Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd May 2008 13:02 UTC
Multimedia, AV Many of us grew up with the idea of the component audio system. A receiver (or a separate preamplifier and amplifier), tuner (radio), record player, tape deck, and later on a CD player. If you were into more fancy stuff, you had a DAT or MiniDisc deck as well. While some of us cling on to this mindset like there's no tomorrow, the real world seems to favour a different method of consuming music. According to Erica Ogg (what's in a name), the component audio system is on its way out - thanks to the iPod and the commoditisation of music.
Permalink for comment 315534
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by virek
by Machster on Sat 24th May 2008 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by virek"
Machster
Member since:
2007-05-15

Stuff and nonsense. A straight 256kbit stream is virtually indistinguishable from the original source. Countless double blind tests have shown that in practice that no-one could hear the difference. At 160, the differences are small. Here is a good article on the subject:

http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/pm/index.html


This is hardly a good reference. It is the opinion of one man from a site that dedicated to the development of MP3. So it can be completely discounted due to its lack of objectivity. For a better comparison see here:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,1560793,00.asp

If you yourself can't tell the difference, then you lack the discerning ear necessary to be included in the group described here (or should it be h-e-a-r?) as audiophile.

The executive summary is this: a 128kbit stream goes to 16kHz, before abruptly rolling off to zero. It also suffers from what the author says is a pruning of low intensity content (think the harpsichord in the sample used). At 160kbits there is a falling off at 16kHz, but it is gradual. Low intensity content is restored. At 256kbit, the frequency response matched the original. The original went to just beyond 20kHz.

A couple of things to remember:

1) There is little, or no real content beyond 15kHz on an LP.


More proof that your playback system is faulty. LPs can have frequency information far beyond 20khz, which is the limit of CD's. This is the major reason LPs are vastly superior in sound quality to CDs let alone lossy copies.

2) When using the presets on Lame, you are getting significantly better results per nominal bit rate. As I said elsewhere, when needed, Lame's --preset-standard (nominally 180-190) will use 256kbits, or even 320 to capture certain passages. For LPs, a final encoding of -preset-standard is plenty; in fact, it's overkill.


Double stuff and double nonsense. If you are unable to hear the differences yourself, read objective surveys which have all concluded that MP3 is the least capable audio codec to use for serious music reproduction while AAC @ 256kbits is OK, but no more than OK. Personally, I like Musepack as well. But for anything serious I use Apple Lossless or Flac.

Edited 2008-05-24 21:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1