Next time you come to Hong Kong and well have a little test. Three codecs (128 AAC, 192 MP3 and AIFF from original CD), 10 songs (chosen at random from your iTunes playlist), from your Mac to any sub-$10k stereo system available to you. At 8PM after a day of shopping, if you can get 3 out of three on 7 of the 10, I'll buy you a new 10GB iPod. If you lose you buy me one.
Ooooo! Where do I sign up? I need a free iPod.
Do you doubt Eugene's sincerity about the threshold at which he can perceive differences between digital audio formats?
Of are you claiming that nobody can hear the difference between these formats?
On a different topic:
Thank you Eugene for posting the graph. While I don't think it is any indication of which format is perceived as higher fidelity, it is interesting all the same. As pointed out previously, psycho-acoustic phenomena affect the perceived fidelity loss at certain frequencies and amplitude patterns. For instance, quiet noises immediately following loud noises are seldom perceived by humans. Also, the overall spectral balance of the audio recalibrates human hearing such that particular frequency ranges are given more attention... the list could go on and on.
Basically, the graph is interesting but represents only a tiny fraction of the empirical data needed for a complete, objective analysis. Looking only at this graph would be like comparing the maximum speed of different car models solely by the looking at tire diameter. It would be completely absurd!
They're even discovering that sounds above 20kHz make a difference too, and that's why LPs sound better. The theory is that the sounds too high to be heard still bounce around the room long enough to fall within the range of human hearing.
Quite true. Speaker arrangement and room geometry leads to cancellation of particular frequencies at different spots in the listening area. Frequencies above human hearing cause cancellations of harmonic frequencies which are within the range of human hearing... although you have to have good ears and a multi-thousand dollar audio habit to notice the lost clarity.
AAC noticeably dulls (IMHO) the upper frequencies that are responsible for creating a transparent and enveloping soundstage. However, this is only noticeable in my home theater. In my car, AAC 128 is more than adequate.
Under normal listening conditions, yep. I think he's an "audio poser".
Really though... even if he and others can hear the difference reliably, does the compression make it sound worse, or just different? I think to say "sorry, if it's not CD quality, I won't buy it" is pretentious idiocy.
So we are only permitted to say positive things about AAC 128 in a thread called 'AAC at 128 whether you want it or not?' Where else should we have this discussion?
Being able to hear differences between digital audio formats does not make someone pretentious. Nor does preferring a higher fidelity media. It is far less pretentious to state one's opinion than to ridicule the harmless preferences of others.
Every individual has a different threshold for perceiving lossless compression. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous.
They're even discovering that sounds above 20kHz make a difference too...
Who are "they" who are making these discoveries? Researchers performing scientific double-blind experiments on human perception, or the writers in Stereophile and TAS tossing about whatever verbiage sounds kinda sorta scientific to them?
...and that's why LPs sound better.
Do they now? Or would you care to amend that comment to "sound better to some people"?
There are plenty of reasons without resorting to wild conjectures about ultrasonic sound for people to like how LPs sound over CDs. Mainly "euphonic distortion". That is, LPs aren't more accurate (despite any piddling amount of ultrasonics that may or may not have made it into any particular pressing), they just distort the music in a pleasing way, one that may even produce an effective illusion of greater realism for some listeners.
The theory is that the sounds too high to be heard still bounce around the room long enough to fall within the range of human hearing.
(1) This is at best a conjecture. It is not worthy of being called a "theory".
(2) Do you imagine that high frequency sounds drop in pitch after they "bounce around the room"? They only drop in amplitude -- they get quieter. The only way for a reflected sound to drop in pitch is for it to reflect from a quickly moving object... not a major factor in most listening rooms, I wouldn't think!
I have no problem with people liking whatever it is they like to listen to. But I wish that there weren't so many people who felt the need to justify their preferences via pseudoscientific drivel.
Back on the original topic... I really have no idea if I, or anyone else, can tell 128K AAC apart from 192K MP3. This, however, seems a reasonable possibility, and I personally would rather have higher bit rates and err on the side of caution.
Jebus H. Christ...if you're gonna listen to music through high fidelity speakers and if you're a true audiophile why the hell are you listening to MP3s or AAC at all?
