I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?

I don't hear any difference. A couple of my (audiophile) friends wouldn't
even consider listening to mp3 as they claim that quality is terrible. Then
again, the same guy considers regular CDs low quality - he sez the only good
stuff is the one sampled at 80khz (or whatever that rate 44khz is). Guess
it all boils down to personal preferences.

Peter

I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?

Use Musepack. You won't be able to tell the difference then. The author's
page: http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~pfk/mpp/index2.html and another
great site for audio compression, etc.:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?

Tony

"Johan Wagener" wrote in message
...
I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?

"Johan Wagener" wrote in message
...
I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?

I've noticed this as well, what I call "digital swirl". Most easily heard on
lower bitrate MP3s and still detectible on higher bitrate stuff. The 10 kHz
range or so is most affected in my *opinion*. (I'm guessing on frequency
here.) I've never seen a claim that the difference between MP3 and CD is
inaudible, but rather very close and--for the trade off in filesize
reduction--is worth it for many people.

-Bill

Bill Pallies wrote:

"Johan Wagener" wrote in message
...

I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?


I've noticed this as well, what I call "digital swirl". Most easily heard on
lower bitrate MP3s and still detectible on higher bitrate stuff. The 10 kHz
range or so is most affected in my *opinion*. (I'm guessing on frequency
here.) I've never seen a claim that the difference between MP3 and CD is
inaudible, but rather very close and--for the trade off in filesize
reduction--is worth it for many people.

-Bill



nothing beats a 96Khz 24bit wav. Has anyone heard DVD Audio yet. I love
it. Missy Elliot did a 5.1 remix of her album Under Construction that
has got Timbaland throwing sounds around like a madman. I still got my
iPod for the bootleg **** and i am by no means an audiophile but i can
tell the difference between a MP3 and CD. especially in high vocal
ranges you can really notice it.

Here is something to try. Get a good quality wav file sweep from 20Hz to
20KHz (there are a lot of signal/tone generator programs that will allow
you to export wavs. keep the original. then rip another copy in mp3
between 320 to 192 kbps (depends on software limitations). burn both on
a cd (the original wav and the ripped mp3)(converted to a wav again
through your cd burning progam) Compare them and tell me if you notice a
difference. I did.

EFFENDI

I have noticed this also. Most CD's are not labled with there
compression format.
So what would be the best compression formula to use when converting a
..wav file to MP3?
Assuming one wants to place as many MP3 on a single disk as possible
without loosing sound quality.

On 27 Nov 2003 12:56:24 -0800, (Bill Never) wrote:

I have noticed this also. Most CD's are not labled with there
compression format.
So what would be the best compression formula to use when converting a
.wav file to MP3?
Assuming one wants to place as many MP3 on a single disk as possible
without loosing sound quality.

Well, CDs traditionally are not considered "compressed", so they're
not labeled with any kind of compression format. The format for most
CDs is PCM 16-bit, 44.1 Khz stereo.

When you convert from a CD (or an uncompressed .WAV file) into an MP3
file, the MP3 file will sound different. That's why MP3 encoding is
called "lossy compression". Whether or not that difference is
noticeable to you depends on what bit rate you use when you're
encoding, the quality of your playback equipment, and the sensitivity
of your ears.

For me, I use 192 kbps AAC encoding if I'm ripping CDs, and 160 or 128
if I'm recording from vinyl. Those numbers work for me, but someone
with a smaller hard drive might go for a lower bit rate, while someone
with more sensitive ears than mine might go for a larger bit rate.

I think most people would agree that 160 kbps or 192 kbps is a pretty
good tradeoff between file size and sound quality.

Scott Gardner

Personally I've heard the quality difference, and it definitely
exists. I don't think most people will argue against this fact, when
sitting in a quiet room, doing an A/B comparison. High freq's get
muddled. Fast clicks from castanets and such instruments tend to blur
together.

