"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Being curious about this whole .mp3, can you or can't you tell issue,
and to lay to rest my own piece of mind, I decided to head downtown
and talk to one of the engineers of my acquaintance at the recording
studio there. They do a lot of work for local artists and the
occasional big name folkie who cruises through town for one reason or
another.

I took along a Acoustic Alchemy CD I have that I'm particularly fond
of just to test a couple of things.

First, depending on the sampling rate, you can hear a difference
between the CD and the .mp3. However, it becomes harder as the
sampling rate is increased and in truth, at around 250 kbps it became
harder to discern. At the max 320 kbps it was almost impossible and
to be totally honest, I'm not sure I could tell in terms of what I was
looking for.

The reason I used this particular CD is because there is a mistake in
oen of the songs, about two seconds long, in which there is a chording
mistake. My theory went this way - at the higher compression rates,
the mistake could and would be more noticeable and at lower rates the
mistake would be less noticeable.

It turned out that it didn't make a difference - probably because I
knew it was there and was looking for it.

However, I could notice a difference in the whole song at 128 kbps and
at 192 kbps - at 256 kbps it really was hard to tell the difference.

Just as an experiment, we went lower to 64 kbps and artifacts crept in
at that point which kind of proves a point about compression.

So I guess we're all right in a way - what it really depends on is (1)
the format being used to compress the file and (2) the sampling rate.

I feel better anyway.

Nice job and good information. I admit I haven't followed the progression
of mp3 technology based on the early low sampling rates that were used and
the resultant losses. I was unaware that sampling rates of 256kbps were
even possible. Maybe there's hope. I wonder, for the Ipod fans, what the
file size becomes if sampled at these higher rates.

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Being curious about this whole .mp3, can you or can't you tell issue,
and to lay to rest my own piece of mind, I decided to head downtown
and talk to one of the engineers of my acquaintance at the recording
studio there. They do a lot of work for local artists and the
occasional big name folkie who cruises through town for one reason or
another.

I took along a Acoustic Alchemy CD I have that I'm particularly fond
of just to test a couple of things.

First, depending on the sampling rate, you can hear a difference
between the CD and the .mp3. However, it becomes harder as the
sampling rate is increased and in truth, at around 250 kbps it became
harder to discern. At the max 320 kbps it was almost impossible and
to be totally honest, I'm not sure I could tell in terms of what I was
looking for.

The reason I used this particular CD is because there is a mistake in
oen of the songs, about two seconds long, in which there is a chording
mistake. My theory went this way - at the higher compression rates,
the mistake could and would be more noticeable and at lower rates the
mistake would be less noticeable.

It turned out that it didn't make a difference - probably because I
knew it was there and was looking for it.

However, I could notice a difference in the whole song at 128 kbps and
at 192 kbps - at 256 kbps it really was hard to tell the difference.

Just as an experiment, we went lower to 64 kbps and artifacts crept in
at that point which kind of proves a point about compression.

So I guess we're all right in a way - what it really depends on is (1)
the format being used to compress the file and (2) the sampling rate.

I feel better anyway.

Nice job and good information. I admit I haven't followed the progression
of mp3 technology based on the early low sampling rates that were used and
the resultant losses. I was unaware that sampling rates of 256kbps were
even possible. Maybe there's hope. I wonder, for the Ipod fans, what the
file size becomes if sampled at these higher rates.

RCE

For a quick and dirty analysis of file size vs. encoding bandwidth open your
Windows Media Player Tools Options Rip Music.

You will see a slider that will give some idea of file size delta from
120Kbps thru 320Kbps.

A Google search will uncover more detailed information if you're interested.

HTH....

"Bishoop" wrote in message
...


For a quick and dirty analysis of file size vs. encoding bandwidth open
your Windows Media Player Tools Options Rip Music.

You will see a slider that will give some idea of file size delta from
120Kbps thru 320Kbps.

A Google search will uncover more detailed information if you're
interested.

HTH....


Thanks!

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Being curious about this whole .mp3, can you or can't you tell issue,
and to lay to rest my own piece of mind, I decided to head downtown
and talk to one of the engineers of my acquaintance at the recording
studio there. They do a lot of work for local artists and the
occasional big name folkie who cruises through town for one reason or
another.

I took along a Acoustic Alchemy CD I have that I'm particularly fond
of just to test a couple of things.

