🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <369e64ae.111865782@nntp.wpi.edu>,
davatar <davatar@nospam.org> wrote:
>"John Busenitz" <busenitz@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Pascal wrote in message <369A4971.D050DBD3@usa.net>...
>>>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.

Which experts are this? Care to cite the specific references that support
your assertion? And by what criteria do you assert that 256kb/s will
retain ALL audible data from 44.1/16 bit CD streams? (Hint: there exist
audio signals that can demonstrably prove this assertion false.)

And if your assertion is correct, how do you explain subsequent tests that
show audible differences between such codings at these bit rates?


-- 
|            Dick Pierce            |
|   Professional Audio Development  |
|   1-781/826-4953  Voice and FAX   |
|       DPierce@world.std.com       |