“Research finds MP3s make your music sound more depressing” says the latest bit of breathless reportage to come floating down the audio/science news feeds. In this new ‘post fact’ age, I guess I’m no longer supposed to be surprised by the paucity of actual evidence offered up in support of any particular assertion put forward as scientific ‘research’ but in the interests of actual reality, let’s focus the Hummadruz lens on this affair.
As usual, nearly every mention of this that I saw completely uncritically regurgitated copy that looked like it came from one source. I couldn’t narrow it down to a first instance, but the coverage from NME was typical:
New research has found that listening to music in low-quality digital formats can dampened its emotional impact.
According to a study by the Audio Engineering Library, MP3s can have a distinct effect on the “timbral and emotional characteristics” of the instruments involved.
Researchers compared responses to compressed and uncompressed music over ten emotional categories at several bit rates.
It’s always instructive to find out who is responsible for research, so my obvious first action when I read the above quote was to click on that link to the ‘Audio Engineering Library’ and find out who those dudes actually are. Puzzlingly, the link just leads to the abstract of the actual paper, which makes no mention of that organisation.
In fact, searching the web for the ‘Audio Engineering Library’ reveals that there is no such entity, and, instructively, pretty much every search result leads to some variation or other of the story about ‘How compression makes your music depressing’. It’s a veritable self-referential maelstrom. Audio Engineering Library? Someone just made that shit up.*
If ever there was an indication that we are about to enter the land of hogwash and horsepiss, here we have it.
Still, we have the paper right? Published on Researchgate – the science industry equivalent of LinkedIn – to be sure, but proper science will out!
The first thing we should note is that this research is a one-off publication, on an online site, of a conference presentation. The research it entails has neither been replicated, nor peer-reviewed. This is, in scientific terms, not much more than a bunch of opinions.
We don’t have to delve far into the paper to find its true worth:
We used eight sustained instrument sounds: bassoon (bs), clarinet (cl), flute (fl), horn (hn), oboe (ob), saxophone (sx), trumpet (tp), and violin (vn).
Whoa there cowboy! I was told by NME that the compression made my music more depressing. You do know what music is, don’t you NME? What it is not, is a bunch of fixed-note sustained instrument noises taken entirely out of musical context.
In addition to that complete clanger, there is no mention anywhere in the paper about how many subjects were used in these tests, nor anything about how they were conducted – just a lot of technical hocus-pocus about compression methods, and some graphs that are totally meaningless given what we just read. Wading further through this procedural mess, we find so much experimenter subjectivity stirred into the mix that the study is rendered all but useless as a piece of viable science.
To sum up, an unpublished, un peer-reviewed paper, conducted by a fictional institution, tells us that in an un-replicated study, an unspecified number of listeners (keeping in mind that could be as few as two) were played compressed timbral instrumental single tones (not music) and asked to subjectively choose – from a list pre-determined by the researchers – how those noises made them feel.
Would you conclude that from there you could get to “Research finds MP3s make your music sound more depressing”?
No, me neither.
*Addendum: It seems they probably mean the AES (Audio Engineering Society) Library, where the paper is also archived. So let’s chalk that one up to sloppy journalism, rather than wilful deception. On the AES site, the presentation appears under its actual title The Effects of MP3 Compression on Perceived Emotional Characteristics in Musical Instruments [my emphasis].
Notice that this doesn’t make any claims about music, per se, and is a much more accurate appraisal of what the study was actually looking at (see comments below for further clarification).