ASA declares 64kbps is "CD quality" while Ofcom declares under 256kbps is "not CD quality".
hudsterou
were comparable to 128kbps MP3 streams and that both are CD quality. The
Advertising Standards Agency who are the complaints body for print
advertising received a complaint that this, the complainant alleged that
this was not CD quality. Result: complaint not upheld.
From the ASA site at
http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=38387&from_index=show_advertisers&dates_of_adjudications_id=576
Complaint:
Objection to a poster, for a broadband internet service, headlined
"THANKYOUVERYMUCH!" The poster stated "AOL 9.0 on broadband featuring:
Radio@AOL. Over 100 CD quality radio stations including Elvis Rocks.
Exclusive concerts, videos and interviews you won't find anywhere else.
A range of broadband products at speeds up to twenty times faster than
dial-up. Video Instant Messenger-see and hear friends when you chat
online." The complainant challenged the claim "CD quality radio
stations".
Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1 (Ed 11)
Adjudication:
Complaint not upheld
The advertisers explained that the claim "CD-quality" referred to
the sound quality of their radio stations, which they believed was
comparable to listening to a CD; they believed it did not imply that the
mode of compression of the sound was identical. They stated that
Radio@AOL was encoded using the Dolby AAC standard, which compressed the
sound to take up less space than a CD file but retained CD quality
sound. The advertisers asserted that Internet radio services commonly
viewed 128 kilobits per second (kbps) MP3 streams as comparable to CD
quality from the perspective of an average listener; they sent copies of
a selection of reviews from independent third party websites to confirm
that. The advertisers sent the results of a double-blind test that
compared the Dolby AAC encoding that was used for Radio@AOL with a
standard MP3 encoder. The test results showed the expert testers
concluded that there was likely to be no perceptible drop in sound
quality between the encoding method used for Radio@AOL at 64 kbps and
the MP3 player at 128 kbps. They believed the test confirmed that an
average consumer listening to sound provided through Dolby AAC at 64
kbps would be unable to tell the difference between the quality of sound
coming from a CD and sound from the Dolby encoding process used in
Radio@AOL. They said sound breaks due to Internet congestion were a rare
occurrence; because the radio stations were offered to AOL, customers
subscribed to the fastest Internet connections only.
The Authority noted the test results showed the sound quality
provided through the radio stations by AAC encoding was
indistinguishable from sound produced by an MP3 player to trained
listeners. It noted the test concluded that the AAC encoded sound would
be likely to be considered comparable to CD quality by an average
listener. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had justified the
claim.
YET, ofcom, the people responsible for Radio Advertising, have rejected
claims that DAB radio stations are CD quality. A radio advertisement to
promote DAB digital radio referred to its provision of "CD-quality
sound." Nine complainants believed that DAB did not provide CD-quality
sound, as most broadcasters used bit rates that were too low to achieve
it.
From the ofcom site at:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/adv_comp/a15/a15.pdf
GMG Radio, owners of 102.2 Jazz FM, confirmed that it had "suspended all
Switchdigital and DAB advertising on air... pending [its] own
investigation and subsequent ruling from Ofcom."
However, it added that "the commercial was broadcast in good faith and
in the true spirit of communication in order to help the consumer rather
than mislead" and that it formed "part of a London wide regional
campaign by The Wireless Group."
The advertiser said it had been its aim "to introduce a technologically
new method of broadcasting" in listener appropriate language" to an
untechnically qualified broad demographic of all sociographic
backgrounds." It added that DAB was "theoretically permanently clean
from the vagaries of analogue transmission systems."
Decision
We agreed that many listeners were likely to appreciate the absence of
analogue transmission "vagaries" and equate the "clean" sound of DAB
with that of CDs. While we recognised that it is possible to transmit
services at bit rates sufficiently high for most listeners to equate
with CD-quality, broadcasters can choose to transmit at lower bit rates
or in mono. Our expert confirmed that some listeners, in particular
listening circumstances, would perceive a difference in sound quality
between services using lower bit rates or broadcasting in mono compared
to the quality attainable on CDs. We therefore believed the
advertisement breached Section 2 Rule 3a (Misleadingness) of the
Advertising and Sponsorship Code.
