Young People Prefer "Sizzle Sounds" of MP3 Format 743
Hugh Pickens writes "Jonathan Berger, a professor of music at Stanford, tests his incoming students each year by having them listen to a variety of recordings which use different formats from MP3 to ones of much higher quality, and he reports that each year the preference for music in MP3 format rises. Berger says that young people seemed to prefer 'sizzle sounds' that MP3s bring to music because it is a sound they are familiar with. 'The music examples included both orchestral, jazz and rock music. When I first did this I was expecting to hear preferences for uncompressed audio and expecting to see MP3 (at 128, 160 and 192 bit rates) well below other methods (including a proprietary wavelet-based approach and AAC),' writes Berger. 'To my surprise, in the rock examples the MP3 at 128 was preferred. I repeated the experiment over 6 years and found the preference for MP3 — particularly in music with high energy (cymbal crashes, brass hits, etc) rising over time.' Dale Dougherty writes that the context of the music changes our perception of the sound, particularly when it's so obviously and immediately shared by others. 'All that sizzle is a cultural artifact and a tie that binds us. It's mostly invisible to us but it is something future generations looking back might find curious because these preferences won't be obvious to them.'"
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tubes vs Transistors (Score:4, Insightful)
Every generation has their favorite audio artifacts. Vinyl lovers like the warm sound despite the hiss and pops, im sure back in the day someone thought that wax phonograph cylinders sounded better than those new fangled gramaphone disks. Each generation gets accustomed to the sound they are most familiar with. I remember as a kid arguing with my dad who thought 8-track was much better than casette tapes.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:3, Insightful)
If all they know is crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
Little did he know that if all people know is crap they actually begin to prefer it.
And that's why 2009 will not be the year of Linux on the Desktop.
Re:Digital Artifacts.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The quality won't deteriorate over time like your analog.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:4, Insightful)
that is an odd statement at best.
Most people like what they are used to and don't like what they aren't used to. Saying that can't tell what they like from what they are used to shows an in-depth lack of understanding of other individuals.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I have no idea what he's talking about in the first place. Unless it's an abysmally low-quality rip, MP3 sounds just like any other format. No sizzle, nothing.
Play that decent-quality song over a set of high end speakers, then play something in FLAC and you will hear the difference.
Hisss of the 80's (Score:5, Insightful)
Pops of the 70's phonograph
Hiss of the 80's magnetic tape
Sizzle of the 00's MP3s.
Sounds like we had a perfect format in the optical disc - now we just need audio engineers that don't fuck up the mastering with everything cranked to 11.
Previous Generation Tube Amps (Score:4, Insightful)
lack of detail (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that when you miss some details things appear better. People tend to look better at a distance before you get detail. Lowered senses probably contribute to "beer goggles" as well, though there are other factors.
Stripping detail does not make art but it may make pop.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
french press ... is acknowledged as infinitely better
... by those that prefer french press. Those that prefer Sanka clearly do no acknowledge french press as infinitely better.
Your argument is totally circular: You should prefer french press because if you prefer french press then you'll find that you prefer french press.
(not to mention the hints of elitism).
Re:If all they know is crap... (Score:3, Insightful)
How much benefit do I really gain from switching over my digital collection (and the devices)so I can have a better perceived "Value" of sound?
What is the cost of this? First need to replace all Mp3s with a higher quality format. So this costs time and money. More then likely most people are listening to said music through crappy headphones or speaker systems. What will the cost be to get speakers to reproduce the sound from the now "better" music files?
Re:Digital Artifacts.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
For those that might notice the difference I bet you the marginal benefit of getting to the next level does not out weight the marginal cost so people don't care.
Re:Deaf? (Score:2, Insightful)
8. Invest in companies making hearing aids. I foresee the iPod generation needing these as they get older.
representative sample? (Score:4, Insightful)
Were the to pool the opinions of students of Julliard rather than Stamford he'd likely get a completely different result.
If the young person in question is fond of mass produced music -- as most are I guess -- then the sound quality probably isn't important to them, just as tonal nuances wasn't important to the original musicians. For kids that are musicians themselves, and especially jazz or classical musicians, the sound quality matters a great deal.
