[nintenho]

http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the...-of-music.html

Are iPods changing our perception of music? Are the sounds of MP3s the music we like to hear most?

Jonathan Berger, professor of music at Stanford, was on a panel with me at a meeting of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Mountain View, CA on Saturday. Berger's presentation had a slide titled: "Live, Memorex or MP3." He mentioned that Thomas Edison promoted his phonograph by demonstrating that a person could not tell whether behind a curtain was an opera singer or one of Edison's cylinders playing a recording of the singer. More recently, the famous Memorex ad challenged us to determine whether it was a live performance of Ella Fitzgerald or a recorded one.

Berger then said that he tests his incoming students each year in a similar way. He has them listen to a variety of recordings which use different formats from MP3 to ones of much higher quality. He described the results with some disappointment and frustration, as a music lover might, that each year the preference for music in MP3 format rises. In other words, students prefer the quality of that kind of sound over the sound of music of much higher quality. He said that they seemed to prefer "sizzle sounds" that MP3s bring to music. It is a sound they are familiar with.

Not that surprising to me. I guess that people get used to music always sounding a specific way and aren't as interested in the range of the "live" performance. I do know a lot of people who prefer vinyl over CD because as this article says, they like the artifacts but I wonder how this new trend will affect how modern music is produced.

[V3]

Considering the volume level that youths listen to, their preference of inferior sound quality is the least of their problems.

[pcchen]

I don't know... in my experience, many if not most people can't tell the difference between a MP3 and a CD in an ABX test, unless a deliberately low quality encoded MP3 is used.

[Gerry]

There was a recent Gadget Show over here in the UK where they blind tested MP3 (@320kbps) against CD against vinyl. All on pretty high end equipment, and entirely unscientific of course. Both the testers opted for the MP3 surprisingly.

Doesn't mean much of course in the great scheme of things.

[_xxx_]

Originally Posted by pcchen

I don't know... in my experience, many if not most people can't tell the difference between a MP3 and a CD in an ABX test, unless a deliberately low quality encoded MP3 is used.

Not on set of PC-Speakers or an mp3 player, I failed that test too. But try it with a very good high-end rig and even the subtle differences suddenly become huge.

On topic, I think it's just the simple fact that almost noone has a really good set of hi-fi devices, but most people use their stock PCs etc. for music, thus there is basically no real difference to begin with - these devices can't pronounce them good enough.

[WhiningKhan]

Originally Posted by _xxx_

On topic, I think it's just the simple fact that almost noone has a really good set of hi-fi devices, but most people use their stock PCs etc. for music, thus there is basically no real difference to begin with - these devices can't pronounce them good enough.

I'd explore this a bit further - simply what people's ears are accustomed to plays a significant role, I believe. I've witnessed many cases over the years where people use the most bizarre equalization settings (usually low and high frequencies to the max) with their already unbalanced mini-stereo systems, and state that the music sounds 'right' that way - better than a higher quality amplifier/speaker combination with comparably flat frequency response.

If you are grown up eating junk food, it's quite likely you would not appreciate all the nuances that a dinner at a five star restaurant would offer.

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by _xxx_

Not on set of PC-Speakers or an mp3 player, I failed that test too. But try it with a very good high-end rig and even the subtle differences suddenly become huge.

On topic, I think it's just the simple fact that almost noone has a really good set of hi-fi devices, but most people use their stock PCs etc. for music, thus there is basically no real difference to begin with - these devices can't pronounce them good enough.

Yeah, that's a big problem. Most older PC sound cards can't even play in 44.1kHz sampling rate directly (which is used by CD and most MP3), and have to resample to 48kHz, and sound quality suffers from the process.

Of course, the topic of this research (assuming it's done properly) is that younger people think MP3 sounds "better." If that's true I think there may be some interesting reasons behind this.

[3dilettante]

Intuitively, I'd say that people tend to like what they were introduced to and what they are familiar with.

If somebody's introduction to music was in a format with lowered fidelity and limited dynamic range, then this way sounds "right" and is preferred.

[_xxx_]

Originally Posted by pcchen

s research (assuming it's done properly) is that younger people think MP3 sounds "better." If that's true I think there may be some interesting reasons behind this.

Well, psychoacustic processing does a lot of neat things while actually lowering the quality in a technical sense. And the term psychoacoustics itself says it all.

For example a usual compressor/limiter/gate will actually distort the signal and cut off some stuff, but will also produce a result which is more "pleasant" and "punchy" for the listener. And let's not even mention all the discussions about "warm" sound and tubes - technically inferior results, acoustically superior results. So guess that's the effect we have here - people got used to booming bass and lacking mids.

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by pcchen

I don't know... in my experience, many if not most people can't tell the difference between a MP3 and a CD in an ABX test, unless a deliberately low quality encoded MP3 is used.

What bitrate MP3s are you referring to? My experience dictates that the average person (assuming my friends are average, i.e. they would have no interest in this discussion) can tell the difference in a 128K MP3 (or AAC whatever they use) bought from iTunes and a CD, even on a crappy car stereo. Dunno which they prefer, I didn't think to ask...

