"naah, man, that ain't me - I'm from Buffalo"

JD

narcolept wrote:

"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
. 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

I wasn't planning to hold it agin ya

JD

sancho wrote:

"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

my hairy white ass ... I've listened to a grip of 128 kpbs fraunhofer
rips that sound like ass compared to a CD. I think you're fooling
yourself on this one...

JD

thelizman wrote:

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

Scott Gardner wrote:

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, modus ponens assumes that if the first condition (a) makes the
second condition (b) true, and if the second (b) is itself true, then
the first is (a) is true. The logical fallacy is that the second doesn't
make the first true just becuase the first makes the second true.

--
Lizard

John Durbin wrote:
my hairy white ass ... I've listened to a grip of 128 kpbs fraunhofer
rips that sound like ass compared to a CD. I think you're fooling
yourself on this one...

JD


I think whoever did the encoding ****ed up. That is one of the problems
with the fraunhofer codec - you have to configure the hell out of it. I
reassert my contention, and remain unresolved pending your reply.

--
Lizard

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".



What about a sports playoff system? If team A beats teams B and B beats C
then A should be able to beat C but it doesn't always work that way.


Paul Vina

Paul Vina wrote:

What about a sports playoff system? If team A beats teams B and B beats C
then A should be able to beat C but it doesn't always work that way.

You'll note that modus ponens only involves A and B.

And logical arguments are an abstract. If A beats B, and B beats C, then
A can beat C. Real life rarely follows logic.

--
Lizard

You'll note that modus ponens only involves A and B.

And logical arguments are an abstract. If A beats B, and B beats C, then
A can beat C. Real life rarely follows logic.


I gotcha. Is this like the "a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a
square" thing? Or more like those goofy logic questions they ask you on IQ
tests?


Paul Vina

Paul Vina wrote:

I gotcha. Is this like the "a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a
square" thing? Or more like those goofy logic questions they ask you on IQ
tests?

Yuh...basically wastes of time. I prefer "common sense" to "logic".
You're statistically better off. Ooh..statistics...

--
Lizard

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:12:41 -0500, thelizman
thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote:

Scott Gardner wrote:

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, modus ponens assumes that if the first condition (a) makes the
second condition (b) true, and if the second (b) is itself true, then
the first is (a) is true. The logical fallacy is that the second doesn't
make the first true just becuase the first makes the second true.

--
Lizard

No, you've got it all wrong. modus ponens has the following two rules
and a conclusion:

Rule 1: If A is true, then B is true.
Rule 2: A is true
Conclusion: B is true

THIS is modus ponens, and it's NOT a fallacy. It is one of the most
basic examples of valid inference.



What YOU are talking about in your post is "affirming the consequent"
or "converting the conditional". That is where you try to construct
your argument as follows:

Rule 1: If A is true, then B is true.
Rule 2: B is True
Conclusion: A is True.

You're absolutely right - THIS argument is an example of "affirming
the consequent" or "converting the conditional", and it IS a fallacy,
but it's NOT modus ponens.

Scott Gardner

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:51:37 GMT, "Paul Vina"
wrote:


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".



What about a sports playoff system? If team A beats teams B and B beats C
then A should be able to beat C but it doesn't always work that way.


Paul Vina


Not a valid use of modus ponens, or even regular mathematics, because
there are so many ways that one team can beat another.

Scott

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:17:11 GMT, "Paul Vina"
wrote:

You'll note that modus ponens only involves A and B.

And logical arguments are an abstract. If A beats B, and B beats C, then
A can beat C. Real life rarely follows logic.


I gotcha. Is this like the "a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a
square" thing? Or more like those goofy logic questions they ask you on IQ
tests?


Paul Vina



Good example, Paul. Here would be the argument using modus ponens:

Rule 1: If polygon ABCD is a square, then polygon ABCD is a rectangle.
Rule 2: Polygon ABCD is a square
Conclusion: Polygon ABCD is a rectangle.

This is modus ponens, and it's absolutely correct, always. Every
polygon that is proven to be a square is also a rectangle.

Now, to use "affirming the consequent" or "converting the
conditional":

Rule 1: If polygon ABCD is a square, then polygon ABCD is a rectangle.
Rule 2: Polygon ABCD is a rectangle
Conclusion: Polygon ABCD is a square.

This is a fallacy, so the conclusion may or may not be true. Some
rectangles may be squares, but certainly not ALL rectangles are
squares. This is a fallacy, but it's NOT modus ponens, because the
second rule is confirming the consequent (ABCD is a rectangle), NOT
the antecedent (ABCD is a square).

Scott Gardner

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".



What about a sports playoff system? If team A beats teams B and B beats C
then A should be able to beat C but it doesn't always work that way.

That's because there's a random component.

If instead you made the assumption that the better team always wins (which
is untrue), and that A is always better than B and B is always better than
C, then A would always beat C.

The only time one team is guaranteed to beat all the others is when their
name is the New England Patriots, who are going to win out and take home
another Lombardi this year.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:36:17 -0500, thelizman
thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote:

Paul Vina wrote:

I gotcha. Is this like the "a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a
square" thing? Or more like those goofy logic questions they ask you on IQ
tests?

Yuh...basically wastes of time. I prefer "common sense" to "logic".
You're statistically better off. Ooh..statistics...

