"SEVEN SEVILLE" wrote in message
...
Looking for an MP3 player for my recently acquired truck I went to the
local
electronics store which shall remain nameless. I asked the the car stereo
guy
(just last week he was working the television department) about MP3
players and
he showed me a few and told me all this riff raff and suggested that I
would be
happier with XM radio. I was like WTF, i outta just stick with the stock
AM/FM
that's in there right now. Not much difference between XM and FM you know,
they even had a sample in the showroom and you can hear the compression
artyfacts.

Does any of you own an car MP3 player?

Who makes it?
How much did it cost?
How well does it play MP3's?
How does the FM tuner come in?


Alpine 98 series. I have the 9815. It was $350 ( $499 MSRP ). It can play
48KHz 320Kbps MP3's max which is near CD quality. ( if someone tells you
128K is, smack them ). FM tuner works great.

ec wrote:


Alpine 98 series. I have the 9815. It was $350 ( $499 MSRP ). It can play
48KHz 320Kbps MP3's max which is near CD quality. ( if someone tells you
128K is, smack them ). FM tuner works great.

Btw - rough comparison:

128K - AM stereo quality.
192K - FM quality.(both with no hiss or artifacts, though)
240K - Tape or Vinyl.
320K - Good tape - Metal or Hi-fi VCR or R-R.

The quality jump from 128K to 192K alone is shocking. 320K
is half CD raw data in size, though with VBR compression and
a good encoder, you can get about 3/4 CD quality for about 1/3
the size - a nice compromise, IMO.

I'd consider 192K to be a bare minimum for a noisy environment.

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.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Just wondering, but why is this crossposted to hell and back?

non-audio newsgroups deleted

Btw - rough comparison:

128K - AM stereo quality.
192K - FM quality.(both with no hiss or artifacts, though)
240K - Tape or Vinyl.
320K - Good tape - Metal or Hi-fi VCR or R-R.

Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
starters, AM is not available in stereo - there's not enough bandwidth
to encode both channels on a single carrier. Regardless, AM quality is
equivalent to about 40 kbps MP3. FM radio quality begins at a mere 80
Kbps, and CD quality needs only 113 kbps. Of course, this all depends on
at least the following factors:

a) The codec - lame is probably the best choice, unless you have more
money than disk space and brains, in which case you'll want the fhg
(Fraunhofer Group) codec (which I'm told is still freely available for
the taking if you can find an older version of MusicMatch Jukebox).

b) The amount of information - and ironically classical music needs less
space because there is less overall information than contemporary music.

c) The available system resources on the machine doing the encoding.

Regardless, MP3 stinks for discriminating ears. Use ogg - better quality
at lower bitrates. I've got 6 mb Ogg files which put their 14 mb MP3
counterparts to shame. They've come a long way since 99.


--
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.

Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes uses when
you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better than FM
to me.


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.

Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes uses
when
you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better than
FM
to me.

He was referring to the encoding algorithm. That is, the compression
algorithm used to MAKE mp3s from cds. What you're referring to is DEcoding
the "universal" mp3 code, which should (theoretically) be the same across
players.

Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes uses
when
you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better than
FM
to me.

He was referring to the encoding algorithm. That is, the compression
algorithm used to MAKE mp3s from cds. What you're referring to is
DEcoding
the "universal" mp3 code, which should (theoretically) be the same across
players.



I understand - so was I. When you buy a song from Itunes or Napster, they
made the MP3. It's 128K. It sounds very close to cd quality.

I was wondering what codec, or encoding algorithm they use to make quality
Mp3s at 128K.

note: sci.electronics.repair removed from ng xpost list

Z Gluhak wrote:
Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes uses when
you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better than FM
to me.

I'm not quite sure on Napster, but iTunes uses AAC which is a very good
codec, probably the best lossy compression codec commercially available.
It's basically MP4 of sorts, the MPEG Layer 4 Advanced Audio Codec.

