Posted by Eeyore on 11/29/07 18:09

Doug McDonald wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Doug McDonald wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> >>> ALL audio compression schemes rely on 'throwing away' information to get the
> >>> desired result. Advances in 'technology' will not ever affect that fundamental
> >>> principle.
> >> While that is true, there is a big caveat.
> >>
> >> That is that above a certain bitrate, the "error" that remains can sound
> >> just like ordinary noise. If say 128 kbps actually results in an
> >> error signal that sounds allows you to tell what the piece is, 160 kbps
> >> might sound like 1/3 octave noise generators that are tuned with the
> >> frequencies in the piece. 192 could very well sound like pink noise.
> >> I'm not implying that those numbers are meaningful in an absolute sense ...
> >> it could be 128 -> 256 -> 320.
> >> Once you get to that point the effect of throwing away info is the same
> >> as just adding ordinary noise. People, most people, didn't scream
> >> and shout about added noise from tape or LPs. And they didn't talk about
> >> "losing information" even though that indeed was what was happening.
> >
> > Added noise can be relatively inoccuous.
> >
> > The same doesn't apply to lost information. Your comparison isn't valid.
>
> What I said IS true: if the lost information sounds like (and is)
> white (or pink) noise, it is exactly the same as adding
> white (or pink) noise. Really. At some bitrate the error
> in MP3 approaches white (or pink) noise.

Not what I've experienced with some of the ones I've listened to.

Graham

[Back to original message]