🚀 go-pugleaf

Arny Kr�ger wrote in message ...
>
>I think we are seeing the new-age version of "I like vinyl and SET's". Like
>MP3, they audbly degrade audio signals, but some people actually like the
>sound  that the degradation imparts.

Well, maybe. But I don't think there is much evidence of preference
for MP3 when compared directly with the CD-quality signal. In fact,
it's quite the opposite in the JAES papers I've read.


How long until the first tubey-sounding codec rears it's head? ;-)

Anyway, the original poster asserted that better results could be
obtained. Since this is an audio newsgroup (and not r.a.o) and high
fidelity is the traditional thrust, I chose to define "better results"
as more accuracy. So even if it sounds better, it is not more faithful
to the original, and thas CANNOT be better.

>Obviously, you are absolutely right - no harm comes from delivering more
>information to the ear than it can reliably discern - the ear is very good
at
>picking selected information out of a maelstrom. However, its capablities
are
>bounded, and that is why MP3 works at all.


Yes. This reminds me, in a JAES article on codecs, Dolby AC-3 did pretty
poorly. I hope there is room for improvement, or we will be stuck with some
pretty archaic, bad-sounding crap from now on, seeing as how the industry
has decided to get in bed with Dolby. Please tell me that AC-3 can be
improved
via software!!!

AAC is also not usable through MPEG2/L2,3 decoders.

--
John
busenitz@earthlink.net