So you got slightly better than random accuracy on the uncompressed, once you eliminate what should be the obvious lowest quality sample. The 128 kbps should be fairly clear, I would think. That really leaves only 2 samples per music selection that are difficult to distinguish between. With 6 music selections, once you eliminate the obvious low quality coded file, a coin flip should get 3 out of the 6 correct.
edit: Just tried their test with my decent over-the-ear headphones plugged directly into the headphone jack of my MBP. I got 4 out or 6. The 2 I missed were ones I picked the 320 kbps mp3. I didn't pick the 128 kbps sample for any of them, but on two of them I hard to listen several times to rule it out (the Neil Young and the Coldplay). I suspect the Neil Young because it just isn't a very dynamic sample, and the Coldplay because it's heavily processed and uses a lot of synthetic instruments, so I don't have the basis of a natural instrument to compare to.
Perhaps I could get the other two right reliably with better equipment, but I don't bother using my big speakers much anymore, and I don't even use these headphones much anymore as they're just too inconvenient for everyday use. But then again, maybe I wouldn't. I felt like I was usually trying to decide between two tracks that were essentially indistinguishable to me.
For reference, I'm a late-40's lifelong amateur musician who could probably have made a living in classical music had I chosen to go that route. I have played violin, piano, and guitar (both acoustic and electric) at various phases in my life, and I'm a passable singer.
Not sure why this is news. Apple has a massive delivery infrastructure to deal with, and if trained audio professionals can't discern uncompressed audio from HE-AAC at 256 Kbps with statistically significant results, why in the world would they quadruple their overhead to satisfy the dronings of a handful of bored white males with more knowledge of gear catalogs than the principles of psychoacoustics?
My apologies for the sarcasm. I work as an audio professional and am growing weary of the snake oil in the audiophile world, a world which, in my opinion, stultifies the simple joy of listening to great recorded music. The preoccupation with the gear is so unbelievably stupid. I enjoy music on my EarPods and my iPhone on a walk around the neighborhood just as much as I do in my studio control room. As long as I'm in a quiet environment and my transducers are acceptably balanced, I can just enjoy the music and forget about the delivery medium. Like most of the world does. I highly recommend it.
I remember when people said the exact same thing about 128 kbps MP3.
Also, it's blindingly obvious why Apple is streaming at "only 256 kbps". It's because that's the bitrate of music for sale on the iTunes store.
If they streamed at a higher bitrate they'd have music purchasers upset their iTunes+ files they pay individually for are (in numeric terms) lower quality than they would get streamed on Apple Music. Then Apple would be pressured to increase the quality of the for-sale music files to match streaming at least. That would mean a whole new set of contract negotiations, re-ripping albums, and "iTunes++" updating of already purchased songs.
It's not that no one cares, it's that no one cares about people that say they can hear the difference. And most importantly, Apple doesn't care. They love music so much they would prefer audio snobs subscribe to a different service better suited to their ears. I'm not criticizing you/them because I'm a video snob and understand that no one wants to hear me go on about how sensitive and great my eyes are and how 1080p doesn't cut it compared to 4k, HDR and uncompressed video.
Just like no one wants to hear me go on about how LaserDisc is the best format for purists who don't want all that nasty DNR and other crap, and don't want the icky sound of DVD.
Bah! None of those formats have a decent dynamic range. That's why everywhere I go I bring my own orchestra with me. It may be a bit expensive but it's worth it.
Bah! None of those formats have a decent dynamic range. That's why everywhere I go I bring my own orchestra with me. It may be a bit expensive but it's worth it.
Better have your performance locations all lined up as well, because they wont sound the same everywhere they play.... Just sayin'...:smokey:
I dont have much to add as most have already point out the codec problem. So just opinion of my own.
Codec used to matter a lot because we have limited bandwidth, and people wanted to to do archive purpose. I was into Audio Codec a long long time ago, along with Video Codec, that was before H.264 took off, the Divx / Xvid era.
