Marty wrote in
:

Larry, at what bit rate do you encode your MP3s?



Whatever bit rate they're in when I download them from
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.(many genres here) off usenet. Tonight I'm
stripping alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.jazz for a while.

Most are 128Kbps, but sometimes they go crazy with variable bit rates far
above that. As the bit rate for the CDs was 44.1K to begin with, it's all
over kill above 64Kbps, anyways. Human ears aren't near that good....no
matter what the hypers say. Sceptics only need see an audiologist to get
their own personal bandwidth tests to confirm it....

FLAC, while really cool, is crazy.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:41:43 +0000, Larry wrote:

Marty wrote in
m:

Larry, at what bit rate do you encode your MP3s?



Whatever bit rate they're in when I download them from
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.(many genres here) off usenet. Tonight I'm
stripping alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.jazz for a while.

Most are 128Kbps, but sometimes they go crazy with variable bit rates far
above that. As the bit rate for the CDs was 44.1K to begin with,

44.1k x 2 x16

it's all
over kill above 64Kbps, anyways. Human ears aren't near that good....no
matter what the hypers say. Sceptics only need see an audiologist to get
their own personal bandwidth tests to confirm it....

FLAC, while really cool, is crazy.

it's all
over kill above 64Kbps, anyways. Human ears aren't near that good.

No, perhaps your geezer ears aren't that good. The bitrate of an MP3 has
more to do with compression than CD digitization sampling rates. But here
again it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

"Bill Kearney" wrote in
t:

it's all
over kill above 64Kbps, anyways. Human ears aren't near that good.

No, perhaps your geezer ears aren't that good. The bitrate of an MP3
has more to do with compression than CD digitization sampling rates.
But here again it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.



Sure wished you lived close, Bill. I'd like to try a little test on
you....

I've done this test with others, maybe not as nasty as you seem, but the
test was positive.

We took their favorite CD and I did a simple rip at 128Kbps to MP3. I
own a huge 1450 watt DJ system that can play both the original CD and my
pitiful excuse for an MP3 off my cheap Gateway laptop's sound chips
through the same control board and JBL's best $900 speakers. I play for
an older crowd, Carolina Beach Music, classic rock, Jimmy Buffett, stuff
like that, for parties, even for pay, occasionally, though I don't
promote it much any more.

The test was simple. I'll play each track of their favorite CD twice,
track for track, in succession. You pick out which is the original and
which is the MP3 of it at 128Kbps off simple, free Winamp without any of
my other bag of tricks like Sound Solutions great broadcast-quality 5-
band compander for Winamp. We use only Winamp's MP3 simple decoder with
the board set to equal levels on the meters. No games with the system.

To date, noone was successful in telling the difference on even the
finest symphonic music from a Red Label RCA expensive CD. The human
ears of all the test subjects just isn't that good. It's
BULL****....plain and simple.

You need a spectrum analyzer and some classy equipment to find the
differences, none of which the human ear can detect.

But, you have it your way.... My electronic students always started the
year recording from the finest reel-to-reel machines big money could buy
at 15 ips....until I showed them the reality of the recording and radio
business they were getting it from...(c; Radio used to use 3 3/4 ips
from big Scully machines on automation before the computers took over.
The music on your FM station is MP3 to save drive space....all of it.

Too funny....(c;

Aren't single bit A/Ds used on those things? If so, doesn't the sample rate
have to be much higher than the Nyquist rate? I would think the quantization
noise is more fundamental than sample rate. Are you using pulse or impulse
sampling? How do you reduce the Gibbs Phenomena interleave in the audible
pat of the spectrum?


Ron

"Ron Blinder" wrote in
:

Aren't single bit A/Ds used on those things? If so, doesn't the
sample rate have to be much higher than the Nyquist rate? I would
think the quantization noise is more fundamental than sample rate. Are
you using pulse or impulse sampling? How do you reduce the Gibbs
Phenomena interleave in the audible pat of the spectrum?


Ron




I found a Pioneer RT-707 really nice reel-to-reel tape recorder in a thrift
shop for $10 because it didn't play. The bearings in the capstan pressure
rollers were frozen. It's in my stereo rack, now. Another time, someone
donated boxes full of reel-to-reel tapes, lots of pre-recorded ones from
RCA Red Label and very high quality 7.5 ips.

I don't see any difference between these tapes and the original CDs on the
same system. The Pioneer's noise is -80 db below the music after I demag'd
the 4 heads. Montovani and the Boston Symphony are MOST impressive...(c;

Larry wrote:
Marty wrote in
:

Larry, at what bit rate do you encode your MP3s?



