"Don Capps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You can disagree all you like Larry. But in AB comparison where A is
>the original cd and B is a 192kbps mp3 file, the file is sonically
>indistinguishable from the original cd.
Don, you forgot to add the phrase "to my ears" at the end of that
statement. The truth is that it IS distinguishable. Just because you
personally can't hear it doesn't mean no one else can.
I can hear the difference, double-blind, between a 128kbps and 192 kbps.
And for Larry, here's the methodology LOL: using the same CD and the same
ripper, rip a single song at both bitrates. All other settings identical.
Save them to the same hard drive. Add them both to a playlist, set to
"random" shuffle and repeat. Close my eyes. Listen and hit "forward" to
skip between the two files, in random order. Have a friend tell me if my
guesses are correct.
Using this procedure, I can tell the difference easily. On the other
hand, I cannot consistently walk up to the machine without having heard
both before and identify whether a single track without a point of
comparison is 192 or 160. I can do it with CD vs MP3, though.
The point here is that there is an audible difference. However, whether
that difference is obvious in a portable environment is questionable.
My computer audio system: PowerMac G4, Yamaha @PET digital receiver, NHT
SuperZero speakers, Grado SR-60 headphones.
and
>You would never now the difference between my Expanium playing MP3
>files and my Expanium playing the original CD. I guarantee it.
>Inferior sound quality? Nope. Not at all.
Sorry, Don, but you're wrong on that one. Again, just because you can't
tell the difference doesn't mean others can't.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
