Your number 2 is correct. Musicians hear what they want to hear, though not knowingly. They add bass that's deficient, because they know the bass line is there. They fill in the differences that exist.
It's always been amusing when Stereophile, a high end audio magazine, interviews people in the music business, such as musicians, conductors, composers, etc. at the end, of course, they just have to ask what audio system they use, the answer is almost always similar:
"My manager got me this. It costs $500, but it's great, it's really worth it."
I remember the interview with Chet Atkins. He took the interviewer to his kitchen. I'm paraphrasing here:
"I had a guy put a phone plug into my table radio here. I plug my phonograph into it. (Putting a record of his on, and playing it). Doesn't that sound real good?"
This may simply be due to our damaged hearing, Mel! ???? Having played a variety of musical and percussion instruments live and in home studios over decades I can attest to a drastically decreased ability to determine what is a nice, clean mix without the use of some kind of audio analysis tools. Getting old here, man!
The DAC matters as well. Wolfson DAC's (what Apple used to use until 2008) and Cirrus Logic DAC's do produce different sounds. It's subtle, but present.
DACs haven't really been an issue for some years now. Even the cheapest DACs are virtually transparent these days. The analog stages can still make a difference.
Exact Apple Music bitrates remain undisclosed, though previous reports claimed streams max out at 256kbps, lower than offerings from Spotify and the erstwhile Beats Music. Debate rages on over whether bitrates are an accurate indicator of audio quality, however. Since higher bitrates carry more information, some argue that higher quality audio logically follows, while others contend efficient file formats like AAC can achieve equivalent or better sound with lower overhead.
You couldn't tell the quality of the audio or video file by bitrate alone. Case in point: which one do you think provide better quality, 1000 kbps mp4 video file or 700 kbps mp5? The same apply to sound. Since AAC is mpeg-4 compatible CODEC it will have higher quality than older CODEC like mp3 even with lower bitrate.
Debate rages on over whether bitrates are an accurate indicator of audio quality
Really? By what morons? Bitrate is only a fairly accurate indicator of quality within the same encoding algorithm. It's being used by marketers to fool those less technically inclined to believe that higher rates must mean better.
MP3 is still used by most because it's simply the cheapest to deploy. Licensing fees are minuscule and even the cheapest of hardware components support decoding it.
I'll answer the quality question as a musician: Anything above 256kbps is virtually indistinguishable on common playback methods (car audio, consumer stereo equipment, ear buds, higher end consumer headphones, etc.). This is especially true for the most common genres of Rap, Rock, Pop, R&B, Electronic/Dance, and even Jazz. A trained ear will likely hear differences is depth and timbre when listening to Classical (specifically orchestral) on good equipment. Even then, only Hi-Fi enthusiasts are going to care.
As to more efficient codecs, I agree that's a factor as well. I recall several purchased 128kbps iTunes files sounding better than things I encoded at higher rates, usin both AAC and other formats.
The question becomes whether or not you will notice a difference between 128 and 256. Possibly. But not everyone will, and fewer will really care. As a member here said years ago, we've finally reached the point in audio where it's no longer about sounding better, it's about sounding good enough.
All you said was, "As a musician, I don't care how it sounds, as long as it is good enough in my opinion". If your idea of being a musician is to follow an AI member's misguided belief about no one caring about sound quality, then you must be a lousy musician. Why do you think vinyl is making a huge comeback? Because vinyl always sounded better than CD and digital files. People who appreciate music, also appreciate sound quality. They don't want music that sounds "good enough".
All this article confirmed was a toggle switch to allow AAC 256 kbps music over cellular by flipping the switch for high quality music over cellular. If the switch is off, the streamed music would likely be AAC 128 kbps, or AAC-HE at a lower bit rate. The younger generation today is not familiar with high quality sounding audio because they are only familiar with stealing music off the internet at MP3 128 kbps.
All you said was, "As a musician, I don't care how it sounds, as long as it is good enough in my opinion".
I didn't write that at all. I quoted/paraphrased another member who was discussing the issue of high quality audio years ago.
Quote:
If your idea of being a musician is to follow an AI member's misguided belief about no one caring about sound quality, then you must be a lousy musician.
LOL. You're going to go there? How could you possibly know my musical skills? And where in the hell did I write that quoting an AI member represented "my idea" of being a musician? I wasn't even talking about me. I was talking about the mass market's idea of what's "good enough." Jesus. Oh, and if you want to discuss my musical qualifications and experience, let me know.
Quote:
Why do you think vinyl is making a huge comeback?
It's not. Except for Hi-Fi enthusiasts, vintage collectors, and hipster douchbags.
Quote:
Because vinyl always sounded better than CD and digital files.
