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."

9 of 428 comments (clear)

  1. hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    beuhler?

  2. Re:Cost and quality by snowgirl · · Score: 0, Troll

    I have a friend who claims to be an audiophile - and he is - with sound equipment worth well over $40,000.

    Clearly your friend has too much money... My music is not so important to me that I would spend more on it than your average sports car...

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  3. Re:Humidity?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    That's called "trolling", you douchebag.

  4. Re:The results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    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. Yeah and 10 out of 10 terrorists agree that Linsux and Open Sores should be installed on all on computers so what's the big fucking deal?
  5. Re:The results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Look you dimwit, the whole point of this was that it isn't about some guy on slashdot saying he can (in a superior tone) tell the difference between 128 and 256.

    Secondly, I'd like to point out that just because you can tell the difference doens't mean one is better. I can tell the difference between cake and ice cream too. So ice cream is better ? WTF ?

  6. tr07l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    mo8e stable

  7. Re:Synopsis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    You must be incredibly unhappy being such an idealist douchebag. I pity you.

  8. Re:The results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    WTF indeed. low bit rate audio : high bit rate audio :: cake : ice cream. if it were aac:flak, then you might have something you fucking dickhead.

  9. IANAL by Bossk-Office · · Score: 0, Troll

    I am not a lamer, so I've never bought any iTunes music. I had no idea it was encoded at 128 kb/s! (I guess it's something other than MP3 so my experience is not entirely relevant, but it's got to be comparable.) The recent Apple products I've used have all been of impressive quality, so I'm surprised they of all people are peddling such crappy audio. I don't exactly have golden ears, and going above 192 kb/s in an MP3 never makes any difference to me, but if it's a 128, I can spot that within seconds and throw it away. If it's got cymbals in it, ugh!