[s-cars] iPod in S4

[Mark Strangways]

I agree with what you are saying, and just didn't want to take it to that
depth :-)

I generalized (which is bad) my definition of MP3's here, as most (this is
changing fast) are 128 kbit compression and suck.
I can tell the difference between CD and FM, as most can. And that's where
128- 160 kbps MP3's are sound quality wise.
I like the format, I like the idea. But after downloading my share of them,
I am often left wondering why I did so.

This same discussion applies to DVD vs. DivX or SVCD or other video / audio
compression algorithms. It's a great digital world we have. It's only
getting better.

Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "CyberPoet" <thecyberpoet at cyberpoet.net>
To: <s-car-list at audifans.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:01 AM
Subject: RE: [s-cars] iPod in S4


> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> S-CAR-List mailing list
> S-CAR-List at audifans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/s-car-list