Has there been any research done to see if the average user can tell the difference between 128, 256, 320? I'm talking about your average music listener, not audiophiles.
What's unclear from these slides is the material used for testing, whether it could be considered "killer samples", and over what percentage of the material the trained and expert listeners could detect differences. What is clear is that they were using high-end equipment in a dedicated listening room, and the participants were listening intently for differences. Even MP3 fared extremely well under these ideal, demanding conditions, and it is widely regarded that AAC is even better than MP3 at the same bitrate. Still, there is no shortage of deluded people who say things such as, they can identify 320 Kbps MP3 after a few seconds on unspecified equipment in their car while on the freeway. Different masterings OTOH can often be distinguished even by the tin ears, and that's the weakness with most all the streaming and download services; you never know what mastering you're going to get.
If you want to do a valid test, rip a CD you own to lossless and encode it as MP3 or AAC at various bitrates. Then use foobar2000 and its ABX comparator or equivalent to perform a blind comparison of the lossless and lossy files. What you cannot generally do is take an iTunes download or file of unknown provenance and compare it to CD, because you have no idea what mastering was used for the former.
Here is a file I made. It contains segments that are 223 kbps compressed AAC interleaved with the original uncompressed original. If you can identify where the segments are by reporting the relevant time codes, I will believe you can hear the difference you claim to be able to.
Wow! Is this the first time you're making sense? Congratulation.
As others have alluded to, codecs are all different, employing different strategies, and thus they pass different information at the same bitrate. Comparing MP3 to AAC is a bit like comparing a Pentium 4 to an i7: Even if they're both clocked at 3GHz, the i7 will pass a lot more resolution.
In this case, a 320k MP3 file has roughly the same resolution as a 256k AAC, while taking less bandwidth, so it's clearly, objectively a better choice than 320k MP3 for streaming (a bandwidth-sensitive use case). (Read: Apple did the right thing not to stick with Beats' 320k MP3.)
I would still prefer a lossless option, but that's because I'm an audio engineer who hears the difference (e.g. aliasing in the high frequencies, etc.). The average user does not hear the difference most of the time (at least not when the tracks are reasonably well mastered). For the average user, 256k AAC is "enough."
So Apple spent the $ to buy Beats and Jimmy and Dre. Trent R is a consultant, etc. Jimmy envisions a whole new interactive ecosystem created by Apple. He's a hussler, probably the best in the world. I've graduated to 96/24 192/24 HD tracks through my Goldenear Triton Twos. No AAC or MP3 file comes within a mile. I'm a recording artist and producer and I have good ears. All this chatter about 128-256-320 is just that, chatter. There is a massive difference. It's not just about audio spectrum and the human ear. It's deeper and vastly more visceral. We never question 4K, 5K and Optimized visual VR. Why are we so willing to scrimp on sound? After all the investment and personnel, I can't imagine Apple building on non-optimized sonic bandwidth, but the early indication is that they will. It would be such a better idea and selling point to guarantee unmatched sonic quality in all Apple creation and consumption mediums = Garage Band, Logic, iTunesSoft foundation = Poor foundation. I love the spirit of the initiative, but I'm disappointed. Go ahead. Let me have it %uD83C%uDFB6
You'd think Jimmy Iovine would be pushing for hi fidelity. Anyway there's nothing unique about this service. I'm sure it will do well enough just because it's preinstalled on tens of millions of iPhones.
You have become as annoying and repetitive as BF and BR. Repeating the same negative comments multiple times on every thread. We get it. You don't like this service and won't use it. Can you move on to disliking something else?
There have been tests that show the average listener (using average equipment) can't discern. But Apple's old style of evangelist-based marketing would have dictated that they super-serve the minority who CAN tell the difference, creating a vocal community of hardcore music fans/influencers who swear by their service.
Great news! Lower bit rate is better for customers due to lower data consumption.
Of course quality reduction cannot be assumed (unless your an Android or Windows user in which case you'll want to) as this is also dependent upon the CODEC used. A good example is the move from 720p to 1080p with ATV2-3; where rather than increase the bitrate Apple increased the h.264 profile from main to high.
Let's hope it's 256Kbps HE AAC then they'll be running at higher quality than most.
Personally, I'm excited about this service, and I can't wait to try it out. I like that ideas behind the service, and I hope it does "move the needle" on bringing artists, music fans, and media together. I don't know if it will work, but I think Apple should be recognized for trying, and engaging artists and industry veterans like Trent Reznor and Jimmy Iovine in crafting the service. Give it try before you slam it.
And btw the audiophile purists are listening to and buying vinyl records because digital approximations, even "lossless" are still discretized approximations of an original audio wave. Pretending that they want 320kbps lossy streams is hilariously unconvincing to me.