We worked out long time ago that at 320Kbps most codec are virtually transparent to majority of listeners. Although I still have a soft spot for MPC (MusePack ) @ 256Kbps+. And 128Kbps MP3 used to be the norm. LAME optimized the hell out of it. It was extremely good. At the time many were trying to get a codec that perform as well as MP3 128Kbps, but at 64Kbps, Ogg Vobris, HE-AAC etc...... But I dont think any of them succeed. Turns out in Video we manged to squeeze much better quality in every jump, RM, RMVB, H.264, H.264 High Profile, and now H.265. While Audio has been in stand still since.
It used to be Nero had the best AAC encoder, I am not sure if that is still the case, but Apple wasn't bad either. At 256Kbps AAC I am sure it will be better then MP3 and rivals MP3 @ 320Kbps.
For me, even as a half audio enthusiast, that is good enough for me.
The German computer magazine c't did a well designed study using extremely expensive audio equipment and audio professionals as the test subjects. It showed that people did not prefer lossless audio over 256k MP3s any more than chance. And this study was performed 15 years ago, before a number of improvements were made to the psychoacoustics of MP3 encoders. Anyone who says that they can hear the difference is simply delusional.
The problem with that test is "preference".
We're all talking about fidelity to the original signal. In some cases, we may actually PREFER the sonically-reduced version (especially on some 80s masters that went overboard on the exciters and high-end phase-munging). That doesn't mean the codec is better.
The test to run is to have the original file and play various formats in comparison, letting people decide whether they're the same or lower-quality. That was not the case in above test.
Another study was posted above (from Levitin et al.) that shows that trained listeners CAN tell a difference, and they are not delusional.
Again, the problem here is not knowing what the original files sound like. Once you get serious and obvious artefacting, as almost always on 128 Kbps files, it becomes fairly easy to tell that something isn't right, but at higher bit rates, it's not that simple.
This article compares apples and oranges in comparing the bitrates of two different audio codecs; AAC and MP3. AAC, or Advanced Audio Codec, was designed to be the successor of the MP3 format. AAC generally achieves better sound quality than MP3 at similar bit rates. iTunes audio files are encoded with AAC at 256 kbps (they're CBR in case anyone's interested) which in general is considered to have roughly equal sound quality to MP3 encoded at 320 kbps.
You'd think if Apple was going to confirm the streaming is 256kbps, which they did, they could have at least also said it was AAC not MP3 and end the guessing about it, which they did not.
Bummer- they should at least offer a hi-res option for folks who know their HiFi...
Folks that know their HiFi would never use a phone to listen to music on (for the high quality experience). Earphones don't have the range a set of quality speakers have.
Comments
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
So you got slightly better than random accuracy on the uncompressed, once you eliminate what should be the obvious lowest quality sample. The 128 kbps should be fairly clear, I would think. That really leaves only 2 samples per music selection that are difficult to distinguish between. With 6 music selections, once you eliminate the obvious low quality coded file, a coin flip should get 3 out of the 6 correct.
edit: Just tried their test with my decent over-the-ear headphones plugged directly into the headphone jack of my MBP. I got 4 out or 6. The 2 I missed were ones I picked the 320 kbps mp3. I didn't pick the 128 kbps sample for any of them, but on two of them I hard to listen several times to rule it out (the Neil Young and the Coldplay). I suspect the Neil Young because it just isn't a very dynamic sample, and the Coldplay because it's heavily processed and uses a lot of synthetic instruments, so I don't have the basis of a natural instrument to compare to.
Perhaps I could get the other two right reliably with better equipment, but I don't bother using my big speakers much anymore, and I don't even use these headphones much anymore as they're just too inconvenient for everyday use. But then again, maybe I wouldn't. I felt like I was usually trying to decide between two tracks that were essentially indistinguishable to me.
For reference, I'm a late-40's lifelong amateur musician who could probably have made a living in classical music had I chosen to go that route. I have played violin, piano, and guitar (both acoustic and electric) at various phases in my life, and I'm a passable singer.
