WARNING: NON ABX TEST RESULTS BELOW

There are 2 types of live streams with Rhapsody.
The first is the default, if you just click the listen button. It's 128 kbps WMA. Really really awful. I could hear the very obvious loss in the high frequencies from the next room! (Non ABX testing)

If you download Rhapsody's browser plug in, you get 128 kbps AAC. Much, much better.

Napster uses 192 kbps WMA for their live streams.
Rhapsody's 128 kbps AAC is better. (None ABX testing! .. but this result surprised me!)

I used Crystal Method's "Vapor Trails" at the 1 minute mark. The high frequency stuff is where the distortion is obvious.

Napster's 192 kbps WMA stream had some immediately obvious scattering / "underwater" distortion of the cymbals and degradation of the image of the "sigh" sound which is supposed to move sideways.

Rhapsody's 128 AAC stream didn't have the obvious "underwater" distortion and scattering. Its distortion was only obvious compared to the original, with a subtle reduction in the very highest frequencies, and with a subtle change in the image movement of the "sigh". So, its distortion is not objectionable. (BTW to my ears 220+ kbps VBR AAC is transparent.)

Damn, WMA is lousy. Someone should go take it out of its misery. It's even worse than good ole MP3.

I did this to choose which service to subscribe to, so I'm gonna go with Rhapsody. If they ever downgrade the AAC stream, I'm gonna quit.


P.S. Some two of my favorite test songs are Kate Bush's "Cloudbusting" and "Jig of Life". The recordings are so clear and punchy and the treble and violins are a good test of perceptive codecs.

WARNING: NON ABX TEST RESULTS ABOVE


BTW I'm using this as a reference of Rhapsody's streams specs:

http://real.lithium.com/real/board/message...thread.id=32775

It was there that I discovered that Rhapsody has a different stream for the plug in player.
The 192 WMA figure for Napster is everywhere, but it's a recent upgrade by Napster. They started at 128 WMA years ago, and when I tested it at the time, a few seconds of listening made me quit. LOL here's my post about it:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=37755&hl=

BTW I did do PCABX testing of different codecs years ago, and here was my post:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=37756&hl=
I ended up finding that AAC at 220+ kbps VBR was transparent even on castanets. This is what I ripped my CD collection to.
I found that AAC at 128 kbps was not transparent, but not unpleasant.
MP3 had unpleasant artifacts at 128, and WMA even worse.

MP3 is pretty good these days. For casual listening/noisy environments, I find V4 perfectly acceptable. However, I'm wondering just how rigorous your testing was. I don't see evidence of ABXing. Was some blind testing methodology involved? You realize that this is required according to Terms of Service rule 8, right?

When you say "Napster streams", do you mean an actual download or streaming content live? I know most MusicNet services that sell or rent content at higher bitrate (MP3 @ 256Kbps or 320Kbps, or 2-Pass WMA 192-Kbps, for example ) generally still "stream" at 128Kbps.


And yes, please heed TOS #8. Your posting is in violation.

I meant streaming content live.

I didn't know about TOS #8. I will put a disclaimer.
I can't do ABX'ing unless I have an assistant or a means to convert the stream to a WAV file.
I hope someone finds my non ABX info useful, or better, go ahead and do ABX'ing.

I think it would be fine if you just captured the analog output of the soundcard for the two streams and for an original lossless version of the track and posted those. That should not take much time to set up.

The headphone output on my laptop is audibly crappy. Lots of hissy crackly noises and noise pumping type sounds.

I'd suggest you verify Napster streaming is actually 192Kbps instead of 128Kbps. I know many reported they upgraded the streaming content at the same time they improved the download bitrate long ago, but that was misinformation at the time.

It's also one of the more popular audio codecs for idiots and dimwits alike (I know that's hard to believe, but it's true).