Wrong. It most certainly does not "always" sound better. First, one has to determine what "better" is. Is it lack of noise? Is it the warmth created by the distortion in analog amplifiers? As it turns out, what most vinyl enthusiasts think sounds "better" is really just different. And yes, vinyl does often sound different. Whether it's better or not depends on someone's opinion. Some think vinyl sounds "better" because of the distortion in the amps they use (note that distortion is not a dirty word). Some feel it gives strings a "warmer" sound and that there is more depth to the brass. Others claim the dynamic range is better (it is), and therefore the sound is "higher quality." While this may be technically true, a standard compact disc recording (made digitally, that is) happens to be sampled at a rate twice what the human ear can distinguish in terms of frequency. In short, you may prefer the sound of vinyl, but it doesn't "always" sound better. Far from it.
Quote:
People who appreciate music, also appreciate sound quality. They don't want music that sounds "good enough".
Double-blind listening tests in 2004 between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM recordings reported that among test subjects no significant differences could be heard.[44] DSD advocates and equipment manufacturers continue to assert an improvement in sound quality above PCM 24-bit 176.4 kHz.[45] Despite both formats' extended frequency responses, it has been shown people cannot distinguish audio with information above 21 kHz from audio without such high-frequency content.[46]
Quote:
All this article confirmed was a toggle switch to allow AAC 256 kbps music over cellular by flipping the switch for high quality music over cellular. If the switch is off, the streamed music would likely be AAC 128 kbps, or AAC-HE at a lower bit rate.
Yes. And I'm saying most people won't notice, unless they are using good equipment. You might here a difference in, say, the car if you know what you're listening for in a direct comparison. Otherwise, it's unlikely.
Quote:
The younger generation today is not familiar with high quality sounding audio because they are only familiar with stealing music off the internet at MP3 128 kbps.
First, who is "the younger generation?" Secondly, that's a dubious assertion. I thought vinyl was making a comeback? Who do you think is driving it..those over 50? It's young people...people ages approximately 25-45. Third, it seems to me you are basing your thoughts on a sort of nostalgia rather than logic and reason. How "high quality" do you think your vinyl sounded in the 1970's and 1980's? The noise alone would make the audio much lower "quality." When would you estimate the peak of "high quality" audio was? I'm assuming you think it must be around those two decades, because CD's completely took over by the 1990's, and you just claimed above that vinyl always sounds better than CD or digital. When was the golden age, where people really appreciated high quality audio, unlike those stupid kids of today?
None of the above is an argument against "higher quality" audio over cellular, or anywhere else. I'm simply saying most people won't notice the change, at least not with the playback equipment they have.
Really? By what morons? Bitrate is only a fairly accurate indicator of quality within the same encoding algorithm. It's being used by marketers to fool those less technically inclined to believe that higher rates must mean better.
MP3 is still used by most because it's simply the cheapest to deploy. Licensing fees are minuscule and even the cheapest of hardware components support decoding it.
Good point, but probably not relevant here since we are talking about AAC exclusively on iTunes/Apple Music.
Oh god - this is going to descend into the "can we hear the difference" conversation :-D There is no definitive study that ends the debate. I go with the Boston Audio Society's papers on the subject but that's me. If you can hear the difference, that's great for you, whether real or imagined. There are a lot of audiophiles that believe they can hear the difference between cable (I cannot), amplification (I cannot unless there is something specifically wrong with the equipment), etc. There was one guy I remember on AVSForum who actually had his speaker cables on little stands to keep it elevated 2-3 inches off the ground. Claimed it made a difference. There was one guy who put these rocks (crystals?) he bought and placed in the corners of his listening space because they absorbed stray audio waves.
At home, I'd spend more time making sure you're speakers are set up properly than worrying about bitrates. Get positioning and acoustic treatment right then worry about the details ;-D
Regardless of what is real or perceived, I think the car is the last place anyone should be able to hear any difference in audio quality above a certain bitrate, regardless of whether it's MP3 AAC or LAME.
My suspicion is that the "High Quality" option will elevate the bitrate to the current 256kbs, and having it disabled will be a 128kbs. I've had both bitrates set up on my spotify account and cannot for the life of me detect any difference between the two in my car. But I did get a notification from AT&T that I was about to exceed my 10GB cap, thus ending my foray into 320kbs in the car.
Oh and Mel - Werner was a very talented man! You're fortunate to have known him. I am a great admirer of his father's recordings. He was probably a bit before your time lol.
Oh god - this is going to descend into the "can we hear the difference" conversation :-D There is no definitive study that ends the debate. I go with the Boston Audio Society's papers on the subject but that's me. If you can hear the difference, that's great for you, whether real or imagined. There are a lot of audiophiles that believe they can hear the difference between cable (I cannot), amplification (I cannot unless there is something specifically wrong with the equipment), etc. There was one guy I remember on AVSForum who actually had his speaker cables on little stands to keep it elevated 2-3 inches off the ground. Claimed it made a difference. There was one guy who put these rocks (crystals?) he bought and placed in the corners of his listening space because they absorbed stray audio waves.
At home, I'd spend more time making sure you're speakers are set up properly than worrying about bitrates. Get positioning and acoustic treatment right then worry about the details ;-D
Eh, I think it depends on your system and what bit rate you're referring to. If you're talking about a great system, set-up properly, you very well may hear the difference between 128 and 256kbs, particularly at high volume levels, and depending on the type of music.
