Skip to content. Skip to navigation
You are here: Home News & Opinion Industry News Kids Prefer Poor Quality MP3
#########
   Alabama
   Alaska
   Arizona
   Arkansas
   California
   Colorado
   Connecticut
   DC
   Delaware
   Florida
   Georgia
   Hawaii
   Idaho
   Illinois
   Indiana
   Iowa
   Kansas
   Kentucky
   Louisiana
   Maine
   Maryland
   Massachusetts
   Michigan
   Minnesota
   Mississippi
   Missouri
   Montana
   Nebraska
   Nevada
   New Hampshire
   New Jersey
   New Mexico
   New York
   North Carolina
   North Dakota
   Ohio
   Oklahoma
   Oregon
   Pennsylvania
   Rhode Island
   South Carolina
   South Dakota
   Tennesee
   Texas
   Utah
   Vermont
   Virginia
   Washington
   West Virginia
   Wisconsin
   Wyoming
 

Kids Prefer Poor Quality MP3

by Wayde Robson last modified March 10, 2009

Audioholics has raved against what Gene calls the dumbing down of audio and warned that no good is coming of it. Well, it’s now official. A new generation of music listeners has had their ‘listening ears’ so corrupted by digital compression they’ve learned to actually prefer hyper-compressed MP3s. 

Jonathan Berger is a music professor at Stanford University that has conducted acoustic tests with each year’s new crop of students. He has them do some critical listening to music from a variety of sources which includes formats that range from compressed MP3s to much higher quality. 

To Prof. Berger’s dismay new students increasingly prefer the tinny sounds given off by MP3s.  But, how can this be? Anyone who has performed back-to-back comparisons between 128-bit MP3s and CD recordings on a hi-fi system can hear significant differences. You’d have to be practically hearing impaired to pick the MP3 over the higher quality recording. 

The professor believes the reason has more to do with psychology than audiology. Professor Berger believes it’s just what kids these days are used to hearing so it’s literally altering their perception of what sounds “good”. 

So, a preference for crappy sound is actually becoming learned behavior. The observation may call into question the ongoing debate among audiophiles about the difference between digital and analog. Is the preference for vinyl or CD also a learned behavior? Maybe the presence of those minute pops and crackles when stylus makes contact with vinyl take the analog-audiophile to happy place where they first learned to appreciate music. 

Regardless of where you stand on the digital/analogue divide, most Audioholics know when they hear a limited dynamic range and flat linear response. Most of us have heard various audio sources including live performances. Perhaps the majority of these new-kids are just not exposed to enough different music and audio. 

Youngsters who got their first taste of pop-music from iPod ear-buds might be predisposed to actually like a tinny, compressed recording. The implications are horrible: As Gene’s editorial has noted - quality audio is already being marginalized into a niche market. Is it just going to keep on getting worse? 

The Rise of the MP3 

The MP3 rose to prominence on P2P file sharing programs in the late 90s early 2000s. In contrast this time-period happened to be the height of the SACD/DVD-Audio format war. The new high resolution, multi-channel disc formats represented the ultimate in acoustic quality from a digital source. The MP3 represented the ultimate in digital scalability with a massive trade off in sound-quality. Needless to say the SACD/DVD-Audio format war was quickly eclipsed by MP3s and Apple’s iTunes went on to become the number one music retailer. 

Somehow the 128-bit MP3 became the de-facto standard in digital compression. I blame Apple and iTunes for getting so many younger music listeners acclimated to the soft frequency response of low-bit audio files. 

Background info on retail online music read: The fall of DRM

Many mistake Home Theater in a Box or stock car-stereo systems to be the ultimate in sound quality. Once hi-fi was synonymous with music listening, today fine audio is a niche market. We regularly see patronizing marketing slogans like “Great Sound Quality” in electronics that we know posses anything but. 

Now that a generation of youngsters prefers the sound of over-compressed MP3s; how much worse can it get? 

Could we arrive at an Orwellian future where any critical listening or observation of sound quality is treated as an adverse psychological condition?

Recent Forum Posts:

Post Reply
3db posts on April 16, 2009 06:53
krabapple;553361
? It's quite possible to encode all of that information in a FLAC file, as metadata, if you want to. There's nothing inherently 'lossy' about them, in that regard, it's a matter of choice and effort. If downloading sources choose not to include that data, that is something you could press them to add. .


