On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:13:37 -0700, Julian wrote
(in article <b9h2g39ktj3rhj2u7qj2ecvrvm0sf6bbg3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> 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 cir***stances 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 im****tant 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'm posting to MiniDisc because of the Hi-MD's ability to RECORD
16-bit/44.1
KHz linear PCM. My comment was elicited because of your comment: " High
bandwidth MP3's are impossible to tell under most cir***stances and save
80%
of file size" with which I disagree. There is no free lunch and if you are
letting some algorithm decide what isn't im****tant in your music and can
be
safely discarded, then obviously saving space means more than quality, an
idea that, to me, is so alien as to be anathema.
> 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
> cir***stances?
In the first place, I agree with you about the car and "background
listening". The car is such a hostile environment for music (due to the
high
background noise level), that subtelties of the sound of music are simply
irrelevant. Music as background is a similar situation. One's attention is
on
something else and things like compression artifacts simply aren't heard.
>
> 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.
Depends. I cannot "ignore" music. and therefore never listen to music as
"background". Even if it's unpleasant like some modern screaming "diva" in
the background of the supermarket straining her voice to scream the lyrics
of
some "light rock ballad", I notice it every unpleasant moment. Music is
very
im****tant to me, and when I listen to it, I want it to be as perfect as
possible.
|
