6 ms·

> I and many others running good high end gear can repeatedly score well on these tests. I, too, run high-end gear and cannot. The problem scope isn't simply

> I and many others running good high end gear can repeatedly score well on these tests. I, too, run high-end gear and cannot. The problem scope isn't simply reproduction accuracy, it is also one of taste: Different compression can elevate/alter parts of the sound, and your opinion may not lean to the highest bit rate but rather some other coloring of the music. The fact you've run this test "repeatedly" actually hurts your argument, since you may just be learning what to expect in your environment. The crux of the article/discussion is that people cannot blindly pick the highest quality, which they cannot (since the different colorings of the music are subjective anyway).

pwagland 5y ago
This is crux to the argument. If you know what to listen for, you can pick out the "bad bits", since you know that is where the issue lies. Once you know how to identify bad bits, then you'll be able to "hear" compression artefacts because you'll be primed for them. In A/B tests this is true, I _can_ reliably (not 100%, but way better than random) tell you which of A/B is compressed, and I can normally do this on somewhat crappy headphones, since I _know_ where to listen to pick out the compression. And this despite being partly deaf. However, if I am just listening to music I never notice these artefacts, since when listening to music, I'm not trying to determine which A/B stream is wrong. Most of the time, the music is just playing in the background anyway.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Problem is, sometimes when you learn how to spot a deficiency, you can't unlearn it and stop spotting it. It's like with kerning[0] or image compression artifacts. Everyone has a different level, and I haven't measured mine, but even when casually listening to music - including music from bad speakers in a waiting room somewhere - I can identify too badly compressed music and get immediately annoyed by it. -- [0] - https://xkcd.com/1015/ https://xkcd.com/1015/
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    It's like with kerning Kerning is a great comparison, I think. Studies have shown that well-compressed lossy audio is nearly indistinguishable from the originals. This is certainly true for me. I can sometimes pick out the compressed version if I know the track well and can look for specific details, but generally I'm absolutely not consciously aware of any compression artifacts. Similarly, I doubt most people could pick out small problems with kerning and other typographic issues. And yet... I strongly suspect folks would enjoy a book with excellent typography more than they would have if it had slightly less-good typography, despite not being consciously and acutely aware of the differences. I believe there may be parallels with lossy vs. lossless compression when it comes to music, and with many other experiences as well -- you may not be able to tell the difference between cookies baked with cheap butter and grass-fed butter in an A/B test, but might you enjoy one cookie more than the other anyway?
    - haecceity 5y ago
      But the question is do they enjoy the book with excellent typography because they're told it's excellent or can they perceive the higher excellence and derive enjoyment thereof.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        I'd say: before being aware of how typography should look, the main difference is that reading a badly-set book will feel tiring for some reason that's hard to pin, but it's definitely not content. After being made aware, it's just annoying - if you can name the thing that's wrong, you recognize it's wrong.
      - JohnBooty 5y ago
        Great question. There's no way to know outside of big randomized trials but I'd bet thousands of dollars it's the latter. (edit: surely this has been studied, right?) Though, I'm certain it would be less "perceiving excellence" like a connoisseur, and more like reaping the practical benefits of solid typography. While there's certainly a lot of showy typography in the world, the sort found in the body copy of books is generally focused on readability, in other words, letting the eye/brain more easily recognize letters and words. Do we enjoy a book more when our eyes and brains aren't overtaxed? It's hard to imagine otherwise -- who enjoys eye strain? I'm less sure of it but I suspect this is true for lossy vs. lossless music as well. For example, one telltale sign of badly compressed music is when the percussion sounds more like blasts of white noise than the actual instruments -- these sharp transients are hard to losslessly compress efficiently. (It's somewhat similar to how the sharp edges of text and line art are not handled well by some lossy image formats like JPEG) Is a drum that actually sounds like a drum going to be more pleasing to the ear than something garbled and white-noisy, even if nobody tells you anything? Generally yes, I am fairly sure.
- astrange 5y ago
