Slashdot Mirror
Young People Prefer "Sizzle Sounds" of MP3 Format
Hugh Pickens writes "Jonathan Berger, a professor of music at Stanford, tests his incoming students each year by having them listen to a variety of recordings which use different formats from MP3 to ones of much higher quality, and he reports that each year the preference for music in MP3 format rises. Berger says that young people seemed to prefer 'sizzle sounds' that MP3s bring to music because it is a sound they are familiar with. 'The music examples included both orchestral, jazz and rock music. When I first did this I was expecting to hear preferences for uncompressed audio and expecting to see MP3 (at 128, 160 and 192 bit rates) well below other methods (including a proprietary wavelet-based approach and AAC),' writes Berger. 'To my surprise, in the rock examples the MP3 at 128 was preferred. I repeated the experiment over 6 years and found the preference for MP3 — particularly in music with high energy (cymbal crashes, brass hits, etc) rising over time.' Dale Dougherty writes that the context of the music changes our perception of the sound, particularly when it's so obviously and immediately shared by others. 'All that sizzle is a cultural artifact and a tie that binds us. It's mostly invisible to us but it is something future generations looking back might find curious because these preferences won't be obvious to them.'"
I think that it really just points more to the fact that most people can't tell the difference between what they like and what they are used to.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I think the Jonas Brothers already proved this.
This is not surprising at all. Talk with anyone who grew up listening to records and you'll hear a tale of music with character and soul. That "character" and "soul" is the pop and crack of dust, scratches, and whatnot that the record needle picked up - all the imperfections in the record player and record that we could hear. It's a comforting and familiar noise in the sound. The digital generation has its own pop and crackle and it should come as a surprise to nobody that their reaction to it is the same as the record generation's reaction to the sound of a record playing.
Dick Cavett said "As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it." Little did he know that if all people know is crap they actually begin to prefer it.
Haiku for you!
Little did he know that if all people know is crap they actually begin to prefer it.
And that's why 2009 will not be the year of Linux on the Desktop.
French press coffee tastes horrible. The coffee at Denny's tastes better.
Also, get off my lawn.
french press ... is acknowledged as infinitely better
... by those that prefer french press. Those that prefer Sanka clearly do no acknowledge french press as infinitely better.
Your argument is totally circular: You should prefer french press because if you prefer french press then you'll find that you prefer french press.
(not to mention the hints of elitism).
Actually, that's a whole different ball of wax (bad pun intended).
Records provide analog sound which does sound more more natural and warm if the original recording was also analog (using good equipment). This is an extremely hi fidelity medium.
And 128 mp3's are an extremely lo fidelity medium. I can't stand listening to them because it actually cuts out audible portions of the music that I can hear if listening to the cd or a high quality rip.
I think a part of this equation that is being left out is the volume at which the listeners were playing the music. Also, with some of these kids doing nothing but listening to their ipods 24/7, I'm wondering if their earing isn't temporarily damaged.
I would be curious to see what these kids would think about the different samples if they went a month without listening to any music. They like the hiss because they're not used to hearing anything without it (on crappy headphones none-the-less). I wanna know what happens when they "reboot" their ears. This isn't just a matter of some people prefer sennheiser headphones and some people prefer grado headphones, this is a matter of some people liking how things actually sound vs. some people liking distorted music with hiss laid over it. That's kind of unsettling to me.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
high freq is the first to go, so a distorted high end combined with a loss of any real soundstage (which is compounded by turning the LA2A compressors up to max to pump the sound even more at mastering) feeds the material effect of the sound for the sociological issues described in TFA.
In 30 years, when the oil's gone and hordes of cannibalistic zombies wander the ruins of Western Civilisation, these young punks will be easy pickins. Deaf as posts, obese, incapable of complex or convoluted thought, lazy, self absorbed, crybabies with a massive bolt of self-entitlement. Yep. They won't be able to feed themselves and will either join the zombie hordes or be eaten by them.
All thanks to the iPod and the Xbox.
Yep yep, I tell ya. Things just haven't been right since the Coolidge Administration. Zombie hordes back then? Fuck - we'd hear 'em from MILES away...
ghmgnghnhgmghhngmhngmhnmghng...
The sound of zombies. Heck - we'd just sit on our porch with a shovel and beat the fucking crap out of them. None of this "Oh, I'm sorry, did that hurt?"" No way. It's more like "I'M (smack!) GIVING (smack!) YOU (smack!) THE (smack!) BEATING (smack!) YOUR (smack!) MOMMY (smack!) AND (smack!) DADDY (smack!) NEVER (smack!) GAVE (smack!) YOU, (smack!)YOU (smack!) STUPID (smack!) FAT (smack!) FUCK! (smack!)(smack!)(smack!)
Yep. THAT would teach them fat zombie fucks a thing or two.
S, if you wanna do something for the future that's REALLY worth doing, do this to your kids:
1. DON'T be their friend. Be their PARENT. And sometimes the parent has to be the avatar of the kid's bad karma. Punishment is good when doled out judiciously and without mercy.
