CD quality isn't that bad, in fact I have a lot of CD's that sound great o I can make
on 5/6/03 3:03 PM, Rev. Jeffrey Paul at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > in the grand scheme of things, high-bitrate mp3 (192+kbps) and cd quality > both suck ass pretty badly. No they don't, the audio is satisfactory enough to most peoples ears. CD quality isn't that bad, higher bit rates like 192 are more tolerable. For example an album like LFO - Frequencies sounds great on CD. > 44100hz/16bit just isn't that good to begin > with. armchair audiophiles debate lossy compression vs the uncompressed > originals, but when you're talking cd-quality it doesn't much matter. > > sure, anyone can tell the difference between a 128kbps mp3 and the > original. when you encode at 192 or 256kbps though with a good encoder, > anyone who claims to hear the difference is lying. google for a program > called "winabx" if you don't believe me. > > -j The only use I have for MP3 format is the music I download off the internet. Wich is adequate for previewing tracks and DJ mixes but I can easily make the distinction between CD quality and MP3 quality, my main complaint about MP3 quality is the sound characteristic of the audio once it's compressed, you loose the high end and the sound is grimy and rough like sand paper. The more I think about it it really isn't that much of a hassle to carry around a portable CD player and a CD wallet which is enough music to keep me entertained during a long commute, add to the fact that CDR burners are inexpensive and fast and the cost CDR's are also not much of a factor.
