Survey shows increasing preference for MP3 by youngsters, audiophiles weep

We can already envision the flame fest on this one, so we'll just cut to the chase. Jonathan Berger, professor of music at Stanford, has been conducting some pretty interesting tests on incoming students, and he's been recording results that'll surely make audiophiles cringe. He has been asking his students to listen to tracks in MP3 format as well as in formats of much higher quality, all while asking them to select the one they like best; increasingly, youngsters have been choosing the sizzling, tinny sounds of MP3 over more pure representations. The reasoning may have more to do with psychology that audiology, as many conclude that generations simply prefer what they're used to. Ever known someone to swear that vinyl sounds best, pops and all? So yeah, what we've really learned is that MP3 is more of an "acquired taste," but those still attempting to build their SACD collection should be genuinely afraid of the future.

[Via techdirt, image courtesy of iasos]

[Aaron @ Mar 9th 2009 6:48AM]

The problem is that most people are still okay with 128-kbps mp3 files. I remember in the days of Napster when I thought that sounded okay. This was back when I was still stuck on my old 56k connection and files took tens of minutes to download instead of a couple minutes.

For me, the bare MINIMUM is 192, and even then I try to look for files higher than that. I carry my CD collection with me on my Zune so I have to rip files in a compressed format, but I use EAC + LAME and the audio files come out sounding relatively close to their hardcopy counterparts.

For pure backup purposes, you should use lossless WMA or FLAC. If you want to get REALLY anal about the way your audio sounds, just rip the files as WAV's.

[wrabbit @ Mar 9th 2009 7:02AM]

I may be wrong but aren't CDs recorded at 192kbps, meaning you can't get any higher quality from them?
As for my personal experience, I can only tell the difference between between 192 and 128 on my home system, and even then only some tracks. Most of the music I listen to is in the car and I find that 128 sounds just fine.

[Tes @ Mar 9th 2009 7:04AM]

Actually, I think the problem is...you THINK there's a problem. Your Zune carries YOUR personal music collection, your personal musical tastes. If people are happy with 128kbps files, then who are we to complain? People who came before us never had sound at as high fidelity as we have had access to yet more often than not we bemoan the lack of great modern music to match what has gone before. Soulja Boy is still Soulja Boy no matter how many bits he's coming at you with. The Beatles, Aretha Franklin and London Philharmonic Orchestra are still who they are if they are on a bad 56k connection, a crusty old TDK cassette tape or warped vinyl.

[CJ @ Mar 9th 2009 7:13AM]

No

It's a common mistake that CDs are recorded at 192Kb/s, but this is completely false.

CDs are in fact recorded, for the most part, in 44.1kHz uncompressed (either 44 000 or 44 100 Hz). That's why you can only fit about 80 minutes of Audio on a standard 700MB CD.

[Elora HRanma @ Mar 9th 2009 7:14AM]

wrabbit, it is 1411 kb/s, uncompressed sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(audio_CD_standard)#Technical_details

[DWells55 @ Mar 9th 2009 7:20AM]

Also, what kind of audio equipment were they using for this test? On a decent to good sound system, I have a hard time believing people wouldn't prefer lossless or V0 over low-quality MP3. I'm 19 and definitely prefer V2/V0 rips and friends in my age group often comment on how good it sounds/ However, if these kids are listening to higher quality sound files but just using crap iPod headphones, then it's not going to matter. In fact, I could see this making sense in that case, as poor quality audio components aren't going to be able to properly handle the range that higher quality and lossless audio can offer.

[irdepesca @ Mar 9th 2009 7:28AM]

EAC - this person knows what they're doing..

"If you want to get REALLY anal about the way your audio sounds, just rip the files as WAV's."

Pointless, if you convert the flac to wav it is exactly the same thing. Waste of disc space.

[DWells55 @ Mar 9th 2009 7:29AM]

Also, wrabbit, audio is recorded in a lossless .wav format (and stored at 44.1 KHz linear PCM on a CD) as the other people here have told you. However, 128kbps not being a clear difference in your car makes sense. Car audio is generally not hi-fidelity, and there's the constant background noise of driving as well as other various noises which will cover a lot of the detail in the audio.