First, depending on the sampling rate, you can hear a difference
between the CD and the .mp3. However, it becomes harder as the
sampling rate is increased and in truth, at around 250 kbps it became
harder to discern. At the max 320 kbps it was almost impossible and
to be totally honest, I'm not sure I could tell in terms of what I was
looking for.

The reason I used this particular CD is because there is a mistake in
oen of the songs, about two seconds long, in which there is a chording
mistake. My theory went this way - at the higher compression rates,
the mistake could and would be more noticeable and at lower rates the
mistake would be less noticeable.

It turned out that it didn't make a difference - probably because I
knew it was there and was looking for it.

However, I could notice a difference in the whole song at 128 kbps and
at 192 kbps - at 256 kbps it really was hard to tell the difference.

Just as an experiment, we went lower to 64 kbps and artifacts crept in
at that point which kind of proves a point about compression.

So I guess we're all right in a way - what it really depends on is (1)
the format being used to compress the file and (2) the sampling rate.

I feel better anyway.

Nice job and good information. I admit I haven't followed the progression
of mp3 technology based on the early low sampling rates that were used and
the resultant losses. I was unaware that sampling rates of 256kbps were
even possible. Maybe there's hope. I wonder, for the Ipod fans, what the
file size becomes if sampled at these higher rates.

RCE


This is starting to sound like the "cooler test" thread posted at
rec.boats.cruising.

The bottom line is that I don't think that *many* folks can distinguish the
difference in sound quality between an MP3 and a CD on/in the average home,
boat or car stereo system. Add into the mix folks who have less than
perfect hearing and you have a vast majority.

So let's agree that the audiophiles with high quality hardware, perfectly
wired and set up in professional recording studios....*who* also have great
hearing can hear a difference between CD and MP3.

OK. You win on that point.

In reality though.........you lose.

MP3's rock. ;-)

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..


In reality though.........you lose.

MP3's rock. ;-)



To tell the truth, right now I am in the middle of the pre-inspection prep
process and it's becoming increasingly difficult to stay focused on this
discussion ..... oh, man ......

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..




This is starting to sound like the "cooler test" thread posted at
rec.boats.cruising.

The bottom line is that I don't think that *many* folks can distinguish
the difference in sound quality between an MP3 and a CD on/in the average
home, boat or car stereo system. Add into the mix folks who have less
than perfect hearing and you have a vast majority.

So let's agree that the audiophiles with high quality hardware, perfectly
wired and set up in professional recording studios....*who* also have
great hearing can hear a difference between CD and MP3.

OK. You win on that point.

In reality though.........you lose.

MP3's rock. ;-)



To tell the truth, right now I am in the middle of the pre-inspection prep
process and it's becoming increasingly difficult to stay focused on this
discussion ..... oh, man ......

RCE





So why did you clip my entire message then?

Not a nice thing to do Richard..........so I reinserted my full original
message with this reply.

Good luck on the test tomorrow. Tonight will not be too fun for you.

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..


So why did you clip my entire message then?

Not a nice thing to do Richard..........so I reinserted my full original
message with this reply.

Good luck on the test tomorrow. Tonight will not be too fun for you.


My reply was meant to be humorous.

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..


So why did you clip my entire message then?

Not a nice thing to do Richard..........so I reinserted my full original
message with this reply.

Good luck on the test tomorrow. Tonight will not be too fun for you.


My reply was meant to be humorous.

RCE


Fair enough but I obviously missed the humor. But it does not explain away
you editing my original reply.

NP though as my point has been made.

Regardless......good luck tonight...........have plenty of reading material
available.

Tomorrow will be a breeze. ;-)

JimH wrote:



So why did you clip my entire message then?

Not a nice thing to do Richard..........so I reinserted my full original
message with this reply.

JimH,
Richard followed SOP when he clipped your post. He only left the
appropriate part based upon his addition. Why are you concerned that
your message must be left in all posts?

--
Reggie

"That's my story and I am sticking to it."

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:09:20 -0500, Reggie Smithers
wrote:

JimH wrote:



So why did you clip my entire message then?

Not a nice thing to do Richard..........so I reinserted my full original
message with this reply.

JimH,
Richard followed SOP when he clipped your post. He only left the
appropriate part based upon his addition. Why are you concerned that
your message must be left in all posts?

I couldn't find anything inappropriate with Rich's clipping the post
either. But I couldn't find anything wrong with my mentioning the deletion
of a bunch of .wav files over in the 'other place'. Jim took offense at
that also. Oh well!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************