Conclusion
The advertisement must not be broadcast again without amendment."
So... how about some joined up thinking from these two quangos? How
about someone contacts the ASA and points them to ofcom's ruling? Surely
if, as ofcom say, digital streams under 256kbits/sec cannot be
considered to be CD quality, how can AOL's 64kbits/sec Dolby AAC streams
which they themselves equate to 128kbits/sec mp3 streams be regarded as
CD quality, as suggested by the ASA?
Laurence Taylor
>
> AOL was advertising that its 64kbps Dolby AAC internet radio streams
> were comparable to 128kbps MP3 streams and that both are CD quality. The
> Advertising Standards Agency who are the complaints body for print
> advertising received a complaint that this, the complainant alleged that
> this was not CD quality. Result: complaint not upheld.
(...)
> The Authority noted the test results showed the sound quality
> provided through the radio stations by AAC encoding was
> indistinguishable from sound produced by an MP3 player to trained
> listeners. It noted the test concluded that the AAC encoded sound would
> be likely to be considered comparable to CD quality by an average
> listener. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had justified the
> claim.
Why didn't they compare it with a CD?
--
rgds
LAurence
...Seven and a half million years and all you can come up with is 42?
DAB sounds worse than FM
> So... how about some joined up thinking from these two quangos?
Ofcom are a government department, whereas the ASA is part of the
advertising industry (i.e. it's self-regulation by the advertising
industry themselves).
> How about someone contacts the ASA and points them to ofcom's ruling?
Have you contacted the ASA about this?
> Surely if, as ofcom say, digital streams under 256kbits/sec cannot be
> considered to be CD quality, how can AOL's 64kbits/sec Dolby AAC
What is Dolby AAC? Is it LC AAC or HE AAC?
> streams which they themselves equate to 128kbits/sec mp3 streams be
> regarded as CD quality, as suggested by the ASA?
I agree that AOL's claim is pure bullshit.
--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, digital satellite, cable and
broadband internet radio
DAB sounds worse than FM
That's far too logical for the dears in the advertising industry.
Dave Liquorice
> how can AOL's 64kbits/sec Dolby AAC streams which they themselves
> equate to 128kbits/sec mp3 streams be regarded as CD quality, as
> suggested by the ASA?
Quite the ASA have perfomed the wrong comparision. It appears that the
orginal complaint was regarding AAC as providing "CD quality" not MP3
quality. The orginal complainant ought to appeal on the grounds that
the decsion is based on incorrect research by the ASA. AAC should be
compared directly with CD reproduction not an MP3 encoding.
--
Cheers new...@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
David Robinson
I love the logic. Some reports of disputable origin have suggested
that 128kbps mp3 equates to CD quality, and another blind test carried
out by the company pushing the product have shown that 64kbps is
indistinguishable from 128kbps mp3. Therefore, 64kbps AAC is CD
quality!
How about the fact that there are blind tests that show 64kbps is
inferior to 128kbps mp3, and that there are blind tests that show
128kbps mp3 is inferior to CD.
Or how about looking at the official AAC verification tests? Only
128kbps AAC meets the "EBU 'Indistinguishable quality'" threshold, and
no codecs meet the "Statistical indistinguishability" threshold.
64kbps isn't even tested, but if 96kbps can't match up, 64kbps doesn't
stand much chance.
Basically, the ASA have accepted one false premise (128kbps mp3 = CD
quality sound) and used that to justify another false premise. Totally
unacceptable.
It also makes advertising meaningless. If 64kbps AAC is CD quality,
what is 128kbps AAC - better than CD quality? How, if it's sourced
from a CD?!
Who can people complain to about the ASA?
Cheers,
David.
Chris Croughton
And 128kbps MP3, even using the best encoders, is nowhere near CD
quality. Even 256kbps MP3 isn't, I can hear the difference. As for
DAB, Radio 3 is broadcast at a reasonable quality but Radio 1 is using a
much smaller bandwidth and it is nowhere near CD quality (in fact it's
well below decent FM quality), OfCom were right to uphold that
complaint.