AAC is just a convenient format for average people to download and listen. Lots of people download from Kazaa and other P2P file-pirating software and couldn't care less about the quality of the songs sound.
If you're an audiophile, get real CDs or LPs fer christsake.
I have shitty eye sight but very (very) good hearing and sense of smell, like all trolls that live in a cave, hahaha... actually, this is true, I'm a bit of a bloodhound I guess.
I tell you I can hear the difference quite effortlessly, even on somewhat shitty equipment.
On my PB, the difference between a CD and an MP3 only starts to dissapear at around 224, and that's because it's a very low fi solution that can generate a lot of detail and volume.
I though for sure Apple would only sell these things at the highest resolution available (320Kbps either AAC or MP3). I definitly won't pay a dollar per song for anything less than that, especially if I wanted to burn them back to CD.
I sent Apple feedback that I would like to see higher bit rates for classical and jazz.
I think they will eventually add more options because people already want it.
I really think the main thing with the store right now is that they made everything super easy. Everything the same price. No specials or bulk discounts. All the same bitrates. No room for confusion.
If they give a bunch of bitrate options right now, they would have to double, triple or quadruple their server farm. They are already taking a risk. If this is successful, Apple will be able to do more.
Excellent point kmac. Obviously, they can't provide full, unencoded CDs for download, but I'm sure that if it goes well they'll allow you to pay different amounts for different bitrates. Say, $0.75 for a 128 kilobit, $1 for a 192 kilobit, and $1.25 for a 256 kilobit. Or something like that, I have no idea how they'd do it, if they even do.
Say, $0.75 for a 128 kilobit, $1 for a 192 kilobit, and $1.25 for a 256 kilobit. Or something like that, I have no idea how they'd do it, if they even do.
Look out... here comes another digital divide.
People in the ghetto be bumpin to 96kbps while white suburbanites are sporting at least 256kbps. Ooooo... the implications
Hmmm. I wonder what percentage of the song price is consumed by bandwidth rental? Also, I wonder if some consumers might actually pay more for smaller, faster downloading songs. Kind of hard for me to comprehend, but many internet users have slow connections and are charged by bandwidth usage. Me? I'd buy more songs if they were higher fidelity than 128aac.
I though for sure Apple would only sell these things at the highest resolution available (320Kbps either AAC or MP3). I definitly won't pay a dollar per song for anything less than that, especially if I wanted to burn them back to CD.
why would Apple fill up hard drives and bandwidth so you can hear every nuance of Faith Hill's new single?
they did a fantastic job w/ the ease of the store and 128kbps AAC is what the average consumer rips onto their hard drive
$.99 is also very affordable (record company gets $.65, so get on their case for making the service cheaper) considering the ease as to which you get the music...Apple set out to create a legal "Napster" type service and it can only get better...
i don't want to totally jock Apple for this new store, but their browsing and sampling should be commended...the preview sample's at the same rate, so if you are not satisfied w/ the fidelity you have the artist/cd title/label info so youcan order the cd from elsewhere...i can dig it...but they need to hurry up with adding more music!
Ideally, the download might set its bitrate depnding on your bandwidth a la Quicktime, though I suppose if you want to download a single for 30 minutes over dial-up for CD-quality encoding (when you could probably save yourself time and maybe money by just walking into a music store), that's your prerogative.
FYI: WAV files are pretty much the same size as the original CD file. You'll notice that Apple's system sounds are industry-standard AIFF files. AIFF is the audio industry's file format since audio CDs were first mass produced. More recently they've been tagging audio CD files with the .cda extension but it's the same thing. WAV files are the system sounds for Windows computers. WAV-quality is basically CD-quality but with a slightly Windows-centric bent. I'm not even sure why we have a WAV file converter in iTunes, but I'm not complaining.
Here's two tidbits I don't think anyone has mentioned yet:
Apple is almost certainly using a Professional AAC encoder, as opposed to the Consumer encoder that ships with iTunes/Quicktime. These create better quality at the same bandwith but take around 4x longer to encode things due to avoiding algorithmic shortcuts (in the same way that LAME takes longer/does better than iTunes/Quicktimes MP3 encoding).