Assuming your home audio equipment is of decent quality, you should be able to tell the difference between 192 Kbps and better quality audio. Try getting your hands on some FLAC music, it's a compressed audio format to save space but is still lossless (however songs still clock in over 20MBs easy). Or, buy a CD off retail shelves, preferably one that isn't known for being "loud" or otherwise poorly mastered. For example, Metallica's new album is mastered to be as loud as possible, harming its dynamic range and just sounds muddy in general. I like the album, I just don't like the way it was mastered.

[r3loaded @ Mar 9th 2009 8:57AM]

Remember though, most people still listen on their crappy bundled iPod headphones. I got some new Sennheiser in-ear phones for my birthday a couple of months ago, the difference in quality was amazing - thankfully, nearly all of my music collection on my iPod Touch is at V0. It's noise isolation was so good that I actually used them as earplugs on a plane. :)

[DWells55 @ Mar 9th 2009 9:26AM]

Yeah, r3loaded, I own a pair of Sennheiser cx300 in-ear headphones and love them. The bass is a bit too high and it dilutes the mids and highs a bit, but they're really a great deal for the $70 or so I paid a few years ago. Definitely nice when you just want something simple and portable and I find the noise isolation to work quite well. I also used them on a couple flights over the summer and they were excellent at drowning out both the engine noise as well as other noise form my surroundings such as conversations.

I listened to a friend's music briefly through his iPod headphones and can't get over how lousy cheap headphones sound by comparison. It's not just distortion, it's that you actually lose a very noticeable amount of detail in the music. Although I understand that a lot of people simply don't care or whatever, I think many of them really don't know what they're missing. I'm not saying everyone should go out and drop a ton of money on high-end audio, but given that you can grab those cx300 headphones for like $30 these days to replace cheap earbuds and that a CD with lossless audio to replace 128 Kbps MP3s is only $10 or so, more people should give it a shot.

[BananaBoat @ Mar 9th 2009 12:43PM]

I have friends that can't tell the difference between a junky 10 year old pair of Koss headphones and my AKG K701's (With FLAC audio rips directly from my CD collection, and the phones plugged into an amp). I have a sibling that SWEARS up and down that she can't tell the difference between an HD channel and an SD channel (when I'm flipping back and forth to show the difference).

Not everyone is blessed with the best equipment (as far as eyes and ears go).The brain has a funny way of compensating for the inability of the eyes and ears to render (I guess would be the correct word) fine details. Chances are that at least someone reading this is completely unable to see either a primary color, or a secondary color, and they will most likely never have any idea.

[adrian @ Mar 9th 2009 4:30PM]

I think that's a funny picture.

[telepheedian @ Mar 9th 2009 6:51AM]

Personally, I'm a fan of V0 encoding, I've listened to some vinyl rips encoded that way and they seemed to have more dynamic range than CDs (I could be wrong though).

[DWells55 @ Mar 9th 2009 7:16AM]

V0 MP3s sound great and are very close to lossless (.wav, .flac), even when played on a high end sound system. V2 doesn't sound as good, but is still very good. The large majority of my collection is V0 or V2, with the minimum being 192 Kbps CBR which is passable.

[Patrick @ Mar 9th 2009 8:22AM]

You are wrong.
"The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as a the ratio of a peak sinusoudal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80db. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120db. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150db. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback"
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Myths

[telepheedian @ Mar 9th 2009 10:03AM]

Could be the mastering job on the vinyl then, I'm referencing a vinyl rip of DSOTM specifically. The bass seems less compressed, and the entire album seems smoother and warmer.

[telepheedian @ Mar 9th 2009 10:09AM]

Also, the two copies I was referencing were both encoded at V0, played through a Zune 80gb with lenntek sonix earphones, if things need to be specific.

[Joe @ Mar 9th 2009 10:27AM]

He may be wrong, but not as wrong as you, Patrick. Records in general only have a dynamic range of 65dB as their upper limit. Theoretically, a record could have a much larger range, but because dynamics are physically modeled in the groove, anything more would simply kick the needle out of the groove. This is why most old rock recordings have the drums in the middle, and most old classical recordings have the basses there as well. Analog tape fares better, with a maximum dynamic range of 84dB with half-track recording at 15ips.

On the other hand, digital audio is capable of a maximum of 6.02dB per bit, plus 1.76dB. This gives CD a range of about 98dB (Often cited as 96dB because of the common 6dB per bit rounded value). Dolby AC3 is 120dB (Audio format used on DVD), but to use that maximum dynamic range, the audio would have to be louder than the threshold of pain. A professional symphony orchestra can use 90dB, though the higher bit rates do make a difference because they push down the noise floor, even if the music itself never uses all the bits.