Chris C
Gary
"David Robinson" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
> Who can people complain to about the ASA?
Complain directly to them, pointing out the error of their ways. This is
something which should not be met with *just* a roll of the eyes and a shake
of the head... ;-)
SpamTrapSeeSig
Liquorice <new...@howhill.com> writes
It's like claiming a car will do 100 MPH, and, when it's proven to do
45, saying, "That's quite fast enough, and lots of people think so."
I bet they all get paid enormous sums too for this sort of thing...
Regards,
Simonm.
--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY, BRISTOL www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "hudsterou" <nos...@spam.spam> wrote in message
> news:<cffcka$kr8$1...@yarrow.open.ac.uk>...
>
> I love the logic. Some reports of disputable origin have suggested
> that 128kbps mp3 equates to CD quality, and another blind test carried
> out by the company pushing the product have shown that 64kbps is
> indistinguishable from 128kbps mp3. Therefore, 64kbps AAC is CD
> quality!
>
> How about the fact that there are blind tests that show 64kbps is
> inferior to 128kbps mp3, and that there are blind tests that show
> 128kbps mp3 is inferior to CD.
David, can you provide references to the above and then I'll put it on
my website along with the ASA's email address.
David Robinson
> David Robinson wrote:
> > How about the fact that there are blind tests that show 64kbps is
> > inferior to 128kbps mp3, and that there are blind tests that show
> > 128kbps mp3 is inferior to CD.
>
>
> David, can you provide references to the above and then I'll put it on
> my website along with the ASA's email address.
Pick your way through these...
On the 128kbps mp3 encoders test, even the very top of the error bar
of the results for the _best_ encoder doesn't fall into the
"perceptible but not annoying" category - the best mp3 encoder was
judged to be 3.74 i.e. "slightly annoying"!
Unfortunately, you can always argue (justifiably) that the 5-point
scale isn't applied accurately within these tests. However, the fact
that the encoders are so far from transparent (where transparent
_would_ mean quality) shows that they are a long way off CD quality.
The argument to use against the ASA decision isn't that no one would
think it was CD quality. On cheap equipment some people, listening
without a reference, might think it sounds a bit like a CD. The point
is that many people _can_ tell the difference between it and a CD,
_and_ there's a world of difference into which other products will
fall. If you let something that clearly doesn't sound like a CD
advertise itself as "CD quality", what can a better (but still not CD
quality) product advertise itself as? You're in danger of redefining
"CD quality" to mean "anything that's not completely crap", whereas
"CD quality" means quality that sounds like a CD.
I might chase this up myself, but it's a good idea to put it on your
website.
Cheers,
David.
David Robinson
<some details snipped>
I believe the evidence provided to you by the advertiser was flawed,
and hence your judgement is unsound.
There are British standards (e.g. ITU-R BS.1116-1 (1997)) and European
guidelines (e.g. EBU MUSHRA, EBU "indistinguishable quality"
criterion, detailed in ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11/N1419 etc) which cover
the judgement of audio quality, and these have been ignored here.
The definitive BS1116 compliant tests show that neither MPEG-1 layer
III (commonly referred to as mp3) at 128kbps nor MPEG-2 AAC at 96kbps
provide quality equivalent to the original source material (e.g.
compact disc, i.e. CD quality) in the vast majority of cases.
[See "Report on the MPEG-2 AAC Stereo Verification Tests" ISO/IEC
JTC1/SC29/WG11/N2006 and "Subjective Evaluation of State-of-the-Art
Two-Channel Audio Codecs." Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
vol. 46, no. 3, Mar., pp. 164-177.]
Further more, music traded on the internet is commonly traded at
higher bitrates than the 128kbps mp3 argued to be "CD quality" by the
advertiser. The use of higher bitrates than 64kbps AAC and 128kbps mp3
by typical consumers suggests that either: (a) they like wasting space
on their iPods and wasting time downloading larger files than they
need, or (b) they perceive a positive audio quality benefit from using
higher bitrates, and find the quality provided by the lower bitrates
to be unacceptable. The public have voted with their feet (and their
iPods) – they don't believe 64kbps AAC is CD quality. If users copying
CDs find this lower quality level unacceptable, then it is
unacceptable to advertise it as CD quality!
