On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Adam J Weitzman wrote:
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.
This is absolutely correct.
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.
Also correct. Obviously from the file size alone, you can see the extreme loss of data. Do an audio comparison of the files, too - looking at the visual representation of the audio files, you'll notice that they're quite different.
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.
Precisely, Adam. The portability of MP3s is quite nice, and yes - most of the time the ambient noise will drown out the obvious imperfections of the audio file. On my home stereo, I can play for you a Boards of Canada RECORD, CD, and MP3. You can hear a significant difference between them when compared, especially if you crank the volume. As far as I'm concerned, MP3s are merely a medium of convenience - I will take a record or CD over those anyday. -=brian=-