As an exercise a few years ago, I took a few matlab scripts and
compared raw CD frequency spectra data to 96/128/256kbps mp3's. The
spectra were quite different indeed! In some instances mp3's
introduced large frequencies not present in the original!

Whether or not your ears can notice it while travelling at 140km/hr on
the highway is entirely another story. It's a quality/size trade-off
most definitely.

Gordon


"Johan Wagener" wrote in message ...
I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?

MP3 became the popular download format chosen as it was right at the
line where people could hear a difference. It is a terrible format for
listening. It's great for downloading due to it's smaller file size.
You do not get all the information back after downloading MP3 then
converting back to wave or other format. MP3 is most certainly not high
fidelity.
The next few years will decide the next format. An upsampled cd format
(no name other than that), or DVD-A, or SACD. So far there is no clear
victor due in most part to lack of advertising by the manufactures. The
majority of consumers don't know about the different formats or their
pro's and con's. None are selling like hot cakes.

I read somewhere that its because we 'burn' cd;s while the record companies
do more of an 'impression' rather than burn. Not sure what that means, but
that is what I have to offer...
Rick
"Johan Wagener" wrote in message
...
I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?

The method used to record a CD at home is different than the methods used to
mass produce CDs, this is true. However, the end result is an identical
digital representation of the music (that is if you were to copy a CD. If
you take MP3s and put them on a CD in CD format, you will have already lost
some musical information when the MP3s were originally encoded and you
cannot get that back.). Thus, the data is identical and the sound output is
as well. The only drawbacks to homemade CDs is their reduced durability.
Maybe after sitting on your dash for a while in the sun, you will lose some
bits, but otherwise the process used to create a burned CD does not
sacrifice musical quality

-Bill


"rick donnelly" wrote in message
news
I read somewhere that its because we 'burn' cd;s while the record
companies
do more of an 'impression' rather than burn. Not sure what that means, but
that is what I have to offer...
Rick
"Johan Wagener" wrote in message
...
I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high
quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?

I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?




It can easily be heard if you're not encoding them with a good
algorithm. Also, the ripping process can affect the outcome if you
don't disable things like normalization.

nothing beats a 96Khz 24bit wav. Has anyone heard DVD Audio yet. I love
it. Missy Elliot did a 5.1 remix of her album Under Construction that
has got Timbaland throwing sounds around like a madman. I still got my
iPod for the bootleg **** and i am by no means an audiophile but i can
tell the difference between a MP3 and CD. especially in high vocal
ranges you can really notice it.

Here is something to try. Get a good quality wav file sweep from 20Hz to
20KHz (there are a lot of signal/tone generator programs that will allow
you to export wavs. keep the original. then rip another copy in mp3
between 320 to 192 kbps (depends on software limitations). burn both on
a cd (the original wav and the ripped mp3)(converted to a wav again
through your cd burning progam) Compare them and tell me if you notice a
difference. I did.


That's a poor test. mp3 is designed for music, not tones. What's the
difference? Well, most mp3 algorithms first LPF the signal (possibly
adding a noticeable difference when listening to tones, but not to
music), and the compression algorithm relies heavily on masking, which
is not present when listening to pure tones.

I have noticed this also. Most CD's are not labled with there
compression format.
So what would be the best compression formula to use when converting a
.wav file to MP3?
Assuming one wants to place as many MP3 on a single disk as possible
without loosing sound quality.

Use EAC with the LAME encoder. In the options, you can choose the
parameters. Use a low-pass filter parameter based on the quality of
your ears, and use the lowest bitrate before you can detect a
difference. Turn normalization off. You'll be hard-pressed to find a
difference.

Personally I've heard the quality difference, and it definitely
exists. I don't think most people will argue against this fact, when
sitting in a quiet room, doing an A/B comparison. High freq's get
muddled. Fast clicks from castanets and such instruments tend to blur
together.