Quote:
Regardless of what is real or perceived, I think the car is the last place anyone should be able to hear any difference in audio quality above a certain bitrate, regardless of whether it's MP3 AAC or LAME.
I agree. I suspect anything over 128Kbps is irrelevant in the real world of a car environment. I do hear the difference between high quality AAC and Satellite radio, but that's because the latter is 40 to 64kbps.
Quote:
My suspicion is that the "High Quality" option will elevate the bitrate to the current 256kbs, and having it disabled will be a 128kbs. I've had both bitrates set up on my spotify account and cannot for the life of me detect any difference between the two in my car. But I did get a notification from AT&T that I was about to exceed my 10GB cap, thus ending my foray into 320kbs in the car.
I'll answer the quality question as a musician: Anything above 256kbps is virtually indistinguishable on common playback methods (car audio, consumer stereo equipment, ear buds, higher end consumer headphones, etc.). This is especially true for the most common genres of Rap, Rock, Pop, R&B, Electronic/Dance, and even Jazz. A trained ear will likely hear differences is depth and timbre when listening to Classical (specifically orchestral) on good equipment. Even then, only Hi-Fi enthusiasts are going to care.
As to more efficient codecs, I agree that's a factor as well. I recall several purchased 128kbps iTunes files sounding better than things I encoded at higher rates, usin both AAC and other formats.
The question becomes whether or not you will notice a difference between 128 and 256. Possibly. But not everyone will, and fewer will really care. As a member here said years ago, we've finally reached the point in audio where it's no longer about sounding better, it's about sounding good enough.
My experience is you couldn't be further from the truth.
Could it be that as a musician, you may have damaged your hearing (which is very common), and are using your own experience to base judgement?
This may simply be due to our damaged hearing, Mel! ???? Having played a variety of musical and percussion instruments live and in home studios over decades I can attest to a drastically decreased ability to determine what is a nice, clean mix without the use of some kind of audio analysis tools. Getting old here, man!
I drummed for a few years in my 20's. There's really very little music way out there. My hearing is pretty good until 13.5k, and then it drops off the cliff. But, about 95% of the musical energy is below 10k.
Really? By what morons? Bitrate is only a fairly accurate indicator of quality within the same encoding algorithm. It's being used by marketers to fool those less technically inclined to believe that higher rates must mean better.
MP3 is still used by most because it's simply the cheapest to deploy. Licensing fees are minuscule and even the cheapest of hardware components support decoding it.
:rolleyes: Sure, if that is what you want to believe. We'll just forget about science and unanimous user experience.
All you said was, "As a musician, I don't care how it sounds, as long as it is good enough in my opinion". If your idea of being a musician is to follow an AI member's misguided belief about no one caring about sound quality, then you must be a lousy musician. Why do you think vinyl is making a huge comeback? Because vinyl always sounded better than CD and digital files. People who appreciate music, also appreciate sound quality. They don't want music that sounds "good enough".
All this article confirmed was a toggle switch to allow AAC 256 kbps music over cellular by flipping the switch for high quality music over cellular. If the switch is off, the streamed music would likely be AAC 128 kbps, or AAC-HE at a lower bit rate. The younger generation today is not familiar with high quality sounding audio because they are only familiar with stealing music off the internet at MP3 128 kbps.
I think sound quality is very important. The problem is there is no reall proof as to what we are hearing. When I used to do a lot of pro video, we would stop a frame and we would discuss what we saw. Even though everyone saw a little bit differently, we would all agree, after some discussion, as to what was happening. It's almost impossible to do that in audio.
The problem is that while we can look at a slice in time in video, we can't do that in audio. Audio, almost by definition is fleeting. We can't stop it and analyse it. That's why there are so many disagreements. Everyone hears, and claims to hear different things. It's why, whoever I go to a demo from some manufacturer, and they play differing bit depth and sampling rate cuts, they always tell us which it is first.
That gives people a chance to cover their rear, so they don't guess the wrong thing. When I tell the presenter, later, that he shouldn't tell people first, I always get the same nonsense:
"Oh, you're right, I keep forgetting." B.S. It's very intentional.
My experience is you couldn't be further from the truth.
Could it be that as a musician, you may have damaged your hearing (which is very common), and are using your own experience to base judgement?
Could you be more specific as to what your experience has been? I have dealt with a wide variety of musicians and have a very broad musical background. In other words, I have a trained ear. It's not like I'm some jackass that plays in a cover band on the weekends. Our experiences appear to be the complete opposite of one another. If you read the literature, research shows that people cannot distinguish past a certain bitrate. I'm talking about double-blind studies. Are you telling me you can hear the difference between, say, 256k and 384 on consumer equipment as I described?
I didn't write that at all. I quoted/paraphrased another member who was discussing the issue of high quality audio years ago.