AAC includes Digital Rights Management, however. My view on DRM is that
anything which restricts your ability to portablize your music and adds
size to the file is detrimental. It just so happens that the same kid
who cracked the CSS DVD Encryption scheme (making it possible to backup
your DVD's, or rip them to your hard drive like I do) recently cracked
Apple's DRM on AAC.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...id=141&tid=188



--
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.

note: sci.electronics.repair removed from ng xpost list

Z Gluhak wrote:

I understand - so was I. When you buy a song from Itunes or Napster, they
made the MP3. It's 128K. It sounds very close to cd quality.

I was wondering what codec, or encoding algorithm they use to make quality
Mp3s at 128K.

See other post. They're probably passing AAC files off with an MP3
extension. There is also a fraunhofer pro codec which uses additional
spectral data to clean up the bass and treble. It can be played on MP3
player, but only players with the fhp codec will get the benefit of the
pro encoding scheme.

AFAIK, Apple uses AAC and probably just gives it the mp3 extension
instead of incrementing to mp4.


--
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.

Z Gluhak wrote:

Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes uses

when

you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better than

FM

to me.

He was referring to the encoding algorithm. That is, the compression
algorithm used to MAKE mp3s from cds. What you're referring to is

DEcoding

the "universal" mp3 code, which should (theoretically) be the same across
players.




I understand - so was I. When you buy a song from Itunes or Napster, they
made the MP3. It's 128K. It sounds very close to cd quality.

I was wondering what codec, or encoding algorithm they use to make quality
Mp3s at 128K.

Z Gluhak wrote:

Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes
uses when
you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better
than FM
to me.

Apple offers a tool for the record companies to encode their own
files--the "Music Store Encoder Tool." I haven't run across a copy
yet...

iTunes uses a 128 kbps bitrate, but they use AAC format instead of MP3.
They say it's roughly equivalent to a 160 kbps MP3, but on
complex/fast/detailed songs I've found that I want a higher bitrate.

Here's some info:
http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/

Stuff like Jack Johnson or Norah Jones generally sounds fine to me; it's
fast punk rock--especially the drums and cymbals--that start sounding
"syrupy" to me. (That's the only way I know to describe it.)

From what I've read, Apple tries to rip the file from the original
studio masters/tapes which explains the high sound quality. If only
they'd offer songs encoded at 160 or 192 kbps...


HTH,
Adam

thelizman wrote:
note: sci.electronics.repair removed from ng xpost list

Z Gluhak wrote:

Hey thelizman do you know how quality of a codec Napster or Itunes
uses when
you pay the buck for a song from them? It definitely sounds better
than FM
to me.


I'm not quite sure on Napster, but iTunes uses AAC which is a very good
codec, probably the best lossy compression codec commercially available.
It's basically MP4 of sorts, the MPEG Layer 4 Advanced Audio Codec.

AAC includes Digital Rights Management, however. My view on DRM is that
anything which restricts your ability to portablize your music and adds
size to the file is detrimental. It just so happens that the same kid
who cracked the CSS DVD Encryption scheme (making it possible to backup
your DVD's, or rip them to your hard drive like I do) recently cracked
Apple's DRM on AAC.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...id=141&tid=188

AFAIK, only the songs purchased from the iTunes store have the FairPlay
DRM built in. If you set iTunes to rip your own music to AAC files, it
applies no copy protection. Apparently the new version rips to AAC by
default; I disabled it because my car player only plays MP3s...and I'm
pretty sure iTunes won't convert an AAC file to MP3 on-the-fly when
burning an MP3 disk (not that I'd want to).

The extension on a ripped file is .m4a
The extension on a bought file is .m4p

Adam

"Adam Drew" wrote in message
...


Stuff like Jack Johnson or Norah Jones generally sounds fine to me; it's
fast punk rock--especially the drums and cymbals--that start sounding
"syrupy" to me. (That's the only way I know to describe it.)


