In light of the announcement, 's Explainer, which I am a huge fan of, explores the theoretical audible differences between 256 kbps AAC files and the 128 kbps versions. Christopher Beams says that 256 kbps files, though packed with twice as much data, do not sound twice as sharp as 128 kbps versions. Agreed: the added info isn't as important to your ears.
And it is likely, according to quoted tests, you can't distinguish between anything higher than 128kbps sources. That's where things get fuzzy.
Hedging his statement, he says:
But a listener's ability to distinguish sound quality depends on many factors, like age, hearing ability, and attentiveness, not to mention the style of music and where one listens to it.For example, music with delicate timbres--a string quartet, say--might sound noticeably choppy at lower bitrates, whereas compressing an AC/DC song might not be so bad.
Sounds right, if a little inconclusive and safe. I'd wish he'd mention earbud quality as a factor, too.
Little white iPod earbuds definitely won't separate the two rates, but with an expensive set of speakers or buds the difference comes a lot closer to being apparent.
Compression does an amazing job of preserving the shape and sense of the music. But to me, compression loses the space around the notes: the start and stop of notes and the sound of the room.
Most people, even musicians, don't listen for it, and you have to be really familiar with the song to miss it. Unfortunately, most modern production is so compressed and ProTools'd to death that there is little space to enjoy.
I've heard "So Far Away" on the test many times but don't own it, and on Monsoon desktop speakers I couldn't tell the 128kbs WMA from the WAV original.
On the 128 kbs MP3, the way each quiet cymbal strike fades out sounds wrong.
In unscientific tests with my own library I can tell 128 kbps compressed AAC from lossless even played from a music phone through a car stereo.
I wish I could buy songs at even higher bitrates.
24-bit 96 kHz right off the digital audio recorder for $2.50? For some artistes I'll pay up.
And it is likely, according to quoted tests, you can't distinguish between anything higher than 128kbps sources.
Simply untrue, unless maybe you listen to your music on pair of computer speakers from Best Buy. Many people can hear a difference between 128k compression and a lossless source in blind testing on a decent (not fantastic) system.
In fact, I would say almost anyone could hear it if they bothered to sit down and intently listen on something other than crappy computer speakers or earbuds. The difference is stark. The difference between 256k and lossless is much smaller, but still audible.
Now if you're in your car, or walking down a crowded street, yeah, it doesn't matter. But when I want a nice meal, I don't get a taquito from 7-Eleven, even though it's just fine when you're hungry in the car. Actually, they suck even then, but you understand the analogy.
I'm torn, personally. I like the no-DRM option, but I'd actually rather stick with 128kbps. It is fine for my use and my ears.
My collection is over 40GB at 128Kbps - it'd be over 80GB at 256Kbps, too big to have it all on an iPod. (I have it all on my 60GB now.)
I rip the DRM off my ITMS purchases as it is, so I could just keep buying the 128Kbps versions and stripping the DRM - but I would like to show that I suppose the no-DRM option.
I don't know what I'll do just yet.
Perhaps I am only hearing what I expect to hear (imagining things), but I think I can hear a difference between 128kbps and higher rates, especially in cymbal crashes.
In a good listening environment, I realy think that music encoded at 128kbps sounds a little "muddier" than music encoded at higher rates.
Either way, I hope we're seeing the beginning of the end of DRM.
soapdish,
not meant as a personal offense, but if you can't hear the difference between 128 and 256, it's good you don't work in the audio business anymore. I would submit that anyone who's trained at critical listening should be able to ID a 128 vs.
a 256, and in the right environment (quiet room, good monitors) most people who haven't destroyed their hearing will as well.
Whether or not I graduated from Berklee (did), I have the wits to test things before I dive in. The differences are subtle, and I wouldn't claim I could succeed at blind ABX testing on the iPod FM transmitter in my car at 60mph, but I do listen on good in-ear monitors and I don't rip at less than 320.
I'm looking forward to upgrading my few iTunes purchases to 256 (come on other labels) and this move will definitely stimulate more purchases from me (hint, hint).
Frankly, I've never got the craze with spending $100s on expensive earbuds for ipods. Ipods have pretty poor sound quality.
. so spending a fortune on perfect earbuds simply means you have been conned..
or you just want to show off about the ammount you spent.
Its like those muppets who spend a fortune tricking out some cheap, tacky car.
I don't remember anyone spending a fortune on earbuds for cd-walkmans.
. and they would have had better sound quality.
Maybe once the sound quality increases.
. or if you have a top of the range mp3 player and lossless encoding. But for normal itunes tracks on an ipod?
? Complete waste of money.
(not to say i hate ipods.
. they provide perfectly "good enough" sound for around town, on the train or in the car. But they are hardly hi-fi quality.
)
VBR for me.
Only problem is that not all players can roll with it.
I recently ripped our CD collection to MP3 and I might do it again, only this time as a .
wav master set.
My reasoning is that it's lossless so I can always dip into the .wav archive and rip it to the compressed format Du Jour in the future.
The main pain there is the ripping time and storage space for the archive.
I would eliminate ear buds and crap equipment from the equation.
Certain types of music certainly are affected by compression at 128k: rarely low base in hop hop gets muddied, really sharp trebles of jazz cymbals, etc.
.. Sometimes, when I hear the not ideal compression, it may just be a 10-20 second section of a particular song, but it's still real.
And it's via whatever equipment I use, crap or not.
No one should rationally expect 100% improvement across the board. However, I expect 0-20% improvement in most cases and virtually 80-100% improvement in some cases (when compression is most noticeable but this change approaches near "lossless" quality), and I want and appreciate that.
I listen to 192kbps VBR and FBR WMA as well as 192kbps MP3 but only as car music, on a plane using a Zen Micro (via Etymotic ER-6s), and for background music in my home, either out back in the pool during a dinner party. When I'm actually paying attention to my music, anything less than a CD is sort of intolerable.
And in doing A/B listening tests I found that with three listeners, there was a 100% accuracy in picking out the 192kbps VRB WMA files from CD.
Hell, we had a 100% accuracy between 24/92 and 29/192 DVD-Audio. On the other hand, my 65 year old partially deaf father-in-law is convinced that becuase HE can't hear the differences, any that claim that they can are simply lying or posturing. So I hear where you're coming from soapdish!
;-)
Still as a wannabe audiophile, I gotta admit that it's all in the music and the situation. If the tunes are right and you're having a good time, who cares what the sound quality is like?
I'm happy with the higher bitrate, happy with the no-DRM, happy that EMI is doing their entire catalog, and I'll be buying from iTunes now.
The only thing I'm *not* happy with? The rest of iTunes is still infested with DRM, and I will certainly not be buying any of that.
Hopefully the other labels will get the message, and also hopefully, thieving little kids won't screw this up for everyone.
News RSS