Blimey, I've forgotten what the second thing was. Oh well, probably nothing earth shattering anyway. I'll edit this if I remember it later.
Has anyone thought about the fact that 128kbs/AAC may have been the compromise Apple made as one of the conditions for allowing the store to go live. After all a low bit rate, even if AAC, effectively closes off the dreaded "analog hole." Think of it as very low-tech DRM.
I definitely agree cowerd. In fact, I believe in his keynote, Jobs said that if you take the 128 bit AAC and turn it into an mp3 that it would not sound very good. At this time, that is probably music to the big 5's ears.
However, for the majority of my needs, 128 is just fine. If I want better, I don't mind buying a CD and encoding it at a different rate. Someday, this rate will go up but everyone just needs to give it time.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
Tell you what, Eugene:
Next time you come to Hong Kong and well have a little test. Three codecs (128 AAC, 192 MP3 and AIFF from original CD), 10 songs (chosen at random from your iTunes playlist), from your Mac to any sub-$10k stereo system available to you. At 8PM after a day of shopping, if you can get 3 out of three on 7 of the 10, I'll buy you a new 10GB iPod. If you lose you buy me one.
Ooooo! Where do I sign up? I need a free iPod.
Do you doubt Eugene's sincerity about the threshold at which he can perceive differences between digital audio formats?
Of are you claiming that nobody can hear the difference between these formats?
On a different topic:
Thank you Eugene for posting the graph. While I don't think it is any indication of which format is perceived as higher fidelity, it is interesting all the same. As pointed out previously, psycho-acoustic phenomena affect the perceived fidelity loss at certain frequencies and amplitude patterns. For instance, quiet noises immediately following loud noises are seldom perceived by humans. Also, the overall spectral balance of the audio recalibrates human hearing such that particular frequency ranges are given more attention... the list could go on and on.
Basically, the graph is interesting but represents only a tiny fraction of the empirical data needed for a complete, objective analysis. Looking only at this graph would be like comparing the maximum speed of different car models solely by the looking at tire diameter. It would be completely absurd!
Originally posted by bunge
They're even discovering that sounds above 20kHz make a difference too, and that's why LPs sound better. The theory is that the sounds too high to be heard still bounce around the room long enough to fall within the range of human hearing.
Quite true. Speaker arrangement and room geometry leads to cancellation of particular frequencies at different spots in the listening area. Frequencies above human hearing cause cancellations of harmonic frequencies which are within the range of human hearing... although you have to have good ears and a multi-thousand dollar audio habit to notice the lost clarity.
AAC noticeably dulls (IMHO) the upper frequencies that are responsible for creating a transparent and enveloping soundstage. However, this is only noticeable in my home theater. In my car, AAC 128 is more than adequate.
Originally posted by tonton
Under normal listening conditions, yep. I think he's an "audio poser".
Really though... even if he and others can hear the difference reliably, does the compression make it sound worse, or just different? I think to say "sorry, if it's not CD quality, I won't buy it" is pretentious idiocy.
So we are only permitted to say positive things about AAC 128 in a thread called 'AAC at 128 whether you want it or not?' Where else should we have this discussion?
Being able to hear differences between digital audio formats does not make someone pretentious. Nor does preferring a higher fidelity media. It is far less pretentious to state one's opinion than to ridicule the harmless preferences of others.
Every individual has a different threshold for perceiving lossless compression. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous.
Originally posted by bunge
They're even discovering that sounds above 20kHz make a difference too...
Who are "they" who are making these discoveries? Researchers performing scientific double-blind experiments on human perception, or the writers in Stereophile and TAS tossing about whatever verbiage sounds kinda sorta scientific to them?
...and that's why LPs sound better.
Do they now? Or would you care to amend that comment to "sound better to some people"?
There are plenty of reasons without resorting to wild conjectures about ultrasonic sound for people to like how LPs sound over CDs. Mainly "euphonic distortion". That is, LPs aren't more accurate (despite any piddling amount of ultrasonics that may or may not have made it into any particular pressing), they just distort the music in a pleasing way, one that may even produce an effective illusion of greater realism for some listeners.
The theory is that the sounds too high to be heard still bounce around the room long enough to fall within the range of human hearing.
