Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"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

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Brahms Concerto for Violin and Orchestra, just under 100 KB
My iPOD holds 60 GB
I'm not worried.

And the sampling rate for this was?

RCE

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"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....

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:28 -0500, RCE wrote:


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.

Uncompressed CDs have a bit rate of 1411.2 kbps. So, a 256kbps sampling
rate will give a compression ration of @ 6:1.

Last I knew (probably outdated) the mp3 "standard compression" was like
12:1, and the sampling rate was around 88kbsp. Has this changed?

RCE

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"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. ;-)

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"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

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

" 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

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:28 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"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


I wonder what sampling rate Telarc used for the 1812? Seems like they had a
pamphlet out in the late 70's that came with the CD's giving that
information. I just looked at my 1812, but the sampling rate isn't
mentioned anywhere.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

"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.

Yo - RCE, DSK and anybody else interested...
 

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:50:28 -0500, "RCE" wrote:


"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


BTW, the 'better fanfare' I posted in the other place is from a Telarc CD,
"Stars and Stripes".
--
'Til next time,

John H

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