I post these links for people's amusement or annoyance - they're of no benefit to the human race, or to HA in particular, having been posted by very silly people.
OGG at 64kbps will outperform anything else at 128kbps and will give you FM
quality at about 40kbps (using a 32 kHz sample rate).
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.tech.d...c6238df06aaa0b/ (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.tech.digital-tv/browse_frm/thread/91c6238df06aaa0b/)
>> The bottom line is that 10% distortion is bad. On really
>> difficult parts, such as the very loudest parts of certain
>> classical pieces, I have seen as high as 40% distortion
>> at 128k, even with the best encoder I have.
> Do I have to teach you about psychoacoustic compression _again_?
No, **I** am teaching YOU about DISTORTION. DISTORTION IS
DISTORTION, and
we should avoid it like the plague.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.radio...d95775b2478343/ (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.radio.digital/browse_frm/thread/e0d95775b2478343/)
There are even better (i.e. worse!) quotes in each thread, if you want to look. My favourite is in the second thread, about a PhD.
Cheers,
David.
> There are differences in encoders for MP3. The best I actually have is a
> very old BladeEnc that is a command line
> utility. I have only one WMA encoder, Microsoft's.
That 61 year old dude talks quite a lot about juicy 19 year old "audiophile" triangle players and .. oh gheez I don't want to think that further
My favourite is in the second thread, about a PhD.
Well, **HE**'s got a point. After all, **HE** has a PhD in **SCIENCE**.
Well, **HE**'s got a point. After all, **HE** has a PhD in **SCIENCE**.
Ah, yes, but What Is Science? (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/science/)
Aarrggh. Idiots drive me mad. Especially idiots with advanced degrees in science, who should know better.
I think the thing that bugs me the most about these sorts of discussions - well, audiophile discussions in general - is that the people who tend to make these sorts of claims have no desire or need to actually understand the science behind what is going on. You see exactly the same thing going on with audiophiles regarding analog/digital discussions. Of course they know why analog is better, but damned if they actually can write the math out - they can hear the difference, so why understand the theory? (Or, for that matter, damned if they know any formal signal processing at all.) And unfortunately, their knowledge, and not the more formal discussions, is exactly what other people want to hear.
Granted we're not much different than they are. I tend to ignore the more arcane discussions of codec tuning, and focus on "is this going to sound better or worse?"
Brushing all of psychoacoustics aside as a pseudoscience is beyond just being dumb, it's living in a personal little reality where you can believe and ignore anything you want. Same for believing Vorbis is uniformly superior to AAC (just a little less brusque). Evidence, to these guys, means anything they want to hear. So arguing with them is naturally going to be hard.
Well, **HE**'s got a point. After all, **HE** has a PhD in **SCIENCE**.
Ah, yes, but What Is Science? (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/science/)
I don't think Doug McDonald can make clear the reason why CDs are made below the frequency of 22khz. Isn't it also a kind of distortion?
What he said is absolutely a silly bullshit that's based on an ignorant mind.
Brushing all of psychoacoustics aside as a pseudoscience is beyond..
i ask
...why my mother in law say that i drink too much? ...
if that guys drink more than me!
I think the thing that bugs me the most about these sorts of discussions - well, audiophile discussions in general - is that the people who tend to make these sorts of claims have no desire or need to actually understand the science behind what is going on. You see exactly the same thing going on with audiophiles regarding analog/digital discussions.
... of course not! , they need an excuse to morgage away $2,000, why would they?