7 ms·

I think you're missing the point. Consumers don't care, until some listicle website or advertising firm points out that Amazon/Apple short you on your mp3s by n

by swang 11y ago

I think you're missing the point. Consumers don't care, until some listicle website or advertising firm points out that Amazon/Apple short you on your mp3s by not even offering 128kbps all the way through. Or imagine Amazon goes with pure VBR, then Apple makes an ad claiming their sound quality is "better" because their bitrate never dips below 128kbps. It's bullshit, but how is an average consumer suppose to figure this out? They'll probably err on the side of caution and buy the CBR version since, "it can't be any worse than the VBR one, but I don't lose bits and it's the same price!" The whole article was talking about streaming vs. downloading. Streaming is _fine_ and Netflix will probably get away with their compression, but will Amazon/Apple be able to do that with downloads? He doesn't think so. People are fine with Spotify/Pandora because there is no perceived ownership of the songs they're streaming. People who actually buy and download audio or video, they have money in the game so they want "the best" and any loss of that is viewed as Amazon/Apple screwing them over.

SwellJoe 11y ago
Has that ever happened? I mean, have there been consumer revolts over bit rate that have cost Apple or Amazon customers? Pono and Tidal don't seem to be killing the existing players, but perhaps I'm just not up to speed on the state of the industry.
- swang 11y ago
  There is no actual "revolt" because both Apple and Amazon make sure it doesn't happen by using CBR. You're right in that consumers don't care about it all that much. But let's say Amazon decides to go with VBR to save space and download speed, now there's an easy way for Apple to attack Amazon. "We never dip below a certain quality. Amazon does. We care. Amazon doesn't" Maybe that ad/slogan works, or maybe it doesn't. But if you're Amazon would you be willing to risk some weird consumer backlash over it? And if you're Apple it is an easy point to attack, and if it doesn't work, no harm no foul (and then secretly also switch to VBR and announce it at the next Apple conference!)
  - dexterdog 11y ago
    And the VBR company can claim that their codec gets higher that the others when it needs to giving better definition to the complex parts of the sound. It's not a hard sell and most people won't care.
    - lbotos 11y ago
      Except I'm reasonably intelligent and still get CBRs because irrationally I don't trust VBR files (and VBRs with DJ software)
      - SwellJoe 11y ago
        Have you noticed a difference in handling of VBRs in your DJ software? I use Mixxx, and that's not been something I've noticed. Someone I regularly have tag-team DJed with uses VirtualDJ and he never complained about me sharing VBR files with him. I have noticed that older pre-2.0 versions of Mixxx would sometimes get glitchy (warbly) when using the pitch-correction feature (key lock, I think is the name in the UI), but, I don't think it's related to VBR vs CBR, but I never thought to check. The only time I've noticed an audible sound quality problem when DJing was with low bit rate (usually 128kbps) files.
        lbotos 11y ago
        Not specifically. I play around with Mixxx but use Traktor in the club. It's more about software stability than anything inherent in the sound. I've had a handful of sets go south (which ultimately is enough) due to freezes etc that I'm wary (unnecessarily so. I'm sure they are fine, but It's more about "simplifying variables in arguable a super complex system.)
        rryan 11y ago
        Mixxx developer here -- can confirm our VBR decoding code is slightly less reliable than CBR! It's easier when you know exactly how many samples you're going to get out of a frame. We rewrote a bunch of this in 2.1 (coming in Q1 2016) so hopefully a few odd VBR quirks we had got fixed. The warbling definitely sounds like our pre-2.0 time stretching algorithm to me. The new one in 2.0 is much better.
- jonhohle 11y ago
