Neil Young speaks out against excessive compression

[HolmeBass]

How many of you will leave this thread to go to another to argue how much better GK sounds than Genz or that your jazz bass just doesn't sound exactly right so you always go for the Pbass?

MP3's are compressed. In SOME recordings there is an audible difference. Neil Young wants to get higher quality formats out there. So what's wrong with that?

I'm writing down all of your names and if I catch you pining on the virtues of using one type of speaker cabinet over another then I will have to call you out...not really this post is probably good enough.

Hey Sev, I'm on your side. Maybe not to the extreme degree that Neil is, but many commercial MP3's just don't cut it! Time to raise the bar, IMHO. But the majority of consumers don't seem to be on-board, which is weird. The same people who won't watch DVDs anymore and insist on BlueRay are listening to crappy 96 kb/s MP3s and apparently not giving a crap. It's annoying to me.

 

[sevdog]

+1 The encoders used today as opposed to 10 years ago or even 5 years ago are so far advanced, I find it hard to believe an 'audiophile' could tell the difference. I've even proved it several times using a cd and an mp3 encoded at 320kbps both CBR and VBR! Even the 128kbps files sound good! Having said that, portable units have so much capacity these days that if you wanted to load up with wav, flac or aiff files, you can still fit a ton of albums on it! On another note, seriously.....who will ever listen to their complete collection of music! I have so much music stored on 5 different portable HD's! I'll never listen to it all. There is no portable unit that would allow to put everything I own on it!

I have a 16gb Creative Zen with about 30 cd's of music as well as all the individual tunes my band plays which is added to all the time and I still have 10gb of free space. Yeah, I could fill it up but I'll never listen to it all.

Ok so I'm done trolling and have a real question. I don't purport to know all of the technical aspects so you talk about the different kbps of different mp3's. So, is an album on itunes always going to be one or the other? Or if there are differences is there a way to tell before you buy?

 

[HolmeBass]

I hear what you are saying, and by no means have I attempted to compare my experience to anything like a controlled lab experiment. By and large most everyone wonders why I'm putting that big archaic piece of vinyl on the table when I have an obviously superior CD player sitting there. Generally speaking they have a lower expectation of the vinyl record. They assume it'll sound scratchy and muffled just like that old Soundesign AM/FM, 8 track, record player combo they had back in high school.

I have numerous copies of the same recordings on both CD and LP, and a few on SACD, and yes I know they were most likely mastered differently, but LPs consistently beat out the digital formats as being most enjoyable to listen to. I have cued up both copies and switched back and forth repeatedly while my guest is not looking and they always pick vinyl. I have even done it without their knowing, they always ask what I did to make the sound change. CDs sound perfectly fine through my system, and one wonders how it could sound better, until I switch the turntable on.

The dynamic range of ones playback system certainly has a lot to do with the ability to enjoy those LPs with the big dynamics. I have several LPs that will show a 40db swing on the needles, while most are in the 20-30db range. Meanwhile only a few of my CDs and most of my SACDs match the 20-30db dynamic range of my LPs. Most modern CDs will swing the needles less than 10db!

Now if I were to listen to it through a pair of cheap earbuds I'm sure the differences would be moot. I'm perfectly content listening to my iPod through earbuds while working out or reading, but when I want to sit down, turn out the lights, relax and really listen to "Kind of Blue", I will always put on the LP over the SACD. And I bet most people would too.

It's really not even fair to compare the dynamic range of CD/SACD to vinyl. Of course the record holds more dynamic range, given the RIAA EQ curve for phonographs.

 

[scottfeldstein]

Any of you no-discernible-difference-absolutists read this study? I say eat your words, suckas!

Ok now I'm just a troll and need to get a life...maybe I'll go pop in a cd or throw a record on the turntable!

..no hard feelings, seriously.

I'm sorry. What exactly is this supposed to mean to me? The link, I mean. Can you explain in detail what I'm supposed to be getting from it?