I'd argue that you weren't using a very good encoder and/or encoding
parameters. The reason I believe this is because the symptoms you
describe sound like an algorithm problem. Frequency response should not
be significantly affected unless you've set the filter too low or you're
encoding at too low of a bitrate. Or sometimes the algorithm just
sucks. While there doesn't exist a "perfect" algorithm, the better ones
minimize artifacts and can maintain the perceived frequency response
quite well.


As an exercise a few years ago, I took a few matlab scripts and
compared raw CD frequency spectra data to 96/128/256kbps mp3's. The
spectra were quite different indeed! In some instances mp3's
introduced large frequencies not present in the original!

Of course they're different! That's the point. Where else would you
think the difference would exist? The point of mp3 compression is to
"compress out" the attributes of the signal that are undetectable
according to known psychophysical parameters. It's not the
psychophysics that's at difficult to overcome - it's the computer
science. Some algorithms are better than others, even if they go in
with the same assumptions.

Thought I could tell the difference on anything below 192K bitrate based
on listening at home. On the other hand, we are talking about cars here
, I think road noise would close the difference.

Daniel

Johan Wagener wrote:

I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?

Johan Wagener wrote:
I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?


Does anyone do any of their own research nowadays? I gave a dissertation
on this subject not three months ago.

The quality of an MP3 (or any digital audio format) is entirely
dependant on the encoder, bitrate, and format. I can tell you now that
if I played a standard CD, you'd never tell the difference between it
and MP3 encoded on the frauenhoffer codec at 128 kbps. Anyone that tells
you any different is a damnable liar. But then, unless you want to shell
out the $300 for the right software, chances are you'll use a blade,
lame, or xing encoder, in which case you'll need higher bitrates, on the
oder of 192, 256, or 320 kbps.

There are better alternatives to MP3, namely Xiph's OGG Vorbis format.
Vorbis can do at 96 kbps what frauenhoffer does at 128 kbps, has better
stereo separation, and most importanly, is free (as in beer). All my new
CD's get ripped to OGG instead of MP3 now, and the quality is hella
better, noticeably so.

--
Lizard
tR 007

And what will play OGG files? I don't think there are any car units that
will and I'll be damned if I'm putting a computer in my car just to listen
to burnd music.



Paul Vina



"thelizman" thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message
...
Johan Wagener wrote:
I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high
quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?


Does anyone do any of their own research nowadays? I gave a dissertation
on this subject not three months ago.

The quality of an MP3 (or any digital audio format) is entirely
dependant on the encoder, bitrate, and format. I can tell you now that
if I played a standard CD, you'd never tell the difference between it
and MP3 encoded on the frauenhoffer codec at 128 kbps. Anyone that tells
you any different is a damnable liar. But then, unless you want to shell
out the $300 for the right software, chances are you'll use a blade,
lame, or xing encoder, in which case you'll need higher bitrates, on the
oder of 192, 256, or 320 kbps.

There are better alternatives to MP3, namely Xiph's OGG Vorbis format.
Vorbis can do at 96 kbps what frauenhoffer does at 128 kbps, has better
stereo separation, and most importanly, is free (as in beer). All my new
CD's get ripped to OGG instead of MP3 now, and the quality is hella
better, noticeably so.

--
Lizard
tR 007

Paul Vina wrote:
And what will play OGG files? I don't think there are any car units that
will and I'll be damned if I'm putting a computer in my car just to listen
to burnd music.

If you're looking for an in-dash unit, too bad, so sad. The car audio
industry is a friggin dinosaur, and they didn't actually respond to the
MP3 format until they started seeing people go as far as hacking up
computers. When the EMPEG started selling, they finally got in gear.

Now, if you're willing to jack in a portable (like the old days with
portable CD's), there's some nice contendors which offer Ogg in addition
to MP3.

The iRiver HP120
http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/iHP-120.asp

The iRiver HP100
http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/iHP-100.asp

Rio Karma
http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/sho...del=220&cat=35
(the Karma not only supports Ogg, but also FLAC and WMA).