So Apple spent the $ to buy Beats and Jimmy and Dre. Trent R is a consultant, etc. Jimmy envisions a whole new interactive ecosystem created by Apple. He's a hussler, probably the best in the world. I've graduated to 96/24 192/24 HD tracks through my Goldenear Triton Twos. No AAC or MP3 file comes within a mile. I'm a recording artist and producer and I have good ears. All this chatter about 128-256-320 is just that, chatter. There is a massive difference. It's not just about audio spectrum and the human ear. It's deeper and vastly more visceral. We never question 4K, 5K and Optimized visual VR. Why are we so willing to scrimp on sound? After all the investment and personnel, I can't imagine Apple building on non-optimized sonic bandwidth, but the early indication is that they will. It would be such a better idea and selling point to guarantee unmatched sonic quality in all Apple creation and consumption mediums = Garage Band, Logic, iTunesSoft foundation = Poor foundation. I love the spirit of the initiative, but I'm disappointed. Go ahead. Let me have it %uD83C%uDFB6
I'll give you a reason why your beloved FLAC at 96/24 or 192/24 is not viable for streaming. Because of the size, while a tune in AAC 256kbps will only require 3 MB, that same song in your FLAC format will require 10-15 MB. Now do the math, how many tunes streamed, before you hit 1 GB? That alone is a monthly limit for many smartphone owners around the world.
You want another reason?
How many people, under ideal audio conditions can actually tell the difference on the average home stereo system? Not your 50G audiophile system with specially insulated gold plated wires. And how does the vast majority population listen to mudic today? In an insulated room, or a noisy bus?
Has there been any research done to see if the average user can tell the difference between 128, 256, 320? I'm talking about your average music listener, not audiophiles.
I'm not quite an audiophile but I certainly notice when a CBR MP3 is encoded bit rate ~128kbps or less on average equipment. I've run across a file and I think "this one is poor quality" and then I check the encoding and sure enough, it is below what I'm used to (which is 192kpbs VBR). I haven't tested my hearing against 256 to 320 to see if I can tell the difference, but the answer is probably not.
Indeed. Right and Right. But, Moore's law applys to storage and bandwidth and people would prefer the best sound if they had a choice. Still penny wise and pound foolish to scrimp. Skate to where the puck is going to be.
Wish they would just stream analog signals! infinite kbps! Ear drum quality sound and Retina quality displays!
Sure, and to go with that we'll have infinite signal to noise ratios, zero distortion, and zero loss copies for each generation. I guess we need to find Bill Gates and get that infinite bandwidth he promised in a decade's time in 1994.
Here is a file I made. It contains segments that are 223 kbps compressed AAC interleaved with the original uncompressed original. If you can identify where the segments are by reporting the relevant time codes, I will believe you can hear the difference you claim to be able to.
Would love to hear from the sensationalists spreading this garbage how they came up with the idea that 320 Kbps mp3 is "better" than 256 AAC.
It is not.
I find this to be amazing as well. It's like nobody has looked into how AAC and MP3 relate to each other. Their both MPEG standards, with AAC being designed to outperform MP3 at lower bitrates. Why people don't get this is beyond me. Nobody says MPEG-2 looks better than h.264 at the same bitrates, but with audio their is some magical BS that makes MP3 "sound better".
Has there been any research done to see if the average user can tell the difference between 128, 256, 320? I'm talking about your average music listener, not audiophiles.
People slam Thunderbolt and DisplayPort for the same reason: they think it's kooky Apple trying to lock their customers into their "proprietary" formats again when everybody knows USB 3.0 is good enough for everything.
I managed to get 5 of 6, but I noticed that the WAV files took much longer to load than the others. I don't think I would be able to tell the 320 from the WAV files; the 128 kbps MP3 was noticeable in some cases.
Comments
Has there been any research done to see if the average user can tell the difference between 128, 256, 320? I'm talking about your average music listener, not audiophiles.
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~hockman/documents/Pras_presentation2009.pdf
Conclusion:
"Trained listeners can hear differences between
CD quality and mp3 compression (96-192 kb/s)
and prefer CD quality.
Trained listeners can not discriminate between
CD quality and mp3 compression (256-320 kb/s)
while expert listeners could."
What's unclear from these slides is the material used for testing, whether it could be considered "killer samples", and over what percentage of the material the trained and expert listeners could detect differences. What is clear is that they were using high-end equipment in a dedicated listening room, and the participants were listening intently for differences. Even MP3 fared extremely well under these ideal, demanding conditions, and it is widely regarded that AAC is even better than MP3 at the same bitrate. Still, there is no shortage of deluded people who say things such as, they can identify 320 Kbps MP3 after a few seconds on unspecified equipment in their car while on the freeway.
Different masterings OTOH can often be distinguished even by the tin ears, and that's the weakness with most all the streaming and download services; you never know what mastering you're going to get.
If you want to do a valid test, rip a CD you own to lossless and encode it as MP3 or AAC at various bitrates. Then use foobar2000 and its ABX comparator or equivalent to perform a blind comparison of the lossless and lossy files. What you cannot generally do is take an iTunes download or file of unknown provenance and compare it to CD, because you have no idea what mastering was used for the former.
