"Adam Drew" wrote in message
...


Stuff like Jack Johnson or Norah Jones generally sounds fine to me; it's
fast punk rock--especially the drums and cymbals--that start sounding
"syrupy" to me. (That's the only way I know to describe it.)


Well, that sounds like cd quality to me!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

thelizman wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Just wondering, but why is this crossposted to hell and back?

non-audio newsgroups deleted

Btw - rough comparison:

128K - AM stereo quality.
192K - FM quality.(both with no hiss or artifacts, though)
240K - Tape or Vinyl.
320K - Good tape - Metal or Hi-fi VCR or R-R.


Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
starters, AM is not available in stereo - there's not enough bandwidth
to encode both channels on a single carrier.

Yes there is. There IS an AM stereo. MAny music stations broadcast
in it and a few radios still have a botton for it. It's very compressed.

thelizman wrote:

ec wrote:

if someone tells you
128K is, smack them )


Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.

Once you know what to listen for, it's plainly obvious which is which.
You can do this yourself, btw - encode a track and then play the CD
right after it. For instance, on a Steve Morse song, you couldn't
hear what type of drum heads or cymbals he was usin at anything
less that 192K, while on the CD - it was clear(as each majotr brand
has a different sound, just like synths/keyboards/pianos do)

The "syrupy" description is perfect, IMO - the syllabance and
ring and crispness slowly degrades until it sounds like very
clean FM or AM radio if you push it enough. By the time you get
to 128K, a CD to 128K side-by-side comparison is painfully
revealing.

thelizman wrote:

Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
starters, AM is not available in stereo

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...ronics/usa.txt

Yes, it exists. You just need a receiver with a stereo AM
decoder chip in it, much like how FM stereo wasn't widely
implimented when it came out.

Actually, AM stereo predates FM stereo. Sounds excellent, btw,
though not FM quality.

One of our customers brought one of the WalMart changers in for us to
install and mentioned that it was only 50 bucks... It was a 10 CD/MP3
changer with a nice scrolling dot-matrix display. The changer was
'Durabrand'... I had to go to WalMart to see for myself - Sure enough! They
were on closeout for $50.00 (3 left...)

David
SoundworksCarAudio.com




"Masterson" wrote in message
...
Wal-Mart sells a FM modulated CD/MP3 6 disc
changer for 90 bucks. . Best Buy sells an identical
CD/MP3 unit, but branded differently, for $229...

What is the name of the two different name brands?

I agree with the IDIOT salesman....

Since I got XM radio almost two years ago I have only
listened to MP3s in the car a couple of times. XM is awsome!

Eddie Runner

SEVEN SEVILLE wrote:

Looking for an MP3 player for my recently acquired truck I went to the local
electronics store which shall remain nameless. I asked the the car stereo guy
(just last week he was working the television department) about MP3 players and
he showed me a few and told me all this riff raff and suggested that I would be
happier with XM radio. I was like WTF, i outta just stick with the stock AM/FM
that's in there right now. Not much difference between XM and FM you know,
they even had a sample in the showroom and you can hear the compression
artyfacts.

Does any of you own an car MP3 player?

Who makes it?
How much did it cost?
How well does it play MP3's?
How does the FM tuner come in?

thelizman said:

As much as I hate the idea of government providing products that could
be provided by the private sector, I have to say it's damn nice that BBC
doesn't put those annoying screen bugs over the shows. 3/4 of the
Farscape episodes I've downloaded are from the BBC, and its so nice not
to have the Sci Fi channels logo frelling up the action.

Hey, that's capitalism! *grin*

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Note: once again I have manually removed sci.electronics.repair because
it is irrelevent to the discussion, and because others don't have the
common sense to remove it themselves

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Once you know what to listen for,

Aah...yeah...at this point allow me to point out you are making sweeping
generalizations, and backing them up with your own anectdotal
perceptions. The fact of the matter is that with a pure source, MP3
audio is superior to Redbook CDDA. CDDA or CDA is in fact only recorded
at 174.6 kb/s using PCM without compression. The equivalent to this is a
113 kb/s MP3 file. Given two audio tracks recorded under these
conditions from a pure source, you will not be able to tell a difference
no matter how good you think your ears are. And believe me, my ears are
very good. I know what to look for.