 

[HolmeBass]

Ok so I'm done trolling and have a real question. I don't purport to know all of the technical aspects so you talk about the different kbps of different mp3's. So, is an album on itunes always going to be one or the other? Or if there are differences is there a way to tell before you buy?

For some, a few, you can tell and choose to purchase the higher quality. For many, I feel most without any thorough analysis, you can't but a better version or, more importantly, tell what the quality of what you're buying is! To me that's a sham. And no lossless offer on iTunes, Amazon, etc, without buying the original CD (by lossless I refer only to data compression losses, not digital sampling loss).

 

[sevdog]

I'm sorry. What exactly is this supposed to mean to me? The link, I mean. Can you explain in detail what I'm supposed to be getting from it?

Simply that some people can tell the difference some of the time. That's all. I'm still not saying that it's all the time, on every recording, or anything like that.

 

[scottfeldstein]

Simply that some people can tell the difference some of the time. That's all. I'm still not saying that it's all the time, on every recording, or anything like that.

Tell the difference between what and what? And how often is "some of the time"? More than chance odds?

 

[sevdog]

For some, a few, you can tell and choose to purchase the higher quality. For many, I feel most without any thorough analysis, you can't but a better version or, more importantly, tell what the quality of what you're buying is! To me that's a sham. And no lossless offer on iTunes, Amazon, etc, without buying the original CD (by lossless I refer only to data compression losses, not digital sampling loss).

Gotcha, thanks. There are some albums that I would have no problem just downloading but there are others that I would want to have in the cd format.

 

[sevdog]

Tell the difference between what and what? And how often is "some of the time"? More than chance odds?

You're trying to get me to misspeak some technical jargon and I ain't falling for it.

 

[DWBass]

Ok so I'm done trolling and have a real question. I don't purport to know all of the technical aspects so you talk about the different kbps of different mp3's. So, is an album on itunes always going to be one or the other? Or if there are differences is there a way to tell before you buy?

I have no experience using iTunes so I can't answer that but my guess is they sell what the artist gives them. Some files may be of lower quality (192-256) and some may be of very high quality (320kbps or some sort of lossless m4a). I rip my own cd's or convert old LP's or cassette tapes to HQ bitrate mp3's using a quality converter.

 

[3506string]

Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Some New Evidence That Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction

Basically what the test showed was that in a controlled calibrated acoustic environment using professional JBL reference monitors and subwoofers, 18 students, age 15-18, over 12 trials preferred Lossless CD quality to 128kbps cbr mp3 by a margin of 67%.

Giving the sample size, testing environment, and the test samples the results are neither surprising nor notably significant.

 

[Febs]

Simply that some people can tell the difference some of the time.

To be more accurate, the test subjects were asked to compare MP3s with CD-quality audio and evaluate which they preferred. The purpose of the study was apparently not to test whether the subjects could hear a difference. To the contrary, the MP3s used 128 kbps CBR encoding and a relatively old version of the LAME encoder, and were apparently selected specifically because they presented audible differences from the CD quality tracks. The study concluded that, under those test conditions, listeners preferred the CD to the MP3.

Interestingly enough, the article indicates that "nearly 40% of the listeners gave a sufficient number of preference choices ... to establish a statistically signficant preference for CD ... Other listeners were either guessing, or were inconsistent in their choices." In other words, 60% of the participants could not tell the difference CD quality audio and MP3s that were specifically selected to be audibly different from CD, even under tightly controlled listening conditions.

 

[HolmeBass]

I have no experience using iTunes so I can't answer that but my guess is they sell what the artist gives them. Some files may be of lower quality (192-256) and some may be of very high quality (320kbps or some sort of lossless m4a). I rip my own cd's or convert old LP's or cassette tapes to HQ bitrate mp3's using a quality converter.

So I really am not on the audiophile side! I usually enjoy anything 192 or higher, no need for 320 on my iPod.