2. Take away the iPod. They want to listen to music? They listen over speakers and at a reasonable volume, because they have to live with others.
3. Get rid of your TV set.
4. Read books, and have your kids read books.
5. Teach them how to grow food gardens.
6. Teach them how to play an acoustic instrument.
7. Teach them to be as good as their word and to not lie. Ever. Their word must be their bond and they must be held accountable. No excuses.
That's a start.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Except most people are playing their music through basic headphones while going to work, school, gym ,etc. and all the background noises associated with the activities. They are not sitting in a sound proof room with the best speakers, amps, etc. to notice a difference.
For those that might notice the difference I bet you the marginal benefit of getting to the next level does not out weight the marginal cost so people don't care.
What Dishevel is trying to say is that you plebs have no right to have an opinion about music unless you hear it, from uncompressed studio masters in 188kHz form, on his $45k audio equipment with gold wires, sound-dampened walls, perfectly tuned speakers, and cleanroom-like air filtering so that the very DUST ITSELF cannot disrupt the purity of the music (make sure to wear your protective suit as you walk into the studio!). Only then will you truly know what you "like", only if you agree with Dishevel.
That's funny...I'm an audio engineer and I have been using both the WAV and MP3 formats for the past ten years. I used to listen to CDs but for the past 8 or so years I have been using Winamp to play MP3 and more recently the iPod.
Nowadays, when I finish a track, the wav doesn't sound right until I encode it to mp3. The mp3 sounds better to me. It's not due to a lack of knowledge of the distinctions between the two...I'm familiar with all the boring technical differences...it's due to ear training. You consistently hear your reference material (other well recorded and or well written songs on an iPod or some other device) in the mp3 format, and so you end up coming to prefer the mp3 format.
He could have phrased it better: People don't know why they like what they like, particularly they can't tell if they like something because they're used to it or because it has other likable qualities.
This is an important realization for requirements engineering: Don't ask people what they want. To want is to have an anticipation of liking. As people can't tell if they like something because they're used to it, they will often tell you they want something but later don't like what they wanted because, since it's new, they're not familiar with it. So either you give them something familiar with small tweaks or you have to use another way to find what people "really" want.
Since there are no real standards that define one taste as being better than another, such remarks are an attempt to justify that the one making them is somehow superior to others. I prefer to use the words 'I prefer this food over that one' rather than 'This food tastes better'. I would rather offer my personal opinion about something that is purely subjective, than act like an oaf and state as factual something that isn't.
... I must really like that one' and then pretend to enjoy it.
Wine and cigar aficionados have certain standards they use, but it is only within that circle they are true standards. Outside that circle they are irrelevant. Saying one has to be 'educated' to appreciate it is also elitist. I smoke plenty of cigars, and use the ratings as a guide to try new things, not as 'oh
I love high-end tequila and bourbon, but that doesn't stop me from having a shot of Sauza or Wild Turkey sometime. There is something about their bite that I love. Given the choice between Red Breast or Wild Turkey it would be unlikely for me to choose Wild Turkey. But that doesn't mean it doesn't taste good to me.
What I have found is people assign 'fine' standards to items that are expensive, rare, or seem to be liked by a few people. Lobster used to be used as fertilizer because it was deemed 'trash food' and apprentice contracts were written that forbid having to eat it more than a few times a week. Now it's a 'delicacy' to some. As someone who lived in Maine for 20 years, I think it tastes like crap except in a lobster roll with plenty of mayo.
I can enjoy an Oscar Mayer bologna sandwich on white bread with store brand yellow mustard as well as I can a fine steak served with a blue cheese butter. Neither taste is better than the other, they are tastes and I am perfectly capable of finding something good in both of them.
Maybe those that don't like the bologna sandwich just don't have as refined a palate as I do to appreciate the subtle flavors and textures.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
So the question is why is music this way and, say hi-def video NOT this way?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the reason is that music is not audio. I'd expect if the question was centered around, say more generic audio quality, say listening to recorded conversations, or bird sounds or whatever the higher quality may be preferred, in a manner that's analogous to preferring higher quality video.
In other words it may be the difference between Content and Delivery. Higher quality DELIVERY is almost always preferred, but when aspects of that delivery work their way into the CONTENT then the content preference will win.
No one ever talks about the warm feeling of low-def TV, but you may find lots of folks who prefer hand drawn cartoons vs "higher quality" computer generated cartoons.
In my case regarding music I do know that I have a preference for recordings of live music vs studio recordings. It evokes in me a sense of a shared experience (even though I know this is a fantasy), it's like I'm there in a concert with others. A studio recording, on the other hand seems more like a solo experience. I suppose I'd prefer higher quality live recordings over lower quality ones, but I also suppose I'd prefer lower quality live recordings over higher quality studio recordings.
Gold is only good if the component will be unplugged and plugged back in a lot, or will spend a lot of time sitting around.
As opposed to components that spend a lot of time jogging.
>>>close your ears when assorted fellaters of Beelzebub pollute the airways, lest you get used to their massproduced, RIAA-pocket-lining crap.
Agreed.