The "syrupy" description is perfect, IMO - the syllabance and
ring and crispness slowly degrades until it sounds like very
clean FM or AM radio if you push it enough. By the time you get
to 128K, a CD to 128K side-by-side comparison is painfully
revealing.

And is this MP3 file generated off a CD, the same CD we are comparing it
to? And what codec did you use? Is joint stereo enabled? Obviously under
best case conditions an MP3 will be equal to or less than the CD it was
ripped from, and generally it will be inferior because of generic codec
settings which compromise quality for file size.

Do the comparison youself. Find an SACD and rip it to a CDA file, and
also rip it from SACD to MP3 @ 128 kb/s. Use whatever you like, but I
recommend some Baroque chamber music or light jazz. Now find those
artifacts, if you can, and compare them to the CD artifacts.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
thelizman wrote:

Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
starters, AM is not available in stereo


http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...ronics/usa.txt

Yes, it exists. You just need a receiver with a stereo AM
decoder chip in it, much like how FM stereo wasn't widely
implimented when it came out.

Actually, AM stereo predates FM stereo. Sounds excellent, btw,
though not FM quality.


You know, now that you mention it I remember seeing AM stereo in an old
GM. I was right that AM can't handle the stereo on the carrier, so I was
fascinated to learn the little quadratic trick they use to encode the
information. You'll have to forgive - I didn't care about electronics in
the 80s, I was more concerned with scooby doo.

Man...to be able to listen to the Maharushie in Stereo...that would rock.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

thelizman wrote:

The "syrupy" description is perfect, IMO - the syllabance and
ring and crispness slowly degrades until it sounds like very
clean FM or AM radio if you push it enough. By the time you get
to 128K, a CD to 128K side-by-side comparison is painfully
revealing.


And is this MP3 file generated off a CD, the same CD we are comparing it
to?

Yes.

And what codec did you use? Is joint stereo enabled?

Several. Joint stereo and all the goodies enabled.
No contest which sounded better. Compression causes losses by
definition, so it cannot sound better than the original.

Do the comparison youself. Find an SACD and rip it to a CDA file, and
also rip it from SACD to MP3 @ 128 kb/s. Use whatever you like, but I
recommend some Baroque chamber music or light jazz. Now find those
artifacts, if you can, and compare them to the CD artifacts.

BT,DT. Terribly easy to tell which is CD and which is 128K, even
in a blind test. Perhaps your hearing isn't as well trained as
you think it is.

thelizman wrote:


You know, now that you mention it I remember seeing AM stereo in an old
GM. I was right that AM can't handle the stereo on the carrier, so I was
fascinated to learn the little quadratic trick they use to encode the
information. You'll have to forgive - I didn't care about electronics in
the 80s, I was more concerned with scooby doo.

Man...to be able to listen to the Maharushie in Stereo...that would rock.

Sony makes a nice tabletop AM stereo capable radio.
That site I listed also has a list of stations in the U.S.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
thelizman wrote:

BT,DT. Terribly easy to tell which is CD and which is 128K, even
in a blind test. Perhaps your hearing isn't as well trained as
you think it is.

I think your hearing is more trained in your mind than it really is.

You admitted that you were comparing a MP3 file to the CDit was ripped
off of - that's a no brainer, theres always going to be some loss. CDs
aren't usually all that great to begin with.

Don't worry - it's not uncommon for people to imagine that they're
hearing something they're not.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

"thelizman" wrote in message
...
ec wrote:
if someone tells you
128K is, smack them )

Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

Qualify this, please. Mp3 is, by definition, lossy compression. How can an
Mp3 exceed the source signal? I don't believe it can.

"thelizman" wrote in message
...
ec wrote:
if someone tells you
128K is, smack them )

Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

BTW, I listen to rock/metal. I use EAC and Lame using the "insane" preset. I
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw CD.

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

BTW, I listen to rock/metal. I use EAC and Lame using the "insane" preset.
I
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw CD.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

BTW, I listen to rock/metal. I use EAC and Lame using the "insane"
preset.
I
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K
mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw
CD.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?



Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?



Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked
the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

So not only were you able to distinguish between the two, but you could also
judge which was better? Interesting. How many trials? What was your
"score"? What music in particular?

ec wrote:

Qualify this, please. Mp3 is, by definition, lossy compression. How can an
Mp3 exceed the source signal? I don't believe it can.

I never said it could. In fact, I pointed out that if you're listening
to an MP3 ripped from a CD, then you cannot expect it to be better than
the CD. But if you rip an MP3 and CDA file from the same source
material, then the MP3 is capable of higher quality at lower bitrates.
CDA is itself a lossy compression as well.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

Mark Zarella wrote:
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw CD.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?

It's obvious: I ripped the file from CD, then blinfolded himself. I get
the feeling the cheese has slipped of this guys logic cracker.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

ec wrote:

Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

So, let me see if I get this straight. You ripped an MP3 off a CD, then
you burned the MP3 to a CD (presumably as an MP3 file), then had the
wife swap them out, and you think this qualifies as an objective
listening test of the quality of an MP3 files? Hello, MCFLY, you can't
expect the MP3 to be the same as or better than its source material,
especially when played back on an Alpine. Look on page 11 of your manual
about the center page..."This device may not play back correctly
depending on sampling rates".

There's a white rabbit with a pocke****ch in this story somewhere.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
That's curious. How did you perform the test?



Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked
the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

So not only were you able to distinguish between the two, but you could
also
judge which was better? Interesting. How many trials? What was your
"score"? What music in particular?



Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their own
preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

"thelizman" wrote in message
...
ec wrote:

Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked
the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

So, let me see if I get this straight. You ripped an MP3 off a CD, then
you burned the MP3 to a CD (presumably as an MP3 file), then had the
wife swap them out, and you think this qualifies as an objective
listening test of the quality of an MP3 files? Hello, MCFLY, you can't
expect the MP3 to be the same as or better than its source material,
especially when played back on an Alpine. Look on page 11 of your manual
about the center page..."This device may not play back correctly
depending on sampling rates".

There's a white rabbit with a pocke****ch in this story somewhere.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

Hey flamer:

quote:

"Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.
"

The Alpine plays them back fine, as good as LOSSY COMPRESSED sources can
sound.

"thelizman" wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella wrote:
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K
mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw
CD.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?

It's obvious: I ripped the file from CD, then blinfolded himself. I get
the feeling the cheese has slipped of this guys logic cracker.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

You are a complete idiot and NG flamer. I cannot believe you can't
understand the FACT that COMPRESSION COMPROMISES QUALITY. You going to tell
me that a JPEG looks better than an origanl TIFF next?

thelizman wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

thelizman wrote:

BT,DT. Terribly easy to tell which is CD and which is 128K, even
in a blind test. Perhaps your hearing isn't as well trained as
you think it is.


I think your hearing is more trained in your mind than it really is.

You admitted that you were comparing a MP3 file to the CDit was ripped
off of - that's a no brainer, theres always going to be some loss. CDs
aren't usually all that great to begin with.

Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality, what
does qualify as "great to begin with", then?

ec wrote:

You are a complete idiot and NG flamer. I cannot believe you can't
understand the FACT that COMPRESSION COMPROMISES QUALITY. You going to tell
me that a JPEG looks better than an origanl TIFF next?

He'll just claim that the TIFF is lossy compression that isn't as good
as if you used JPEG to begin with. Lol.

BTW - I have taken 24/96 recordings and downsampled them to CD quality
and also MP3 and it still was a no-brainer win for the CD. I really
did research this in depth as a musician several years ago - and
recently re-did the tests this last suimmer to see if things had
improved.

The quick answer - not really. 128K now sounds like 192K did a
couple of years ago, thanks to good encoders, but it's still
got miles to go before reaching the level of CD.

Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their
own
preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

It's well and good if it's subjective. What's important is identifying
whether or not it's REAL, and then identifying the source of the distortion.

Hey flamer:

quote:

"Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.
"

The Alpine plays them back fine, as good as LOSSY COMPRESSED sources can
sound.