Neuros
http://www.neurosaudio.com/
(this is a linux micro-kernal based device, so you can add support for a
variety of codecs down the road).

And if you're not quite convinced Ogg is worth it, here's a listening
test where Ogg Vorbis beat out MP3 and AAC at the same bitrates.

--
Lizard

If you're looking for an in-dash unit, too bad, so sad. The car audio
industry is a friggin dinosaur, and they didn't actually respond to the
MP3 format until they started seeing people go as far as hacking up
computers. When the EMPEG started selling, they finally got in gear.

an interesting aside... i own a couple empegs and quite a while back the ogg
playback code was made available for use on the empeg by the developers...
there is an alpha release of v3.0 (released sept 03) of the empeg player
software which incorporates ogg support including tag support...
--
sancho
neener neener neener

My old shop almost picked up the empeg unit (I really liked it) but the
higher-ups thought it was too expensive. Meanwhile the HA guys had those "I
coulda bought a house instead of ONE of these" Martin Logans sitting in
their demo room. Gotta love it.
I'm going to look at those OGG players. Might be something to add after I
finish everything else up when the car gets back from the paint shop.

I didn't see a link for the listening test.



Paul Vina




"thelizman" thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message
...
Paul Vina wrote:
And what will play OGG files? I don't think there are any car units
that
will and I'll be damned if I'm putting a computer in my car just to
listen
to burnd music.

If you're looking for an in-dash unit, too bad, so sad. The car audio
industry is a friggin dinosaur, and they didn't actually respond to the
MP3 format until they started seeing people go as far as hacking up
computers. When the EMPEG started selling, they finally got in gear.

Now, if you're willing to jack in a portable (like the old days with
portable CD's), there's some nice contendors which offer Ogg in addition
to MP3.

The iRiver HP120
http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/iHP-120.asp

The iRiver HP100
http://www.iriveramerica.com/products/iHP-100.asp

Rio Karma

http://www.digitalnetworksna.com/sho...del=220&cat=35
(the Karma not only supports Ogg, but also FLAC and WMA).

Neuros
http://www.neurosaudio.com/
(this is a linux micro-kernal based device, so you can add support for a
variety of codecs down the road).

And if you're not quite convinced Ogg is worth it, here's a listening
test where Ogg Vorbis beat out MP3 and AAC at the same bitrates.

--
Lizard

thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message ...
Johan Wagener wrote:
I have noticed that original audio cds sound better than even high quality
mp3's. this is especially true when playing it in my car on my mids and
tweeters. They claim that the difference in mp3 and cd audio cannot be
heard. Any comments?


Does anyone do any of their own research nowadays? I gave a dissertation
on this subject not three months ago.

The quality of an MP3 (or any digital audio format) is entirely
dependant on the encoder, bitrate, and format. I can tell you now that
if I played a standard CD, you'd never tell the difference between it
and MP3 encoded on the frauenhoffer codec at 128 kbps. Anyone that tells
you any different is a damnable liar. But then, unless you want to shell
out the $300 for the right software, chances are you'll use a blade,
lame, or xing encoder, in which case you'll need higher bitrates, on the
oder of 192, 256, or 320 kbps.

There are better alternatives to MP3, namely Xiph's OGG Vorbis format.
Vorbis can do at 96 kbps what frauenhoffer does at 128 kbps, has better
stereo separation, and most importanly, is free (as in beer). All my new
CD's get ripped to OGG instead of MP3 now, and the quality is hella
better, noticeably so.


How can the quality be "hella better" if you couldn't tell the
difference between mp3 and cd in the first place??

Paul Vina wrote:

I didn't see a link for the listening test.


It was a stealth link.

http://www.phataudio.org/modules.php...rder=1&thold=0

Mark Zarella wrote:

How can the quality be "hella better" if you couldn't tell the
difference between mp3 and cd in the first place??

That's a good question. I was talking about Ogg being better than mp3,
not better than CD.