Basically this is just a badly designed study, skewed in favor of the modal average.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
He could have phrased it better: People don't know why they like what they like, particularly they can't tell if they like something because they're used to it or because it has other likable qualities.
This is an important realization for requirements engineering: Don't ask people what they want. To want is to have an anticipation of liking. As people can't tell if they like something because they're used to it, they will often tell you they want something but later don't like what they wanted because, since it's new, they're not familiar with it. So either you give them something familiar with small tweaks or you have to use another way to find what people "really" want.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clearing it up.
It's funny that people can't determine why they like something, but then again, people probably don't end up analyzing that stuff like I do.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wine and cigar aficionados have certain standards they use, but it is only within that circle they are true standards. Outside that circle they are irrelevant. Saying one has to be 'educated' to appreciate it is also elitist. I smoke plenty of cigars, and use the ratings as a guide to try new things, not as 'oh
I love high-end tequila and bourbon, but that doesn't stop me from having a shot of Sauza or Wild Turkey sometime. There is something about their bite that I love. Given the choice between Red Breast or Wild Turkey it would be unlikely for me to choose Wild Turkey. But that doesn't mean it doesn't taste good to me.
What I have found is people assign 'fine' standards to items that are expensive, rare, or seem to be liked by a few people. Lobster used to be used as fertilizer because it was deemed 'trash food' and apprentice contracts were written that forbid having to eat it more than a few times a week. Now it's a 'delicacy' to some. As someone who lived in Maine for 20 years, I think it tastes like crap except in a lobster roll with plenty of mayo.
I can enjoy an Oscar Mayer bologna sandwich on white bread with store brand yellow mustard as well as I can a fine steak served with a blue cheese butter. Neither taste is better than the other, they are tastes and I am perfectly capable of finding something good in both of them.
Maybe those that don't like the bologna sandwich just don't have as refined a palate as I do to appreciate the subtle flavors and textures.
Re:Taste is subjective, Sound waves aren't (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no accuracy in coffee that expensive coffee is closer to than Sanka is.
Who says 'accuracy' is a desirable quality of a musical recording?
Certainly not the musicians who "punched in" re-takes of passages where they were unhappy with their first performance, or the producer who demanded that the singer's performance be processed with autotune, or the engineers who applied reverb, compression, and EQ to each recorded part individually, made volume adjustments to everything during mixdown, and then applied more compression and EQ to the finished product, or the CD duplicator that took the 48kHz/24-bit master DAT and transcoded it down to a 44.1kHz,16-bit master...
Re:Not Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Screw that. I grew up listening to LPs and the scratches, pops and skips were like murder to the music. That's not 'soul' or 'character', it's shit.
Now, throwing the imperfections of the medium aside, the thing that's been killing music for the last 20 years is over compresssion. Kills the dynamic range, sounds like hell on digital formats, and just plain tires out the ears after a while.
I'm always amused when modern bands record and entire album on analog tape and mixing gear to get a 'vintage' sounds, and then the final mix is compressed to death; makes the whole exercise pointless!
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. Although people should perhaps keep this in mind and give strange new things more time, so they can see if they'd grow on them. Similarly, close your ears when assorted fellaters of Beelzebub pollute the airways, lest you get used to their massproduced, RIAA-pocket-lining crap.
Re:Taste is subjective, Sound waves aren't (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point. Actually, our perception that tone quality should be pure is mostly based on western music. In an ethnomusicology class I took, they noted that the African perception of sound quality is different because they put pieces of metal that rattle or clink together when they play, so the sound should have more of a gritty quality to it to sound "correct".
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I beg to differ. Do you have any evidence, anecdotes aside, to support your claim? The majority of people buying vinyl today are in the 14-25 year old range; they hardly qualify as old people. And vinyl sales continue to climb past CD sales every year. And this "warmness" that you speak of is nothing more that the recording sounding the way it was supposed to sound compared to the same 16 bit CD.