However, this isn't all about capabilities, and Patrick could very well be correct depending on what he's listening to. In the heyday of records (1960s-1970s), so many artists, the ones who people still care about anyways, focused on the concept of the "album" rather than the "single", and the records were mixed for home listening on decent systems. On the other hand, while there are some artists still making "albums", the "single" is a lot more prevalent in today's popular music. Therefore, the CDs are generally mixed for radio play. Despite FM radio having a theoretical dynamic range of 70dB, most stations use only the top 5-10dB unfortunately, with all their material undergoing heavy compression, if it didn't already come that way. The reasoning is two-fold: 1. If you have the loudest station, it's most likely to catch someone's attention, and 2. The louder the signal, the more broadcasting power it uses, and the farther the signal reaches.

(All sources: The Audio Recording Handbook and Fundamentals of Digital Audio by Alan Kefauver, first hand class with Alan Kefauver, Chuck Thompson [Of NPR recording fame], and Michael MacDonald [Grammy award winning mastering engineer])

[Joe @ Mar 9th 2009 10:29AM]

Apologies for the double post. DSOTM is considered by many, myself included, to be the greatest recorded, mixed, and mastered album of all time. There are numerous, slightly different, versions available from tape, to record, CD, and SA-CD. While all are a bit different, all of them make use of a very wide dynamic range. It's not really a fair comparison, as DSOTM is really the pinnacle of the "album" movement. Everything else is in my first post.

[Patrick @ Mar 9th 2009 11:52AM]

Tele, then whoever mastered the CD of DSOTM mucked it up. No doubt the CD is louder and it probably is compressed in the digital mastering. That's a shame. Unfortunately a lot of the time the flexibility of digital mastering has destroyed many of the CDs techical advantages as many engineers compress the original recording, thus lowering its dynamic ranges, to make it sound louder. Wiki 'The Loudness War'.

[telepheedian @ Mar 9th 2009 11:55AM]

Wow, awesome to see so many responses. I'm probably not the most qualified person to speak about the comparisons of vinyl vs cd, I'm too young to own a vinyl collection, I was just describing my impressions of different types of rips I have, and how they compare to each other. There are a lot of different masters of DSOTM, the vinyl rip I was listening to was from the US harvest 1973 edition, and the CD rip I had was ripped from (I think) the 1994 capitol records release. I grabbed them both from a reputable private tracker, so I'm pretty sure of the quality, what is considered to be the best version of the different CDs/vinyls? I heard some things about bizarre surround mixing on the SACD version, and I want to compare the best versions of CD and Vinyl. Like I said, I don't own any vinyl, but I'm defintely considering picking some up.

[telepheedian @ Mar 9th 2009 12:08PM]

And yes, I do know about the Loudness war, I can't stand it, and I listen to music exclusively on my Zune, which cd mastering would you recommend?

[Patrick @ Mar 13th 2009 8:29AM]

The CD mastering is done by the engineer. If they screw it up then there's nothing you can do about. Theoretically CDs should have better technical specs than vinyl. I remember one of the first CDs I ever heard was Dire Straights 'Brother in Arms' and I thought at the time is was the best recording I've ever heard. The dynamic range was amazing.

[telepheedian @ Mar 9th 2009 2:22PM]

I know that the mastering is done by the engineer, I was just asking which particular edition of DSOTM you recommend, that's all.

[dan2600 @ Mar 9th 2009 2:52PM]

one thing you have to keep in mind with vinyl and CD is one is analogue and the other is digital. Vinyls have a "sample rate" of...well infinite...it is a drawn sine wave on the grove of the record...while the dB response is indeed better in the digital realm, you still have to keep in mind that you lose something with the sample rate (mostly overtones that you can't hear anyway and most speakers can't reproduce, but many say it still adds something to the audio).

More importantly records are mastered in a different way in terms of peek audio....

When mastering a record you had to be sure the audio was kept in a rage that it didn't break the needle of the master cutter (expensive to replace, and mostly they made the audio guy pay to replace it if he broke it). Generally Records are mastered at a lower volume, but less compressed, thus giving the feeling of more dynamic range. Sometimes during recording even, a "Soft" clip could be used as effect. Lastly, volume wasn't that much of an issue, since all records were listened to at home, and the persons amp of course could be used to make it louder.