The "official" tests I have referenced above may be dismissed by the
advertiser as "too strict" and "not representative of normal people
and listening conditions". Luckily, there are other tests which allow
normal listeners to use normal audio equipment in normal listening
condition to judge the quality of coded audio. This appears to match
the criteria which the advertiser claimed to meet. Apart from this
relaxation, these tests employ the combined the methodology of BS1116
and EBU MUSHRA to ensure that the results are very reliable.
See http://www.rjamorim.com/test/
In summary, these tests show that the best available mp3 encoder at
128kbps was audibly inferior to the original CD for all of the music
auditioned in this test. If required, the results are available for
all listeners who took part in the test. While some couldn't
distinguish between CD and 128kbps mp3 for some music, the vast
majority could and did. In many instances the disparity between CD and
128kbps mp3 was large – a score between 2 and 3 suggests the
differences were so great as to be judged as "annoying".
This result alone demolishes the advertisers claim that 64kbps Dolby
AAC is CD quality, because they based this claim on false information
that 128kbps mp3 is CD quality. However, there are further direct
tests published on the same website of AAC (though some of software
tested is not licensed from Dolby) where 64kbps AAC is shown to be
inferior to both 128kbps mp3 and CD quality.
One could argue about how close the perceived audio quality must be to
the original to count as "CD quality". The EBU have given their own
"indistinguishable quality" reference, but even if this is considered
to be too strict, both mp3 at 128kbps and AAC at 64kbps fall SO FAR
SHORT of this criterion that it is simply inexcusable to describe them
as CD quality.
It is true that it is possible to find listeners who, listening
through certain audio equipment to a source without comparison will
think that 64kbps AAC sounds something like a CD. However, the vast
majority of listeners are able to distinguish between 64kbps AAC the
original CD, and the difference between the two is quite large. If,
though the difference is clearly audible, the advertiser is allowed to
advertise this service as "CD quality", what description can be used
of another service, which is of better (but still not quite) CD
quality? There are no words left!
The definition of "CD quality" which the advertiser is promoting
actually equates to "something which doesn't sound too bad" quality.
It has nothing to do with CD quality, and is distinctly different, so
should not be allowed.
In the adjudication, you state "The advertisers explained that the
claim "CD-quality" referred to the sound quality of their radio
stations, which they believed was comparable to listening to a CD;
they believed it did not imply that the mode of compression of the
sound was identical.". However, it is widely accepted that something
_can_ be CD quality, without being coded using exactly the same linear
PCM digital representation employed on compact disc, so this
differentiation is a red herring.
You also state "They believed the test confirmed that an average
consumer listening to sound provided through Dolby AAC at 64 kbps
would be unable to tell the difference between the quality of sound
coming from a CD and sound from the Dolby encoding process used in
Radio@AOL." This test does not prove this, at all. While logically and
mathematically, if A=B and B=C then this proves A=C, this does NOT
apply to human perception. In subjective, perceptual judgements, it is
perfectly possible that small, imperceptible differences between A and
B, and B and C, will result in a perceptible difference between A and
C. It is trivial to demonstrate this with small, imperceptible changes
in the loudness of a sound or the brightness of a light: as the sun
rises each morning, each moment the brightness looks exactly the same
as the previous moment. However, over time, we pass from night to day
– it's just that each small change went unnoticed. The logic of the
AOL test would have you believe that, since there is never a direct
perceptual difference between one moment and the next, then an average
consumer would be unable to tell the difference between night and day!
In summary, the claim that 64kbps Dolby AAC is perceptually equivalent
to CD quality has not been substantiated by the advertisers. There are
many formal and informal tests that disprove the claim, and the
advertisers own attempts to prove the claim are based on dubious
information from internet reviews, their own tests, and a false
application of logic to link the two. Further, many users choose to
spend time encoding and downloading files which are higher quality
than those which AOL claims are already indistinguishable from a CD.
There is a simple convention which has become common currency in the
last decade: Where something approaches, but is distinguishable from
CD, it is referred to as "near CD quality". Something which is digital
(and hence does not suffer from hiss, clicks and noise) but otherwise
sounds worse than a CD is referred to as "digital quality". AOL should
adopt this convention.
