320 kbps MP3

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.

Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
> material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.
>
> Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
> were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.
>


If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing, no ?


geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Les Cargill > wrote:
>Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
>material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.
>
>Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
>were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.

As I said, it depends entirely on the source material and the playback
equipment.

What is most weird is that sometimes poorer quality playback equipment
can exaggerate artifacts. If you have a frequency range boosted on
playback, stuff in that range that might have been masked by other
frequencies can become audible.

Perceptual encoding is only a good idea for final release over limited
bandwidth channels... it just plain does not work if any additional
processing is to be done.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

geoff wrote:
> On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
>> material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.
>>
>> Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
>> were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.
>>
>
>
> If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing, no ?
>
>
> geoff

Well, I'm sort of guessing on the 500Hz to 2K thing. Give or
take.

I'm not sure. Why? Just as a sort of EQ boost?


--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 6/03/2016 10:59 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
> geoff wrote:
>> On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
>>> material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.
>>>
>>> Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
>>> were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing,
>> no ?
>>
>>
>> geoff
>
> Well, I'm sort of guessing on the 500Hz to 2K thing. Give or
> take.
>
> I'm not sure. Why? Just as a sort of EQ boost?
>
>


To optimise the sound quality quotient for JackAss !

geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 7:37:25 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 6/03/2016 10:59 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
> > geoff wrote:
> >> On 5/03/2016 4:31 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
> >>> Okay, I retract what I'd said about 320 kbps. For the right program
> >>> material, it's not even a subtle difference like imaging.
> >>>
> >>> Even on some better dense rock mixes, it's pretty hamhanded. There
> >>> were even artifacts around 500Hz to 2k, which surprised me.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> If there were lots of artifacts around 3k, that would be a Good Thing,
> >> no ?
> >>
> >>
> >> geoff
> >
> > Well, I'm sort of guessing on the 500Hz to 2K thing. Give or
> > take.
> >
> > I'm not sure. Why? Just as a sort of EQ boost?
> >
> >
>
>
> To optimise the sound quality quotient for JackAss !

Okay. First, a dynamic boost, followed by equalization. I do the dynamic boost when I'm faced with a few peaks holding back amplitude. I wish I had the hearing of you experts, but you don't post a thing, so I can criticize your audio work, if any...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/babydontgethooked.mp3

Jack
>
> geoff