Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps

Posted by timothy on from the might-include-yours-truly dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Results of a blind listening test show that a third of people can't tell the difference between music encoded at 48Kbps and the same music encoded at 160Kbps. The test was conducted by CNet to find out whether streaming music service Spotify sounded better than new rival Sky Songs. Spotify uses 160Kbps OGG compression for its free service, whereas Sky Songs uses 48Kbps AAC+ compression. Over a third of participants thought the lower bit rate sounded better."

13 of 567 comments (clear)

  1. Did they use the mosquito sound? by charleste · · Score: 1, Funny

    If they used the "mosquito" - then lots of people would just randomly pick something :-) Or just say things like "Hey! What's that ringing in my ear!"

    1. Re:Did they use the mosquito sound? by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Funny

      But, but... in those expensive digital cables a bit is much more 1 than in a cheap cable where a bit is more like... 1-ish. The hardware and software still sees that as 1, but you have to admit it dramatically impacts audio quality to have a true 1 instead of something which is 1 but not quite as 1 as a real 1.

      Now if your amplifier was made out of huge tesla coils, a better shielded cable might improve audio quality a bit.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  2. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Did you have to close your eyes during the test. Why is it called a blind listening test?

  3. Even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a deaf listening test, 100% couldn't tell the difference between a 160Kbps OGG file and a cannon. Though 3% noted the smell of gunpowder.

  4. Yeah, but they weren't listening through Monster.. by irchs · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, but they weren't listening through Monster Cable, you can't tell the difference between anything without Monster equipment...

    --
    Jan
  5. Re:Relevant ? by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 2, Funny

    It depends. Were they dragged by the ears?

  6. Re:In other news by BForrester · · Score: 4, Funny

    You think that math is troubling? I'm still trying to figure out how to divide a group of 16 people into thirds without staining the carpet.

  7. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    There is no disclaimer that nobody was harmed during the tests.

    That said, I am sure there are multiple ways to divide 16 people in three equally sized groups.

  8. Re:Are these the same people... by Interoperable · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not to mention video compression

    --
    So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
  9. Re:In other news by vlm · · Score: 5, Funny

    You think that math is troubling? I'm still trying to figure out how to divide a group of 16 people into thirds without staining the carpet.

    Considering its a lossy mp3 compression test, 16/3 = 5 is close enough for most people not to notice.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  10. Re:Are these the same people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "IMO some electronic music sounds better with lossy compression"

    IMHO, hip-hop and rap sound infinitely better with 100% lossy compression but that's just me :-)

  11. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They started with 16 people. But they used Barry White's music in the test and ended with 18.

  12. Re:The number should be doubled. by jhol13 · · Score: 2, Funny

    NOOOO!!!!

    Did you have to do it? You just ruined over a hundred (or more[1]) years worth of mathematics in statistics.

    Now every Gallup done so far must be discredited, every medical experiment redone, eve..

    My brain hurts, I cannot even think of the chil..consequences.

    [1] depends on how your stat...calendar looks like