Well, that sounds like cd quality to me!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

thelizman wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Just wondering, but why is this crossposted to hell and back?

non-audio newsgroups deleted

Btw - rough comparison:

128K - AM stereo quality.
192K - FM quality.(both with no hiss or artifacts, though)
240K - Tape or Vinyl.
320K - Good tape - Metal or Hi-fi VCR or R-R.


Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
starters, AM is not available in stereo - there's not enough bandwidth
to encode both channels on a single carrier.

Yes there is. There IS an AM stereo. MAny music stations broadcast
in it and a few radios still have a botton for it. It's very compressed.

thelizman wrote:

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.

Once you know what to listen for, it's plainly obvious which is which.
You can do this yourself, btw - encode a track and then play the CD
right after it. For instance, on a Steve Morse song, you couldn't
hear what type of drum heads or cymbals he was usin at anything
less that 192K, while on the CD - it was clear(as each majotr brand
has a different sound, just like synths/keyboards/pianos do)

The "syrupy" description is perfect, IMO - the syllabance and
ring and crispness slowly degrades until it sounds like very
clean FM or AM radio if you push it enough. By the time you get
to 128K, a CD to 128K side-by-side comparison is painfully
revealing.

thelizman wrote:

Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
starters, AM is not available in stereo

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...ronics/usa.txt

Yes, it exists. You just need a receiver with a stereo AM
decoder chip in it, much like how FM stereo wasn't widely
implimented when it came out.

Actually, AM stereo predates FM stereo. Sounds excellent, btw,
though not FM quality.

Note: once again I have manually removed sci.electronics.repair because
it is irrelevent to the discussion, and because others don't have the
common sense to remove it themselves

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Once you know what to listen for,

Aah...yeah...at this point allow me to point out you are making sweeping
generalizations, and backing them up with your own anectdotal
perceptions. The fact of the matter is that with a pure source, MP3
audio is superior to Redbook CDDA. CDDA or CDA is in fact only recorded
at 174.6 kb/s using PCM without compression. The equivalent to this is a
113 kb/s MP3 file. Given two audio tracks recorded under these
conditions from a pure source, you will not be able to tell a difference
no matter how good you think your ears are. And believe me, my ears are
very good. I know what to look for.

The "syrupy" description is perfect, IMO - the syllabance and
ring and crispness slowly degrades until it sounds like very
clean FM or AM radio if you push it enough. By the time you get
to 128K, a CD to 128K side-by-side comparison is painfully
revealing.

And is this MP3 file generated off a CD, the same CD we are comparing it
to? And what codec did you use? Is joint stereo enabled? Obviously under
best case conditions an MP3 will be equal to or less than the CD it was
ripped from, and generally it will be inferior because of generic codec
settings which compromise quality for file size.

Do the comparison youself. Find an SACD and rip it to a CDA file, and
also rip it from SACD to MP3 @ 128 kb/s. Use whatever you like, but I
recommend some Baroque chamber music or light jazz. Now find those
artifacts, if you can, and compare them to the CD artifacts.

--
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.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
thelizman wrote:

Very rough - I'm wondering how you came up with those figures. For
starters, AM is not available in stereo


http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...ronics/usa.txt

Yes, it exists. You just need a receiver with a stereo AM
decoder chip in it, much like how FM stereo wasn't widely
implimented when it came out.

Actually, AM stereo predates FM stereo. Sounds excellent, btw,
though not FM quality.


You know, now that you mention it I remember seeing AM stereo in an old
GM. I was right that AM can't handle the stereo on the carrier, so I was
fascinated to learn the little quadratic trick they use to encode the
information. You'll have to forgive - I didn't care about electronics in
the 80s, I was more concerned with scooby doo.

Man...to be able to listen to the Maharushie in Stereo...that would rock.

