"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Serge Auckland
scribeth thus
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Serge Auckland wrote: No I didn't!! Keiron99 did!!



I ditched all my
expensive gear a few years ago when I finally admitted to myself that
my ageing ears couldn't tell the difference between 128kbs mp3 and the
originals.

OW !

Graham

Nevertheless, although I have been able to tell 128kMP3s against the
original, if just listening to the MP3 without being able to compare with
the original, I'm not conscious of anything missing. In fact, that's true
right down to low streaming bit rates. The quality may be well down on the
original, immediately obvious with an AB comparison, but under conditions
of
use typical for an MP3 player, the quality is more than adequate for
entertainment.

I think that's the great achievement of psychoacoustic data reduction,
that
it really does work the way the designers intended.

Pity they don't use it how its supposed to be in the broadcast field;!..

I can tell the difference with MP3's their noticeable till you get up to
320 K or thereabouts!..

S.




--
Tony Sayer



I think I know what you mean. MP2 as used in DAB and DSAT radio shouldn't be
used at less than 256kbps if quality is important. At one time,
Broadcasters, at least European Broadcasters, were custodians of quality,
and would resist any new-fangled stuff like audio processing if quality was
thought to suffer. The IBA, of blessed memory, refused to allow processing
for many years, and required all radio studios to meet Code of Practice
until their regulatory side was stripped from them. Now, of course, anything
goes. The cheapest for the mostest.

By the time digital broadcasting became possible, there was no regulatory
framework in the UK that cared a hoot for audio quality. You can't really
blame broadcasters who have shareholders to feed for chasing the maximum
audience. If that means DAB at 92k, and FM processed to hell and back, then
so be it. If you're ever in France or North Germany, listen to Radio France
or NDR and see how radio should still be done, then listen to their local
Commercial stations. As bad if not worse than anything we have. The
difference is that RF and NDR are state-supported and still maintain audio
standards. Our BBC has to chase audience figures like a commercial station
or their license fee suffers. Radio 1 is processed excessively, although
the recent change from the old IDT processors to new Orban 8500s should have
made a considerable difference. I don't listen to Radio 1 for long enough to
tell.

Rant over.

S.





--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com