[pcchen]

Originally Posted by homerdog

What bitrate MP3s are you referring to? My experience dictates that the average person (assuming my friends are average, i.e. they would have no interest in this discussion) can tell the difference in a 128K MP3 (or AAC whatever they use) bought from iTunes and a CD, even on a crappy car stereo. Dunno which they prefer, I didn't think to ask...

Oh, when we did the test we compressed our own MP3 from the CD using LAME and 320kbps. Then they were decompressed with a very good decoder back to WAV, and the two WAVs (one original and another "processed") were compared in an ABX test. This of course is a bit harder than general 128kbps MP3.

I even did a file comparison between the two WAV and most samples only differ by 1, so it's indeed difficult.

[homerdog]

Originally Posted by pcchen

Oh, when we did the test we compressed our own MP3 from the CD using LAME and 320kbps. Then they were decompressed with a very good decoder back to WAV, and the two WAVs (one original and another "processed") were compared in an ABX test. This of course is a bit harder than general 128kbps MP3.

I even did a file comparison between the two WAV and most samples only differ by 1, so it's indeed difficult.

I admit unless I'm using some high end headphones I would have trouble noticing the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a lossless recording with most source material. But as Blazkowicz pointed out, certain types of music lend themselves better to compression than others; throw in a complex album where I know every little nuance and detail, say Yankee Hotel Foxtrot by Wilco, and I'll spot the difference pretty quickly. Womanizer by Britney Spears... not so much

[pocketmoon66]

perhaps it's a phychoacoustic thing - taking out bits our brain needs less leaves more 'space' in the audio for those bits the compression algrithms deems important.

The Gadget Show annoyed me somewhat testing 320kbps - it's not your usual download bitrate!

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by pocketmoon66

The Gadget Show annoyed me somewhat testing 320kbps - it's not your usual download bitrate!

Why is why I buy CDs then rip them to MP3 myself and wouldn't consider using the music download services. None of your crappy 128-192kbps recordings for me!

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by Mariner

Why is why I buy CDs then rip them to MP3 myself and wouldn't consider using the music download services. None of your crappy 128-192kbps recordings for me!

Rip to FLAC/ALAC.

iTunes should also switch to lossless formats.

[Chalnoth]

Originally Posted by m.fox

Rip to FLAC/ALAC.

iTunes should also switch to lossless formats.

No such thing. The very process of recording the sounds is lossy, no matter how good your equipment. So I don't see the point in going for lossless data compression, not when we can do much better.

[_xxx_]

Originally Posted by Chalnoth

No such thing. The very process of recording the sounds is lossy, no matter how good your equipment. So I don't see the point in going for lossless data compression, not when we can do much better.

Lossless refers to the difference between the original master recording and the used consumer format, nothing to do with the original instrument sound. "Lossless in comparison to the CD" if you so wish.

[suryad]

Originally Posted by Mariner

Why is why I buy CDs then rip them to MP3 myself and wouldn't consider using the music download services. None of your crappy 128-192kbps recordings for me!

Amen. Especially on headphones the difference between the Itunes stuff and the high quality stuff I get from beatport and the like is night and day difference.

[Citrous]

When you listen on a nicer setup, as _xxx_ mentioned, the differences become blindingly apparent.

I have a pair of DT-880s that I run through a millet hybrid amp and it really highlights the flaws of mp3s. I will admit that a properly ripped 320k mp3 is damn near lossless, but still not quite there. Another thing a decent setup exposes is a poorly mastered album, a perfect example being RHCP - Californication. Even the CD Master has clipping all over they place and just terrible studio work. The music itself is still amazing, I just wish they would end the loudness war and leave it intact upon delivery lol.

[Gerry]

Originally Posted by pocketmoon66

The Gadget Show annoyed me somewhat testing 320kbps - it's not your usual download bitrate!

Play.com downloads are 320kps and whoever-it-was-they-had-on-the-gadget-show. Digital7? I thought Amazon were as well, but they appear to be 256kbps.

[Dresden]

I thought this thread was going to be about the quality of music in general and not formats, in which I was raring for a tirade about the plague called "pop music."

Surprisingly, I'm not an audiophile. MP3 quality is good enough for me. I'd be interested, however, in hearing a demonstration comparing the different formats.

[dizietsma]

I would guess that most mp3's are played on poor quality speakers, in an environment that is noisy and listening to music which doesn't have a large dynamic range and frequencies.

So it's no great loss to them.

[MfA]

Nothing quite improves sound quality as much as the price tag on the equipment (assuming you paid for it).

[Kyyla]

Originally Posted by MfA

Nothing quite improves sound quality as much as the price tag on the equipment (assuming you paid for it).

Amen to that.

[Blazkowicz]

classical music is where 128K is terribly easy to spot. I don't have high bitrate rips to know if they sound decent, but 128K classical mp3 sounds like garbage even on the worst speakers, it's like applaudes on the 32K audio track of a low bitrate video.