Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Music Listeners Test 128kbps vs. 256kbps AAC

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the perfect-pitches dept.

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."

6 of 428 comments (clear)

  1. Not worth it? by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    FTFA

    we just don't think DRM-free tracks alone are worth paying an extra 30 cents a track for.. Have fun buying your album again to play it on your cell phone's MP3 player.
  2. Re:Synopsis by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The new standard for research methodology: finding 10 people at the corner starbucks, asking them to help you for an "article" you're writing.

    Oh ,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.)

    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.
  3. Re:The results... by dangitman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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.
  4. Re:The results... by artisteeternite · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They tested music ripped from CD and encoded by iTunes. That makes this test irrelevant to the music to the iTunes store, since that music comes from the original masters (higher quality than the CD) and is encoded using customised settings (per-album or per-song), while iTunes uses some fairly general settings.

    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.

  5. Re:The results... by Yoozer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The open reel tape used in the studio was recorded at ether 15 or 30 ips.
    And you had to either pretty wealthy to use virgin tape or hope the previous recordings would be properly wiped. It's an analog medium with the main advantage that overdriving the inputs gives a nice effect ("warmth") - compared to early digital boxes who just clipped and truncated instead of dithered. Every time you have to play or record tape, it degrades a little bit; surely you know of the multitracking in Bohemian Rhapsody that went on and on until the tape was nearly transparent

    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?

    good CRO2 tape and a quality recording and playback deck and you really couldn't tell the difference between live and tape.
    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"?
  6. Re:The results... by cheater512 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wouldnt make any conclusions. There were only 10 people tested.