  Being partly deaf might be what lets you hear the compression artifacts, because a lot of it relies on masking effects.
StavrosK 5y ago
Why does any of this matter? The point of a blind ABX test (and the whole question) is to see whether you can tell the difference between two formats. If you can, you can. Personally, I stop being able to tell somewhere around 200 kbit MP3s (with cheap equipment), anything above that is wasted space. You can run the tests as much as you want, if the hypothesis is that "people can't tell the difference between lossless and 320 kbit MP3", even one person demonstrating that they can, disproves the entire hypothesis.
- cies 5y ago
  > I stop being able to tell somewhere around 200 kbit MP3s (with cheap equipment) Yups. Me too. Even with cheap professional equipment I cannot hear the difference of lossless vs >= 192kbps MP3. > anything above that is wasted space. Unless you want to mix/remix/etc. Changing the pitch brings out the artifacts.
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    > Unless you want to mix/remix/etc. Changing the pitch brings out the artifacts. Certainly, you probably need lossless if you're going to do any sort of editing.
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      Lossless, and possibly upsampling before editing, but high end gear probably does that by default. As for bitrate compression, although I have a good musical ear, I can't find any appreciable difference from a high bitrate (320) mp3 and the corresponding lossless track, so no problems using mp3s to listen to music. I also managed to resample my entire portable playlist (yeah, making mp3s out of mp3s, I know in some circles I could be killed just for thinking about that:*) to overcome that dreadful loudness craze that makes pretty much every track produced in the last 20-25 years destroy your ears if you happen to listen to it just after something 10 years older. Unfortunately all methods to level the tracks (mp3gain, replaygain etc.) don't work properly because they should analyze all tracks dynamic content, not just the average/maximum level, then first adjust their dynamics and later normalize their level. In other words, level compression should be applied more to softer tracks and not the other way around. So I faked a solution to the problem by reconverting my playlist after applying compression to an extremely low threshold, making clear to myself that none of those tracks would ever leave my player. Some sound really horrible, but I spared my ears.
ksec 5y ago
I think the Key point would be, could you hear any difference in those test? If you could, then yes there is a quality differential, rather you got it right or wrong may be subject to taste. But at least we established there are differences. But when we say 128Kbps are sort of CD Quality or CD being no-difference to 320Kbps mp3, they generally refers to vast majority of consumers, not audio experts. I think most consumers could tell the difference between 256kbps AAC and 128Kbps MP3. But beyond that it sort of goes into consumer dont give a damn territory. Although most Pros would want the highest quality possible and there are no reason why we cant deliver lossless with today's infrastructure. I am wondering if there is a market for an even cheaper Music Streaming Services that target lower quality, 128Kbps music.
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  128kbs is absolutely noticeable drop imo. I can't see any reason for 128kbs service unless you're absolutely starved for data. There is no other advantage.
  - ksec 5y ago
    >I can't see any reason for 128kbs A lower price tier? Or even a Freemium model. Considering most of them are already available on Youtube. As strange as this may sound I dont think Streaming is the business model that will save Music industry. And despite the headlines ( whatever MSM likes to print these days ) most artist's real income are from somewhere else.
    - mixmastamyk 5y ago
      128k Opus is quite a bit better, if for some reason that bit rate is crucial.
    - breakfastduck 5y ago
      Streaming definitely wont 'save the industry', it woefully underpays the artists. You're only making that problem even worse by offering a low quality, even lower price model. Frankly I can't imagine there would be many artists particularly happy with having huge swathes of people introduced to their music at 128kbs.
tarsinge 5y ago
MP3 compression is not the same thing has compression the audio effect. Compressed music in the effect sense can be enjoyable and is a matter of taste, but hearable MP3 compression artifacts is nearly always crap.
- chuchana 5y ago
  For those unfamiliar with the other definition referenced here: dynamic range compression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression)
numpad0 5y ago
Been out of high end audio for few years, trying this test for past 30 minutes, and can't seem to get past 2/6 with wireless or wired or dynamic or BA or through proper amps or out of a laptop jack. Constantly falling into 320k. Maybe source isn't great in the first place, equalizer slightly suppressing low-mid and noise at the high is doing it.