LOL. You're going to go there? How could you possibly know my musical skills? And where in the hell did I write that quoting an AI member represented "my idea" of being a musician? I wasn't even talking about me, dumbass. I was talking about the mass market's idea of what's "good enough." Jesus. Oh, and if you want to discuss my musical qualifications and experience, let me know.
It's not. Except for Hi-Fi enthusiasts, vintage collectors, and hipster douchbags.
Wrong. It most certainly does not "always" sound better. First, one has to determine what "better" is. Is it lack of noise? Is it the warmth created by the distortion in analog amplifiers? As it turns out, what most vinyl enthusiasts think sounds "better" is really just different. And yes, vinyl does often sound different. Whether it's better or not depends on someone's opinion. Some think vinyl sounds "better" because of the distortion in the amps they use (note that distortion is not a dirty word). Some feel it gives strings a "warmer" sound and that there is more depth to the brass. Others claim the dynamic range is better (it is), and therefore the sound is "higher quality." While this may be technically true, a standard compact disc recording (made digitally, that is) happens to be sampled at a rate twice what the human ear can distinguish in terms of frequency. In short, you may prefer the sound of vinyl, but it doesn't "always" sound better. Far from it.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="ABX test">Double-blind listening tests</a> in 2004 between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM recordings reported that among test subjects no significant differences could be heard.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#cite_note-Blech-44" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);white-space:nowrap;" target="_blank">[44]</a> DSD advocates and equipment manufacturers continue to assert an improvement in sound quality above PCM 24-bit 176.4 kHz.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#cite_note-45" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);white-space:nowrap;" target="_blank">[45]</a> Despite both formats' extended frequency responses, it has been shown people cannot distinguish audio with information above 21 kHz from audio without such high-frequency content.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#cite_note-NHK-46" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);white-space:nowrap;" target="_blank">[46]</a>
Yes. And I'm saying most people won't notice, unless they are using good equipment. You might here a difference in, say, the car if you know what you're listening for in a direct comparison. Otherwise, it's unlikely.
First, who is "the younger generation?" Secondly, that's a dubious assertion. I thought vinyl was making a comeback? Who do you think is driving it..those over 50? It's young people...people ages approximately 25-45. Third, it seems to me you are basing your thoughts on a sort of nostalgia rather than logic and reason. How "high quality" do you think your vinyl sounded in the 1970's and 1980's? The noise alone would make the audio much lower "quality." When would you estimate the peak of "high quality" audio was? I'm assuming you think it must be around those two decades, because CD's completely took over by the 1990's, and you just claimed above that vinyl always sounds better than CD or digital. When was the golden age, where people really appreciated high quality audio, unlike those stupid kids of today?
None of the above is an argument against "higher quality" audio over cellular, or anywhere else. I'm simply saying most people won't notice the change, at least not with the playback equipment they have.
I can certainly agree with everything you said here. I do demos at my house, and if it can't be heard on my system, it's not likely to be heard anywhere. Every Friday, a few of my friends get together, and land at my place. Most are audio phones, and some are musicians, some professional, and a few are well known. The number of peop,e varies from week to week.
Sometimes a carefully make a CD-R from some Cds, or even LPs. Usually it's 256 VBR AAC. I've never yet had anyone mentions problem with the sound. Those albums they've already heard, so it's not all new. I don't say it's a CD-R, of course, because if it do, I'll get someone here and there to say it sounds worse, but if they don't know...
I do have to be careful as to what I put on it, as some things are easier to tell than others.
Im not saying that AAC is as good as CD or vinyl. It's clearly not. But often, you really do need to listen closely to hear it, and many systems simply don't resolve enough to make it possible.
And then, you have to make sure your Amps don't clip, and your speakers don't compress. I have several thousand watts per channel, and my speakers can play at over 120 db.
Oh god - this is going to descend into the "can we hear the difference" conversation :-D There is no definitive study that ends the debate. I go with the Boston Audio Society's papers on the subject but that's me. If you can hear the difference, that's great for you, whether real or imagined. There are a lot of audiophiles that believe they can hear the difference between cable (I cannot), amplification (I cannot unless there is something specifically wrong with the equipment), etc. There was one guy I remember on AVSForum who actually had his speaker cables on little stands to keep it elevated 2-3 inches off the ground. Claimed it made a difference. There was one guy who put these rocks (crystals?) he bought and placed in the corners of his listening space because they absorbed stray audio waves.
At home, I'd spend more time making sure you're speakers are set up properly than worrying about bitrates. Get positioning and acoustic treatment right then worry about the details ;-D
Regardless of what is real or perceived, I think the car is the last place anyone should be able to hear any difference in audio quality above a certain bitrate, regardless of whether it's MP3 AAC or LAME.
My suspicion is that the "High Quality" option will elevate the bitrate to the current 256kbs, and having it disabled will be a 128kbs. I've had both bitrates set up on my spotify account and cannot for the life of me detect any difference between the two in my car. But I did get a notification from AT&T that I was about to exceed my 10GB cap, thus ending my foray into 320kbs in the car.
