from a technical paper looking at mp3 encoders
--
Now why would an encoder throw out everything past 16 kHz? Generally, musical
information is mostly located in the lower frequency bands, and, as I mentioned
before, our ability to hear high frequencies decreases with age. So, you might be
able to get away with throwing out information past 16 kHz. The benefit of doing this
is that the encoder can now take its limited number of bits and assign them to the
rest of the frequency band. If this is true, then perhaps the Blade and LAME encoders
have more accurate power spectra than the Xing and FhG encoders below 16 kHz.
--
some encoders it should be mentioned will make it to around 20kHz
marc
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 04:02:37PM -0400, las wrote:
>
> Tony Antoniou wrote:
>
> > If you want stuff you can actually make use out of, and enjoy listening
> > to then you get MD. Fact is, no matter how little compression you use
> > with MP3, the freq response will forever be inferior to that of MD. Hell
> > 60 - 16kHz does not compare to 20 - 20kHz in my perception. MP3's always
> > have and always will sound thinner in the low-end and duller in the
> > top-end.
>
> Hi Tony. I have always been of the opinion that MD sound is superior to
> MP3, but is that really a factual statement? Have you specifically read
> that MP3's range is limited from 60 to 16K?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