pwagland 5y ago

This is crux to the argument. If you know what to listen for, you can pick out the "bad bits", since you know that is where the issue lies. Once you know how to identify bad bits, then you'll be able to "hear" compression artefacts because you'll be primed for them. In A/B tests this is true, I _can_ reliably (not 100%, but way better than random) tell you which of A/B is compressed, and I can normally do this on somewhat crappy headphones, since I _know_ where to listen to pick out the compression. And this despite being partly deaf. However, if I am just listening to music I never notice these artefacts, since when listening to music, I'm not trying to determine which A/B stream is wrong. Most of the time, the music is just playing in the background anyway.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Problem is, sometimes when you learn how to spot a deficiency, you can't unlearn it and stop spotting it. It's like with kerning[0] or image compression artifacts. Everyone has a different level, and I haven't measured mine, but even when casually listening to music - including music from bad speakers in a waiting room somewhere - I can identify too badly compressed music and get immediately annoyed by it. -- [0] - https://xkcd.com/1015/ https://xkcd.com/1015/
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  It's like with kerning Kerning is a great comparison, I think. Studies have shown that well-compressed lossy audio is nearly indistinguishable from the originals. This is certainly true for me. I can sometimes pick out the compressed version if I know the track well and can look for specific details, but generally I'm absolutely not consciously aware of any compression artifacts. Similarly, I doubt most people could pick out small problems with kerning and other typographic issues. And yet... I strongly suspect folks would enjoy a book with excellent typography more than they would have if it had slightly less-good typography, despite not being consciously and acutely aware of the differences. I believe there may be parallels with lossy vs. lossless compression when it comes to music, and with many other experiences as well -- you may not be able to tell the difference between cookies baked with cheap butter and grass-fed butter in an A/B test, but might you enjoy one cookie more than the other anyway?
  - haecceity 5y ago
    But the question is do they enjoy the book with excellent typography because they're told it's excellent or can they perceive the higher excellence and derive enjoyment thereof.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      I'd say: before being aware of how typography should look, the main difference is that reading a badly-set book will feel tiring for some reason that's hard to pin, but it's definitely not content. After being made aware, it's just annoying - if you can name the thing that's wrong, you recognize it's wrong.
    - JohnBooty 5y ago
      Great question. There's no way to know outside of big randomized trials but I'd bet thousands of dollars it's the latter. (edit: surely this has been studied, right?) Though, I'm certain it would be less "perceiving excellence" like a connoisseur, and more like reaping the practical benefits of solid typography. While there's certainly a lot of showy typography in the world, the sort found in the body copy of books is generally focused on readability, in other words, letting the eye/brain more easily recognize letters and words. Do we enjoy a book more when our eyes and brains aren't overtaxed? It's hard to imagine otherwise -- who enjoys eye strain? I'm less sure of it but I suspect this is true for lossy vs. lossless music as well. For example, one telltale sign of badly compressed music is when the percussion sounds more like blasts of white noise than the actual instruments -- these sharp transients are hard to losslessly compress efficiently. (It's somewhat similar to how the sharp edges of text and line art are not handled well by some lossy image formats like JPEG) Is a drum that actually sounds like a drum going to be more pleasing to the ear than something garbled and white-noisy, even if nobody tells you anything? Generally yes, I am fairly sure.
astrange 5y ago
Being partly deaf might be what lets you hear the compression artifacts, because a lot of it relies on masking effects.

