Hi-fi music streaming: People can't tell it when they hear it

[GChief]

Absolutely. I use to use my hearing that way in my former profession ... not music related. Detailed active listening is an acquired skill set.

Never forgot this clip about hearing from the 70's Kung FU TV series.

Just found this tread and found it interesting. Having taught an Aural Recognition class (23yrs as a Sonar Tech) I know for certain that people can be trained, I taught 20 yr old "MP3's are great" kids for a week at a time. Class room had some great play back equipment BTW, don't know why I never opened those gray Navy cabinets to take a look at the guts.

 

[ConradH]

Remember, MP3 was specifically designed so "most people can't tell the difference." That was the goal and it seems to have succeeded. The compression is variable, so it can sound anywhere between very good and crappy. Of all the people I've worked with over the years, in technical fields no less, almost none cared about audio quality or could tell the difference.

 

[chicks]

MP3 codecs have improved greatly over the years, and the AAC codec is very good. Not aware of anyone who has passed a blind test of AAC256 vs uncompressed, no matter how "well trained".

 

[savatage1973]

I think the biggest "take-away" from this thread and their experiment is that most people just don't care. They just take in what is fed to them and deal with it. Those of us that "critically listen" are clearly in the minority--not necessarily here, but in the general population--certainly. I have (non-audio) friends that think my systems sound great, but are more than happy to go home and listen to their phone or iPod and never think about spending a dime on a quality system.

 

[N8Nagel]

I think the biggest "take-away" from this thread and their experiment is that most people just don't care. They just take in what is fed to them and deal with it. Those of us that "critically listen" are clearly in the minority--not necessarily here, but in the general population--certainly. I have (non-audio) friends that think my systems sound great, but are more than happy to go home and listen to their phone or iPod and never think about spending a dime on a quality system.

I think a lot of it is too that people may even have an interest, but they drive over to Magnolia and get sticker shock. Which is why this place is great... I can keep reading and learn what's the good 'under the radar' gear and also learn what the common problems and repairs are with the gear I already have...

 

[GChief]

My GF looks at me like I am crazy when I ask her if she can hear the sound of the wood when a drum stick hits the edge of a snare or a brush on snare etc... Who knows maybe I am hearing things? She will sit and listen to music as the event instead of just back ground noise which she never has done before. Of course she may just be humoring me

 

[Cleve]

At what 'bit rate' is the gear the limiting factor in being able to discern? I might not be able to tell 256 from 64 kbps on a boom box, for instance, though the difference is very noticeable to me on my system.

IF they're using low tier bookshelf speakers for this test, with limited low end and highs, that could be the limiting factor.

 

[eljr]

It's all about the mastering, and the pressing, or transferring to a different media as to how good something is going to sound

bam'

nothing more needs be said

 

[savatage1973]

It's all about the mastering, and the pressing, or transferring to a different media as to how good something is going to sound..

I have to partially agree because "garbage in = garbage out", (even on the best of systems) but there is a lot more to "the chain"--and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so there are so many other factors involved to pick one "miracle" solution/answer.

 

[Condorsat]

I think the biggest "take-away" from this thread and their experiment is that most people just don't care.

True that ... check out the reactions of these folks.

 

[eljr]

True that ... check out the reactions of these folks.

they gave them Beats headphones...... are they not engineered to have their own sound irrespective of the music? Kinda a ridiculous "test", no?

 

[Aspen]

they gave them Beats headphones...... are they not engineered to have their own sound irrespective of the music? Kinda a ridiculous "test", no?

The thing is that almost all of them correctly identified the higher res audio using the Beats, but wouldn't pay for it except for one girl. That would appear to be a big problem for a high res streaming business model.

 

[GChief]

they gave them Beats headphones...... are they not engineered to have their own sound irrespective of the music? Kinda a ridiculous "test", no?

That was the first thing I noticed.

 

[evoroadster]

High res Tidal costs me $12/month. They discount their price for military personnel (I am retired Air Force.) It seems very reasonable for access to millions of songs. I run it through a Schiit Modi Mulitibit into a Dynaco SCA35 and out to some modified Klipsch Forte II speakers. It sounds damn good to these 67 year old ears.

 

[GChief]

High res Tidal costs me $12/month. They discount their price for military personnel (I am retired Air Force.) It seems very reasonable for access to millions of songs. I run it through a Schiit Modi Mulitibit into a Dynamo SCA35 and out to some modified Klipsch Forte II speakers. It sounds damn good to these 67 year old ears.

That's good to know being a retired squid!!

 

[Alobar]

High res Tidal costs me $12/month. They discount their price for military personnel (I am retired Air Force.) It seems very reasonable for access to millions of songs. I run it through a Schiit Modi Mulitibit into a Dynamo SCA35 and out to some modified Klipsch Forte II speakers. It sounds damn good to these 67 year old ears.

Yes I can believe that.

 

[Alobar]

MP3 codecs have improved greatly over the years, and the AAC codec is very good. Not aware of anyone who has passed a blind test of AAC256 vs uncompressed, no matter how "well trained".

And you would become aware of this how?

 

[eljr]

And you would become aware of this how?

i am not, how?

 

[chicks]

And you would become aware of this how?

Pretty simple, someone will run a valid test, and show proof that they passed it with a confidence level well beyond random chance. Every test I've seen shows it hasn't been done.

 

[Alobar]

Pretty simple, someone will run a valid test, and show proof that they passed it with a confidence level well beyond random chance. Every test I've seen shows it hasn't been done.

Seems far from simple, having to personally check out the validity of all those tests, the conditions in which they were run, who ran them (and for what purpose) and who they drug in off the street to test it all on (and what their hearing ability was as well as listening skill). And of course what was the quality of the system, listening room, amount of distractions etc. I would then put into question who exactly is funding these tests, what agenda that they might have, and how they might stand to gain from spreading the word that lossy is indistinguishable from lossless on a GOOD system. For me the only thing that might satisfy some doubt of the validity of the tests would be reading some sort of science based peer reviews, not just on whether lossy is indistinguishable, but on the use of the ABX test itself, how the mind perceives subtle differences in SQ, how long it takes to perceive them, and exactly what the music choices used in the test were. Just too many ways these things can get manipulated by pure BS.
I know I am coming across a bit doubtful and it is for good reason. I really do not like the sound of lossy.