"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Soundhaspriority" wrote in
message
"Jenn" wrote in
message
...
Apple Unveils Higher Quality DRM-Free Music on the
iTunes Store DRM-Free Songs from EMI Available on
iTunes for $1.29 in May CUPERTINO, California
Music¹s entire digital catalog of music will be
available for purchase DRM-free (without digital
rights management) from the iTunes® Store
(www.itunes.com) worldwide in May. DRM-free tracks
from EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps
AAC encoding, resulting in audio quality
indistinguishable from the original recording
As Arny will confirm, 256 kbs is definitely
distinguishable in mp3. How does AAC perform at
this bitrate?
Allegedly AAC is up to twice as efficient as MP3 in
its use of bandwidth. IOW 256 kbps MP3 = 128 kbps
AAC. In reality, AAC is better, but not *that* much
better.
Evidence, Arny.
What's unclear about *allegedly*?
What is unclear about it is that is not the opinion in
question....the opinion is "In reality, AAC is better,
but not *that* much better". Don't play dumb, Arny.
Actually Harry, it is you who are playing dumb, or at
least poorly-informed.
The comparison between AAC and MP3 was discussed some
years ago on RAO by JJ, who was instrumental in running
the MPEG tests. Where were you? The results of those
test are on the web, and I've cited them here many
times. TheEG group test procedures and results were also
published in the JAES.
"some years ago" I wasn't even monitoring RAO....
Not my problem, Harry.
But here, I ran into this, which might help you out:
http://www.telos-systems.com/techtalk/00222.pdf
I only
started here because I discovered you were over here
badmouthing me after you got kicked out of RAHE.
Pot:Kettle:Black
Moreover, I have pretty close to zero interest in
recording or downloading compressed files, so it is not a
subject I spend much time on.
Then Harry why are you troubling us with your useless musings about it?
Since you are the one demanding that "evidence" back up
every assertion, why did you at least not cite the source
or a brief summary of the basis for your opinion?
Actually Harry, I only look for support for assertions that look suspect to
me, such as many of yours.
After all, you presented it as "reality". Or is belief in a
double-standard one of your core values?
Let's talk about double standards Harry. You're making all sorts of
accusations against me about things that I've already properly supported
here at least once.
Again Harry, its not my job to educate you or do your
research for you, especially given that you've rebuffed
my many attempts to help you with your many problems
with gross ignorance about audio.
I've rebuffed your lies and faith-based "science", Arny.
What faith-based science, Harry? I'm the guy who has cited the JAES as
much if not more than anybody in the history of Usenet.
I have no problem with truth.
Except when it is inconvenient. You've recently even admitted that, Harry.
And ignorance of
audio...especially home hi-end audio...is not exactly my
weakness, since my knowledge of it extends from the
present day all the way back to 1949.
Well sue me Harry, my knowlege of home high end audio only goes back to the
middle 1950s.
As far as knowlege of current home high end audio goes - it is true that I
don't keep up with the latest names to drop.
Your problem Harry is that you actually believe a lot of the urban legends
that are much of the backbone of the weird side of high end audio in the
present day.
It's too bad that you work so hard avoiding practical experience with
modern-day audio. I've seen some evidence that getting some real world
experience has had some benefits for our friend Robert. I daresay that if
you pursued recording as diligently as he has been in the present day, you'd
disabuse yourself of much of the High End Myth and Legend that makes you go
around in circles these days.