--
Michael Chare

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...



When MP3 perceptual codecs first became popular, I made up a couple of CDs
each with the same track firstly as a straight copy off a commercial CD,
then MP2 and MP3 encoded at different bit rates, some joint stereo, some
true stereo. I was surprised at how good they all actually were, down to
96kbps even MP2. My experience was that doing an AB comparison with the
original, it was fairly clear which was which up to something like (it was
some time ago, and I no longer have my notes) 192kbps MP2 and 128k MP3,
but after that, it became increasingly difficult to tell. However, what I
found most surprising, given all the hype about data-compressed audio in
the HiFi press at the time, was that in the absence of an AB comparison
with the original, how all of them, even the lowest bit rates were
perfectly acceptable for non-critical listening, and weren't obviously
flawed.

When I got to above 256kbps for both MP2 and MP3, I couldn't hear any
difference with the original, on the two or three pieces of music I'd
chosen, however carefully I listened, and even knowing which was which, I
couldn't hear a difference. Maybe that says something about my ears, but
it points that TO ME, these algorithms do what they're supposed to do. I
don't often use MP3s as I don't use portable music players, but on my
holiday system, which consists of a laptop with a 500Gb drive and a
Digigram sound card, I have several hundred CDs ripped as 320kbps MP3s,
and am not aware of any lack of sound quality.

That accords with what I have found. So far I have been unable to hear a
difference between Flac and 320kbps mp3!