Andrew Barss wrote:
Greg wrote:
:Well, the sampling rate for a typical MP3 is about one one-hundredth
:of that for a CD. So, go with MP3s if you like really degraded sound.
: 100:1??? bull****!
I was in error -=- but the compression rate used by iTunes, and as far as
I know *all* online music services, is compressed in the 128kbps range.
That really is quite lossy, and way below the amount of data that a CD
encodes.
Uh, a CD samples at 44kHz. 128 is not "way below" 44.
I don't have particularly good hearing; I'm hardly an audiophile; and I
don't believe in Monster cables, mopane disks (obww content) on top of my
speakers, or any of the other mystical claims of the audionut world.
But I've heard MP3s of ther sort you czsn download frfom commerical sites;
and I've heard CDs of the same tracks; and there really is an audible
difference, and a big one even to this casual listener.
Which tells you absolutely nothing about MP3. Only about the quality of the
MP3s that you got from those specific sites, which were recorded from God
knows what using God knows what by God knows who.
: MP3 just uses a compression scheme that reduces the file size by about
: 1/5 - 1/10 depending on bit rate.
Yup. And do you think that the 80-90% of data that is lost by this
compression method doesn't result in degradation of the sound?
First, 80-90% is not lost. You can get 40% compression with no loss at all.
MP3 goes beyond that by using a model that degrades the signal in ways that
an expert panel of listeners can't detect using recordings specifically
selected for the purpose.
DAGS on "iPod compression CD", and you'll find a bunch of reports of this
lossyness.
Try just searching "MP3 compression" instead. The fact that MP3 is lossy is
not any great secret. It was designed to be lossy, it's known to be lossy,
the cleverness of the algorithms is in how they deal with the loss.
You can save them in WAV at exactly the same
: resolution if you are that much of a purist. The price of disk drives is
: so low these days that this is a reasonable option.
Sure -- but that assumes you start out owning the CD and can choose the
resolution. That is not an option, AFAIK, with any of the online
commercial sites.
You seem to be confusing two issues here, the performance of MP3 as a
compression algorithm and the quality of the recordings downloadable from
"legal" music sites.
: I defy you to tell the difference between a 256 kbs MP3 and CD when
: played on the normal stereo system in the usual home setting.
I can hear it. If you can't -- great. But I can -- loss of
soundstage separation of instruments, loss of treble, etc.
You've done that specific comparison, played back a CD and 256 kb/s MP3 that
you RIPped from that CD using LAME or another high quality encoder, both on
the same device, and had someone switch the two randomly while you were not
looking? And you can hear the difference? Try 320 then. And if you can
hear _that_ then call the MPEG committee as they'll want to use you as a
tester.
In a moving car with 60 or
: 70 db of background noise your CD "quality" is totally wasted and you
: can probably use 128k or even 64k.
Or 8-track, which has about the same resolution as a typical commercial
MP3.
: 320kbs MP3 is far superior to what you can get from FM radio, Vinyl or
: tape.
Not so sure there about vinyl. I'm agnostic in the debate, but I've seen
compelling data from audio engineers that a freshly pressed LP has several
times the audio resolution of a CD.
So does 320 kb/sec MP3. However all of them can record signals to 22 KHz
and the number of humans whose acoustic range goes above that level can
probably be counted on the fingers of one hand, so anything beyond that
level would seem to be irrelevant for all but a very few gifted
individuals.
It
: is certainly better than the average stereo system can reproduce. If it
: wasn't so good the RIAA would not have their panties in such a wad over
: it.
Hunh? They're worried because the MP3 format (at typical resolution) is
prety good, and easy to copy and make avail;able on the web.
Big difference between "pretty good" and "Cd quality".
While this is true it's not really relevant to the discussion.
-- Andy Barss
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)