My apologies for the sarcasm. I work as an audio professional and am growing weary of the snake oil in the audiophile world, a world which, in my opinion, stultifies the simple joy of listening to great recorded music. The preoccupation with the gear is so unbelievably stupid. I enjoy music on my EarPods and my iPhone on a walk around the neighborhood just as much as I do in my studio control room. As long as I'm in a quiet environment and my transducers are acceptably balanced, I can just enjoy the music and forget about the delivery medium. Like most of the world does. I highly recommend it.
256k is radio quality.
I remember when people said the exact same thing about 128 kbps MP3.
Also, it's blindingly obvious why Apple is streaming at "only 256 kbps". It's because that's the bitrate of music for sale on the iTunes store.
If they streamed at a higher bitrate they'd have music purchasers upset their iTunes+ files they pay individually for are (in numeric terms) lower quality than they would get streamed on Apple Music. Then Apple would be pressured to increase the quality of the for-sale music files to match streaming at least. That would mean a whole new set of contract negotiations, re-ripping albums, and "iTunes++" updating of already purchased songs.
Bah! None of those formats have a decent dynamic range. That's why everywhere I go I bring my own orchestra with me. It may be a bit expensive but it's worth it.
Better have your performance locations all lined up as well, because they wont sound the same everywhere they play.... Just sayin'...:smokey:
I dont have much to add as most have already point out the codec problem. So just opinion of my own.
Codec used to matter a lot because we have limited bandwidth, and people wanted to to do archive purpose. I was into Audio Codec a long long time ago, along with Video Codec, that was before H.264 took off, the Divx / Xvid era.
We worked out long time ago that at 320Kbps most codec are virtually transparent to majority of listeners. Although I still have a soft spot for MPC (MusePack ) @ 256Kbps+. And 128Kbps MP3 used to be the norm. LAME optimized the hell out of it. It was extremely good. At the time many were trying to get a codec that perform as well as MP3 128Kbps, but at 64Kbps, Ogg Vobris, HE-AAC etc...... But I dont think any of them succeed. Turns out in Video we manged to squeeze much better quality in every jump, RM, RMVB, H.264, H.264 High Profile, and now H.265. While Audio has been in stand still since.
It used to be Nero had the best AAC encoder, I am not sure if that is still the case, but Apple wasn't bad either. At 256Kbps AAC I am sure it will be better then MP3 and rivals MP3 @ 320Kbps.
For me, even as a half audio enthusiast, that is good enough for me.
"Mastered for iTunes" is supposed to sound better... so one could take the next step and say that such Apple streams will be better than 320kbps MP3.
One suspects these might be the same people who swear they can tell the difference between tap water and Evian.
The problem with that test is "preference".
We're all talking about fidelity to the original signal. In some cases, we may actually PREFER the sonically-reduced version (especially on some 80s masters that went overboard on the exciters and high-end phase-munging). That doesn't mean the codec is better.
The test to run is to have the original file and play various formats in comparison, letting people decide whether they're the same or lower-quality. That was not the case in above test.
Another study was posted above (from Levitin et al.) that shows that trained listeners CAN tell a difference, and they are not delusional.
Correction for you – *most* people don't care. But those that do will hear the difference.
Pfft, spoken like a true audiophreak. Go run a double blind test and get back to me.
I want 500kbps quality so I can burn all my data plan just by streaming music for a few hours. That would be great!
Correction for you – *most* people don't care. But those that do will hear the difference.
Correction - They will think that they can hear a difference.
Kinda funny IMO. The current spec is plenty good for 99% of users. That is what Apple should be and is focused on. Move on people...move on...
256K AAC is indiscernible from 320K MP3 to my ears.
One advantage I'm looking forward to when I leave Spotify for Apple Music are the EQ adjustments in Settings.
I have been begging Spotify to put EQ into their iPhone app's settings for years, to no avail.
Now I will start begging Apple for fully adjustable sliders in the EQ settings.
Bummer- they should at least offer a hi-res option for folks who know their HiFi...
Folks that know their HiFi would never use a phone to listen to music on (for the high quality experience). Earphones don't have the range a set of quality speakers have.
Correction - They will think that they can hear a difference.
Not with a set of earbuds ... they WILL hear the difference