StavrosK 5y ago

Why does any of this matter? The point of a blind ABX test (and the whole question) is to see whether you can tell the difference between two formats. If you can, you can. Personally, I stop being able to tell somewhere around 200 kbit MP3s (with cheap equipment), anything above that is wasted space. You can run the tests as much as you want, if the hypothesis is that "people can't tell the difference between lossless and 320 kbit MP3", even one person demonstrating that they can, disproves the entire hypothesis.

cies 5y ago
> I stop being able to tell somewhere around 200 kbit MP3s (with cheap equipment) Yups. Me too. Even with cheap professional equipment I cannot hear the difference of lossless vs >= 192kbps MP3. > anything above that is wasted space. Unless you want to mix/remix/etc. Changing the pitch brings out the artifacts.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  > Unless you want to mix/remix/etc. Changing the pitch brings out the artifacts. Certainly, you probably need lossless if you're going to do any sort of editing.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    Lossless, and possibly upsampling before editing, but high end gear probably does that by default. As for bitrate compression, although I have a good musical ear, I can't find any appreciable difference from a high bitrate (320) mp3 and the corresponding lossless track, so no problems using mp3s to listen to music. I also managed to resample my entire portable playlist (yeah, making mp3s out of mp3s, I know in some circles I could be killed just for thinking about that:*) to overcome that dreadful loudness craze that makes pretty much every track produced in the last 20-25 years destroy your ears if you happen to listen to it just after something 10 years older. Unfortunately all methods to level the tracks (mp3gain, replaygain etc.) don't work properly because they should analyze all tracks dynamic content, not just the average/maximum level, then first adjust their dynamics and later normalize their level. In other words, level compression should be applied more to softer tracks and not the other way around. So I faked a solution to the problem by reconverting my playlist after applying compression to an extremely low threshold, making clear to myself that none of those tracks would ever leave my player. Some sound really horrible, but I spared my ears.

ksec 5y ago

I think the Key point would be, could you hear any difference in those test? If you could, then yes there is a quality differential, rather you got it right or wrong may be subject to taste. But at least we established there are differences. But when we say 128Kbps are sort of CD Quality or CD being no-difference to 320Kbps mp3, they generally refers to vast majority of consumers, not audio experts. I think most consumers could tell the difference between 256kbps AAC and 128Kbps MP3. But beyond that it sort of goes into consumer dont give a damn territory. Although most Pros would want the highest quality possible and there are no reason why we cant deliver lossless with today's infrastructure. I am wondering if there is a market for an even cheaper Music Streaming Services that target lower quality, 128Kbps music.

breakfastduck 5y ago
128kbs is absolutely noticeable drop imo. I can't see any reason for 128kbs service unless you're absolutely starved for data. There is no other advantage.
- ksec 5y ago
  >I can't see any reason for 128kbs A lower price tier? Or even a Freemium model. Considering most of them are already available on Youtube. As strange as this may sound I dont think Streaming is the business model that will save Music industry. And despite the headlines ( whatever MSM likes to print these days ) most artist's real income are from somewhere else.
  - mixmastamyk 5y ago
    128k Opus is quite a bit better, if for some reason that bit rate is crucial.
  - breakfastduck 5y ago
    Streaming definitely wont 'save the industry', it woefully underpays the artists. You're only making that problem even worse by offering a low quality, even lower price model. Frankly I can't imagine there would be many artists particularly happy with having huge swathes of people introduced to their music at 128kbs.

tarsinge 5y ago

MP3 compression is not the same thing has compression the audio effect. Compressed music in the effect sense can be enjoyable and is a matter of taste, but hearable MP3 compression artifacts is nearly always crap.

chuchana 5y ago
For those unfamiliar with the other definition referenced here: dynamic range compression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression)

numpad0 5y ago

Been out of high end audio for few years, trying this test for past 30 minutes, and can't seem to get past 2/6 with wireless or wired or dynamic or BA or through proper amps or out of a laptop jack. Constantly falling into 320k. Maybe source isn't great in the first place, equalizer slightly suppressing low-mid and noise at the high is doing it.