"thelizman" wrote in message
...
ec wrote:
if someone tells you
128K is, smack them )

Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

BTW, I listen to rock/metal. I use EAC and Lame using the "insane" preset. I
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw CD.

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

BTW, I listen to rock/metal. I use EAC and Lame using the "insane" preset.
I
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw CD.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

BTW, I listen to rock/metal. I use EAC and Lame using the "insane"
preset.
I
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K
mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw
CD.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?



Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?



Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked
the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

So not only were you able to distinguish between the two, but you could also
judge which was better? Interesting. How many trials? What was your
"score"? What music in particular?

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
That's curious. How did you perform the test?



Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked
the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

So not only were you able to distinguish between the two, but you could
also
judge which was better? Interesting. How many trials? What was your
"score"? What music in particular?



Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their own
preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their
own
preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

It's well and good if it's subjective. What's important is identifying
whether or not it's REAL, and then identifying the source of the distortion.

James Sweet wrote:


Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their own
preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

The problem is that the assertion here is that MP3 is inferior to CDA.
I'm trying to get this guy to reexamine his prejudices. MP3 is far
superior to CDA, hes just never actually heard an MP3 encoded from
original source before. Hes making his judgement off MP3s that have been
copied from copies of the source, and he is under the erroneous
assumption that because these second hand copies don't sound as good as
the CD, that MP3 is inferior to CDA.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

Well if one sounded better to him than the other I see no reason he
shouldn't stick with it, who really cares, every person will have their
own
preference as to which sounds "better", it's very subjective.

The problem is that the assertion here is that MP3 is inferior to CDA.
I'm trying to get this guy to reexamine his prejudices. MP3 is far
superior to CDA, hes just never actually heard an MP3 encoded from
original source before. Hes making his judgement off MP3s that have been
copied from copies of the source, and he is under the erroneous
assumption that because these second hand copies don't sound as good as
the CD, that MP3 is inferior to CDA.

While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not so sure I would call mp3 "far
superior" to CDA. Perhaps the standards, yes (and even then, it's not FAR
superior by any stretch). But the implementation tends not to be on par,
because the same amount of filtering is typically used and the introduction
of artifacts tends to be slightly greater in mp3.

ec wrote:

Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

So, let me see if I get this straight. You ripped an MP3 off a CD, then
you burned the MP3 to a CD (presumably as an MP3 file), then had the
wife swap them out, and you think this qualifies as an objective
listening test of the quality of an MP3 files? Hello, MCFLY, you can't
expect the MP3 to be the same as or better than its source material,
especially when played back on an Alpine. Look on page 11 of your manual
about the center page..."This device may not play back correctly
depending on sampling rates".

There's a white rabbit with a pocke****ch in this story somewhere.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

"thelizman" wrote in message
...
ec wrote:

Simple. I sat in my car and my fiance put each in. I listened and picked
the
best, cleanest sound. Deck is an Alpine CDA-9815.

So, let me see if I get this straight. You ripped an MP3 off a CD, then
you burned the MP3 to a CD (presumably as an MP3 file), then had the
wife swap them out, and you think this qualifies as an objective
listening test of the quality of an MP3 files? Hello, MCFLY, you can't
expect the MP3 to be the same as or better than its source material,
especially when played back on an Alpine. Look on page 11 of your manual
about the center page..."This device may not play back correctly
depending on sampling rates".

There's a white rabbit with a pocke****ch in this story somewhere.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

Hey flamer:

quote:

"Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.
"

The Alpine plays them back fine, as good as LOSSY COMPRESSED sources can
sound.

Hey flamer:

quote:

"Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.
"

The Alpine plays them back fine, as good as LOSSY COMPRESSED sources can
sound.

"Lossy compressed sources" can, in theory, sound perfect. That is,
indistinguishable from CD. So the question is where does the departure from
the theory come from?

ec wrote:

Hey flamer:

quote:

"Smack yourself. 128 kbps on a quality codec for certain pieces can
actually exceed CD quality. There's more that goes into coding an MP3
file than the bitrate.
"

Riiiight, but once again your IGNORING the concept of the source
material. Any idiot knows that a copy of a copy cannot be as good as the
original, much less better. So when you COPY the CD which is a COPY of
the source material, the COPY you made generally won't even be as good
as the CD, much less the original source. The only MP3s you've likely
ever listened to were ripped by some hack with a generic codec from a
standard CD, and you think this justifies your bull**** observations of
the MP3 format.

