🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <XtbZ4.95669$h01.687815@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@flash.net> wrote:

>3 of the perceptual coders are running at the de facto standard bit
>rate of 128 Kbps, and one is running at 256 Kbps.


just FYI, the current "standard" for mp3's are 160 or 192kbit not 128kbit any 
longer.

I believe its 256kps that you can't tell the difference.  I just read an
article on this and will try to locate it.  However, whomever this "you"
person is, he has super sensitive hearing to say the least.


"Jean-Sebastien Morisset" <jsmoriss@jsm-mv.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:3934E4ED.703F33D7@jsm-mv.dyndns.org...
> MP3 has different qualities. Supposedly, at 192kps you can't tell the
> difference from the original on a high quality sound system. Do you have a
> different opinion?
>
> Thanks,
> js.
>
> Scott Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > One would question why you want a high quality output when listening to
> > MP3s.....
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sr. UNIX Admin <jsmoriss@jsm-mv.dyndns.org>
> Personal Homepage <http://www.jsmoriss.dyndns.org/>
> UNIX, Internet, Homebrewing, Cigars, PCS, CP2020 and other Fun Stuff...
> This is Linux Country. On a quiet night you can hear Windows NT reboot!

Canadian Joe (dot@dot.dot) wrote:
: I believe its 256kps that you can't tell the difference.  I just read an
: article on this and will try to locate it.  However, whomever this "you"
: person is, he has super sensitive hearing to say the least.
: 
I've heard 160kbit was the limit. And i've seen a test where the winner
was someone with BAD hearing actually. He couldn't hear certain frequencies
and because the psycho-acoustic model of MP3 is modelled for normal hearing
persons he could tell the difference quite often.
cu,
   Markus

"Markus Holzapfel" <benu@abraham.uni-paderborn.de> wrote in message
news:8h321p$slc$3@news.uni-paderborn.de...
> Canadian Joe (dot@dot.dot) wrote:
> : I believe its 256kps that you can't tell the difference.  I just
read an
> : article on this and will try to locate it.  However, whomever
this "you"
> : person is, he has super sensitive hearing to say the least.
> :
> I've heard 160kbit was the limit. And i've seen a test where the
winner
> was someone with BAD hearing actually. He couldn't hear certain
frequencies
> and because the psycho-acoustic model of MP3 is modelled for normal
hearing
> persons he could tell the difference quite often.

You can do listening tests of 4 different perceptual coders by
downloading files from http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm .

The original, pre-compression files are also available.

3 of the perceptual coders are MP3, one is not.

3 of the perceptual coders are running at the de facto standard bit
rate of 128 Kbps, and one is running at 256 Kbps.

In general, people hear differences when comparing these products. I
don't know how people do with the 256Kbps samples.

MP3 has different qualities. Supposedly, at 192kps you can't tell the
difference from the original on a high quality sound system. Do you have a
different opinion?

Thanks,
js.

Scott Hamilton wrote:
> 
> One would question why you want a high quality output when listening to
> MP3s.....

--
Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sr. UNIX Admin <jsmoriss@jsm-mv.dyndns.org>
Personal Homepage <http://www.jsmoriss.dyndns.org/>
UNIX, Internet, Homebrewing, Cigars, PCS, CP2020 and other Fun Stuff...
This is Linux Country. On a quiet night you can hear Windows NT reboot!

One would question why you want a high quality output when listening to
MP3s.....

Jean-Sebastien Morisset wrote:

> I'm cross-posting this to several groups since opinions may vary quite a
> bit... Let me explain what I'm trying to do first. :-)
>
> I'm building an MP3 server which I'll be hooking up to my home
> amplifier. I'll be playing mostly 192kps (and some 160kps) and want a
> high quality output. My receiver accepts RCA or Optical inputs -- I
> prefer using the optical input, of course. The server will be using
> Linux 6.2, probably with the OSS drivers (better quality).
>
> My question is, what's the best sound card available for
> playing/recording with an OPTICAL output? If the card can support AC-3
> 5.1, that would be a bonus. All the MIDI stuff is unnecessary for me.
>
> I'm hoping someone will come up with a "Oh, there's only one card for
> you..." kinda answer! <grin>
>
> Thanks,
> js.
> --
> Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sr. UNIX Administrator
> <http://www.jsmoriss.dyndns.org/>;
> UNIX, the Internet, Homebrewing, Cigars, PCS, and other Fun Stuff...
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.