this is old, i know but i had to jump in. http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/1q00/mp3/mp3-1.html
this article from the online technical journal Ars-Technica does a good job laying out and explaining the differences in encoders and how well they stack up aginst cd's. on the whole it's a well written and informative peice. it's even gotten reviews from an audio engineer/programmer type i know. the did full objective (lab) testing, as well as subjective testing. an interesting quote from the listening test part: "I first compared the MP3s to the original CD tracks, and at 128 kbs I had no trouble discriminating the CD from the MP3s. At higher bit rates this became increasingly more difficult, but even at 256 kbs I believe I could hear differences by concentrating on certain parts of the track which were more susceptible to encoding error. However, since I did these tests sighted, I can't guarantee that I didn't imagine some of these differences. So please accept these observations with a word of warning. It is very easy to fool yourself into believing you can hear differences. Purported differences can fade away when you do the test double blind." the bottom line: not all encoders are created equal, and a higher bitrate is going to sound better than a lower one. suggested bitrates are 192-320, and the Fraunhofer encoding engine had the best overall performace at both low and high bitrates. On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:44:54AM -0800, Nick Walsh wrote: > It depends on how it's been coded. 256kbps isn't too > bad... the problem is that you have to have a really > high level of kbps to get anything like something > worth purchasing which obviously means massive files. > I don't see why anyone would wanna BUY mp3's so > they're not really commercially viable (and lets face > it, even producers need to make a living). Of course, > in the case of Napster and MP3.com it's just a case of > downloading them, not buying (as far as I know). > > Mp3's are better for just demoing stuff via > internet... I don't think you can get rid of > records... CD's are cooler for just listening to stuff > and djingwise, you just can't beat flimsy 12" pieces > of vinyl... > > l8r, > Nick (Dj Pacific:) > --- Sakari Karipuro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On > Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Paul Hudson wrote: > > > > > Vinyl sounds better than CD and CD sounds better > > than MP3. While the > > > popular media say Mp3's sound as good as CD's, I > > don't think anyone believes > > > them do they? I mean, just play a CD next to a > > high quality MP3 on quality > > > Hi-Fi. They tow don't even come close. Why is it > > the poor sound quality of > > > MP3's never gets mentioned in these debates. Do > > artists not care that > > > people won't be able to hear their music as > > clearly as intended. > > > > i wasn't interested in this thread but.. here goes > > nothing. i do agree > > with paul on this one. there's some uses for mp3's > > but sound quality is > > really awful - i mean 256 kbps is close to > > listenable on good system or > > with good headphones, but it's nothing like vinyl or > > cd. it's not even > > close. > > > > sakke > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. > http://shopping.yahoo.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] c: +1.614.260.6716 u: www.ele-mental.org Wir fahr'n fahr'n fahr'n auf der Autobahn