The Alpine plays them back fine, as good as LOSSY COMPRESSED sources can
sound.

CDs are lossy compressed sources. What do you think Pulse Code
Modulation is? And all lossy compression means is that data is discarded
- it doesn't even concern itself with whether the data is relevent.

Just a question - would you rather have kimber or radio shack cables on
your home setup?

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

Mark Zarella wrote:
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw CD.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?

It's obvious: I ripped the file from CD, then blinfolded himself. I get
the feeling the cheese has slipped of this guys logic cracker.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

"thelizman" wrote in message
...
Mark Zarella wrote:
encode at 44K/320Kbps. If I listen to the mp3 and the CD in a blind
listening test, I always pick the CD as sounding better. No way a 128K
mp3
of my music, regardless of encode technique, would ever touch the raw
CD.

That's curious. How did you perform the test?

It's obvious: I ripped the file from CD, then blinfolded himself. I get
the feeling the cheese has slipped of this guys logic cracker.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

You are a complete idiot and NG flamer. I cannot believe you can't
understand the FACT that COMPRESSION COMPROMISES QUALITY. You going to tell
me that a JPEG looks better than an origanl TIFF next?

ec wrote:

You are a complete idiot and NG flamer. I cannot believe you can't
understand the FACT that COMPRESSION COMPROMISES QUALITY. You going to tell
me that a JPEG looks better than an origanl TIFF next?

He'll just claim that the TIFF is lossy compression that isn't as good
as if you used JPEG to begin with. Lol.

BTW - I have taken 24/96 recordings and downsampled them to CD quality
and also MP3 and it still was a no-brainer win for the CD. I really
did research this in depth as a musician several years ago - and
recently re-did the tests this last suimmer to see if things had
improved.

The quick answer - not really. 128K now sounds like 192K did a
couple of years ago, thanks to good encoders, but it's still
got miles to go before reaching the level of CD.

ec wrote:

You are a complete idiot and NG flamer. I cannot believe you can't
understand the FACT that COMPRESSION COMPROMISES QUALITY. You going to tell
me that a JPEG looks better than an origanl TIFF next?

Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
and empirical evidence, not on fact.

FACT: You have never heard an MP3 encoded from the original source
material. Ergo, you cannot make a valid comparison between MP3 and CDA.

FACT: Every MP3 you have ever heard is a copy of a copy, and you think
MP3 is inferior based on this handicap.

FACT: You can't do math - CDA = 176.4 kb/s PCM @ 44.1 khz. MP3 of the
same quality is 113 kb/s MP3 @ 44.0 khz. CD Audio is lossy compression
too. MP3 is simply a more efficient compression algorithm.

FACT: CDA is NOT a reference standard. Thats why formats like SACD and
LP still exist.

FACT: You have a tin ear compromised by your pscyhoacoustic perceptual
prejudices.

FACT: You have argued plattitudes and subjectives, I have presented
FACT, but you still argue.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

thelizman wrote:

Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
and empirical evidence, not on fact.

FACT: MP3 is by definition a lossy compression method as opposed to
lossless compression methods that exist.

FACT: You have never heard an MP3 encoded from the original source
material. Ergo, you cannot make a valid comparison between MP3 and CDA.

They may have not, but I have. MP3 is not as good because CD exceeds the
ability of humans to hear(unless they REALLY mangle the processing/mixing),
while MP3 creates artifacts that are discernable, if barely. That you
can hear this at all while you cannot with a CD - that ends the discussion
right there.

Compression does NOT inherently compromise quality. What I'm trying to
drive home to you is that your prejudices are based on misinformation
and empirical evidence, not on fact.

FACT: MP3 is by definition a lossy compression method as opposed to
lossless compression methods that exist.

As Lizard said, "lossyness" does not necessarily compromise quality,
especially when the losses are below threshold.

The problem with mp3 is NOT the losses. It's the additional artifacts
introduced. While it's true that they can be significant (read: audible),
this isn't always the case.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

MP3 is not as good because CD exceeds the
ability of humans to hear(unless they REALLY mangle the processing/mixing),
while MP3 creates artifacts that are discernable, if barely. That you
can hear this at all while you cannot with a CD - that ends the discussion
right there.

You're right. Any idiot who claims that a 'CD exceeds the ability of
humans to hear' is not worth arguing with. CDs are far inferior to human
acuity.

Why do I suffer the fools? *Plonk*


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.