Slashdot Mirror
1/3 of People Can't Tell 48Kbps Audio From 160Kbps
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."
Here's one such study conducted by the Audio engineering society:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
I was actually a participant in this study, and despite their best efforts, their test was seriously flawed. Too many heads of other participants blocking the treble; the speakers were too directional; the amp was not even grounded properly, and as a result, there was a 60-cycle hum throughout. The only way I would trust a study like this is if they did it on people who actually have the listening experience, and in a controlled environment (headphones, and in an environment as close to anechoic as possible).
I can fairly easily tell the difference between V0 MP3 and the PCM original release, but I spend hours doing close listening on good equipment.
At the same time, I think people spend way too much time worrying about this shit. If you enjoy your music, and you've heard the difference between the CD and the MP3 rip and still don't care enough to re-rip in a higher bitrate or a lossless format, then good for you. Storage space is getting so cheap now that the argument that lossless formats aren't worth the space they take up no longer holds water. I'm a FLAC convert for many reasons, but most of all, the peace of mind that I (a.) am not missing anything, and (b.) won't be screwed over if a newer format gains popularity.