🚀 go-pugleaf

"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).