Re: Re(2): Re(2): TI-H: MP3s

To: <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: Re(2): Re(2): TI-H: MP3s
From: "Gabe" <Gabeman@Earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:34:48 -0400
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org


Actually, I was talking to Grant :). I would believe that with top-quality
equipment you could hear the difference, but most of us (even audiophiles)
won't under normal conditions. Besides, their size and portability greatly
outweigh their slight quality deficiancy [sp?].

-Gabe

-----Original Message-----
From: David Knaack <dknaack@geocities.com>
To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re(2): Re(2): TI-H: MP3s


>
>From: Gabe <Gabeman@Earthling.net>
>>    What the hell are you babbling about? Don't try to make yourself
>look
>>like an 'eleet' audiophile. mp3's sound practically cd quality at
>128k/44.1
>>if they are encoded correctly.
>
>
>Was that addressed to me??
>
>What I said was, on my test equipment (P133, WinAmp, Marantz receiver,
>monoblock amps and Snell E5's), MP3's did not sound as good as the
>original CD.  'practically cd quality' is NOT CD quality, and I can
>hear the
>difference in many selections.
>
>If you MP3 encode a pink noise sample, you can get an idea of what
>artifacts you should be listening for.
>
>I'm no audiophool, I just prefer to have music that has as few errors
>as possible, because they do have an impact on the SQ!.
>
>I would like to do testing with the DAC from a CD player, and I happen
>to have two dead CD players, so I have some equipment to test with.
>
>I don't give a fuck if you can't hear the difference, I CAN (in blind
>testing),
>so it makes a difference to me.
>
>DK
>
>