Vinyl sales...greater than CD sales? Pass me whatever you're smoking, please. Vinyl is still around because DJs use it. It's a niche format, although it's not ever going to go away. And as for the recording "sounding the way it's supposed to sound," that's not true if the record was sourced from digital masters, which is true for all new music. You're just taking digitally recorded music with its limited sampling qualities and adding the fragility of the vinyl format. It's really the worst of both worlds.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:1, Insightful)
I would be curious to see what these kids would think about the different samples if they went a month without listening to any music. They like the hiss because they're not used to hearing anything without it (on crappy headphones none-the-less). I wanna know what happens when they "reboot" their ears. This isn't just a matter of some people prefer sennheiser headphones and some people prefer grado headphones, this is a matter of some people liking how things actually sound vs. some people liking distorted music with hiss laid over it. That's kind of unsettling to me.
I'm curious about all these that have this apparently super hearing. My wife and I have an MP3 CD player in the car and use it. We and the kids can't tell the difference between the average mp3, FM, and most CDs. I'm amazed at the BS audiophiles come up with to justify their audio opinions. If you've got portions of a populations that can't tell the freaking difference, but then Mr Super Ears can well, it ain't better cause Mr. Super Ears likes it. It's better if the average likes it.
The Mind's Ability to Process Sounds (Radio Lab) (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the most interesting segments of the show recounted the near-riot that occurred when Stravinsky debuted his "Rites of Spring" in 1913. The music was so discordant to Parisian audiences, that they reacted -- in some cases violently -- to the oddness of the new music.
Check it out -- the entire show is awesome. Entirely consistent with the professor's findings here.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it doesn't make any sense.
Why would people prefer the distorted sound produced my MP3-128??? As I just said - it's distorted. I grew-up listening to AM and FM, but I certainly don't prefer either - too noisy. I prefer the uncompressed FLAC or CD because it's as close to live as one can get.
I can only conclude the college students are nuts to prefer the "buzz" of digital artifacts. I can tolerate digital artifacts, but I definitely do Not like them. Screw MP3-128 and give me MP3-320 or a CD, since both are superior.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one possibility, another is that there's a huge incidence of hearing damage in young people. Mostly from playing music too loud or listening through ill fitting iPod earbuds. Or listening to music that's too loud and through ill fitting earbuds.
A couple years back I tried listening to some of my oldest MP3 files and they sounded terrible, at 128. These days I listen pretty much just using the typical Lame preset. I think that comes out at a bit rate of 192kbps variable and basically identical to the original for most purposes.
The other possibility is that people listen through crap equipment which really can't properly convey the encoding. I know when I moved up to my Shure e2c and Sennheiser HD 477 that suddenly higher compression rate files were unbearable to listen to. I'd guess with really good equipment like Grados that it would be even more pronounced.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the question is why is music this way and, say hi-def video NOT this way?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the reason is that music is not audio. I'd expect if the question was centered around, say more generic audio quality, say listening to recorded conversations, or bird sounds or whatever the higher quality may be preferred, in a manner that's analogous to preferring higher quality video.
In other words it may be the difference between Content and Delivery. Higher quality DELIVERY is almost always preferred, but when aspects of that delivery work their way into the CONTENT then the content preference will win.
No one ever talks about the warm feeling of low-def TV, but you may find lots of folks who prefer hand drawn cartoons vs "higher quality" computer generated cartoons.
In my case regarding music I do know that I have a preference for recordings of live music vs studio recordings. It evokes in me a sense of a shared experience (even though I know this is a fantasy), it's like I'm there in a concert with others. A studio recording, on the other hand seems more like a solo experience. I suppose I'd prefer higher quality live recordings over lower quality ones, but I also suppose I'd prefer lower quality live recordings over higher quality studio recordings.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean this sincerely and with jealousy: Ignorance really is bliss.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not buying it. I too listen to a lot MP3-128s on my ipod, but I definitely prefer the uncompressed FLAC or CD sound. There are nuances to the music, especially in the high frequencies, that can not be heard on MP3-128 encodings. I prefer more sound, not less.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm familiar with all the boring Quality differences...it's due to ear training. You consistently hear your reference material (other well recorded and or well written songs on an iPod or some other device) in the mp3 format, and so you end up getting used to the mp3 format.
