[s-cars] iPod in S4

[Kirby Smith]

One objection:

I doubt there was ever a vinyl record (for 33-1/3 rpm) with a 70 kHz
impression on it, even direct cut masters.  The power required for a
cutting stylus to run at that frequency would have been gigantic. There
certainly were no phono cartridges whose _stylus_ could track such a
frequency, even those with berylium shafts are deliberately damped below
that.  Very, very good records might have some 20 kHz energy on them,
and young ears can (at least previous to attending dope rock concerts)
hear that frequeny.  I used to be able to hear to 21 kHz with a signal
generator, but only really golden ears could hear the difference between
Beethoven to 20 kHz and Beethoven to 18 kHz.

I wouldn't recommend listening to 70 kHz anyway, ultrasonic power could
scramble your neurons.  Electrostatic speaker experimentalists in the
1950's had to be careful that their amplifiers  weren't oscillations up
there; 70 kHz couldn't be heard, but one didn't want to forget what he
was doing.

kirby
audiophile in the 1950's when my ears were young and vinyl was king.


CyberPoet wrote:
>
> 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