Really?
Here is a file I made. It contains segments that are 223 kbps compressed AAC interleaved with the original uncompressed original. If you can identify where the segments are by reporting the relevant time codes, I will believe you can hear the difference you claim to be able to.
Wow! Is this the first time you're making sense? Congratulation.
In this case, a 320k MP3 file has roughly the same resolution as a 256k AAC, while taking less bandwidth, so it's clearly, objectively a better choice than 320k MP3 for streaming (a bandwidth-sensitive use case). (Read: Apple did the right thing not to stick with Beats' 320k MP3.)
I would still prefer a lossless option, but that's because I'm an audio engineer who hears the difference (e.g. aliasing in the high frequencies, etc.). The average user does not hear the difference most of the time (at least not when the tracks are reasonably well mastered). For the average user, 256k AAC is "enough."
We never question 4K, 5K and Optimized visual VR. Why are we so willing to scrimp on sound?
Well I question 4K. Answer me this: what the point of 4K if you plan to buy 50" TV?
You have become as annoying and repetitive as BF and BR. Repeating the same negative comments multiple times on every thread. We get it. You don't like this service and won't use it. Can you move on to disliking something else?
There have been tests that show the average listener (using average equipment) can't discern. But Apple's old style of evangelist-based marketing would have dictated that they super-serve the minority who CAN tell the difference, creating a vocal community of hardcore music fans/influencers who swear by their service.
Apple Music: Another Streaming Service For People Who Don't Care About Sound Quality
http://www.audiostream.com/content/apple-music-streaming-service-people-who-dont-care-about-sound-quality
Of course quality reduction cannot be assumed (unless your an Android or Windows user in which case you'll want to) as this is also dependent upon the CODEC used. A good example is the move from 720p to 1080p with ATV2-3; where rather than increase the bitrate Apple increased the h.264 profile from main to high.
Let's hope it's 256Kbps HE AAC then they'll be running at higher quality than most.
And btw the audiophile purists are listening to and buying vinyl records because digital approximations, even "lossless" are still discretized approximations of an original audio wave. Pretending that they want 320kbps lossy streams is hilariously unconvincing to me.
You want another reason?
How many people, under ideal audio conditions can actually tell the difference on the average home stereo system? Not your 50G audiophile system with specially insulated gold plated wires. And how does the vast majority population listen to mudic today? In an insulated room, or a noisy bus?
No need to mislead us, lying to consumers would align with sampunk. Not Apples style.
Has there been any research done to see if the average user can tell the difference between 128, 256, 320? I'm talking about your average music listener, not audiophiles.
I'm not quite an audiophile but I certainly notice when a CBR MP3 is encoded bit rate ~128kbps or less on average equipment. I've run across a file and I think "this one is poor quality" and then I check the encoding and sure enough, it is below what I'm used to (which is 192kpbs VBR). I haven't tested my hearing against 256 to 320 to see if I can tell the difference, but the answer is probably not.
Wish they would just stream analog signals! infinite kbps! Ear drum quality sound and Retina quality displays!
Sure, and to go with that we'll have infinite signal to noise ratios, zero distortion, and zero loss copies for each generation. I guess we need to find Bill Gates and get that infinite bandwidth he promised in a decade's time in 1994.
I find this to be amazing as well. It's like nobody has looked into how AAC and MP3 relate to each other. Their both MPEG standards, with AAC being designed to outperform MP3 at lower bitrates. Why people don't get this is beyond me. Nobody says MPEG-2 looks better than h.264 at the same bitrates, but with audio their is some magical BS that makes MP3 "sound better".
Has there been any research done to see if the average user can tell the difference between 128, 256, 320? I'm talking about your average music listener, not audiophiles.
see how well you do - I got 4 of 6
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
There would probably be less hate of AAC if people knew that Apple didn't invent it and assume that it was an Apple proprietary format. I know people IRL who think that. It is not.
AAC has been standardized by ISO and IEC, as part of the MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 specifications.[3][4] Part of the AAC known as High Efficiency Advanced Audio Coding (HE-AAC) which is part of MPEG-4 Audio is also adopted into digital radio standards like DAB+ and Digital Radio Mondiale, as well as mobile television standards DVB-H and ATSC-M/H.
AAC is the default or standard audio format for YouTube, iPhone, iPod, iPad, Nintendo DSi, Nintendo 3DS, iTunes, DivX Plus Web Player and PlayStation 3. It is supported on PlayStation Vita, Wii (with the Photo Channel 1.1 update installed), Sony Walkman MP3 series and later, Android and BlackBerry.
People slam Thunderbolt and DisplayPort for the same reason: they think it's kooky Apple trying to lock their customers into their "proprietary" formats again when everybody knows USB 3.0 is good enough for everything.
I managed to get 5 of 6, but I noticed that the WAV files took much longer to load than the others. I don't think I would be able to tell the 320 from the WAV files; the 128 kbps MP3 was noticeable in some cases.