--
Lizard
Marky-pooh's reading comprehension needs help.

"thelizman" thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella wrote:

How can the quality be "hella better" if you couldn't tell the
difference between mp3 and cd in the first place??

That's a good question. I was talking about Ogg being better than mp3,
not better than CD.

So wait...CD and MP3 sound the same to you, but OGG sounds BETTER? What did
I miss here? Did all of your music magically become better, 'cuz if so I
know a few sound engineers who might want to talk to the OGG people...

Hank Kester wrote:

So wait...CD and MP3 sound the same to you, but OGG sounds BETTER? What did
I miss here? Did all of your music magically become better, 'cuz if so I
know a few sound engineers who might want to talk to the OGG people...

You're not very smart, are you nut****? Don't waste my time. Go back and
read what I wrote, and think for yourself. If plain english still
somehow overwhelms you, then come back and ask coherent questions that
are not based on interogotive presuppositions.

--
Lizard
Low tolerance for crackbabies.

thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message ...
Mark Zarella wrote:

How can the quality be "hella better" if you couldn't tell the
difference between mp3 and cd in the first place??

That's a good question. I was talking about Ogg being better than mp3,
not better than CD.

I could have sworn you said that there's no difference between mp3 and
cd under the high bitrate conditions. That's what prompted my
question.

Mark Zarella wrote:
thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message ...

Mark Zarella wrote:

How can the quality be "hella better" if you couldn't tell the
difference between mp3 and cd in the first place??

That's a good question. I was talking about Ogg being better than mp3,
not better than CD.


I could have sworn you said that there's no difference between mp3 and
cd under the high bitrate conditions.

Jesus marky pooh, how do you go from "no difference" to "better"? And I
didn't say high bitrate conditions, since CD Audio is always 44.1 kHz.

--
Lizard

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
om...
thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella wrote:

How can the quality be "hella better" if you couldn't tell the
difference between mp3 and cd in the first place??

That's a good question. I was talking about Ogg being better than mp3,
not better than CD.

I could have sworn you said that there's no difference between mp3 and
cd under the high bitrate conditions. That's what prompted my
question.

he did

he also said

"There are better alternatives to MP3, namely Xiph's OGG Vorbis format.
Vorbis can do at 96 kbps what frauenhoffer does at 128 kbps, has better
stereo separation, and most importanly, is free (as in beer). "

as in, at the same bitrate, ogg should sound better... there is a threshold
where it ceases to matter because you will not be able to hear the
difference anymore...

if 'at 96kbps ogg is doing what frauenhoffer (mp3) does at 128kbps'... and a
128kbps mp3 is considered 'cd quality' one could surmise that a 96kbps ogg
would be 'cd quality'
--
sancho
reading comprehension

That's a good question. I was talking about Ogg being better than mp3,
not better than CD.


I could have sworn you said that there's no difference between mp3 and
cd under the high bitrate conditions.

Jesus marky pooh, how do you go from "no difference" to "better"?

Well, then perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "better".
You've made the following two assertions:
1) "I can tell you now that if I played a standard CD, you'd never
tell the difference between it and MP3 encoded on the frauenhoffer
codec at 128 kbps."
2) "All my new CD's get ripped to OGG instead of MP3 now, and the
quality is hella better, noticeably so."

So please explain to us all how it can be "noticeably better" if it's
impossible to tell the difference between cd and mp3 at 128k in the
first place. Are you still unable to recognize the contradiction
between your two lines quoted above? That's why I asked for the
clarification.

And I
didn't say high bitrate conditions, since CD Audio is always 44.1 kHz.

44.1kHz is a sampling rate, not a bitrate. When I said "high" bitrate
conditions, I was referring to the "128kbps" you mentioned.

he did

he also said

"There are better alternatives to MP3, namely Xiph's OGG Vorbis format.
Vorbis can do at 96 kbps what frauenhoffer does at 128 kbps, has better
stereo separation, and most importanly, is free (as in beer). "

as in, at the same bitrate, ogg should sound better... there is a threshold
where it ceases to matter because you will not be able to hear the
difference anymore...

