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
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=-
Just to throw more fuel on the fire...
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.
That is a fact. I'm a bit of a DAT head, which records in 3 modes: 32k (aka LP mode), 44.1k (CD format) and 48 K. All are 16 bit 2 channel. I've used all 3 and can tell a difference between 32 and 44.1, because of the 1/2 kBPS rule. "what's that" you might ask? It was explained to me typically devide the bps by 2 and you get the frequency cutoff. 32kBPS = 16kHZ, 44.1kBPS = 22kHZ. As for 48kHZ, I guess there's a difference but it's minimal. The biggest drawback is the need for resampling if you're planning on converting a 48k recording to CD format. As I've done more research, I've noticed in some hi-fi digital forums the users consider 96kBPS 24 bit the way to go. If you do the math that's 4,608,000 which is 3 1/4 more than CD format. It was noted as the "true way to reproduce analogue sound with a digital medium" I guess you'd need a six-figure system in order to hear the difference though... I dare you to mention MP3 around those guys. Gavin __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Gavin Miller wrote:
I guess you'd need a six-figure system in order to hear the difference though... I dare you to mention MP3 around those guys.
Even a good $4000 system will show obvious differences. Mentioning MP3s around someone who sells Klipsch, Harman-Kardon, or McIntosh audio systems will cause herniation. I promise. -=brian=-
participants (3)
-
Adam J Weitzman -
brian＠lists.frickster.net -
Gavin Miller