CDs on the other hand have a digital clip (in which levels will cut out and just not be heard). Mastersers are given 3 tasks this day in age...make it loud enough for radio, and loud enough for MP3, and don't clip. Most Mp3 players have a very low max volume amplification (much lower then most portable CD players). Therefore in order to make up for this, most mastering agents now in days compress the hell out of tracks and make all spectrums as close to 0dB (digitally) as possible, so even on your iPod with the sad amp, it sounds loud still.

The only guys now-in-days that i see actually do a decent mastering job are minimal techno guys, and old school rock junkies who still do it analogue and then let some other shmuck digitize it.

I guess what im saying is, its Mp3 players fault that audio quality has gone to hell, get some better amps in the things.

[Joe @ Mar 9th 2009 3:22PM]

dan: While analog is not sampled, and therefore has an 'infinite' sample rate, that does not necessarily translate into higher frequencies. In records, though a very high quality stylus can read up to 76kHz, the platters themselves rarely top 20kHz, and after only 35 playbacks, it is considered 'acceptable' to only have 10kHz. For comparison, the Nyquist rate on CD (The highest possible frequency) is 22.05kHz, and on DVD it's 24kHz.

Analog tape is another beast, because it is electronically stored. For tape, the highest frequency is limited by the head gap and tape speed. Obviously, the recorder cannot record a frequency that is smaller than the gap, or the amount of tape that passes by during an oscillation. The faster the tape, the higher the response. At 30 ips, you will indeed get a higher frequency than on CD or DVD, but at the expense of the low end (30ips tape has troubles under 60Hz or so), at 15 ips, the low end is fine, but the upper frequencies roll off well before the Nyquist of CD or DVD.

Also, if you look at the frequency responses of microphones, pre-amplifiers, (analog) mixers, power amplifiers, and loudspeakers, anything that high up won't be accurate by any stretch of the imagination, if it's even there.

Other than that, some very good information.

[tcc3 @ Mar 9th 2009 7:00AM]

I only keep the phone number of the band and just call them in to play when I want to hear a song. No recording, no compression. From their instruments to my ears.

[wrabbit @ Mar 9th 2009 7:05AM]

Yeah but you're hearing it over the phone lines, those can't carry even a smidgen of the full range of sounds. That is of course unless you meant that the band just comes over and plays in person. :)

[jeesusfreek @ Mar 9th 2009 7:17AM]

you do that too? i thought i was the only one.

[Dopefish @ Mar 9th 2009 10:36AM]

Wow wabbit, way to COMPLETELY miss the point....

[CJ @ Mar 9th 2009 7:04AM]

I believe that if you took an older test group, you would have wildly different results.

It's a known fact that adolecent's ears are capable of hearing much higher frequencies than fully-developed adults, and I think that's one of the reasons they prefer the higher-toned MP3 files; I know I did, a few years ago. Now, high-toned MP3s seem too tinny for me, but back then low-toned songs annoyed me, because I couldn't decipher all the sounds.

It's probably also a mix of what they're used to, lack of any other decent sources of music, and, well, iPods.

[Scott @ Mar 9th 2009 3:05PM]

Im inclined to agree with you on this. I also don’t think it says enough about how the music was presented, was in on a full balanced monitor system. Or was if just put on some headphones and give it a listen?
No mater what people think about there headphone they never give a complete representation of the source. That is why no one in dose there final masters in headphones.
If you really want to give someone an under standing of compression you need to let them hear it on a system that show all the flaws in audio (that’s why they make monitors).

[Elora HRanma @ Mar 9th 2009 7:06AM]

It figures. People prefer the louder sound of mp3, with every note being lost in the awful mix, because it gives the impression of being surrounded all the time. People are used to not being able to tell one instrument from another, or simply don't care about other thing than the tune.

The loudness war is exactly the same: lower quality, higher loudness, less differentiation. It has been going on for decades, always getting worse. Why would people prefer something different for their compression tools?

[WhyFi @ Mar 9th 2009 9:13AM]

Yeah, I'm thinking something alone the same lines - the MP3s being chosen mostly because they're louder, but who knows for sure with the complete lack of information on the 'tests' (sounds more like an informal survey, to me). Are the results being skewed by genre? I'd like to see the numbers broken down as such, including contemporary music (more likely to be listened to by that age group) that actually HAS some dynamic range to begin with (might be a tall order).

