Re: Converting atrac3 to mp3

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:08:39 -0700, Sonnova
<sonnova@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:15:53 -0700, Julian wrote
>(in article <2ps0g3l18bor00dj8ccsic6h72c1nbt7jr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:28:24 GMT, <steven.sawyer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 
>>> Compressed audio with be over with in the 
>>> next five years.  There's not going to be any more need for it.  
>> 
>> Naw, I don't think so.  High bandwidth MP3's are impossible to tell
>> under most circumstances and save 80% of file size.  They will be
>> around for a while.  Also for streaming, 1.4mbs is a little rich for
>> some systems.
>
>That depends a lot on the kind of music you listen to. Even using very
high 
>bit rates (such as 384 Bps) MP3 compression artifacts are VERY noticeable
on 
>some kinds of music (solo acoustic piano and to a greater extent
acoustical 
>guitar, for instance). However, if one listens to rock and pop, artifacts

>probably wouldn't be noticed even at much lower bit rates

If you are listening on an audiophile system and the absolute highest
quality is the single most important factor to you, then yes, of
course you are right.  Otherwise no.  If you have those kind of
standards, you should be posting on the audiophile newsgroups, not
minidisc!

I've spent a lot of years in the recording studio so my ears have a
certain degree of training and my 320 kbps mp3's sound VERY much like
the originals to me.  Especially in my car which is where I listen to
90% of my music.  The other 10% is while I'm doing dishes or cleaning
house.  Who can focus on a tiny loss of quality under those
circumstances?

I can hear a difference but is it worth 5 times the file size even
with big hard drives and memory.  Naw, ain't so.

Julian