"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

OTOH, leaving files as .wav files and/or using lossless compression is a
far
more viable option given that the costs and size considerations
associated
with storing data continue to improve dramatically. I think I did my
first
MP3 listening on modern for the day computers with 1 GB hard drives.
Today
80 GB hard drives are more-or-less standard on new PCs. For the longest
time
we were limited to what we could burn on a CD - 550 megs. Today we can
burn
DVD with equal-or-better speed, convenience, and media costs - 8-9 times
as
much data.

I believe the need to use compression in the home will be completely
eliminated
in a few years.

http://newscenter.verizon.com/proact....vtml?id=80434

Actually, the need for home media storage may also be eliminated.


Other newer and higher quality lossy audio codecs, such as AAC and
specially Musepack (MPC), have an even smaller repertoire of problem
cases (Musepack does fine with PCABX samples at around 190 kbps), but
still have a few of those, even when raising the bitrate to insane
levels. That's why I say that, at least currently, no psychoacoustic
lossy compression scheme gives always audibly perfect results. However,
for most cases (all but quite rare cases with codecs such as
Musepack), quality is undistinguishable-le even for well trained ears.

Thus lossy compression while providing highly attractive practical
advantages, and de facto acceptable to millions of music lovers in the
mainstream, still does not meet the standards of the audio perfectionist.

Still, compression will continue to be required for the mobil wireless
users for many years to come.

ScottW