Right. And according to Lizard, the threshold has already been
reached with fraun 128kbps. "I can tell you now that if I played a
standard CD, you'd never tell the difference between it and MP3
encoded on the frauenhoffer codec at 128 kbps." That's what prompted
my question.

if 'at 96kbps ogg is doing what frauenhoffer (mp3) does at 128kbps'... and a
128kbps mp3 is considered 'cd quality' one could surmise that a 96kbps ogg
would be 'cd quality'

Exactly. But how could it be better than the source as was implied?

who the hell signed off on a 128 kbps mp3 being "CD quality"?

JD

sancho wrote:

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
. com...


thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message


...


Mark Zarella wrote:


How can the quality be "hella better" if you couldn't tell the
difference between mp3 and cd in the first place??


That's a good question. I was talking about Ogg being better than mp3,
not better than CD.


I could have sworn you said that there's no difference between mp3 and
cd under the high bitrate conditions. That's what prompted my
question.



he did

he also said

"There are better alternatives to MP3, namely Xiph's OGG Vorbis format.
Vorbis can do at 96 kbps what frauenhoffer does at 128 kbps, has better
stereo separation, and most importanly, is free (as in beer). "

as in, at the same bitrate, ogg should sound better... there is a threshold
where it ceases to matter because you will not be able to hear the
difference anymore...

if 'at 96kbps ogg is doing what frauenhoffer (mp3) does at 128kbps'... and a
128kbps mp3 is considered 'cd quality' one could surmise that a 96kbps ogg
would be 'cd quality'
--
sancho
reading comprehension

"John Durbin" wrote in message
. ..
who the hell signed off on a 128 kbps mp3 being "CD quality"?

JD

John, you did.


narcolept
------
John's been letting the secretary send out memos without him reading them
first again....

sancho wrote:

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
om...

thelizman thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message

...

Mark Zarella wrote:

How can the quality be "hella better" if you couldn't tell the
difference between mp3 and cd in the first place??

That's a good question. I was talking about Ogg being better than mp3,
not better than CD.

I could have sworn you said that there's no difference between mp3 and
cd under the high bitrate conditions. That's what prompted my
question.


he did

he also said

"There are better alternatives to MP3, namely Xiph's OGG Vorbis format.
Vorbis can do at 96 kbps what frauenhoffer does at 128 kbps, has better
stereo separation, and most importanly, is free (as in beer). "

as in, at the same bitrate, ogg should sound better... there is a threshold
where it ceases to matter because you will not be able to hear the
difference anymore...

if 'at 96kbps ogg is doing what frauenhoffer (mp3) does at 128kbps'... and a
128kbps mp3 is considered 'cd quality' one could surmise that a 96kbps ogg
would be 'cd quality'
--
sancho
reading comprehension

"John Durbin" wrote in message
...

who the hell signed off on a 128 kbps mp3 being "CD quality"?

lizard did, apparently...

note: i was not verifying or endorsing his claims, merely clarifying the
points
--
sancho

Mark Zarella wrote:

Well, then perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "better".
You've made the following two assertions:
1) "I can tell you now that if I played a standard CD, you'd never
tell the difference between it and MP3 encoded on the frauenhoffer
codec at 128 kbps."
2) "All my new CD's get ripped to OGG instead of MP3 now, and the
quality is hella better, noticeably so."

So please explain to us all how it can be "noticeably better" if it's
impossible to tell the difference between cd and mp3 at 128k in the
first place. Are you still unable to recognize the contradiction
between your two lines quoted above? That's why I asked for the
clarification.

Are you familiar with logical fallacies, such as Modus Ponens? Also
known as "affirming the consequent" or "converting the conditional"?

I'll let you think about this marky pooh.

