We can already envision the flame fest on this one, so we'll just cut to the chase. Jonathan Berger, professor of
music at Stanford, has been conducting some pretty interesting tests on incoming students, and he's been recording results that'll surely make
audiophiles cringe. He has been asking his students to listen to tracks in MP3 format as well as in formats of much higher quality, all while asking them to select the one they like best; increasingly, youngsters have been choosing the sizzling, tinny sounds of MP3 over more pure representations. The reasoning may have more to do with psychology that audiology, as many conclude that generations simply prefer what they're used to. Ever known someone to swear that vinyl sounds best, pops and all? So yeah, what we've really learned is that MP3 is more of an "acquired taste," but those still attempting to build their
SACD collection should be genuinely afraid of the future.
[Via
techdirt, image courtesy of
iasos]
posted Mar 9th 2009 6:43AM
for stuff i can't find lossless on [a major electronica eStore], i'll hold off... i like encoding MP3s and the like to specifications *I* choose (or other formats, also)... 3 of the 4 MP3s i bought this year were because i hadn't yet discovered said store. the last was because i couldn't find it anywhere else... (sleepthief's send me an angel).
while my collection isn't lossless, the (digital download) music i buy better damn well be!
The sad thing is I actually believe it ...
And it kinda makes me sick.
So many people are totally satisfied with the mediocre and clearly just don't know (or care) what they're missing.
Last time I checked, I heard somebody telling me the iPods in Europe have fairly low volume compared with other makes (I believe this is due to a French law, as far as I got from iRiver firmwares). And also the headphones that come with almost every portable audio device, so that you can hear lots of ambient sound that you would prefer not to. Ok, lets say almost every make does include cheap headphones. And if people are not in the move, they are happy enough with notebook speakers or 10EUR ones.
This means, if you cannot hear it properly, how can you differentiate between good and bad quality in the encoder? We live in a noisy enviroinment after all (damn you, city dwellers).
Ummmm, unless you have the equipment to appreciate a lossless source, an MP3 encoded at a high bitrate is just fine. Give me a break audiophiles, no one, except you, can tell the difference between a lossless file and a 320 MP3 with a pair of $30 headphones.
I'd agree with you if you had the decoder, amp, and a pair of $1000 (or more) ear canal headphones, but your average joe isn't going to have that sort of equipment. If I want to truly appreciate music, I'll go to the symphony.
A portable AMP/DAC, and solid set of cans won't run you more than $300 if you shop online.
You better believe any person will hear the difference.
They just have never heard the difference...
I think you underestimate the tonedeafedness (I just made up a word) of your average person. I'm telling you, your average Kelly Clarkson fan isn't going to be able to tell. I think you or I would easily be able to tell with some good equipment, but I know a lot of people that definitely won't, unless the difference is DRASTIC.
It's ok, I'm pretty sure that JM would be able to discern between coathangers and monster cable too.
Although my ears can't tell the difference between 192Kbps AAC and lossless, my brain still can.
please, how good was his equipment? If he was doing this over your typical trash boombox type playback machine heck i'd probably like the MP3's too.
we're rushing to judge here without really knowing what all the variables were. how about if he conducted the same tests with a bunch of musicians, or just even people who can play a musical instrument?
whats funny is that what really needs to be done and we all know it, is to take a piece of music the person is intimately familiar with and show them the difference on the various playback equipment and probably also on the different formats.
until i read the facts this is just anecdotal evidence and isn't something i give any credence to at all.
We live in an amazing, amazing world, and it's wasted on the crappiest generation of spoiled idiots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk7nKjr9Keo&feature=related
Forgive the crappy sound quality...
Funny how every generation thinks that the next one sucks so much more. "Kids these days..."
Everybody has the "one thing" that they're into, and can't seem to understand why everyone else could care less. For some people, its high-quality audio. For those of you here that are complaining, you can't seem to understand that some people are perfectly happy with acceptable audio.
For me, its cars. I see so many people in auto enthusiast forums who can't understand for the life of them why so many people buy Camrys. They're boring, generic, couldn't be less entertaining to drive, but they sell in droves. Why? They do a perfect job for A-B transportation. Reliable, comfortable, affordable.
Compressed audio does the same thing (I do prefer somewhat higher quality, but 196 AAC does the trick just fine for me). I doubt I'd hear the difference for lossless if I even cared to on my stock iPhone headphones, and no, I do not want to spend $300 on headphones. I'd prefer to spend that on my car.
Well, someday you'll be able to spend more than 300 dollars on your car, and when that day comes 300 dollars suddenly might not seem like that much for quality headphones.
I don't doubt the overall results, but an actual study with a documented testing methodology would be nice. Anybody got a link?
Thank god for companies like sony that will let their PMP's play the wav audio directly off of a CD. It's very space inefficient but it's about as lossless as you can get.
That's a pretty terrible solution. Spinning discs eat up battery life very quickly.
Why not rip to PCM (WAV, AIFF) or lossless compression (Apple Lossless, FLAC, etc) and put them on an SD card? Same data, astronomically improved battery life.
He's talking about using the uncompressed .wav file that you get from ripping a CD on a PMP
Oh, well if that's the case, that's not particularly rare. iPods can also play AIFF and WAV files.
MP3 is fine as long as it is a semi-high bitrate.
I can easily ABX 128 kbps MP3s from FLAC, but around 170-190+, it's impossible.
I use Sennheiser HD 600 headphones connected to my Creative X-Fi Elite soundcard. It has no problems driving them to uber high volumes.
This is why we need lossless audio easily available online!! Preferably higher-definition audio like 24-bit/96khz (with lossless compression, of course).
Also, I'm absolutely not surprised by these results. My audio system growing up was an 80's Denon receiver with the Loudness button engaged and 70's Advent Loudspeakers. I cannot find any modern audio equipment that sounds nearly as pleasing to my ears, despite the fact that I have a much more modern, expensive, and supposedly true-to-the-source audio setup for my home theater. (Don't get me wrong, it kicks ass for movies, but I'm always disappointed when I play stereo music on my home theater system.)
I don't have kids yet, but when I do, its a house rule to listen to lossless only.
What's so great about an uncompressed dynamic range?. In the city, you have to constantly turn the volume up and down if the dynamic range of audio is not compressed, because the loud parts will annoy the neighbors and the ambient noise makes it impossible to hear the soft parts.
While dynamic range compression is one form of lossy compression, that's not what the article is talking about. It's talking about MP3 compression, which loses some of the clarity of the original waveform. It does not make it any easier for city listening.