There. Fixed that for you. :)
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would people prefer the distorted sound produced my MP3-128??? As I just said - it's distorted.
The same reason people prefer the "colorized" (ie distorted) sound of a tube amp, or the "compressed and limited" audio of a radio announcer.
"Sounding good" has nothing to do with the faithful reproduction of the source material. It is a perception.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah.. there's nothing more fun than taking something enjoyable and pointing out all the flaws until you can't stand it anymore. Hey, if you're not busy later, maybe you could come over and criticize my wife too.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Depend if he is trained or not. Trained person could even tell the different between CD quality and LAME VBR V0. I don't believe this until I saw their result for ABX test.
(And I haven't trained my ear, not that I want to, I still want to enjoy my ogg encoded music library ;) )
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:3, Insightful)
"I am continually fascinated by the number of "pedals" and "effects" that electronic guitar players apply to the output of their instrument. Why would people prefer that distorted sound?"
Just so we're clear here, those pedals and effects create a new sound. It isn't distorted in the way you seem to mean it. Yes, it distorts the 'original' string sound, but since it's an electric guitar, the pickups already 'distorted' that. 'Rendered' is a better concept.
And the pedals and effects render a new, intentional sound. If you consider this distorted, then syntensizers, most especially in the beginning, when creating new sounds, don't fit into 'distorted' at all. 'Rendered' fits best there as well.
Calling electric guitar distorted cannot easily be considered a criticism or complaint. It is descriptive, but in the perjorative sense. Distortion, in this case, is a tool. Kinda like putting tacks on piano hammers to create a faux harpsichord. Wait...
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't hurt that the SM57 can be had for under $100 and is nearly indestructible. There is no fragile cage over the element (that's what the SM58 is for), and though the reproduction is colored, it is generally adequate onstage. They also Just Work, every time. I have personally switched to using a Sennheiser MD-421U for these jobs, but they cost at least three times as much and aren't nearly as bulletproof (mostly because of the stupid clip design).
Don't rule out plain old cheapness and ubiquity when it comes to gear choices.
Mal-2
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the value (benefit - cost) an average user would get out of replacing all their digital mp3s with a better format and getting the better speakers will not be greater then the value of staying put because the cost will still be greater then the benefit.
The exception to my rule of course will be the people who do care about the best sound one can get no matter the cost/benefit realization but I think this is a small percentage of the population.
Grandparents and grandkids think alike (Score:3, Insightful)
Weird how that principle works out again. I always tell people I don't mind mp3s because I remember when AM was the norm, particularly in cars. More than that, 196 kbps and above is better than table top FM and many of the stereos I've listened to in my life. So, no worries.
Re:Like the phonograph.... The what? (Score:5, Insightful)
MP3-320 may be better than MP3-128, but it's generally overkill. Most people's impression of the quality of 128kbps MP3s comes from the era where most MP3s weren't encoded with VBR.
I don't think that even fixed bitrate 128 mbps is inherently quite as bad as people used to claim. I understand where it got this reputation, because I've listened to downloaded 128 mbps MP3s (*) which are quite clearly compressed with artifacting, etc. and demonstrate why some people used it as the benchmark for convenience-over-quality music.
Yet I encoded stuff for myself at 128mbps fixed-rate around the same time, and it sounds miles better. It's still not hifi, but the difference in quality is noticable.
Why? Good question. It's possible that the crappy downloaded MP3s had been re-encoded, but it's more likely that they were simply done using a low-quality encoder. I used notlame, which was supposedly one of the better ones. IIRC a few years back, the quality of encoders *did* vary quite a bit. Nowadays I'm guessing that the ones in use are much better and much closer in performance- not to mention that higher bitrates and use of VBR make any differences less obvious.
Back to the point; you won't get hifi at 128mbps, but neither should you damn it completely by the quality of a mislabelled MP3 you downloaded from Napster in 1999.
(*) Downloaded via, erm... "non-favoured" channels circa 2001 when most people still used fixed-rate 128mbps.