64kbps AAC is not CD quality, and should not be advertised as such.
I'll let people know what happens.
Cheers,
David.
hudsterou
>
> 64kbps AAC is not CD quality, and should not be advertised as such.
I'm suprised you didn't point out to them the irony that they published
this judgement in the exact same week that ofcom published their
judgement regarding the DAB advertisment claims for CD quality.
Mike
Chris Croughton <ch...@keristor.net> wrote:
>And 128kbps MP3, even using the best encoders, is nowhere near CD
>quality. Even 256kbps MP3 isn't, I can hear the difference.
But you have good equipment and/or better/trained hearing. You are in
a minority.
They were talking about it being indistinguishable to the average listener.
Clearly the mathematically improbable conclusion from the ASA is that more
than half of the population have below average hearing :)
Mike.
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/
Don Aitken
>In article <cfnal5$7d6$1...@posie.local.dom>,
> Mike wrote:
>
>> Clearly the mathematically improbable conclusion from the ASA is that more
>> than half of the population have below average hearing :)
>
>Define your "average": mode, mean or median. Only median is guaranteed
>to have a 50:50 split.
Almost all of the population has more than the average number of legs
(taking "average" in its usual sense of "mean").
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
SpamTrapSeeSig
<don-a...@freeuk.com> writes
>Almost all of the population has more than the average number of legs
>(taking "average" in its usual sense of "mean").
I read what you said, but strangely, all I heard was this:
--------------------------- >8 -----------------------------
[Agent]: Now Mr. Spigot, I couldn't help noticing almost at once
that you are a one-legged person.
[Spigot]: You noticed that?
[Agent]: I noticed that, Mr. Spigot.
When you have been in the business as long as I have,
you come to notice these little things almost instinctively.
Now, Mr. Spigot, you, a one-legged man, are applying for
the role of Tarzan, a role which traditionally involved
the use of a two-legged actor.
[Spigot]: Correct.
[Agent]: And yet you, a unidexter, are applying for the role...
[Spigot]: Right.
[Agent]: ... a role for which two legs would seem to be the
minimum requirement.
Your right leg I like. I like your right leg.
'A lovely leg for the role,' that's what I said when I
saw you come in. I said, " A lovely leg for the role."
I've got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is,
neither have you...
----------------------------- >8 ------------------------
Dave J
'Don Aitken' wrote:
>On 15 Aug 2004 16:26:04 GMT, Paul Martin <p...@zetnet.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <cfnal5$7d6$1...@posie.local.dom>,
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Clearly the mathematically improbable conclusion from the ASA is that more
>>> than half of the population have below average hearing :)
>>
>>Define your "average": mode, mean or median. Only median is guaranteed
>>to have a 50:50 split.
>
>Almost all of the population has more than the average number of legs
>(taking "average" in its usual sense of "mean").
I'd never thought of that one, but it's the neatest demonstration of
the flaws in the average <g> person's interpretation of statistics
that I've seen. Noted, and thanks.
--
Dave Johnson - req...@freeuk.com
Mike
Paul Martin <p...@zetnet.net> wrote:
>> Clearly the mathematically improbable conclusion from the ASA is that more
>> than half of the population have below average hearing :)
>Define your "average": mode, mean or median. Only median is guaranteed
>to have a 50:50 split.
Like the ASA are going to know that there's more than one way to
calculate an average ... :)
Nick Leverton
>In article <slrnchv3...@laptop.nowster.org.uk>,
>Paul Martin <p...@zetnet.net> wrote:
>
>>> Clearly the mathematically improbable conclusion from the ASA is that more
>>> than half of the population have below average hearing :)
>
>>Define your "average": mode, mean or median. Only median is guaranteed
>>to have a 50:50 split.
>
>Like the ASA are going to know that there's more than one way to
>calculate an average ... :)
That's the nice thing about standards, there are so many to choose from ;-)
Nick
--
"And we will be restoring neurotypicality just as soon as we are sure
what is normal anyway. Thank you". -- not quite DNA