--
Lizard
Hint: I don't have the fraunhoffer codec, and I never ripped mp3's at a
mere 128kbps, and Ogg is VBR, and you're really a bit of a doofus sometimes.

John Durbin wrote:
who the hell signed off on a 128 kbps mp3 being "CD quality"?


I did. If you're using the frauenhoffer codec, it is CD quality at 128
kbps. Of course, just about everyone is using lame, xing, blade, etc
etc, which all sound ****ty (xing used to be okay).

--
Lizard

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:53:40 -0500, thelizman
thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote:

Mark Zarella wrote:

Well, then perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "better".
You've made the following two assertions:
1) "I can tell you now that if I played a standard CD, you'd never
tell the difference between it and MP3 encoded on the frauenhoffer
codec at 128 kbps."
2) "All my new CD's get ripped to OGG instead of MP3 now, and the
quality is hella better, noticeably so."

So please explain to us all how it can be "noticeably better" if it's
impossible to tell the difference between cd and mp3 at 128k in the
first place. Are you still unable to recognize the contradiction
between your two lines quoted above? That's why I asked for the
clarification.

Are you familiar with logical fallacies, such as Modus Ponens? Also
known as "affirming the consequent" or "converting the conditional"?

I'll let you think about this marky pooh.

--
Lizard
Hint: I don't have the fraunhoffer codec, and I never ripped mp3's at a
mere 128kbps, and Ogg is VBR, and you're really a bit of a doofus sometimes.

Actually, modus ponens isn't a fallacy, it's an argument form.
Nothing fallacious about it. It simply says that if you've
established that A is true, and you've also established that A implies
B, then you've established B to be true as well.

Scott Gardner

Well, then perhaps you need to explain what you mean by "better".
You've made the following two assertions:
1) "I can tell you now that if I played a standard CD, you'd never
tell the difference between it and MP3 encoded on the frauenhoffer
codec at 128 kbps."
2) "All my new CD's get ripped to OGG instead of MP3 now, and the
quality is hella better, noticeably so."

So please explain to us all how it can be "noticeably better" if it's
impossible to tell the difference between cd and mp3 at 128k in the
first place. Are you still unable to recognize the contradiction
between your two lines quoted above? That's why I asked for the
clarification.

Are you familiar with logical fallacies, such as Modus Ponens? Also
known as "affirming the consequent" or "converting the conditional"?

Yeah. Are you familiar with not making any sense and then trying to explain
it away? Oh wait. I can see that you are.


I'll let you think about this marky pooh.

--
Lizard
Hint: I don't have the fraunhoffer codec, and I never ripped mp3's at a
mere 128kbps, and Ogg is VBR, and you're really a bit of a doofus
sometimes.

Well, I don't accept your premise (fraun 128k = cd), so I thought perhaps
you misspoke in your first quote. Evidently you didn't. Sorry I asked.

Scott Gardner wrote:

Actually, modus ponens isn't a fallacy, it's an argument form.
Nothing fallacious about it. It simply says that if you've
established that A is true, and you've also established that A implies
B, then you've established B to be true as well.

It's a type of argument that is a logical fallacy.

--
Lizard

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:35:41 -0500, thelizman
thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote:

Scott Gardner wrote:

Actually, modus ponens isn't a fallacy, it's an argument form.
Nothing fallacious about it. It simply says that if you've
established that A is true, and you've also established that A implies
B, then you've established B to be true as well.

It's a type of argument that is a logical fallacy.

--
Lizard

Again, it's not a logical fallacy. A fallacy is an argument based on a
false or invalid premise. There's nothing invalid about modus ponens.
In fact, it's one of the fundamental arguments used in formulating a
proof. Now "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - THAT'S a fallacy.

Try to come up with a correctly-formed modus ponens argument that's
fallacious. It can't be done. If A being true means that B is true,
and you've proven that A is true, then B has to be true. There's no
way around it - that's why they're called "proofs".

Scott Gardner