Geoff Wood wrote:
"Lord Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message

http://www.mykec.com/mykec/images/Good_MP3_Bad_MP3.gif

Looking again, this picture illustrates clearly just how exaggerated your
notions are. Really - not sniping or exaggerating.

It's just a quick-n-dirty I just threw together in a few minutes to
visually depict what I've been trying to say in words.

What about it needs to be corrected?

The A T of H has nothing to do with the 'better sound' you like.

You've told me this a hundred times now but you present it as an opinion
with not numbers or *any* kind of real proof to support it.

If you can prove this to me then you will have disproven my hypothesis!

Ta-da!!!

Either that or you like clipping distortion.

No, I don't like clipping distortion - nor wrapping distortion either.
"Normalize" has its limiter turned on by default.

The 'frequencies' that you refer to are extremely low level instances in a
frequency-weighted regimen

Define "frequency-weighted regimen". I don't want to be unclear of the
terms again.

that is designed to have minimal audible impact.

OK, then what are the biggest, baddest offenders of all lossy
compression techniques?

*) Masking filtration
*) ATH-based filtration
*) bitrate settings
*) CBR data storage limits

What else?

Stronger levels of those 'frequencies' are not disgarded.

No, no... the frequencies themselves are not allowed to pass thru if
they don't have enough "amplitudinal clout" (how's that for a term?)

It's just like at a concert - unless you have a backstage pass you
aren't gonna get backstage. (Groupies notwithstanding!)

Myke

--

-================================-
Windows...It's rebootylicious!!!
-================================-