Ah, tweaks! Music to my ears. Actually there is a lot of fraud in the industry regarding cables, power cords (the most expensive one I know about is $40,000 for a 5 foot length, and yes, that not $4,000), and other devices.
A loit of audiophiles buy this junk. There are the little bells. The bronze model works ok. The silver ones make the sound even better, but the gold ones are the best. Maybe someday, he'll come out with platinum ones. Then there are the small round things that you stick on the walls, the little flat plastic boxes with quarts crystals and "special" oil that you tape to the circuit breaker that supplies your system. More than one breaker, and you need more. It takes 10 days before the full effect of the electromagnetic interference to completely go away.
Then, there is one of my favorites. The Quantum Field Corrector. This is a really nice, modern piece of equipment that sits on s table somewhere in your listening room. As it's left there, it, over a period of some 400 hours, fixes the quantum field in the room, and allows the purity of the music to come through. Man, I would get one, but it's $30,000!
The way these companies succeed is that some guys feel this way about it, and this is a direct quote from one, but others have said the same to me:
"I don't care if it works, I just care if I think it works."
My experience is you couldn't be further from the truth.
Could it be that as a musician, you may have damaged your hearing (which is very common), and are using your own experience to base judgement?
Empirical research shows that 128 kbps mp3 can be distinguished reliably by virtually everybody (it actually gives me earaches, especially hi-hats, even on the car stereo), while 320 kbps cannot be reliably distinguished from lossless by most musicians, and only barely by sound engineers (just enough to be statistically relevant).
I can certainly agree with everything you said here. I do demos at my house, and if it can't be heard on my system, it's not likely to be heard anywhere. Every Friday, a few of my friends get together, and land at my place. Most are audio phones, and some are musicians, some professional, and a few are well known. The number of peop,e varies from week to week.
Sometimes a carefully make a CD-R from some Cds, or even LPs. Usually it's 256 VBR AAC. I've never yet had anyone mentions problem with the sound. Those albums they've already heard, so it's not all new. I don't say it's a CD-R, of course, because if it do, I'll get someone here and there to say it sounds worse, but if they don't know...
I do have to be careful as to what I put on it, as some things are easier to tell than others.
Im not saying that AAC is as good as CD or vinyl. It's clearly not. But often, you really do need to listen closely to hear it, and many systems simply don't resolve enough to make it possible.
And then, you have to make sure your Amps don't clip, and your speakers don't compress. I have several thousand watts per channel, and my speakers can play at over 120 db.
Great post. I didn't even get into clipping and compressing on the playback end. Completely agree...AAC or any digital format is not going to technically be as high quality as CD or vinyl. The question is whether it will be heard or not. In most cases, not. If it's a serious struggle to hear the difference between your CD-R and a CD or vinyl on your system, there is no way the vast majority of people will hear it. They are playing back on car systems, consumer home theater equipment, earbuds, headphones (over bluetooth no less), etc.
Empirical research shows that 128 kbps mp3 can be distinguished reliably by virtually everybody (it actually gives me earaches, especially hi-hats, even on the car stereo), while 320 kbps cannot be reliably distinguished from lossless by most musicians, and only barely by sound engineers (just enough to be statistically relevant).
What empirical research? Please provide a link or two. Regardless, we're not talking about mp3. We're talking about AAC. 128kpbs AAC is, in my experience, superior to 128kpbs mp3 in normal consumer listening conditions. The point here is whether most people will notice a difference between 128 and 256kpbs AAC on the equipment they have. I say it's doubtful. You're talking about consumer level car audio, headphones, ear buds, and home systems...often over bluetooth. Once you get over 128kpbs on these systems, it's hard to tell. Some discerning listeners might hear a difference in a double blind environment. Maybe. If they do, it's doubtful they will mind. This is how SiriusXM gets away with bitrates of 40 to 64Kpbs, which people with decent ears absolutely can hear. I personally think it sounds like shit, but I'm more picky than Joe Six Pack. The best empirical research out there is the market, and with over 2 million subscribers in the U.S. alone, I'd say it's pretty clear many people either can't hear it (even at 64kpbs) or don't care.
Comments
This may simply be due to our damaged hearing, Mel! ???? Having played a variety of musical and percussion instruments live and in home studios over decades I can attest to a drastically decreased ability to determine what is a nice, clean mix without the use of some kind of audio analysis tools. Getting old here, man!
DACs haven't really been an issue for some years now. Even the cheapest DACs are virtually transparent these days. The analog stages can still make a difference.
Exact Apple Music bitrates remain undisclosed, though previous reports claimed streams max out at 256kbps, lower than offerings from Spotify and the erstwhile Beats Music. Debate rages on over whether bitrates are an accurate indicator of audio quality, however. Since higher bitrates carry more information, some argue that higher quality audio logically follows, while others contend efficient file formats like AAC can achieve equivalent or better sound with lower overhead.
You couldn't tell the quality of the audio or video file by bitrate alone. Case in point: which one do you think provide better quality, 1000 kbps mp4 video file or 700 kbps mp5? The same apply to sound. Since AAC is mpeg-4 compatible CODEC it will have higher quality than older CODEC like mp3 even with lower bitrate.
