Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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?? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
"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... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
"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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
"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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 sound quality.
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stereo Microphone, Record live sound with amazing depth! | General | |||
New video card interfering with my Audiophile 2496 sound card | General | |||
Blaupunkt PA4100 Sound Quality | Car Audio | |||
Mediocre SQ with perfect 12.1's, Inconsistent , rough, sound | Car Audio | |||
sound quality of Poweramper X-Sound amps | Car Audio |