--
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.

thelizman wrote:

The "syrupy" description is perfect, IMO - the syllabance and
ring and crispness slowly degrades until it sounds like very
clean FM or AM radio if you push it enough. By the time you get
to 128K, a CD to 128K side-by-side comparison is painfully
revealing.


And is this MP3 file generated off a CD, the same CD we are comparing it
to?

Yes.

And what codec did you use? Is joint stereo enabled?

Several. Joint stereo and all the goodies enabled.
No contest which sounded better. Compression causes losses by
definition, so it cannot sound better than the original.

Do the comparison youself. Find an SACD and rip it to a CDA file, and
also rip it from SACD to MP3 @ 128 kb/s. Use whatever you like, but I
recommend some Baroque chamber music or light jazz. Now find those
artifacts, if you can, and compare them to the CD artifacts.

BT,DT. Terribly easy to tell which is CD and which is 128K, even
in a blind test. Perhaps your hearing isn't as well trained as
you think it is.

thelizman wrote:


You know, now that you mention it I remember seeing AM stereo in an old
GM. I was right that AM can't handle the stereo on the carrier, so I was
fascinated to learn the little quadratic trick they use to encode the
information. You'll have to forgive - I didn't care about electronics in
the 80s, I was more concerned with scooby doo.

Man...to be able to listen to the Maharushie in Stereo...that would rock.

Sony makes a nice tabletop AM stereo capable radio.
That site I listed also has a list of stations in the U.S.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
thelizman wrote:

BT,DT. Terribly easy to tell which is CD and which is 128K, even
in a blind test. Perhaps your hearing isn't as well trained as
you think it is.

I think your hearing is more trained in your mind than it really is.

You admitted that you were comparing a MP3 file to the CDit was ripped
off of - that's a no brainer, theres always going to be some loss. CDs
aren't usually all that great to begin with.

Don't worry - it's not uncommon for people to imagine that they're
hearing something they're not.


--
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.

"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.

Qualify this, please. Mp3 is, by definition, lossy compression. How can an
Mp3 exceed the source signal? I don't believe it can.

"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?

ec wrote:

Qualify this, please. Mp3 is, by definition, lossy compression. How can an
Mp3 exceed the source signal? I don't believe it can.

I never said it could. In fact, I pointed out that if you're listening
to an MP3 ripped from a CD, then you cannot expect it to be better than
the CD. But if you rip an MP3 and CDA file from the same source
material, then the MP3 is capable of higher quality at lower bitrates.
CDA is itself a lossy compression as well.


--
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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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?

thelizman wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

thelizman wrote:

BT,DT. Terribly easy to tell which is CD and which is 128K, even
in a blind test. Perhaps your hearing isn't as well trained as
you think it is.


I think your hearing is more trained in your mind than it really is.

You admitted that you were comparing a MP3 file to the CDit was ripped
off of - that's a no brainer, theres always going to be some loss. CDs
aren't usually all that great to begin with.

Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality, what
does qualify as "great to begin with", then?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
thelizman wrote:

Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality, what
does qualify as "great to begin with", then?

Where did you ever hear this tripe? CDA is limited to 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
While some people are within that limit, some people are outside.
Besides which, sound does consist of frequencies outside of that range.
Those frequencies do mix with and affect frequencies within the standard
range of human hearing. CD audio also has a limited dynamic range (~110
db) compared to human hearing. While this is far better than tape, it is
nowhere near human hearing limits in terms of dR.

Realize that CDA is nothing more than a 25 year old lossy compression
format developed to standardized audio CD formats and enable the use of
CDs for mass market purposes. It is not the best, it is not a reference
standard, and it is not better than human hearing. Thats why things like
SACD, AAC, MP3, FLAC, SHN, and OGG were developed. Heck, thats why
audiophiles still treasure vinyl - its about the only way to get a true
to life reproduction of an audio program without being there.


--
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.

I am not sure I agree with that statement..!

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Since human hearing limits are exceeded by normal CD quality,