  The opposite has happened. Steve Jobs introduced H.264 as providing significantly higher quality at the same or lower bitrate. He shows an still from an existing MPEG-4 video and then a much higher resolution still from an H.264 encoded MPEG-4 video and claims that they require the same bitrate. He brings out Frank Casanova who goes on for 5 minutes or so about quality at lower bitrates. [0] IIRC, Apple also sold AAC as requiring lower bandwidth for the same quality, but I don't recall when that was. 0 - https://youtu.be/dPCNUExWR6I?t=3271 https://youtu.be/dPCNUExWR6I?t=3271
  - colanderman 11y ago
    It is a bit disingenuous to compare video codec quality using stills. One can simply choose a key frame (= no temporal compression) to compare, and they'd likely be identical regardless of how well the codecs compress motion in non-key frames. (Not sure if the video clarifies this point since I cannot watch it right now.)
- xorcist 11y ago
  Quality of recorded music today has much more to do with mastering than bit rates and codecs. I certainly would prefer a 128 kbps version of a twenty year old mastering than a 192 kbps version of the modern remaster. That has led to a consumer revolt of sorts, for people who care about audio. That's not a large enough group to make a difference to the big record companies, but it is large enough that catering to them is a good business model in itself.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    The two are unrelated issues. 128kbps mp3 files do sound pretty bad, especially on the high end and during very dynamic parts. It is audible to me, regardless of the quality of the original recording and its mastering. And, while we're talking, I'll point out that the loudness wars began roughly 20 years ago, so you may need to go back to an even earlier mastering to get the really good stuff. Certainly it was more pronounced through the late 90s and 00s, but I remember the first few records I bought that suffered badly from over-compression, and they were released around 1994-1996. The multi-band compression that has killed many great recordings began to see usage around that time as well, though it peaked much later (it was expensive to start with).
- Brian-Puccio 11y ago
  > Has that ever happened? I'm not sure if it has ever happened with bitrates in audio files, but the megapixel war comes to mind. 36 MP in a point-n-shoot? Must be better than the 12 MP in a Canon 5D DSLR since 36 is way more than 12.
- tomphoolery 11y ago
  It depends on the reason why you're buying the track. You can find all the great electronic music on iTunes, but the sound quality isn't as good as on Juno or Beatport. DJs shop at stores other than iTunes because the sound quality is a consistent 320 kbps (or WAV) and a track won't sound "bad" just because it's a slightly lower quality played in between two higher quality tracks. You can tell if you play them next to each other, on an expensive club sound system. Other than that, you probably can't.
  - S_A_P 11y ago
    A club system is hardly something that I would call hi fidelity. Most PA systems are designed for injecting high spl music/audio in the frequency range of ~40-10khz.
    - SwellJoe 11y ago
      Club systems vary wildly. I usually provide my own gear, and it's quite high end (JBL SRX700 series subs, and PRX 625 mains), and is more accurate than most home stereos, while also being dangerously loud. But, I can't hear the difference between a ~200kbps mp3 and a FLAC through that system. I probably couldn't consistently hear the difference on my headphones (also high end) or my studio monitors (again, quite high end), either. That said, a 128kbps mp3 through a really loud system tends to sound harsh. It is definitely audible, even to untrained ears. But, anything above 192kbps, or so, is fine and any flaws that might be audible in an ideal listening environment are lost in the general noise of the club environment.
freyr 11y ago
> Consumers don't care, until some listicle website or advertising firm points out that Amazon/Apple short you on your mp3s by not even offering 128kbps all the way through. A 128kbps threshold is a holdover from the days of MP3s, WinAMP, ripping your CDs, and technically-savvy early adopter consumers. The average consumer is content to stream and doesn't know or care about bitrate, and the phrase "not even 128kbps" would be meaningless most readers.
scott_s 11y ago
I don't think consumers care, full stop. Amazon, Apple and Netflix compete on content, not quality. The quality has been "good enough" for a long time now.