Really? By what morons? Bitrate is only a fairly accurate indicator of quality within the same encoding algorithm. It's being used by marketers to fool those less technically inclined to believe that higher rates must mean better.
MP3 is still used by most because it's simply the cheapest to deploy. Licensing fees are minuscule and even the cheapest of hardware components support decoding it.
I'll answer the quality question as a musician: Anything above 256kbps is virtually indistinguishable on common playback methods (car audio, consumer stereo equipment, ear buds, higher end consumer headphones, etc.). This is especially true for the most common genres of Rap, Rock, Pop, R&B, Electronic/Dance, and even Jazz. A trained ear will likely hear differences is depth and timbre when listening to Classical (specifically orchestral) on good equipment. Even then, only Hi-Fi enthusiasts are going to care.
As to more efficient codecs, I agree that's a factor as well. I recall several purchased 128kbps iTunes files sounding better than things I encoded at higher rates, usin both AAC and other formats.
The question becomes whether or not you will notice a difference between 128 and 256. Possibly. But not everyone will, and fewer will really care. As a member here said years ago, we've finally reached the point in audio where it's no longer about sounding better, it's about sounding good enough.
All you said was, "As a musician, I don't care how it sounds, as long as it is good enough in my opinion". If your idea of being a musician is to follow an AI member's misguided belief about no one caring about sound quality, then you must be a lousy musician. Why do you think vinyl is making a huge comeback? Because vinyl always sounded better than CD and digital files. People who appreciate music, also appreciate sound quality. They don't want music that sounds "good enough".
All this article confirmed was a toggle switch to allow AAC 256 kbps music over cellular by flipping the switch for high quality music over cellular. If the switch is off, the streamed music would likely be AAC 128 kbps, or AAC-HE at a lower bit rate. The younger generation today is not familiar with high quality sounding audio because they are only familiar with stealing music off the internet at MP3 128 kbps.
All you said was, "As a musician, I don't care how it sounds, as long as it is good enough in my opinion".
I didn't write that at all. I quoted/paraphrased another member who was discussing the issue of high quality audio years ago.
LOL. You're going to go there? How could you possibly know my musical skills? And where in the hell did I write that quoting an AI member represented "my idea" of being a musician? I wasn't even talking about me. I was talking about the mass market's idea of what's "good enough." Jesus. Oh, and if you want to discuss my musical qualifications and experience, let me know.
It's not. Except for Hi-Fi enthusiasts, vintage collectors, and hipster douchbags.
Wrong. It most certainly does not "always" sound better. First, one has to determine what "better" is. Is it lack of noise? Is it the warmth created by the distortion in analog amplifiers? As it turns out, what most vinyl enthusiasts think sounds "better" is really just different. And yes, vinyl does often sound different. Whether it's better or not depends on someone's opinion. Some think vinyl sounds "better" because of the distortion in the amps they use (note that distortion is not a dirty word). Some feel it gives strings a "warmer" sound and that there is more depth to the brass. Others claim the dynamic range is better (it is), and therefore the sound is "higher quality." While this may be technically true, a standard compact disc recording (made digitally, that is) happens to be sampled at a rate twice what the human ear can distinguish in terms of frequency. In short, you may prefer the sound of vinyl, but it doesn't "always" sound better. Far from it.
People who appreciate music, also appreciate sound quality. They don't want music that sounds "good enough".
In terms of most people, you're flatly wrong. Most people--even trained people--cannot distinguish the difference between Super Audio CD vs. CD, or DVD-Audio vs. CD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD#Comparison_with_CD
Double-blind listening tests in 2004 between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM recordings reported that among test subjects no significant differences could be heard.[44] DSD advocates and equipment manufacturers continue to assert an improvement in sound quality above PCM 24-bit 176.4 kHz.[45] Despite both formats' extended frequency responses, it has been shown people cannot distinguish audio with information above 21 kHz from audio without such high-frequency content.[46]
Yes. And I'm saying most people won't notice, unless they are using good equipment. You might here a difference in, say, the car if you know what you're listening for in a direct comparison. Otherwise, it's unlikely.
First, who is "the younger generation?" Secondly, that's a dubious assertion. I thought vinyl was making a comeback? Who do you think is driving it..those over 50? It's young people...people ages approximately 25-45. Third, it seems to me you are basing your thoughts on a sort of nostalgia rather than logic and reason. How "high quality" do you think your vinyl sounded in the 1970's and 1980's? The noise alone would make the audio much lower "quality." When would you estimate the peak of "high quality" audio was? I'm assuming you think it must be around those two decades, because CD's completely took over by the 1990's, and you just claimed above that vinyl always sounds better than CD or digital. When was the golden age, where people really appreciated high quality audio, unlike those stupid kids of today?
None of the above is an argument against "higher quality" audio over cellular, or anywhere else. I'm simply saying most people won't notice the change, at least not with the playback equipment they have.
