Apple and EMI to offer 256 kbps, DRM-Free songs

[opie]

I just saw this April 2nd press release from apple and thought it would be of interest to users here.

I tried to post the press release in a quote but the Spam hating cyborg deleted it so the link to it is
here.

 

[CollinR]

Thats very interesting, I would do it then.

 

[upstatemike]

Isn't 256Kb/s kind of on the low side for fidelity?


edit..spelling

 

[hucker]

Isn'y 256Kb/s kind of on the low side for fidelity?

I don't think so. I certainly am not a pro at things musical but I've come to the conclusion that the compressed vs uncompressed music is BS (just like monster cables) once you get past a threshold bitrate. Before I ripped my CD collection I researched it a bit and found many articles like this:

http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessounds...al/mp3test.html

Trained professional musicians and recording engineers, in blind tests at 256kbs could not distiquish wav from compressed in a statistacally significant fashion.

Since I'm not trained 192 works just fine for me.

 

[upstatemike]

Years ago when I first decided to rip my music I decided to use MP3 rather than a lossless format because it was more universally supported and I wasn't sure what hardware I would end up with. (At that time it was an Audiotron but now have moved to SlimServer). I don't consider myself to be as picky as a true "audiophile" but I remember at the time when I did A/B comparisons at different bit rates that there was enough of a difference for me to choose 320 Kps as my standard.

Now I wonder if it was just my imagination. Might be interesting to go through the testing process again.

 

[CollinR]

I would still be concerned about universal acceptence.

I also use 320k for MP3s your correct Mike, although the difference isn't great some can percieve it. However there are also other better encoding options that can be lossless at 256k and possibly less.


MP3 is definately universally accepted.

 

[opie]

However there are also other better encoding options that can be lossless at 256k and possibly less.

These DRM fre e songs still use the AAC compression format. I am no compression expert, but I thought AAC was slightly more efficient than MP3 so 256 kbps AAC might sound better than 256 kbps MP3.

Definately worth trying the different options.

It's really a subjective matter wheather 256 kbps is good enough, depends on the type of music and the quality of the system it is played back on. It's similar to the "what is a good cctv camera" debate. It really depends what the consumer thinks is important.

I met a record producer at EHX who thought anything less than 5.1 audio was garbage. I'm pretty happy with my iPod and plain old 128 kbps for most stuff though.

 

[BraveSirRobbin]

BSR Edit: Opie, here is your post from above. The spam hating cyborg hasn't had breakfeast and ate your original post. Sorry, BSR

However there are also other better encoding options that can be lossless at 256k and possibly less.

These DRM free songs still use the AAC compression format. I am no compression expert, but I thought AAC was slightly more efficient than MP3 so 256 kbps AAC might sound better than 256 kbps MP3.

Definately worth trying the different options.

It's really a subjective matter wheather 256 kbps is good enough, depends on the type of music and the quality of the system it is played back on. It's similar to the "what is a good cctv camera" debate. It really depends what the consumer thinks is important.

I met a record producer at EHX who thought anything less than 5.1 audio was garbage. I'm pretty happy with my i - Pod and plain old 128 kbps for most stuff though.

 

[hucker]

I would still be concerned about universal acceptence.

I also use 320k for MP3s your correct Mike, although the difference isn't great some can percieve it. However there are also other better encoding options that can be lossless at 256k and possibly less.


MP3 is definately universally accepted.

Collin:

Do you have a reference to a blind test where people could tell the difference between 256 and 320k? The test results I've read say that 192 to 256 is the threshold where humans can't differentiate.

 

[samgreco]

I don't think so. I certainly am not a pro at things musical but I've come to the conclusion that the compressed vs uncompressed music is BS (just like monster cables) once you get past a threshold bitrate. Before I ripped my CD collection I researched it a bit and found many articles like this:

I would challenge anyone to go to their local high end hifi store (there are still some out there) and do a comparison of ANY compressed format with the original CD on a high end system and tell me that you can't hear the difference.

It may not matter to you, but there is an audible difference.

I have done comparisons on my studio monitors and can most definitely hear it. The biggest thing being imaging. Both width and depth.

EDIT: But I agree with you on the Monster Cables Snake Oil.

 

[elcano]

I would challenge anyone to go to their local high end hifi store (there are still some out there) and do a comparison of ANY compressed format with the original CD on a high end system and tell me that you can't hear the difference.

I can't hear it. But you can't count with me. I have surgery in both ears and my frequency response is not flat at all - so even the flatest reference monitor might sound like cheap plastic cones to me. You can bet that I save a lot in music equipment.

I still remember similar arguments about digital music at all. Audiophiles (or whatever that means), said that CDs were not as good as analog laserdiscs.

I have a few friends with recording studios. So I just came to an idea for an excellent scientific fair experiment for the kid's school. A double blind experiment. Compare lossy format vs. original WAV format. If at least 1 out of 10 people can differentiate one from the other in 80% of the samples presented, then the format is not good enough. I say 80% of the samples because anything near 50% (60 or 70%) might be just luck. It must be double blind. Experimenter #1 prepares the samples and playsbakc them, while experimenter #2 tabulates the answers from the audiophile evaluators. Experimenter #2 must not know what is being played by experimenter #1 (so he must not hear the music neither). At the end they join and compare results. I would visit Hi-Fi stores and invite self-proclaimed audhiophiles to the test.

For the encoder I would use the lastest LAME MP3 encoder version. The LAME encoder has been fine tuned during the years, and is considered as comparable to most of the newest lossy format (check hydrogenaudio.com). While not necessarily the best, it is almost as good, with a lot more portability than ACC, WMA or Ogg. Obviuosly, I would use a Variable bit rate. CBR is inefficient since during simple passages it uses the same bit rate than during complex ones. For my personal rippings I use -V2, a quality setting that usually averages aroun 192-220kbs, but goes as high as 280kbs if needed or as low as 160kbs. It sounds more than good for my imperfect ears. Actually, it is aligned to what the LAME programmers recommend (standard).

 

[hucker]

I would challenge anyone to go to their local high end hifi store (there are still some out there) and do a comparison of ANY compressed format with the original CD on a high end system and tell me that you can't hear the difference.

Not wanting to confuse sales people with scientists , I would suggest that the local hifi store is the worst place to do such a test.

The link I posted above did the test you suggested. It found at 250kbs highly trained musicians and recording engineers could not differentiate between WAV and MP3. The details of the test and the double blind methods are worth reading.