by swang 11y ago

SwellJoe 11y ago

Has that ever happened? I mean, have there been consumer revolts over bit rate that have cost Apple or Amazon customers? Pono and Tidal don't seem to be killing the existing players, but perhaps I'm just not up to speed on the state of the industry.

swang 11y ago
There is no actual "revolt" because both Apple and Amazon make sure it doesn't happen by using CBR. You're right in that consumers don't care about it all that much. But let's say Amazon decides to go with VBR to save space and download speed, now there's an easy way for Apple to attack Amazon. "We never dip below a certain quality. Amazon does. We care. Amazon doesn't" Maybe that ad/slogan works, or maybe it doesn't. But if you're Amazon would you be willing to risk some weird consumer backlash over it? And if you're Apple it is an easy point to attack, and if it doesn't work, no harm no foul (and then secretly also switch to VBR and announce it at the next Apple conference!)
- dexterdog 11y ago
  And the VBR company can claim that their codec gets higher that the others when it needs to giving better definition to the complex parts of the sound. It's not a hard sell and most people won't care.
  - lbotos 11y ago
    Except I'm reasonably intelligent and still get CBRs because irrationally I don't trust VBR files (and VBRs with DJ software)
    - SwellJoe 11y ago
      Have you noticed a difference in handling of VBRs in your DJ software? I use Mixxx, and that's not been something I've noticed. Someone I regularly have tag-team DJed with uses VirtualDJ and he never complained about me sharing VBR files with him. I have noticed that older pre-2.0 versions of Mixxx would sometimes get glitchy (warbly) when using the pitch-correction feature (key lock, I think is the name in the UI), but, I don't think it's related to VBR vs CBR, but I never thought to check. The only time I've noticed an audible sound quality problem when DJing was with low bit rate (usually 128kbps) files.
      - lbotos 11y ago
        Not specifically. I play around with Mixxx but use Traktor in the club. It's more about software stability than anything inherent in the sound. I've had a handful of sets go south (which ultimately is enough) due to freezes etc that I'm wary (unnecessarily so. I'm sure they are fine, but It's more about "simplifying variables in arguable a super complex system.)
      - rryan 11y ago
        Mixxx developer here -- can confirm our VBR decoding code is slightly less reliable than CBR! It's easier when you know exactly how many samples you're going to get out of a frame. We rewrote a bunch of this in 2.1 (coming in Q1 2016) so hopefully a few odd VBR quirks we had got fixed. The warbling definitely sounds like our pre-2.0 time stretching algorithm to me. The new one in 2.0 is much better.
jonhohle 11y ago
The opposite has happened. Steve Jobs introduced H.264 as providing significantly higher quality at the same or lower bitrate. He shows an still from an existing MPEG-4 video and then a much higher resolution still from an H.264 encoded MPEG-4 video and claims that they require the same bitrate. He brings out Frank Casanova who goes on for 5 minutes or so about quality at lower bitrates. [0] IIRC, Apple also sold AAC as requiring lower bandwidth for the same quality, but I don't recall when that was. 0 - https://youtu.be/dPCNUExWR6I?t=3271 https://youtu.be/dPCNUExWR6I?t=3271
- colanderman 11y ago
  It is a bit disingenuous to compare video codec quality using stills. One can simply choose a key frame (= no temporal compression) to compare, and they'd likely be identical regardless of how well the codecs compress motion in non-key frames. (Not sure if the video clarifies this point since I cannot watch it right now.)
xorcist 11y ago
Quality of recorded music today has much more to do with mastering than bit rates and codecs. I certainly would prefer a 128 kbps version of a twenty year old mastering than a 192 kbps version of the modern remaster. That has led to a consumer revolt of sorts, for people who care about audio. That's not a large enough group to make a difference to the big record companies, but it is large enough that catering to them is a good business model in itself.
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  The two are unrelated issues. 128kbps mp3 files do sound pretty bad, especially on the high end and during very dynamic parts. It is audible to me, regardless of the quality of the original recording and its mastering. And, while we're talking, I'll point out that the loudness wars began roughly 20 years ago, so you may need to go back to an even earlier mastering to get the really good stuff. Certainly it was more pronounced through the late 90s and 00s, but I remember the first few records I bought that suffered badly from over-compression, and they were released around 1994-1996. The multi-band compression that has killed many great recordings began to see usage around that time as well, though it peaked much later (it was expensive to start with).
Brian-Puccio 11y ago
> Has that ever happened? I'm not sure if it has ever happened with bitrates in audio files, but the megapixel war comes to mind. 36 MP in a point-n-shoot? Must be better than the 12 MP in a Canon 5D DSLR since 36 is way more than 12.
tomphoolery 11y ago
It depends on the reason why you're buying the track. You can find all the great electronic music on iTunes, but the sound quality isn't as good as on Juno or Beatport. DJs shop at stores other than iTunes because the sound quality is a consistent 320 kbps (or WAV) and a track won't sound "bad" just because it's a slightly lower quality played in between two higher quality tracks. You can tell if you play them next to each other, on an expensive club sound system. Other than that, you probably can't.
- S_A_P 11y ago
  A club system is hardly something that I would call hi fidelity. Most PA systems are designed for injecting high spl music/audio in the frequency range of ~40-10khz.
  - SwellJoe 11y ago
    Club systems vary wildly. I usually provide my own gear, and it's quite high end (JBL SRX700 series subs, and PRX 625 mains), and is more accurate than most home stereos, while also being dangerously loud. But, I can't hear the difference between a ~200kbps mp3 and a FLAC through that system. I probably couldn't consistently hear the difference on my headphones (also high end) or my studio monitors (again, quite high end), either. That said, a 128kbps mp3 through a really loud system tends to sound harsh. It is definitely audible, even to untrained ears. But, anything above 192kbps, or so, is fine and any flaws that might be audible in an ideal listening environment are lost in the general noise of the club environment.

freyr 11y ago

> Consumers don't care, until some listicle website or advertising firm points out that Amazon/Apple short you on your mp3s by not even offering 128kbps all the way through. A 128kbps threshold is a holdover from the days of MP3s, WinAMP, ripping your CDs, and technically-savvy early adopter consumers. The average consumer is content to stream and doesn't know or care about bitrate, and the phrase "not even 128kbps" would be meaningless most readers.

scott_s 11y ago

I don't think consumers care, full stop. Amazon, Apple and Netflix compete on content, not quality. The quality has been "good enough" for a long time now.