Yes but the point is that alot of mp3s are sold at below 320kbps
jason parent writes:
quoted 58 lines The claim that mp3 quality sucks is bogus imo.>
>> The claim that mp3 quality sucks is bogus imo.
>> If the bitrate is at the maximum (320kbps), you won't hear the difference
>> with the original CD.
>
> there are a number of factors.
>
> listen to "wish you were here" by pink floyd on a 320 kbps mp3 played
> through a set of tannoys or kefs or other good quality speakers at a high
> volume, coming from a high powered receiver and tell me it sounds the same
> as a cd does, if the cd player has high quality DACs. i picked that record
> because everybody knows what it's SUPPOSED to sound like, and because the
> range is very wide.
>
> you'll hear major differences in the low end and in the high end. even the
> mix comes out funny.
>
> you could do the experiment with lots of different stuff. i heard a major
> difference in thom yorke's solo album, as well as the latest nine inch
> nails record [which i was previewing as downloads before i picked them up,
> as i was skeptical about the end quality of both of them]. even the last
> tool album [which was a weak record] had major reproduction problems on
> the low end.
>
> however, if you're listening to the new spice girls record through a pair
> of tinny headphones coming out of a portable device, i would agree that
> it's unlikely to make much of a difference, but i personally can't stand
> to do something like that. the last time i tried to listen to something
> coming out of the headphone out on my cell phone was a john zorn record,
> and it sounded so awful i haven't even bothered using the mp3 player in it
> since...
>
> meaning the following: casual users will probably migrate to mp3s due to
> convenience. cds didn't kill records because they were cheaper to make or
> because the sound quality is "technically better" (let's not get into a cd
> vs. record argument because unlike the cd vs. mp3 argument, the cd vs.
> record argument is purely subjective and depends not on reproductive
> ability but personal taste), it was because you can skip tracks on a cd
> and you can't do that on a record. likewise, mp3s will prevail for casual
> users and those who enjoy the convenience.
>
> but, serious audio geeks can immediately tell the difference and will drop
> cds in favour of dvds; they didn't drop thousands into their sound systems
> to use compressed files as a sound source.
>
> ....meaning that, i guess, cds are pretty much dying. but the future is in
> dvd audio, not mp3s.
>
> reminds me of the cassette vs. cd wars in the 80s.
>
> j
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org