Ever since 1750, music has been going downhill. People like Mozart claim to be "making music for the masses" but I just call it noise. Now Bach - there was a man who could compose REAL music, with multiple levels of chords overlapping, it was truly music for the nobility. Anything else is just simplistic twaddle for the uneducated commoners. Bah. Humbug.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Why would people prefer the distorted sound produced my MP3-128??? As I just said - it's distorted.
The same reason people prefer the "colorized" (ie distorted) sound of a tube amp, or the "compressed and limited" audio of a radio announcer.
"Sounding good" has nothing to do with the faithful reproduction of the source material. It is a perception.
--fatboy
Yeah.. there's nothing more fun than taking something enjoyable and pointing out all the flaws until you can't stand it anymore. Hey, if you're not busy later, maybe you could come over and criticize my wife too.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The comparison only seems fair. Vacuum tubes distort sound in a way that can be easily understood as favorable - harsh frequencies are softened, etc. The idea that the sound has been "improved" by tube distortion can be perceived, but also explained in technical terms.
I have a hard time understanding how MP3 distortion can be seen as favorable. With MP3 compression, the "distortion" is artifacts and interference. The flabby, washy, sizzle effect. Yuck. I find it to be especially *bad* on extreme high frequencies like cymbal crashes and horns.
I have noticed that MP3 (file) compression can sometimes have a similar effect to dynamic range compression, which recording studios over-use to make all of the levels as loud as possible. The desired effect is that the song is louder coming over the radio, but trained ears also notice that there is no variation in the dynamic range. Trained or not, ears get fatigued listening to music that is over-compressed (dynamic compression, not file compression).
I think it could certainly be possible that students simply perceive the MP3 song as louder.
I grew up through the phonograph era to CDs and now various digital formats.
Remember any of the phonograph expiriments in the 70s? Piling on pennies until the stylus pressure was the better part of a quarter-pound, and skilled listeners unable to hear the difference? The Bose demonstrations pointing out the human ear's sensitivity to distortion that varies with frequency? Actually, AT&T might have more information on this, since they wanted to send only what was needed to be intelligible. But I digress.
I always preferred the 'West Coast' sound, even on LPs. The JBL L100 speakers delivered this sound the best, IMHO, and the more accurate the amp the better. Headroom was my god. But I sacrificed the tube amps for solid-state very early. Warm response = less high-end. While I transcribed LPs onto reel-to-reel, I used Revox decks and usually ran them at 15ips, spewing tape but I saved my LPs. It wasn't about money. I was into heavy metal before it was called that. I also developed a taste for Mahler, but that's another story. And I was a bass freak, not to the exclusion of high frequency response. Tape hiss destroyed it, no matter what flavor or Dolby processing or companding I tried. I wanted it all, defined as everything but mids....
CDs were welcomed by me, first 'cause they didn't wear like LPs, and of course the s/n won me over. No more tapes! I loved the wide response, the cleaner highs, the impossible lows. Platter rumble limits your bass response. At this point I was listening to stuff through 30" EV drivers and eithber Phase Linear or Crown amps, 3-5KW of them(This suited disco). Some of the stuff I fell in love with would be in the 12-18Hz range, impossible with phonographs unless I built a room just for that purpose. I bought CDs instead. Of course, portability won me over too, though there was one big problem with portable CD players - the headphones were generally terrible. My Koss Pro-4AAs fit the bill. And I would never hear that car coming. Instant death, oblivious to all but the music. I survived, of course.
But the headphones I migrated to were all pitiful. Not sealing the ear canal meant no bass response - can't get much out of a .7" open air driver. Think the free air resonance must have been around 300Hz. So CD players were half a loaf.
MP3s offered the future or massive amounts of music in packages even more resilient than portable CD players. Nice! Of course, most of them I first heard on my computer, and the speakers on that were weak, so I upgraded as much as I dared, then plugged it into the stereo. Ick! Tinny, sibilant, bass like mud. I was distraught. this was not an advance.
I learned, of course, about bitrates, and now I listen to nothing below 256kb/s, and usually 320kb/s. I use a lot more space, but it is worth it to me. A while ago I had a revelation - 128kb/s sounded like FM radio, which is usually not that good after the station gets finished limiting/shaping/twisting the audio for their own purposes. I realized shortly thereafter that FM radio is mostly driven by computerized stations now. They use MP3s. FM radio *is* 128kb/s. Sadly, it is ruined, probably forever.
So kids today prefer the sizzle of 128K MP3s? I'm learning to turn down those classic albums I remember, and hear all sorts of amazing stuff going on that would be lost in the din ordinarily. My apologies to all those artists whose work I so diminished for so long.
Of course, popular music today for teens is so electronic that encoding a higher bitrate wouldn't make the same difference as it would for say Mahler, or Glass, or even Pink Floyd. Drum machines aren't the same as animal hides. I doubt I could hear enough difference myself. Kids' ears already ruined by in-ear drivers and iPods with enough power to deafen you (thanks, Steve) are probably already hearing-impaired at 16, if not earlier.
I modify my music a lot, but not having the sound to modify is the real crime of 128kb/s MP3s. It's why I prefer
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.