Whatever bit rate they're in when I download them from
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.(many genres here) off usenet. Tonight I'm
stripping alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.jazz for a while.

Most are 128Kbps, but sometimes they go crazy with variable bit rates far
above that. As the bit rate for the CDs was 44.1K to begin with, it's all
over kill above 64Kbps, anyways. Human ears aren't near that good....no
matter what the hypers say. Sceptics only need see an audiologist to get
their own personal bandwidth tests to confirm it....

FLAC, while really cool, is crazy.



Gawd almighty Larry, your ears must really suck, you can use whatever
piece of crap speakers you like. CDs are 44.1Ksamples/sec, usually at
16 bits per sample, corresponds to 1.044Mb/s. Your 128Kbs sample, even
at 8 bits per sample corresponds to 8ksamples for each channel, Nyquist
theorem tells us that the highest frequency that will be recorded with
this is a mere 4Khz. If you can't hear the problem with this, either
your hearing is seriously impaired or your reproduction system is
seriously substandard. I occasionally download stuff from
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.xxx, but I won't bother with anything less than
256kbs, even they are not great. FLAC, is not only cool, but if one has
a decent sound system and decent ears, the only way to go.

I've yet to hear a blue tooth system worth the trouble, for music anyway.

Cheers
Marty

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:34:19 -0400, Marty wrote:

Larry wrote:
Marty wrote in
:

Larry, at what bit rate do you encode your MP3s?



Whatever bit rate they're in when I download them from
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.(many genres here) off usenet. Tonight I'm
stripping alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.jazz for a while.

Most are 128Kbps, but sometimes they go crazy with variable bit rates far
above that. As the bit rate for the CDs was 44.1K to begin with, it's all
over kill above 64Kbps, anyways. Human ears aren't near that good....no
matter what the hypers say. Sceptics only need see an audiologist to get
their own personal bandwidth tests to confirm it....

FLAC, while really cool, is crazy.



Gawd almighty Larry, your ears must really suck, you can use whatever
piece of crap speakers you like. CDs are 44.1Ksamples/sec, usually at
16 bits per sample, corresponds to 1.044Mb/s. Your 128Kbs sample, even
at 8 bits per sample corresponds to 8ksamples for each channel, Nyquist
theorem tells us that the highest frequency that will be recorded with
this is a mere 4Khz.

No cigar :-( Nyquist theorem not applicable in this way to non-linear
processes such as compressed audio signals, particularly lossy
perceptual audio coding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_Audio_Coding


If you can't hear the problem with this, either
your hearing is seriously impaired or your reproduction system is
seriously substandard. I occasionally download stuff from
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.xxx, but I won't bother with anything less than
256kbs, even they are not great. FLAC, is not only cool, but if one has
a decent sound system and decent ears, the only way to go.

I've yet to hear a blue tooth system worth the trouble, for music anyway.

Cheers
Marty

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:34:19 -0400, Marty wrote:

Larry wrote:
Marty wrote in
:

Larry, at what bit rate do you encode your MP3s?


Whatever bit rate they're in when I download them from
alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.(many genres here) off usenet. Tonight I'm
stripping alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.jazz for a while.

Most are 128Kbps, but sometimes they go crazy with variable bit rates far
above that. As the bit rate for the CDs was 44.1K to begin with, it's all
over kill above 64Kbps, anyways. Human ears aren't near that good....no
matter what the hypers say. Sceptics only need see an audiologist to get
their own personal bandwidth tests to confirm it....

FLAC, while really cool, is crazy.


Gawd almighty Larry, your ears must really suck, you can use whatever
piece of crap speakers you like. CDs are 44.1Ksamples/sec, usually at
16 bits per sample, corresponds to 1.044Mb/s. Your 128Kbs sample, even
at 8 bits per sample corresponds to 8ksamples for each channel, Nyquist
theorem tells us that the highest frequency that will be recorded with
this is a mere 4Khz.

No cigar :-( Nyquist theorem not applicable in this way to non-linear
processes such as compressed audio signals, particularly lossy
perceptual audio coding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_Audio_Coding

Nyquist still applies, lossy perceptual encoding just lets you throw
out a lot of audio information and claim that it's imperceptible. This
may be true for some listeners, perhaps many listeners. Like people that
think that a Pioneer 707 is a professional quality deck. I've got an
Ampex 440C, I take my sound seriously, I wear hearing protection, when I
was younger I wore hearing protection to concerts, now I just don't go.

I don't think even Boobsie would listen to an MP3 at 128K.

Cheers
Marty