"Michael Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It is grossly irrelevant to assume 128 Kbps MP3 as the standard while
>assuming 292 Kbps as the MD standard, then say MD sounds better than
>MP3. This is all too obvious yet people insist on such obviously
>unfair comparisons.
I never do. I equate MDLP to 292k, MDLP2 to 192 or 256k, MDLP4 to 96k. At
those levels, MD sounds better on each.
>The 256 Kbps MP3s I trade sound the same as standard 5:1 ATRAC,
>because it's the same compression ratio and generally, all the
>leading compression algorithms perform approximately the same as far
>as fidelity vs. ratio.
I would disagree. ATRAC is superior to even the best MP3 encoders. Even my
friends who aren't "audiophiles" can tell the difference between standard MD
and 256k MP3.
I also don't get the whole thing about titling. First of all, for me MP3 and
MD are equally easy/a pain, because I can plug a PS/2 keyboard (which I
bought for $2) up to my MD recorder and title songs. So it's just as easy.
But second, I just don't get why people want to do this so much. After all,
when you buy a CD, are the tracks labeled? Only if you have one of the very
rare CDs with CD-TEXT, and one of the rare players that can display it. The
only reason I could see for needing titling is if you have a hard drive full
of songs. However, since that isn't possible with MD, the argument is
largely irrelevant. If MD *was* able to store songs on a hard drive, but
didn't allow you to title them, that would be a valid criticism.
> We should try to combine the strengths of MD
> and MP3.
That is the key point of all this, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Larry wrote:
>Also, even MP3s are an improvement over vinyl, cassettes and FM.
Woah! Larry, now you're really out there ;) Vinyl on a good system sounds as
good as any CD, and FAR better than any MP3.
"Tom P.D. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Mp3 compression generally is not as good as MD.
>
>Generally ? meaning what ? it obviously depends on where you get the
>mp3. When downloading from kazaa and the like, the quality indeed
>varies <greatly.BUT> all the mp3s i created myself are either 256 or
>320 kbps cbr or lame vbr. This is equivalent to cd-quality
No offense, but 320k lame is *not* "CD-quality" -- anyone with a good system
and decent ears can hear the difference even in a double-blind test. If you
mean "close enough so that in a portable environment where there is motion
and background noise you won't know the difference," then I agree with you.
But in terms of actual sound quality, no.
As for MP3 vs. MD, standard-bitrate ATRAC is superior to even lame encoding
at 320k. I've compared it myself using good equipment. Again, maybe this
doesn't matter to people using MD/MP3 in a portable, or on a computer where
the sound isn't high-quality anyway, but in terms of absolute sound, I just
get tired of the term "CD-quality" used so loosely. Neither MD nor MP3 is
"CD-quality." They are both ways of compressing sound so that you don't need
as much space to store it. They are both lossy, and audibly so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
