted because of it. Classical music on the other hand uses most of the available bandwidth thanks to the sane use of audio level compressors. When this wideband signal is to have its data compressed then it requires a lot more storage space than the popular music would.
All rites reversed 2010