[Chris Breen]

Steve_S said:

I love how the lowest common denominator likes to speak for those who might actually have a clue.

And I think this pretty well underscores why testing would be a problem. Our Betters simply will not accept any results that fail to support their beliefs.

[Chris Breen]

captvanhalen said:

one does not need to be able to pick out a C from a C# in order to be able to hear lossy compression degradation

Absolutely true. Having perfect pitch makes you no more or less sensitive to audio artifacts. Completely different set of listening skills.

[Steve_S]

DanRobinson said:

If you simply state that it's not a truly scientific test and we're doing it informally, I think it would be all right.

LOL! If you're not going to do it right, then what's the point. Isn't the point of any test to draw conclusions and possible an argument to rest? Chris is right in that an unscientific approach would only generate more questions and depending upon how the test was conducted, possibly disparage the credibility of those conducting the test. There is really nothing to be gained by doing the "informal" test as you say.

Anyway, in the end, for many, this whole thread is just splitting hairs. Apparently, there is a majority of people who either don't care or are unable to tell the difference, so any format or bit rate should be just fine.

Either way, this is getting old (even for me). I'm going to go enjoy some music! ;-)

[bilbo]

SamTheGeek said:

Every Intel mac, save the mini, has an optical audio out port in it's headphone jack.

Actually the Mac Mini has an optical audio out as well. I use a Mini at home, hooked up to a Logitech surround sound system using the optical audio out.

[Alphaman]

Steve_S said:

Anyway, in the end, for many, this whole thread is just splitting hairs. Apparently, there is a majority of people who either don't care or are unable to tell the difference, so any format or bit rate should be just fine.

Either way, this is getting old (even for me). I'm going to go enjoy some music! ;-)

"Splitting hairs"? Sounds familiar... Also sounds funny coming from someone who was doing such just a few posts back. :D

The tests I proposed were a method to allow people to determine empirically for themselves what their tolerance was, and to see for themselves what the original article postulated: that transcoding at sufficiently high bitrates does not degrade the personal audio experience. The test material would provide a relative "standard" so that anyone who cared would be able to sample and then discuss the merits and benefits of each encoding scheme, while being able to hear the difference on their own equipment regardless of investment.

Yes, some people may have higher quality hardware for playback, but that's part of the "listen- (or shut-) up" from the original article -- if you can't hear it, you've no leg to stand on.

I'd love it if there were an easy-to-try set of audio files that could be used to help users determine their tolerance or cut-off point. But as others have pointed out, this is an Apple-oriented site, not an audiophile site.

That said, I for one am willing to "listen-up", and I'm hoping to learn something.

[Alphaman]

Steve_S said:

It has already been pointed out that polling an audience for "better" or "worse" yields unpredictable results. In any given test, when you poll for "better" or "worse", some will choose the "worse" file because it sounds "better" to them.

This is very true -- an ABX test would be much better, although it would require significantly more in the way of setup and download for the author and user.

[flowney]

Even those not motivated to cheat can be unduly influenced by all sorts of things. This is why, when you go to an audiologist to have your hearing checked, they put you in a sound proof enclosure and prevent you from even seeing the operator.

So it doesn't even require malicious intent. We get thrown off by the slightest things. Small children, for example, will often want to please adults and, so, they unconsciously skew their self-reports.

[DanRobinson]

One last gasp and then I'll shut up.

I've proposed the comparison for one selfish reason. I want to know what I can hear and what I can't. Not for a contest or a scientific study. I want to know if I can tell the difference.

And, I'm too lazy to go to all the trouble of encoding all those different files . . . something I know even less about.

[luaptrub]

Decent article. Comments are good too.
Problem is, if you want to talk about audio quality on an iPod, 99% of headphones/earbuds can't handle the full range of sound that the higher bitrates give you (unless you listen on Sony MDR-V6's like I do). Sure you can go with higher bitrates but it still depends on your hardware.
If you're gonna be playing your music through a P.A. or decent speaker system most of the time, to get the full range and make the most of that system, your music should be ripped to WAV. The file size may be much larger but you'll be getting the closest to CD-quality, full range audio without playing from a CD.
WAV will give you the best "compressed" audio quality no matter what you're listen on! That's a fact from a professional audio engineer, not opinion!

[captvanhalen]

luaptrub said:

WAV will give you the best "compressed" audio quality no matter what you're listen on! That's a fact from a professional audio engineer, not opinion!

Cannot the same be said for AIFF, FLAC and Apple Lossless. I think it can. WAV and AIFF are just wrappers around raw PCM data. I think one should choose WAV or AIFF depending upon which flavor they choose -- Apple or Windows.

[kimhill]

This discussion is interesting not only technically, but in sociological terms.

Mr. Breen, you should mention this in your podcast.

[kirkmc]

Hmm, I've always seen the operator when I've had hearing tests...

[kirkmc]

Why WAV? You know that Apple Lossless is the exact same quality as WAV, don't you? And usually takes up about half the space...

As for it being the best audio quality, no, that's not true. It's the best you can get from a CD, because WAV (or AIFF) files are exactly what CDs contain, but there are other sources that are technically better than CDs.

[luaptrub]

Well, this discussion is geared toward playback on an iPod but by using WAV you also have flexibility to use it on say, a Zune or many other MP3 players that support WAV or heck, even other media players and programs. 99% of those will not support Apple Lossless or AIFF, regardless of whether they are of the same quality.
Apple Lossless is not the exact same quality and neither is AIFF. It takes up less space for a reason.
Since this discussion IS geared toward iPod playback, I assumed that the music was either being downloaded or ripped from a CD so that discussion would be irrelevant. WAV is not exactly what files are on a CD. There is a difference, however small it may be. The music straight from the CD still has a better, holistic quality to it than the WAV file of the same song.
WAV is simply the best because of its nearly universal compatibility and pristine audio quality. High bitrate MP3s are good for iPods because you'll fit more songs but when you work with the type of systems I do, anything short of a CD or WAV file simply won't do.