(1) This is at best a conjecture. It is not worthy of being called a "theory".
(2) Do you imagine that high frequency sounds drop in pitch after they "bounce around the room"? They only drop in amplitude -- they get quieter. The only way for a reflected sound to drop in pitch is for it to reflect from a quickly moving object... not a major factor in most listening rooms, I wouldn't think!
I have no problem with people liking whatever it is they like to listen to. But I wish that there weren't so many people who felt the need to justify their preferences via pseudoscientific drivel.
Back on the original topic... I really have no idea if I, or anyone else, can tell 128K AAC apart from 192K MP3. This, however, seems a reasonable possibility, and I personally would rather have higher bit rates and err on the side of caution.
AAC is just a convenient format for average people to download and listen. Lots of people download from Kazaa and other P2P file-pirating software and couldn't care less about the quality of the songs sound.
If you're an audiophile, get real CDs or LPs fer christsake.
I tell you I can hear the difference quite effortlessly, even on somewhat shitty equipment.
On my PB, the difference between a CD and an MP3 only starts to dissapear at around 224, and that's because it's a very low fi solution that can generate a lot of detail and volume.
I though for sure Apple would only sell these things at the highest resolution available (320Kbps either AAC or MP3). I definitly won't pay a dollar per song for anything less than that, especially if I wanted to burn them back to CD.
I think they will eventually add more options because people already want it.
I really think the main thing with the store right now is that they made everything super easy. Everything the same price. No specials or bulk discounts. All the same bitrates. No room for confusion.
If they give a bunch of bitrate options right now, they would have to double, triple or quadruple their server farm. They are already taking a risk. If this is successful, Apple will be able to do more.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Say, $0.75 for a 128 kilobit, $1 for a 192 kilobit, and $1.25 for a 256 kilobit. Or something like that, I have no idea how they'd do it, if they even do.
Look out... here comes another digital divide.
People in the ghetto be bumpin to 96kbps while white suburbanites are sporting at least 256kbps. Ooooo... the implications
Hmmm. I wonder what percentage of the song price is consumed by bandwidth rental? Also, I wonder if some consumers might actually pay more for smaller, faster downloading songs. Kind of hard for me to comprehend, but many internet users have slow connections and are charged by bandwidth usage. Me? I'd buy more songs if they were higher fidelity than 128aac.
Originally posted by Matsu
I though for sure Apple would only sell these things at the highest resolution available (320Kbps either AAC or MP3). I definitly won't pay a dollar per song for anything less than that, especially if I wanted to burn them back to CD.
why would Apple fill up hard drives and bandwidth so you can hear every nuance of Faith Hill's new single?
they did a fantastic job w/ the ease of the store and 128kbps AAC is what the average consumer rips onto their hard drive
$.99 is also very affordable (record company gets $.65, so get on their case for making the service cheaper) considering the ease as to which you get the music...Apple set out to create a legal "Napster" type service and it can only get better...
i don't want to totally jock Apple for this new store, but their browsing and sampling should be commended...the preview sample's at the same rate, so if you are not satisfied w/ the fidelity you have the artist/cd title/label info so youcan order the cd from elsewhere...i can dig it...but they need to hurry up with adding more music!
FYI: WAV files are pretty much the same size as the original CD file. You'll notice that Apple's system sounds are industry-standard AIFF files. AIFF is the audio industry's file format since audio CDs were first mass produced. More recently they've been tagging audio CD files with the .cda extension but it's the same thing. WAV files are the system sounds for Windows computers. WAV-quality is basically CD-quality but with a slightly Windows-centric bent.
Apple is almost certainly using a Professional AAC encoder, as opposed to the Consumer encoder that ships with iTunes/Quicktime. These create better quality at the same bandwith but take around 4x longer to encode things due to avoiding algorithmic shortcuts (in the same way that LAME takes longer/does better than iTunes/Quicktimes MP3 encoding).
Blimey, I've forgotten what the second thing was. Oh well, probably nothing earth shattering anyway. I'll edit this if I remember it later.
Time for bed.
However, for the majority of my needs, 128 is just fine. If I want better, I don't mind buying a CD and encoding it at a different rate. Someday, this rate will go up but everyone just needs to give it time.