"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:
"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,
You worry me. What was the problem with RCE editing the long post to
make a joke? He did not edit your post to change the meaning of your
post, he just removed what was not pertinent to his joke.

--
Reggie

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

JimH wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...

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


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. ;-)


Many folks think snipping to only leave the relevant previous material
is a good thing.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

Del Cecchi wrote:


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. ;-)

Many folks think snipping to only leave the relevant previous material
is a good thing.

Most people think it is a good thing. I wish more people would snip
their messages. Some of these threads will be 8 pages long and at the
bottom someone will say "Me Too". ; )

Reminds me of when AOL users first starting using Usenet.

--
Reggie

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

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...

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


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. ;-)
Many folks think snipping to only leave the relevant previous material is
a good thing.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”



Fair enough. I see I was wrong.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:38:01 -0600, Del Cecchi
wrote:

Many folks think snipping to only leave the relevant previous material
is a good thing.

Yes it is as long as the meaning is unchanged.