"Lossy compressed sources" can, in theory, sound perfect. That is,
indistinguishable from CD. So the question is where does the departure from
the theory come from?

ec wrote:

Hey flamer:

quote:

"Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.
"

Riiiight, but once again your IGNORING the concept of the source
material. Any idiot knows that a copy of a copy cannot be as good as the
original, much less better. So when you COPY the CD which is a COPY of
the source material, the COPY you made generally won't even be as good
as the CD, much less the original source. The only MP3s you've likely
ever listened to were ripped by some hack with a generic codec from a
standard CD, and you think this justifies your bull**** observations of
the MP3 format.

The Alpine plays them back fine, as good as LOSSY COMPRESSED sources can
sound.

CDs are lossy compressed sources. What do you think Pulse Code
Modulation is? And all lossy compression means is that data is discarded
- it doesn't even concern itself with whether the data is relevent.

Just a question - would you rather have kimber or radio shack cables on
your home setup?

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

James Sweet wrote:


Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their own
preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

The problem is that the assertion here is that MP3 is inferior to CDA.
I'm trying to get this guy to reexamine his prejudices. MP3 is far
superior to CDA, hes just never actually heard an MP3 encoded from
original source before. Hes making his judgement off MP3s that have been
copied from copies of the source, and he is under the erroneous
assumption that because these second hand copies don't sound as good as
the CD, that MP3 is inferior to CDA.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

ec wrote:

You are a complete idiot and NG flamer. I cannot believe you can't
understand the FACT that COMPRESSION COMPROMISES QUALITY. You going to tell
me that a JPEG looks better than an origanl TIFF next?

Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
and empirical evidence, not on fact.

FACT: You have never heard an MP3 encoded from the original source
material. Ergo, you cannot make a valid comparison between MP3 and CDA.

FACT: Every MP3 you have ever heard is a copy of a copy, and you think
MP3 is inferior based on this handicap.

FACT: You can't do math - CDA = 176.4 kb/s PCM @ 44.1 khz. MP3 of the
same quality is 113 kb/s MP3 @ 44.0 khz. CD Audio is lossy compression
too. MP3 is simply a more efficient compression algorithm.

FACT: CDA is NOT a reference standard. Thats why formats like SACD and
LP still exist.

FACT: You have a tin ear compromised by your pscyhoacoustic perceptual
prejudices.

FACT: You have argued plattitudes and subjectives, I have presented
FACT, but you still argue.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
thelizman wrote:

Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality, what
does qualify as "great to begin with", then?

Where did you ever hear this tripe? CDA is limited to 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
While some people are within that limit, some people are outside.
Besides which, sound does consist of frequencies outside of that range.
Those frequencies do mix with and affect frequencies within the standard
range of human hearing. CD audio also has a limited dynamic range (~110
db) compared to human hearing. While this is far better than tape, it is
nowhere near human hearing limits in terms of dR.

Realize that CDA is nothing more than a 25 year old lossy compression
format developed to standardized audio CD formats and enable the use of
CDs for mass market purposes. It is not the best, it is not a reference
standard, and it is not better than human hearing. Thats why things like
SACD, AAC, MP3, FLAC, SHN, and OGG were developed. Heck, thats why
audiophiles still treasure vinyl - its about the only way to get a true
to life reproduction of an audio program without being there.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

I am not sure I agree with that statement..!

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality,

Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their
own
preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

The problem is that the assertion here is that MP3 is inferior to CDA.
I'm trying to get this guy to reexamine his prejudices. MP3 is far
superior to CDA, hes just never actually heard an MP3 encoded from
original source before. Hes making his judgement off MP3s that have been
copied from copies of the source, and he is under the erroneous
assumption that because these second hand copies don't sound as good as
the CD, that MP3 is inferior to CDA.

While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not so sure I would call mp3 "far
superior" to CDA. Perhaps the standards, yes (and even then, it's not FAR
superior by any stretch). But the implementation tends not to be on par,
because the same amount of filtering is typically used and the introduction
of artifacts tends to be slightly greater in mp3.

thelizman wrote:

Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
and empirical evidence, not on fact.

FACT: MP3 is by definition a lossy compression method as opposed to
lossless compression methods that exist.

