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."
The new standard for research methodology: finding 10 people at the corner starbucks, asking them to help you for an "article" you're writing.
,and while we're at, let's throw another variable into the mix! That'll make it even more scientifical! (And that's not even getting into any other variables that slipped in thru carelessness.)
Oh
Frankly, I wouldn't trust these MPC bozos to tell me if it was raining while I was urinating on their backs.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Are they on crack? 256 Kbps is quite a high bitrate for a lossy CODEC. Their wording is also really bizarre. A low bitrate would be worse for a lossless track, because an uncompressed or lossless track, by definition, should have a much higher bitrate than a track compressed with a lossy CODEC.
Do they even know what they are talking about?
... and then they built the supercollider.
It seems obvious to me they do NOT know what they were doing.
RTFA or not. ( Guess which I chose? )
10 subjects is hardly enough to prove ANYTHING, other than that they
have no idea how to perform a remotely rigorous scientific analysis.
You can expect 2 idiots, 3 to be biased, 4 to be honest, and 1 to lie.
I think 100 would begin to scratch the surface. I'm not trying to be
a snarky science dick, this is self evident. This is epinion.com bullshit.
Show me 10 people who have ipods and I'll show you 5 aol users. (lol)
So then, it seems that there would be an even more noticeable difference between 128Kb/s and 256Kb/s. Which means if using this lower quality 128Kb/s track, the research showed that the difference in quality isn't worth an extra 30 cents, then doesn't it still hold true that a higher quality 128Kb/s track purchased from iTunes would be even closer in quality to the 256Kb/s track, and still not worth the extra 30 cents?
If ripping a CD to iTunes at 128Kb/s creates a lower quality track than purchasing a 128Kb/s track from the iTunes Store, then I think ripping from a CD to iTunes actually adds more weight to the argument that the 256Kb/s tracks are not worth an extra 30 cents.
The problem is, "best" is subjective. One's person's "best" is not the same as another. When comparing against the original, we have a baseline to compare against.
And example of this would be that different codecs preserve certain frequencies differently. Different people are more sensitive to changes in different frequencies. If it just happens that a codec does preserve a those particular frequencies that you are sensitive to, then of course you will feel that that codec is bad.
Of course, I'm oversimplifing things. Factors like the music, speakers/headphones, etc, all play a part in how you preceive quality of the codec.
So, basically, the idea is, when doing testing which will be relevant to others, we need to test against the original. But if you're testing to see what codec is best for your own personal use, yes, you can use the codec that sounds "best" to you.
This test, to a large extent, tells us about the output of the codecs, rather than tell us about the differences between 128k/256k encoding. For a really meaningful test, we must ensure that each song was encoded using the exact same settings.
I can create 256k MP3's which sound worse than 128k MP3's, both from the same WAV. There are a large number of customizations you can use in the encoding process which can really affect the output.
It's a matter of personal taste, but I was given a pair of very expensive noise-blocking earbuds, and I *hate* them. Firstly, to block the noise, you have to jam them into your ears till it hurts. And then, the "sound-stage" is moved to directly between the earbuds, so the orchestra sounds like it is inside my head(*). Ugh. I tend to prefer lightweight in-ear headphones with a folding headband for travel (much more comfortable), and proper fullsize headphones (not necessarily especially expensive) for non mobile listening. On aircraft, I've given up on classical music completely.
(*)If interested in this effect, try playing with sox, and the "earwax" plugin. Some samples are on the web too.
Furthermore, vinyl is lowpass filtered at 16khz anyway. Gone are the harmonics. The higher fidelity is in the first few playings; after that, the medium degrades. What use is it to have something that'll play properly 10-20 times?
Live sound is always a compromise; always an unpredictable venue, crowd, and response (and in the worst case a clueless mixing engineer or band member who decides that eleven is just not enough for his guitar); soundchecks just can't fix this.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with digital. The whole 24/96 deal is a godsend because it means much more headroom. Having it in digital format means that you can play and record without ghosts from the past, without degradation. This caused some engineers to add noise afterwards to get rid of the sterility - but what they call sterility is simply unheard-of silence that couldn't be had previously. Engineers back in the day would've killed to have the possibilities we have now.
As for sounding plastic, I think you're confusing the medium with the mixing. Are you familiar with the term "loudness wars"?
I wouldnt make any conclusions. There were only 10 people tested.