[telepheedian @ Mar 9th 2009 12:17PM]

I don't think they make any contemporary pop that has a good dynamic range, although it'd be awesome if someone could come up with some examples.

[BobTurbo @ Mar 9th 2009 7:13AM]

Audio confuses the hell out of me. There are so many options and opinions and things that don't make sense. My car audio system distorts a bit - I am assuming it is a digital amp - yet it works well enough to let the music achieve its job of making me feel something. Meanwhile, I have tried high end analog amps that have sounded flat and boring even though they didn't distort. I don't know wtf is going on. I have also tried high-end analog amps that sound great...

[Richard Glitter @ Mar 9th 2009 2:41PM]

Hear, hear.. I pop in on the whole compression format and ratio debates every few years or so, since the mid nineties when mp3 came out. And usually a few hours of googling and reading forums is all I can stand before my head explodes.

I am not an obsessive audio geek, so I still stick with 192 CBR mp3, and have been for about 10 years now! I know it's not as good as what you can get with lower ratios, or lossless compression, but in the end, on the equipment I listen to music on, it sounds PRETTY DAMN GOOD. I don't sit and analyze the audio. I just enjoy the music. To each his own.

I can, however, tell the difference between 128 and 192kbps, usually with sections of complex highs or lots of different sounds in the mix, like electronic music.

I am also not one of the folks who rip their whole CD collection and toss the CDs though, as I still like the discs for in the car, etc. I just tossed all the jewel cases and now my collection is a manageable size so I have no more incentive to get rid of the discs. I don't want to go FLAC and have an enormous dataset to maintain, migrate around, backup, etc. My personal data backups are large enough and I don't even store many movies.

[dvsche73 @ Mar 9th 2009 7:14AM]

Great. Let's get ready for a battle royal. If it were by number, I would bet on the non audiophiles. But the audiophiles have such passion. It's going to be great to read!

[BobTurbo @ Mar 9th 2009 7:16AM]

What is wrong with Apple Lossless?

[Sax25 @ Mar 9th 2009 7:29AM]

Because it's Apple! Why use their lossless format when you can use FLAC and not be linked/limited etc to a specific company? If you are going to be converting to lossless, you may as well just use FLAC.

[Andir3.0 @ Mar 9th 2009 9:27AM]

All FLAC, all the time. I just recently ripped all my CDs to FLAC. Hard drives are cheap enough.

[Aiyo @ Mar 10th 2009 3:03AM]

Apple Lossless is pretty much the same as regular FLAC. Apple lossless is just optimized for iPod line of products.

[superhobo @ Mar 9th 2009 7:21AM]

Meh, screw audiophiles! >:D

[r3n @ Mar 9th 2009 7:41AM]

Careful, their superior ears can hear EVERYTHING.

[superhobo @ Mar 9th 2009 8:03AM]

I hear their $799 Denon whips never miss, because they have directional markings!

[alex @ Mar 9th 2009 10:29AM]

@r3n

You mean the same way they can tell the difference between coat wire hangers and Monster cables?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/

[Joe @ Mar 9th 2009 10:42AM]

alex: No self respecting audiophile would use Monster cables. I'm an audiophile, but not a crazy one who thinks you need $20/ft Cardas cable to connect everything. Yes, it has superb shielding, etc. but given a large enough gauge, it would take a very long distance before the benefits become apparent. Over a short distance, the large gauge of a hanger compared to most speaker cable would have made it more than enough to match the quality.

[Master Bruce @ Mar 9th 2009 12:26PM]

here here!

[trab @ Mar 9th 2009 7:26AM]

I used my iPod for music in my car via a FM transmitter but the interference and such really got on my nerve, so now I've put music on CDs, but it has been ripped at 128kbps, and when I put in a store bought CD you really hear the difference. How can somebody prefer the lower quality sound? Now I'm in the process of re-ripping my CDs (100 or so). Does anybody know the best way quality wise for burning your own discs?

[Metayoshi @ Mar 9th 2009 8:30AM]

This is a tutorial of how to rip one of the most accurate copies of your CD onto your hard drive:

http://www.soniconthenet.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2656

I have used this for the few video game and Anime OSTs that I actually bought just to make sure that I have a backed up copy somewhere just in case I lose my CDs or my house catches on fire or some other disaster happens to take away my material possessions.