🚀 go-pugleaf

davatar wrote in message <369e64ae.111865782@nntp.wpi.edu>...
>"John Busenitz" <busenitz@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Pascal wrote in message <369A4971.D050DBD3@usa.net>...
>>
>>>I know I am going to get BLASTED for that but... imagine this :
>>>
>>>You copy 256kbps .mp3's on a CD-R and play them back through your
>>>hyper-noise PC house and through the S/PDIF output of your Sound Blaster
>>>card... to your external DAC... and you get equal or better results than
>>>your CD Transport with alumnium CDs to your DAC...
>>
>>Well, this is impossible. Not because audiophile transports make a
>>difference, but because an MP3 is itself WORSE than a CD, by definition.
>>It is lossy, it CANNOT be better. Maybe sound the same with certain
>>types of signals, but NOT better.
>
>WRONG, The human ear can only hear so much, and CD's contain
>information that we can't here.

That's neither hear nor thear. ;-)

>So, mp3 at 128kbps 44khz is supposed
>to give you all the audible data you get from a cd (1200kbps).

"Supposed to" and "does" are two very different things. MP3 sometimes
gets close, maybe even occasionally indistinguishable, but but it
is not a completely transparent codec. There is a lot of proof of this,
the JAES article on this very topic is one.

>Now if
>you take a 256k 44khz, this means that in theory this will retain
>audible data from a 2400kbps cd sample. 256kbps mp3's are proven by
>experts to be indestinguishable from cd's.

What experts, when, and how? Supply some evidence, please.

>So then what happens if you
>have a 384kbps mp3? (if 128 or 256 just isn't isn't good enough for
>your ears).

It doesn't matter. It CANNOT have any more information than was on
the CD-audio signal from which it was recorded. At BEST, it can sound
the same. Most likely it exhibits audible coloration, ranging from
barely audibly to annoying.

--
John
busenitz@earthlink.net