Really? By what morons? Bitrate is only a fairly accurate indicator of quality within the same encoding algorithm. It's being used by marketers to fool those less technically inclined to believe that higher rates must mean better.
MP3 is still used by most because it's simply the cheapest to deploy. Licensing fees are minuscule and even the cheapest of hardware components support decoding it.
Good point, but probably not relevant here since we are talking about AAC exclusively on iTunes/Apple Music.
Oh god - this is going to descend into the "can we hear the difference" conversation :-D There is no definitive study that ends the debate. I go with the Boston Audio Society's papers on the subject but that's me. If you can hear the difference, that's great for you, whether real or imagined. There are a lot of audiophiles that believe they can hear the difference between cable (I cannot), amplification (I cannot unless there is something specifically wrong with the equipment), etc. There was one guy I remember on AVSForum who actually had his speaker cables on little stands to keep it elevated 2-3 inches off the ground. Claimed it made a difference. There was one guy who put these rocks (crystals?) he bought and placed in the corners of his listening space because they absorbed stray audio waves.
At home, I'd spend more time making sure you're speakers are set up properly than worrying about bitrates. Get positioning and acoustic treatment right then worry about the details ;-D
Regardless of what is real or perceived, I think the car is the last place anyone should be able to hear any difference in audio quality above a certain bitrate, regardless of whether it's MP3 AAC or LAME.
My suspicion is that the "High Quality" option will elevate the bitrate to the current 256kbs, and having it disabled will be a 128kbs. I've had both bitrates set up on my spotify account and cannot for the life of me detect any difference between the two in my car. But I did get a notification from AT&T that I was about to exceed my 10GB cap, thus ending my foray into 320kbs in the car.
Oh god - this is going to descend into the "can we hear the difference" conversation :-D There is no definitive study that ends the debate. I go with the Boston Audio Society's papers on the subject but that's me. If you can hear the difference, that's great for you, whether real or imagined. There are a lot of audiophiles that believe they can hear the difference between cable (I cannot), amplification (I cannot unless there is something specifically wrong with the equipment), etc. There was one guy I remember on AVSForum who actually had his speaker cables on little stands to keep it elevated 2-3 inches off the ground. Claimed it made a difference. There was one guy who put these rocks (crystals?) he bought and placed in the corners of his listening space because they absorbed stray audio waves.
At home, I'd spend more time making sure you're speakers are set up properly than worrying about bitrates. Get positioning and acoustic treatment right then worry about the details ;-D
Eh, I think it depends on your system and what bit rate you're referring to. If you're talking about a great system, set-up properly, you very well may hear the difference between 128 and 256kbs, particularly at high volume levels, and depending on the type of music.
I agree. I suspect anything over 128Kbps is irrelevant in the real world of a car environment. I do hear the difference between high quality AAC and Satellite radio, but that's because the latter is 40 to 64kbps.
My suspicion is that the "High Quality" option will elevate the bitrate to the current 256kbs, and having it disabled will be a 128kbs. I've had both bitrates set up on my spotify account and cannot for the life of me detect any difference between the two in my car. But I did get a notification from AT&T that I was about to exceed my 10GB cap, thus ending my foray into 320kbs in the car.
My thoughts exactly.
My experience is you couldn't be further from the truth.
Could it be that as a musician, you may have damaged your hearing (which is very common), and are using your own experience to base judgement?
I drummed for a few years in my 20's. There's really very little music way out there. My hearing is pretty good until 13.5k, and then it drops off the cliff. But, about 95% of the musical energy is below 10k.
:rolleyes: Sure, if that is what you want to believe. We'll just forget about science and unanimous user experience.
I think sound quality is very important. The problem is there is no reall proof as to what we are hearing. When I used to do a lot of pro video, we would stop a frame and we would discuss what we saw. Even though everyone saw a little bit differently, we would all agree, after some discussion, as to what was happening. It's almost impossible to do that in audio.
The problem is that while we can look at a slice in time in video, we can't do that in audio. Audio, almost by definition is fleeting. We can't stop it and analyse it. That's why there are so many disagreements. Everyone hears, and claims to hear different things. It's why, whoever I go to a demo from some manufacturer, and they play differing bit depth and sampling rate cuts, they always tell us which it is first.
That gives people a chance to cover their rear, so they don't guess the wrong thing. When I tell the presenter, later, that he shouldn't tell people first, I always get the same nonsense:
"Oh, you're right, I keep forgetting." B.S. It's very intentional.
Could you be more specific as to what your experience has been? I have dealt with a wide variety of musicians and have a very broad musical background. In other words, I have a trained ear. It's not like I'm some jackass that plays in a cover band on the weekends. Our experiences appear to be the complete opposite of one another. If you read the literature, research shows that people cannot distinguish past a certain bitrate. I'm talking about double-blind studies. Are you telling me you can hear the difference between, say, 256k and 384 on consumer equipment as I described?
