In article ,
ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 11:14:04 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mats Peterson" wrote in message
...
MP3 is ok for content with severely cropped frequency range, like old
time radio, or otherwise if using sub-optimal equipment such as a
portable player and el cheapo earbuds. But I always use lossless (CD
or FLAC) at home with the hi-fi system.
I find that it is helpful to consider only the subjective impressions of
people who:
(1) Compare MP3s directly to the .wav files they are made from
(2) Have the means to make this comparison level-matched, time-synched,
and
double blind
(3) Hear differences in a statistically significant percentage of the the
comparisons
(2) Turns out to be very easy using free software tools available for
download from multiple sources.
If one does that, concerns about audible differences are generally relate
to
issues other than high frequencies.
Frequency response is generally not the issue here anyway. The issue is
sounds generated by the compression and expanding action that is NOT
part of the music and therefore can bee looked at as noise/distortion.
These sounds are put there by the compression algorithm, and with
certain kinds of music are easily heard.
But as you said these are only easily heard with headphones or earbuds and
even your golden ears has difficulty with masking of these artifacts with
high quality compression.
Further, considering that compression is an option, and these highly
resolving systems capable of revealing these artifacts cost $100....I stand
by my statement that high end isn't dead. It's ubiquitous.
Would you like to explain to me what's optional about lossy compression
when there's no way to listen to streaming Internet radio without it?
While some Internet radio is streamed at 192 KBPS, most is 128 KBPS or
less. While 192 KBPS compression is higher quality than most, I can
still hear it with some program material,
Just as high end digital photography is blowing away film and in a consumer
format no less.
http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/...-35822762.html
"You can sum up Nokia's just-unveiled Lumia 1020 in three words: 41,
megapixel, camera."
"The Windows 8 phone will sell exclusively in the U.S. at AT&T for a hefty
$299.99...."
Too bad it runs Windows. That means it'll do everything poorly. I would
love to see some real pictures this puppy.
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---