FACT: You have never heard an MP3 encoded from the original source
material. Ergo, you cannot make a valid comparison between MP3 and CDA.

They may have not, but I have. MP3 is not as good because CD exceeds the
ability of humans to hear(unless they REALLY mangle the processing/mixing),
while MP3 creates artifacts that are discernable, if barely. That you
can hear this at all while you cannot with a CD - that ends the discussion
right there.

Eddie Runner wrote:

I am not sure I agree with that statement..!

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality,

Well, barring the .01% that can hear beyond 20Hkz at age 30...

Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
and empirical evidence, not on fact.

FACT: MP3 is by definition a lossy compression method as opposed to
lossless compression methods that exist.

As Lizard said, "lossyness" does not necessarily compromise quality,
especially when the losses are below threshold.

The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional artifacts
introduced. While it's true that they can be significant (read: audible),
this isn't always the case.

But dont forget about DYNAMIC RANGE!!!

A CD can definatly NOT keep up with the
humans ability to handle dynamic range.... In the
case of dynamic range the CD is VERY limited
in comparison to human hearing...

So the statement below would be WRONG!

There is much more to sound reproduction than
just frequency response....!!

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Eddie Runner wrote:

I am not sure I agree with that statement..!

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality,

Well, barring the .01% that can hear beyond 20Hkz at age 30...

Mark Zarella wrote:

While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not so sure I would call mp3 "far
superior" to CDA. Perhaps the standards, yes (and even then, it's not FAR
superior by any stretch). But the implementation tends not to be on par,
because the same amount of filtering is typically used and the introduction
of artifacts tends to be slightly greater in mp3.

Of course there is "in theory" and "in practice". In actual practice,
most stuff found on MP3 - even commercially - is a second or third
source from the original copy (even when you get a [DDD] CD). The
qauntization errors build up in a way
that isn't perceived by the ear until the last copy (the straw that
broke the camels back if you will). However, its worth nothing that MPEG
audio layer 1 was the original standard for DVD prior to the move to
AC3. MP3 is two generations improved upon MP1.

One of the other crippling factors for MP3 is the inefficiency of most
codecs. In order to make MP3 practical on a Pentium class processor (say
of about 233 Mhz), most encoders eliminated aspects of the algorithm
that efficiently encode the material, such as VBR. By now, a proper
codec such as Fraunhofer Pro married with a 1 GHz processor and plenty
of RAM is capable of producing true MP3 quality files. Alas, the FGH-Pro
codec is proprietary, and many of the free ones (lame, xing, etc) still
aren't very good. But I stick to my assertion. If you honestly (added
because some people think using crappy decks and homemade CDs you cut on
Windows and have your wife swapping out is a fair comparison) compare an
MP3 file encoded at 113 kbps to a redbook CDA file, you will not find a
difference. Perhaps I should set up a Sound Challenge like someone did
for amplifiers ten years ago (but then, there are still fools who
believe that they can tell the difference between a coustic amp and a jl
amp under the same conditions).

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

MP3 is not as good because CD exceeds the
ability of humans to hear(unless they REALLY mangle the processing/mixing),
while MP3 creates artifacts that are discernable, if barely. That you
can hear this at all while you cannot with a CD - that ends the discussion
right there.

You're right. Any idiot who claims that a 'CD exceeds the ability of
humans to hear' is not worth arguing with. CDs are far inferior to human
acuity.

Why do I suffer the fools? *Plonk*


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Eddie Runner wrote:

I am not sure I agree with that statement..!

Well, barring the .01% that can hear beyond 20Hkz at age 30...


And what of the 99% of people who can percieve changes loudness in
excess of 110 db? That is the limit to a CDs dynamic range. I know a
little old lady with a bronco that plays at 174.5 db of SPL - no CD can
reproduce that kind of range. You also continue to be painfully ignorant
of what PCM does to an analog signal. Most people who listen to
classical music are familiar with the insufficient capability of CDA
when it comes to reproducing soft passages. Those people prefer vinyl
over CD for its ability to reproduce the nuances.

You must be crossposting from rec.audio.opinion, because you sure as
hell don't know rec.audio.facts.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.