Nikhil;277800 Wrote: > Article from Stereophile about the age old argument, with lots of graphs > included. > > http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/
While the graphs are kind of interesting, they'd be much more so if he'd actually explain a bit more about -why- they look like that. It's not like it's a mystery. Then there are posturings like this: John Atkinson Wrote: > Given the bigger bit budget at 320kbps, the AAC codec produces a result > that may well be indistinguishable from CD for some listeners some of > the time with some music. So he's claiming that by looking at a graph of this particular test-tone he can tell whether or not these effects are audible on music. And yet he didn't bother to do a listening test - in the time it took him to prepare that article, he could have performed a whole series. -That- would have been interesting, because what most people really want to know is which format to use and at what level of compression. This kind of vague cursory analysis and unsubstantiated statements isn't useful. Frankly, I very much doubt he would have been able to hear the differences between 320 MP3 or AAC and CD (at least not without lots of practice and choosing the test track very carefully), and after all the whining Stereophile has been doing recently that wouldn't look very good. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