 

[sevdog]

To be more accurate, the test subjects were asked to compare MP3s with CD-quality audio and evaluate which they preferred. The purpose of the study was apparently not to test whether the subjects could hear a difference. To the contrary, the MP3s used 128 kbps CBR encoding and a relatively old version of the LAME encoder, and were apparently selected specifically because they presented audible differences from the CD quality tracks. The study concluded that, under those test conditions, listeners preferred the CD to the MP3.

Interestingly enough, the article indicates that "nearly 40% of the listeners gave a sufficient number of preference choices ... to establish a statistically signficant preference for CD ... Other listeners were either guessing, or were inconsistent in their choices." In other words, 60% of the participants could not tell the difference CD quality audio and MP3s that were specifically selected to be audibly different from CD, even under tightly controlled listening conditions.

Is 128 kbps common for what would be coming out of itunes?

 

[scottfeldstein]

You're trying to get me to misspeak some technical jargon and I ain't falling for it.

Whoa, I'm sorry you think that of me. Seriously not the case at all.

 

[scottfeldstein]

To be more accurate, the test subjects were asked to compare MP3s with CD-quality audio and evaluate which they preferred. The purpose of the study was apparently not to test whether the subjects could hear a difference. To the contrary, the MP3s used 128 kbps CBR encoding and a relatively old version of the LAME encoder, and were apparently selected specifically because they presented audible differences from the CD quality tracks. The study concluded that, under those test conditions, listeners preferred the CD to the MP3.

Interestingly enough, the article indicates that "nearly 40% of the listeners gave a sufficient number of preference choices ... to establish a statistically signficant preference for CD ... Other listeners were either guessing, or were inconsistent in their choices." In other words, 60% of the participants could not tell the difference CD quality audio and MP3s that were specifically selected to be audibly different from CD, even under tightly controlled listening conditions.

This is the explanation I was looking for. And what it definitely does not say is that what Apple sells today (256k AAC) is distinguishable from a CD--or from anything.

 

[sevdog]

To be more accurate, the test subjects were asked to compare MP3s with CD-quality audio and evaluate which they preferred. The purpose of the study was apparently not to test whether the subjects could hear a difference. To the contrary, the MP3s used 128 kbps CBR encoding and a relatively old version of the LAME encoder, and were apparently selected specifically because they presented audible differences from the CD quality tracks. The study concluded that, under those test conditions, listeners preferred the CD to the MP3.

Interestingly enough, the article indicates that "nearly 40% of the listeners gave a sufficient number of preference choices ... to establish a statistically signficant preference for CD ... Other listeners were either guessing, or were inconsistent in their choices." In other words, 60% of the participants could not tell the difference CD quality audio and MP3s that were specifically selected to be audibly different from CD, even under tightly controlled listening conditions.

I thought one thing that was notable and probably relevant to this thread is that it said that the people who did not seem to prefer the cd or mp3 also didn't have strong feelings one way or the other...in other words they couldn't really tell a difference. While, the people who appeared to prefer the cd recordings had strong feelings about it and were more consistent in their selections.

To me that summary says, some people can't tell the difference and don't care while some people can tell the difference and do care.

 

[scottfeldstein]

Is 128 kbps common for what would be coming out of itunes?

From the iTunes store? Certainly not.

From the default encoding settings when you rip your own CD? I don't believe so. First of all, it uses AAC. Second, I believe it's defaulted at higher bitrate. Not sure about that one.

 

[sevdog]

Whoa, I'm sorry you think that of me. Seriously not the case at all.

ok, sorry. I guess you just hadn't read the study. My bad.

 

[sevdog]

This is the explanation I was looking for. And what it definitely does not say is that what Apple sells today (256k AAC) is distinguishable from a CD--or from anything.

Ok, so maybe I've been comparing mp3's of old. Does anyone know how long this quality of mp3 has been around? I suppose if the quality of mp3's has increased in say, the past 2 or maybe 3 years (3's probably a stretch) then I may have to re-evaluate.