--
Lizard

Actually, "common sense" will **** you every time that the truth is
counterintuitive. Correct use of logical rules will never screw you
over. That's why mathematicians and and scientists use rigorous
proofs rather than "common sense"

For an example of a counterintuitive truth, most people would think
that if you hook an 8-ohm sub in series with a 2-ohm sub, and then
connect the oe overall load to an amplifier, that the 2-ohm sub will
put out more power than the 8-ohm sub. A rigorous mathematical
investigation actually proves the opposite to be true.

Scott Gardner

Scott Gardner wrote:

but it's NOT modus ponens.

Son of a bitch...nevermind...

--
Lizard
Brain Fart

Scott Gardner wrote:
Correct use of logical rules will never screw you
over.

Oh yeah? Explain the current crop of democratic presidential candidates...

For an example of a counterintuitive truth, most people would think
that if you hook an 8-ohm sub in series with a 2-ohm sub, and then
connect the oe overall load to an amplifier, that the 2-ohm sub will
put out more power than the 8-ohm sub. A rigorous mathematical
investigation actually proves the opposite to be true.

Indeed...but IIRC that logic fails when the 2 ohmm sub is a Boston...but
that's from way back.

--
Lizard

*sniff* Is that crack I'm smelling.....?



Paul Vina


The only time one team is guaranteed to beat all the others is when their
name is the New England Patriots, who are going to win out and take home
another Lombardi this year.

*sniff* Is that crack I'm smelling.....?

Only if you have your head up your ass.




Paul Vina


The only time one team is guaranteed to beat all the others is when
their
name is the New England Patriots, who are going to win out and take home
another Lombardi this year.

*sniff* Is that crack I'm smelling.....?

Only if you have your head up your ass.

if?

"thelizman" thelizman1221.yahoo@com wrote in message
...

I think whoever did the encoding ****ed up. That is one of the problems
with the fraunhofer codec - you have to configure the hell out of it. I
reassert my contention, and remain unresolved pending your reply.

perhaps you could share with use some of the config settings one would use
to make the fraunhofer codec produce 'cd quality' rips at 128 kbps...
--
sancho

The Pats should get pretty far into the playoffs but they won't make it past
the Chiefs unless their having a REALLY bad game. Then again they did lose
two games they rally had no business losing already. Neither of my teams
has been worth a **** in a few years so I can't talk TOO much ****.


Paul Vina



"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
*sniff* Is that crack I'm smelling.....?

Only if you have your head up your ass.




Paul Vina


The only time one team is guaranteed to beat all the others is when
their
name is the New England Patriots, who are going to win out and take
home
another Lombardi this year.

I would guess your chances of resolution in this life hinge on a helluva
lot more than my reply to this thread...

JD

thelizman wrote:

John Durbin wrote:

my hairy white ass ... I've listened to a grip of 128 kpbs fraunhofer
rips that sound like ass compared to a CD. I think you're fooling
yourself on this one...

JD


I think whoever did the encoding ****ed up. That is one of the
problems with the fraunhofer codec - you have to configure the hell
out of it. I reassert my contention, and remain unresolved pending
your reply.

--
Lizard

sancho wrote:

perhaps you could share with use some of the config settings one would use
to make the fraunhofer codec produce 'cd quality' rips at 128 kbps...

What part of "I don't listen to MP3 anymore" didn't you comprende?

--
Lizard
Open Source, bay beeeeee

so, that would be "no" in other words...

JD
figures

thelizman wrote:

sancho wrote:


perhaps you could share with use some of the config settings one
would use
to make the fraunhofer codec produce 'cd quality' rips at 128 kbps...


What part of "I don't listen to MP3 anymore" didn't you comprende?

--
Lizard
Open Source, bay beeeeee

at 60+ MPH.... can you really tell the difference???? you moose twits...


"John Durbin" wrote in message
...
I would guess your chances of resolution in this life hinge on a helluva
lot more than my reply to this thread...

JD

thelizman wrote:

John Durbin wrote:

my hairy white ass ... I've listened to a grip of 128 kpbs fraunhofer
rips that sound like ass compared to a CD. I think you're fooling
yourself on this one...

JD


I think whoever did the encoding ****ed up. That is one of the
problems with the fraunhofer codec - you have to configure the hell
out of it. I reassert my contention, and remain unresolved pending
your reply.

--
Lizard

at 60+ MPH.... can you really tell the difference????

Yes.

yes, over time... CD's don't make my ears shut down when I play them
back in a good system, mp3's do sometimes. The differences may be small
but the ear is very discriminating about certain things.

JD

fhlh002 wrote:

at 60+ MPH.... can you really tell the difference???? you moose twits...


"John Durbin" wrote in message
.. .


I would guess your chances of resolution in this life hinge on a helluva
lot more than my reply to this thread...

JD

thelizman wrote:



John Durbin wrote:



my hairy white ass ... I've listened to a grip of 128 kpbs fraunhofer
rips that sound like ass compared to a CD. I think you're fooling
yourself on this one...

JD



I think whoever did the encoding ****ed up. That is one of the
problems with the fraunhofer codec - you have to configure the hell
out of it. I reassert my contention, and remain unresolved pending
your reply.

--
Lizard