Sure there is.. and thats a do it yourself project with the info in hand. How much of that info exists though from a commerical download site such as itunes or other music distributors? Thats the point I'm trying to make.
krabapple posts on April 15, 2009 14:31
3db;553242
even with lossless codecs, theres still so much information lost about the music. Not the music itself but informatuion about the band, ie,if the songs belong to the artist or are songs remade from other artists. There lis the biggest single loss and why I personally don't like digital music in becomming the main medium of music distribution.



? It's quite possible to encode all of that information in a FLAC file, as metadata, if you want to. There's nothing inherently 'lossy' about them, in that regard, it's a matter of choice and effort. If downloading sources choose not to include that data, that is something you could press them to add.


Yeah yeah I know the arguement that will ensue...you can alwasy look up the info on the internet but truthfully, how many will do this? I'm betting not many


Well, there are applications that can look up data for you....

but it's true no CD or download will ever give the same tactile experience as a double-LP spread.
krabapple posts on April 15, 2009 14:27
cwall99;552419
Education is an interesting thing. I mean, if you really want to assess your system's sound reproduction, what you probably should do is spend some real time listening to live music, to find just what it is you like about live music. Listen to a lot of examples of live music, from your kid's grade school orchestra to local acts playing at a local bar to a symphony.

About the only thing I'd discourage you from listening to is arena rock bands at the local sports-plex (I've yet to hear any band sound good at the Palace of Auburn Hills, for instance).

I mean, if you want a system that sounds good, it's probably a good idea to listen to a lot of live music just to get a feel for what it is you like about sitting in a great spot listening to someone play. I mean, how should that sound of that cymbal really sound as it fades? Does the triangle really make you jump like that? What about that cool, visceral feel of a bass drum whoomp? The slight buzz of a clarinetist's reed or the faint hiss of spit in a trumpet or trombone? The lips and tongue of the singer forming the syllables? All the details we claim to like to hear in music, have you listened to it for real?

Then, once you know what you like, you can listen for it in your recordings. One of the things I realized was just how much a difference SACD and DVD-A make.


By your own logic, you couldn't know that the difference was due to SACD or DVD-A per se, unless you were able to directly compare the same source signal (be it live or not) being converted to redbook and the 'hi rez' formats .

The differences you heard are more likely due to mundane mastering choices, that to the formats.

(I'm excluding multichannel versus two-channel comparison of course)
3db posts on April 15, 2009 12:42
strube;553302
I certainly respect your comments, and I believe it is unfortunately true for the most part. However, though I am probably in the minority, I scan all album art and liner notes, as well as the disc itself and save it as a PDF in the folder for every CD I rip to my two hard drives, and then I also encode the said scans into every file using MediaMonkey. This is obviously not for everyone, but for those who actually care like myself and most people on this forum, it is an excellent archive method, IMO.


Good for you. I'm glad to see you value the info as much as I do. There should be more of you around who take value in just knowing about music.
strube posts on April 15, 2009 11:52
3db;553242
even with lossless codecs, theres still so much information lost about the music. Not the music itself but informatuion about the band, ie,if the songs belong to the artist or are songs remade from other artists. There lis the biggest single loss and why I personally don't like digital music in becomming the main medium of music distribution. Yeah yeah I know the arguement that will ensue...you can alwasy look up the info on the internet but truthfully, how many will do this? I'm betting not many. But if the info was printed in the liners like it is on LP and CDs, one is more likely to read the info and learn something from it.

Its unfortunate that portability and ease of use as replaced information. I think we avalanching towards the "disinformation age", at least with respect to music.


I certainly respect your comments, and I believe it is unfortunately true for the most part. However, though I am probably in the minority, I scan all album art and liner notes, as well as the disc itself and save it as a PDF in the folder for every CD I rip to my two hard drives, and then I also encode the said scans into every file using MediaMonkey. This is obviously not for everyone, but for those who actually care like myself and most people on this forum, it is an excellent archive method, IMO.
Post Reply
 
Join our Newsletter for News & Deals
#########