I can certainly agree with everything you said here. I do demos at my house, and if it can't be heard on my system, it's not likely to be heard anywhere. Every Friday, a few of my friends get together, and land at my place. Most are audio phones, and some are musicians, some professional, and a few are well known. The number of peop,e varies from week to week.
Sometimes a carefully make a CD-R from some Cds, or even LPs. Usually it's 256 VBR AAC. I've never yet had anyone mentions problem with the sound. Those albums they've already heard, so it's not all new. I don't say it's a CD-R, of course, because if it do, I'll get someone here and there to say it sounds worse, but if they don't know...
I do have to be careful as to what I put on it, as some things are easier to tell than others.
Im not saying that AAC is as good as CD or vinyl. It's clearly not. But often, you really do need to listen closely to hear it, and many systems simply don't resolve enough to make it possible.
And then, you have to make sure your Amps don't clip, and your speakers don't compress. I have several thousand watts per channel, and my speakers can play at over 120 db.
Ah, tweaks! Music to my ears. Actually there is a lot of fraud in the industry regarding cables, power cords (the most expensive one I know about is $40,000 for a 5 foot length, and yes, that not $4,000), and other devices.
A loit of audiophiles buy this junk. There are the little bells. The bronze model works ok. The silver ones make the sound even better, but the gold ones are the best. Maybe someday, he'll come out with platinum ones. Then there are the small round things that you stick on the walls, the little flat plastic boxes with quarts crystals and "special" oil that you tape to the circuit breaker that supplies your system. More than one breaker, and you need more. It takes 10 days before the full effect of the electromagnetic interference to completely go away.
Then, there is one of my favorites. The Quantum Field Corrector. This is a really nice, modern piece of equipment that sits on s table somewhere in your listening room. As it's left there, it, over a period of some 400 hours, fixes the quantum field in the room, and allows the purity of the music to come through. Man, I would get one, but it's $30,000!
The way these companies succeed is that some guys feel this way about it, and this is a direct quote from one, but others have said the same to me:
"I don't care if it works, I just care if I think it works."
And that about sums it up.
My experience is you couldn't be further from the truth.
Could it be that as a musician, you may have damaged your hearing (which is very common), and are using your own experience to base judgement?
Empirical research shows that 128 kbps mp3 can be distinguished reliably by virtually everybody (it actually gives me earaches, especially hi-hats, even on the car stereo), while 320 kbps cannot be reliably distinguished from lossless by most musicians, and only barely by sound engineers (just enough to be statistically relevant).
I can certainly agree with everything you said here. I do demos at my house, and if it can't be heard on my system, it's not likely to be heard anywhere. Every Friday, a few of my friends get together, and land at my place. Most are audio phones, and some are musicians, some professional, and a few are well known. The number of peop,e varies from week to week.
Sometimes a carefully make a CD-R from some Cds, or even LPs. Usually it's 256 VBR AAC. I've never yet had anyone mentions problem with the sound. Those albums they've already heard, so it's not all new. I don't say it's a CD-R, of course, because if it do, I'll get someone here and there to say it sounds worse, but if they don't know...
I do have to be careful as to what I put on it, as some things are easier to tell than others.
Im not saying that AAC is as good as CD or vinyl. It's clearly not. But often, you really do need to listen closely to hear it, and many systems simply don't resolve enough to make it possible.
And then, you have to make sure your Amps don't clip, and your speakers don't compress. I have several thousand watts per channel, and my speakers can play at over 120 db.
Great post. I didn't even get into clipping and compressing on the playback end. Completely agree...AAC or any digital format is not going to technically be as high quality as CD or vinyl. The question is whether it will be heard or not. In most cases, not. If it's a serious struggle to hear the difference between your CD-R and a CD or vinyl on your system, there is no way the vast majority of people will hear it. They are playing back on car systems, consumer home theater equipment, earbuds, headphones (over bluetooth no less), etc.
Empirical research shows that 128 kbps mp3 can be distinguished reliably by virtually everybody (it actually gives me earaches, especially hi-hats, even on the car stereo), while 320 kbps cannot be reliably distinguished from lossless by most musicians, and only barely by sound engineers (just enough to be statistically relevant).
What empirical research? Please provide a link or two. Regardless, we're not talking about mp3. We're talking about AAC. 128kpbs AAC is, in my experience, superior to 128kpbs mp3 in normal consumer listening conditions. The point here is whether most people will notice a difference between 128 and 256kpbs AAC on the equipment they have. I say it's doubtful. You're talking about consumer level car audio, headphones, ear buds, and home systems...often over bluetooth. Once you get over 128kpbs on these systems, it's hard to tell. Some discerning listeners might hear a difference in a double blind environment. Maybe. If they do, it's doubtful they will mind. This is how SiriusXM gets away with bitrates of 40 to 64Kpbs, which people with decent ears absolutely can hear. I personally think it sounds like shit, but I'm more picky than Joe Six Pack. The best empirical research out there is the market, and with over 2 million subscribers in the U.S. alone, I'd say it's pretty clear many people either can't hear it (even at 64kpbs) or don't care.