🚀 go-pugleaf

Well, we already have TONS of discussion on "MP3 vs CD" 
and "MD(ATRAC) vs CD" but there is **not** even a SINGLE 
direct comparison on "MP3 vs MD(ATRAC)".

Is it so difficult to compare MP3 vs MD (ATRAC), 
I wonder ?

: "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. So, mp3 at 128kbps 44khz is supposed
: to give you all the audible data you get from a cd (1200kbps). 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. So then what happens if you
: have a 384kbps mp3? (if 128 or 256 just isn't isn't good enough for
: your ears).