[s-cars] iPod in S4

[CyberPoet]

Mark,

   As a technology and computer consultant, I feel motivated to
elaborate on your statements for the benefit of those not in the
'know'. MP3's can be encoded at a variety of bit-rates (and levels of
bit-rate compression), while AIFF's (standard commercial audio CD
files) use a single, very fast, bit-rate with no compression. I suspect
you are confusing your experiences with MP3's being less than ideal
when you tried them (as not being representative of an ideal
alternative to AIFF files) due to having used either highly compressed
MP3 files, or more likely, having used them with a less-than-ideal
decoder (not all decoders are built the same, and the higher the
compression rate used, the more likely sound artifacts will be
misrepresented in the decoding process because the more work the
decoder has to do to decompress the file).

A 320 kpbs MP3 rate is the same information as the stock 'commercial
music' CD file specification (AIFF), after encoding differences based
not on sound quality differences. The file size of the matching-quality
MP3 is still substantially less than that of the original AIFF file
(about 20% of the original size for a typical song).

Doubling the MP3 compression rate one step, to 160 kpbs, results in a
file that is slightly under 10% of the size of the original AIFF file,
but still retains over 99.85% of the original's sound accuracy, or
enough that the typical human can literally not tell the difference in
a non-sound-deadened environment (such as in a moving car). It is also
the standard that most FM radio stations use these days when playing
songs over the air (many stations have obsoleted CD and vinyl
libraries, especially those owned by large media conglomerates).

The problem is that once you step down from 160 kpbs, you start giving
up noticeable sound quality in exchange for reduced file sizes. If your
samples were below the 160 kpbs, it would explain your objections and
your experiences in one-fell-swoop. Add in some additional distortion
(3% ??) induced by the modulation to a radio signal, transmission in an
already electronically noisy environment and recapture, and it all
makes perfect sense. If you had been using an MP3-compatible head unit
instead, at 160 kpbs, I doubt even you would have been able to tell the
difference.

IS MP3 the end-all and be-all? Nah... it's just the beginning. MP4 is
on the scene (wrench out another 15 to 50% compression at the same
sound fidelity level -- and is supported by the new generation of iPods
too), and AAC is also here. But MP3's have managed to do what audio
CD's managed to do -- become an accepted and widespread standard.

Closing thoughts: A good record player & superior needle teamed up with
high quality components can very faithfully reproduce 3 Hz to 70 KHz;
the audio CD changed that to an accepted 20 Hz to 20 KHz, because most
people didn't notice the difference (both audibly and due to not using
the best audio equipment to begin with), and CD's provided customer
benefit over the life-span of the recording (long life-span, little
degradation if treated properly). But moreover, the audio CD gained the
widespread acceptance needed to upset the vinyl trade. MP3's are the
first product that are changing how music is purchased, distributed,
played to the degree that they are altering the CD trade substantially.
I think, for the industry, the biggest difference is that it will make
it cost-feasible for the average consumer to purchase a single song at
a time again. For us, the consumers, it means being able to keep the
originals physically secure while carrying our full music libraries
with us in a variety of venues (the car stereo, the office, the
portable walkman, the home computer, the home stereo). Moreover, it
means being able to move from audio CD's to MP3's without having to
repurchase the same music again (unlike the switch from vinyl to CD for
many).

Cheers...
=-= Marc Glasgow
www.cyberpoet.net

Mark Strangways wrote:

Some will say that they [MP3 players] sound the same as CD, but I will
have to disagree. You just can't compare the bit rate or lack of
software compression of a CD to that of a MP3.