MP3 now officially dead

jeremyjustic

jeremyjustic

Analog
Speaking for all the shy folk out there, that's both scary and sad, eh ... :oops::yikes::oops:

PS ... just downloaded a new release from Amazon ... gotta say, I'm buckin' the trend and diggin' it big time! <G>

61KFXygiP6L._SS500.jpg
 
I urge anyone inclined to take this crap seriously to actually read the study. As usual, the media has presented the study as saying something that it does not. The study tested 112 Kbps, 56 Kbps, and 32 Kbps (mentioning that previous studies have demonstrated that most individuals cannot tell the difference from uncompressed at 112 Kbps on page 856, as well as mentioning that most people hear artifacts at 56 Kbps and 32 Kbps bitrate MP3s). The study found no statistically significant differences in emotional perception between 112Kbps and uncompressed audio. Instead, the changes in perception were noted at the lower bitrate levels, varying by different instruments tested. Yet, these so called news sources report the headline "MP3s drain your music of emotion," a conclusion that was neither supported nor proposed by the cited article. Instead, we get a title that audiophiles want to hear. A more truthful title would be "Extremely low bitrate MP3 files change emotional perception of single-note, single-instrument audio clips in relation to uncompressed files." In case it isn't obvious, no one is listening to their MP3s at below 112Kbps. Even online free streaming is almost always above this bitrate. The entire article and the conclusions that the writers draw is a farce and does nothing but misinform the readers it targets.

Link to the actual paper: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18523
 
I hate to admit it but 320 Kbps sounds fine to me and I don't think I could tell the difference between it and the cd. Amazon has some downloads that are not available on cd like Rubber Rodeo's two EP's and they sound great.
 
Amazon runs most of their downloads at 256vbr ...

The "vbr" thing (variable bit rate) means it's an average. Simple content, the bitrate will drop as low as 60Kbps, and more complex passages will go higher, up to 320Kbps. More than enough to provide excellent sound quality and definition.

And yes, I HAVE been disappointed with some of the downloads, but you're bound to find a few sow's ears in the bunch. That's more a production issue from whoever supplies the media to them. I could say the same about some so called "hi-def" content I've downloaded.
 
Mp3 dead? With data transfer rates higher than ever as well as cheap fast storage it is about time it died. As for the emotional aspect study, sounds a bit like bs to me.
 
Damn. I'm listening to Daft Punk in MP3 format on my car stereo on the way to work. Granted I ripped it at 320k, but it sounds plenty good for the car.
 
Anyone with a job has already been drained today, sorry, can't donate. But I'll recharge with some music via my Zune.
 
Just more fake news...
I hate these agendaized articles that are basically propaganda.
I looked at the link in the article about how vinyl sales outstripped digital downloads, but it's a Phyrric victory as users are streaming these days,and not buying ANY sort of hard copy music.

Record stores are doing better, but don't bet the ranch on vinyl regaining it's leadership position of the 50s to 80s; it ain't happening..
 
Last edited:
MP3 ... from the start was a dumb downed version of AAC. MP3 adoption had more to do w/ licensing revenue.

They were both created by the same person ... German electrical engineer and mathematician Karlheinz Brandenburg ... who has never wanted to be known as the father of MP3.

Most people (general public) ... can't tell the difference between higher bit rate MP3 & full rez.

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

MQA is hardly a fait accompli

As far as Vinyl (my favorite format by the way)... it will never be mainstream again .... and most people who even own a TT are using Crosley types.
 
dave1701 said:
I urge anyone inclined to take this crap seriously to actually read the study. As usual, the media has presented the study as saying something that it does not. The study tested 112 Kbps, 56 Kbps, and 32 Kbps (mentioning that previous studies have demonstrated that most individuals cannot tell the difference from uncompressed at 112 Kbps on page 856, as well as mentioning that most people hear artifacts at 56 Kbps and 32 Kbps bitrate MP3s). The study found no statistically significant differences in emotional perception between 112Kbps and uncompressed audio. Instead, the changes in perception were noted at the lower bitrate levels, varying by different instruments tested. Yet, these so called news sources report the headline "MP3s drain your music of emotion," a conclusion that was neither supported nor proposed by the cited article. Instead, we get a title that audiophiles want to hear. A more truthful title would be "Extremely low bitrate MP3 files change emotional perception of single-note, single-instrument audio clips in relation to uncompressed files." In case it isn't obvious, no one is listening to their MP3s at below 112Kbps. Even online free streaming is almost always above this bitrate. The entire article and the conclusions that the writers draw is a farce and does nothing but misinform the readers it targets.

Link to the actual paper: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18523
Click to expand...


Thank you for linking the study.......when I read the article I noticed right away that the study quoted was not linked OR footnoted, a sure sign of BS being presented. A click bait article that uses a massive exaggeration to get eyeballs.
 
Condorsat said:
MP3 ... from the start was a dumb downed version of AAC. MP3 adoption had more to do w/ licensing revenue.

They were both created by the same person ... German electrical engineer and mathematician Karlheinz Brandenburg ... who has never wanted to be known as the father of MP3.

Most people (general public) ... can't tell the difference between higher bit rate MP3 & full rez.

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

MQA is hardly a fait accompli

As far as Vinyl (my favorite format by the way)... it will never be mainstream again .... and most people who even own a TT are using Crosley types.
Click to expand...


I read that article before moving to Spotify Premium a few months ago. I thought the regular service sounded fine but I liked the commercial free aspect of premium. The only sound difference I notice is the same as I notice with every other format; some songs sound better depending on how they were originally recorded.
 
Bodyblue said:
I read that article before moving to Spotify Premium a few months ago. I thought the regular service sounded fine but I liked the commercial free aspect of premium. The only sound difference I notice is the same as I notice with every other format; some songs sound better depending on how they were originally recorded.
Click to expand...

IMHO & in my experience w/ gear I own ... I can tell the difference between Spotify Ogg Vorbis (160kpbs) free add version & Tidal (320kbps AAC) on my mains rig.

Results vary with the gear I'm using ... on my PC audio rig (work desk) ... it's not as apparent.
Change your gear & your opinion might change as well.

Again IMHO ... the better mastered recordings will make better MP3's or AAC files. Original source recording is more important than format.

Essentialy ... the YouTube video below explains it.

Raining on Neil Young's Pono Music Parade
 
I've played songs via an Amazon Alexa and simultaneously played the cd version at the same time switching back and forth to see if I could detect a difference. Maybe it's my 72 year old ears, or the type of music I listen to(or both), but I couldn't hear much, if any difference. YMMV
 
botrytis said:
No format is totally dead other than '78's.

I can hear a difference between 320K and FLAC/WAV files but I think I may be in the minority. Also with FLAC becoming a standard, since the files are 50% smaller than the WAV file, why use mp3 format. That is me though.
Click to expand...
I think 16 2/3 is dead! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom