Effects of MP3 Compression on Perceived Emotional Characteristics in Music

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18523

by pbowyer • 8 years ago

53 56 8 years ago

wbkang• 8 years ago

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, the paper is comparing the original audio with MP3s compressed at 112kbps and under, where the compression artifacts are very easy to notice.

leeoniya4• 8 years ago

was about to say this.

192Kbps VBR is the minimumn for transparency for me. i've been moving my whole collection FLAC -> Opus 160Kbps VBR (which is widely regarded as audiophile-transparent).

baroffoos2• 8 years ago

I'm similar. I store FLAC on my desktop and then transcode it to opus before putting it on my music streaming server. MP3 doesn't really seem to have much relevance in the modern world other than legacy.

LeoPanthera3• 8 years ago

Why wouldn’t you just keep it as FLAC?

seanp2k2• 8 years ago

Same. It's crazy to me that people are saying that they can hear the difference between 24-bit 192khz recordings and something like 320Kbps MP3 or 192 VBR (which is what most of my personal collection is at). Back in the day on [huge;y famous private torrent tracker], FLAC and 192k VBR were the gold standards, with most opting for the VBR version. I personally have some VERY nice headphones, speakers, and sources (Senn HD800s, Westone ES60, KEF LS50, RME ADI-2 Pro, etc), and I can't hear the difference between this high-bitrate stuff and the lower encodes. I CAN hear a HUGE difference between bad recordings and good, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying my favorite albums. I have other headphones, speakers, IEMs, and sources for different needs, for example working out...I like my Jaybird Tarah Pros, and even though they're not "audiophile", I've still had tons of enjoyment with them doing things like skateboarding, mountain biking, and riding my motorcycle. Horses for courses. The HD800s is NOT great for bass-heavy music, so in that case, I'll switch to a Shure 1540 or Beyer DT1770, which even though they're more in the higher-end mid-fi range, have each brought me many hours of pleasure over the years.

This is a fun hobby, but it's possible to make it less fun by arguing on the internet with people about it. If it sounds good TO YOU, and it's worth the price TO YOU, then never let someone make you feel bad about it. Some people buy $10k cables (or "worse" imo, cable elevators [e.g. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-finest-cable-elev... ]. I think that those are ridiculous, but some people swear by them, and that's their choice. I'm the guy with the inner tube under the turntable playing with air pressure, because I love a good hack and have a penchant for DIY. I've built speakers that sound bad, but I've always learned something from every build. If you want TRUE REFERENCE sound, look up exactly what gear your favorite recording studio uses, and buy the same set-up. Otherwise, just have fun :)

shmerl5• 8 years ago

Do you recommend 160 Kbps for Opus encoding? I've been encoding FLAC to Opus with 140 Kbps setting normally for playback.

I don't move my collection from FLAC to Opus though, just encode for playback purposes (Opus takes less space, so good for portable players and etc.). It's always good to preserve the lossless original. What if some new Opus-next will appear which will be even better? Without lossless source, you won't be able to re-encode.

yrf• 8 years ago

Compression effected some instruments more and others less

stephen_g• 8 years ago

Affected [1] is correct. You could perhaps say 'Applying compression effected an undesirable change in some instruments...' - the sound of the instruments is affected by the compression, but the change in the sound has been effected by the addition of compression.

1. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/affected

S_A_P• 8 years ago

Maybe slightly off topic but I would be curious to know what the artifact of lower bit rate mp3 encoding is actually doing. It’s not aliasing, but it’s in the 6-15khz range. I could only describe the sound of the artifacts as a flock of seagulls in the distance flying towards you.

Edit: found this which answers a lot of this.

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/what-data-compressio...

userbinator• 8 years ago

Relatedly, this article nearly a decade(!) ago mentioned that younger people of the time were preferring the sound of MP3 compression artifacts over higher-quality compression or even the original uncompressed audio:

http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music...

I suppose it's similar to how some people prefer the distortion of "tube sound".

bni• 8 years ago

Im sceptic of this slashdot classic. Was this ever verified independently?

vkaku• 8 years ago

As of today, if I need to compress, I use M4A/ALAC. This article may have been appropriate >10 years ago.

Most of the time I have good speakers and decently encoded sound, I do not have any real quibs.

out_of_protocol• 8 years ago

Check out opus encoding - should be way better

pizza234• 8 years ago

The available research is incomplete.

The Opus "Comparison" cherry-picks the sub-128 kbps bitrates, where the format is evidently strong, but it doesn't include references for high-bitrate music compression.

Actually, even their (partial) diagram hints that there is virtually no difference at over-160 kpbs bitrates.

I'm struggling to find high-bitrate music compression (blind) listening tests lately in general; it seems that the internet crowd enthusiasm in the subject vanished in the last decade.

Effects of MP3 Compression on Perceived Emotional Characteristics in Music

Related Stories