[Mats Peterson]

Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 6:53:22 AM UTC-7, Mats Peterson wrote:
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. Mats -- Mats Peterson
http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/


When you make such a gross general statement as "MP3" you simply demonstrate
an extreme lack of experience with the technology to be taken seriously.
Everyone who has commented positively on MP3s has included the caveat of high
quality high bit rate files. I use vbr of 240 to 355 and there is absolutely
no audible degradation.


Let's not go too far in the other direction either. Perhaps YOU can't hear
the artifacts with high VBR, but believe me, they are there. In my
experience it depends a lot on what kind of music you are compressing.
I agree that pop music, jazz and even symphonic classical, with a VBR
of 240+ it's probably pretty difficult for many to hear any artifacts.
But believe me these artifacts become very audible (on headphones, at
least - they are pretty far down) when you compare solo acoustic guitar,
harpsichord, even some piano recordings. Even people who swear that
they can't hear the artifacts, find that they can hear them clearly
once they have been pointed out by someone switching between the
uncompressed source and the ripped file. On speakers, I can't hear
it either, but I can easily hear 192 Bps either VBR or fixed.


Thank you. Another sane person in this group. And yes, it depends of
course on the type of music how well you will hear the degradation, but
it will always be there.

Mats

--
Mats Peterson
http://alicja.homelinux.com/~mats/