[Macworld]

Post your comments for Listen- (or shut-) up here

[bonaccij]

Thank you, Mr. Breen. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[AnubisIV]

Amen to the article.
I know that with me, I simply do not have good ears. I never have. I once conducted a blind test on myself and consistently identified the wrong track as being the better one. I figured out long ago that I could encode at lower rates and make do just fine, and I would encourage others to be honest with themselves too.
In the end, it's the same idea as jpeg vs. a lossless format like bmp. Sure, bmp may look better if you put them side-by-side, but by itself, a jpeg image looks just fine for 99% of people. In my opinion, even if people can tell the difference between the two tracks when they play them side-by-side, that doesn't justify encoding at a higher bitrate (again, my opinion; others are welcome to disagree). What justifies encoding at a higher bitrate is when you can hear a track, and without any comparison against a different encoding of that track, can tell that it's been encoded at a low bitrate and is impairing your listening experience. If you can do that, then you have every reason to encode at 256kbps, otherwise, you're just spouting.

[garyi]

I am no expert but I do know one thing. Flicking between tracks in a blind listen is not a good way to determine anything, your brain will fill in a lot of the gaps leading to no conclusions at all.

[Chris Breen]

garyi said:

I am no expert but I do know one thing. Flicking between tracks in a blind listen is not a good way to determine anything, your brain will fill in a lot of the gaps leading to no conclusions at all.

I'm not as certain about that as you are. It's a matter of knowing what to listen for (and having the ability to hear it). For example, in some encoded tracks some people can hear phasing in the high-end (shimmering sounds like cymbals or high violins, for example).

[derekm]

I'll only click "no" if it's a crap reprint from an IDG sister magazine that quotes analysts that are totally whack (rhymes with schmenderlee) without making fun of them at the same time.
I mean, just because I don't find a tip useful doesn't mean it's a bad article. And if you have to convert AAC to MP3 because your non-iPod doesn't support AAC then you've got worse problems than muddy sounding music.

[SimpleLife]

This is a pretty inflammatory and insulting post/column. Especially coming from Macworld. People have a right to complain about compression and conversion issues, just as they have a right to complain about the absence of Firewire or matte screens in Apple notebooks.
The iPod caused a sensation and a big growth in headphone enthusiasts. There is a reason that lossless compression formats exist.
Differences can be heard in compression when using high-quality audio gear, especially headphone setups. It can even be easily heard in quality car stereos even with road noise. Compression on top of compression, or compression with the addition of conversion causes even more distortion.
There are many audiophiles out there in all segments: home audio, car audio, and portable audio. These are served by high-volume sites like Head-Fi.org and hydgrogenaudio.org. That's all these guys do: They test audio equipment with blind ABX testing.
For most audiophiles, the cheapest way to increase audio fidelity is by using lossless files. The main cost is in getting the original source file by CD or WAVE, in addition to the extra hard drive space.
Cell phones and compressed music have become the norm. In the end, there is a difference in quality between landline phones and cell phone quality, as there is in compressed vs. lossless music.
Granted using most mainstream headphones, DAC, and amplifiers, most people cannot tell the difference. If you can't tell the difference, then that's fine. But there are many people who can tell the difference. And there are many music fans that still insist on purchasing CD's or WAVE files in order to maintain the best musical fidelity.
I know that blogs are all about opinions. But there's a lot to be said about civility and educated responses and columns. There's also a lot to be said about tone and style. "Listen- (or shut-) up" to me is just not a very Macworld tone. That's my opinion.

[SamTheGeek]

In most audio players, the biggest factor in the sound is not the bit rate, but the quality of the digital-to-analog converter in the headphone jack. In my old 5th gen iPod, the lowest bitrate I can use and still hear with clarity is 128Kb/s. On my newer iPhone (it's got a different audio chip), I can tel the difference between 128Kb/s and 256Kb/s. (I can't tell the difference at a higher bitrate than that, see below) So I re-ripped a bunch of my music, and I'll be upgrading to iTunes plus later this year.
As a side note, all Dock-connecting iPods, Zunes, and Sandisk Sansas can output a pure digital signal through their connectors, bypassing the D-to-A chip inside, and using an external chip. Use that if your sound doesn't cut it.
If you have a recent mac, and a recent stereo system, use an optical audio cable and run your comparison tests that way. If you have even a mediocre amp for your stereo, the D-to-A conversion will be far beyond anything a Macbook or iMac can do. Every Intel mac, save the mini, has an optical audio out port in it's headphone jack.

[jmkowalski]

Actually the problem is encoding the AAC file to MP3 within iTunes.
The encoder that Apple uses is not a standard MP3 encoder. As a result the playback quality suffers.
Try putting your AAC to MP3 converted file on a Blackberry. 70% of the time it will not play. If it does play, expect to hear quite a few artifacts.

[Chris Breen]

SimpleLife said:

>People have a right to complain about compression and conversion issues, just as they have a right to complain about the absence of Firewire or matte screens in Apple notebooks.

I agree -- if they are complaining based on what they can actually hear versus what they believe they can hear. And that's all I'm suggesting -- prove to yourself that you can actually tell the difference (and given the surety on this front from some audiophiles, I'm surprised how few people are willing to put their ears to the test). If you can't, then you may save yourself some money and be able to pack more tunes on your iPod without suffering along the way. It can also help some who, out of habit, say "can" when they really mean "may."

[WarrenS]

I once asked a guy to listen as i blew a dog whistle into a mic to test a speaker. He said he could just barely hear it. The problem was, of course the speaker couldn't reproduce the sound. The mic couldn't pick it up either. A lot of audiophiles don't understand the physics of sound and pay a lot for equipment to reproduce sounds and they can't hear.

[leicaman]

No doubt some people will react to the phrase shut up. I'm surprised when I run into people who consider the phrase the equivalent of, or more objectionable than, swearing. I didn't grow up where it was specifically considered so offensive.

So it probably is a bad choice of words to use because of reactions brought on by cultural differences, rather than the story itself.

Headline writing is a delicate thing. I have some hilarious stories from journalism school on the subject. And always thought the best part of Colombia Journalism Review was the back page "Lower Case." (Headlines and stories gone awry in real publications.)

I do think this story's headline was a bit too glib and provacative for some people.

That being said, too many objections and counter arguments showed that the responders must not have read the article very carefully. They missed the point you made about how you have no problem with people who object when they are able to actually hear a difference. I guess reading comprehension falls into a similar category?

Message was edited by: leicaman

[paloooz]

This whole thing is pointless, you can remove your info from the iTunes Plus files using a hex editor.

[flowney]

Why not make it a double-blind test by making sure that the DJ cannot differentiate between the tracks except a neutral label such as 1, 2 & 3. You'll then needanother person to correlate the labels with the actual value of the variables and the reported perception.