🚀 go-pugleaf

John Busenitz wrote in message <77jcvs$9lk$1@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>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.
>


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.

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.

I've got this theory that if taken to an extreme, perceptual coding can not
only decrease the information in program material, but also some of its
energy. Obviously, this will cause audible distortion, but given that people
frequently listen to formats like AM radio, FM radio, vinyl, and movie optical
sound tracks, a certain amount of audible distortion is at least tolerable. If
you decrease the energy content of program material, it might be possible for
it to be louder and have higher articulation, with lower powered equipment,
and perhaps over noisier channels.