I'm on digest, so I don't know if this has been answered, but your presumptions on both halves of the equation are wrong, and as a result, and your math is way off. From: P J Kane <postlibyan@netzero.com>
anyhoo, for the benefit of you two: an MP3 can be encoded at 192 kbps, that's "kilobits per second" or, "192 x 8 (there are 8 pieces of info in a bit) x 1,000" pieces of information, which works out to be: 1,536,000 pieces of information PER SECOND.
a CD is encoded at a mere 128 kbps, which works out to be 1,024,000 pieces of information per second.
so, there is quite a bit more information encoded in a high-quality MP3 than there is in CD quality audio.
Actually, there is 1 piece of info in a bit. You are thinking of a byte, which contains 8 bits. 192kbps works out to 192 x 1024 x 2 (don't forget stereo!) = 393,216 bits per second. A CD is encoded 44,100 samples per second x 16 bits per sample x 2 channels = 1,411,200 bits per second, or more than 3.5x more information than a 192kbps MP3. Even if you forget about the math, your entire premise is illogical. You are arguing that if you rip a 192kbps MP3, you would end up with more information than you started with on the CD, but it would take up less space. That makes no sense. It is well known that MP3 is a lossy algorithm. In order to get the compression, you have to lose data. I can absolutely tell the difference between vinyl and CD, and I can absolutely tell the difference between a CD and a 192kbps rip of the same music, in a clean environment. However, in my car, or walking around with headphones, where there's lots of ambient noise to overcome, it doesn't matter much, which is why they're so great for portability. -- Adam J Weitzman - voxpop arbitrageur