RE: MP3 encoding settings (was 'Let's roast Tim')

["Kenneth Watt" <kennethwatt@xxxxxxx>]

I've been offline for a few days now as well.

I take on board what Tim says but I have a couple of niggles with the MP3
quality debate i.e. MP3 was not intended as an audiophile format (which Tim
obviously is), it was intended as a portable or net streaming product which
it does well, so in essence Tim's argument is a moot point as he is trying
to make MP3 something it is not. Also MP3 is not designed with even the
sonic range of a standard CD let alone a good vinyl album, so again the
point is moot!

If you intend using MP3 at all it is for convenience alone in a home hi-fi
rig, particularly one as good as Tim's, which is even better than mine (and
I thought that was bloody good). I am using some serious hardware for
mainly
home theatre and MP3 just doesn't cut it as a source for quality. What it
does do is provide excellent background music play lists for when guests
are
in and the Hoover's on or whatever.

K.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Hoye [mailto:james.hoye@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 03 April 2001 15:44
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: [ukha_d] MP3 encoding settings (was 'Let's roast Tim')

Been 'lurking' for the past couple of weeks as it's been difficult to
read/send email.  NB I have a new mail address:
mailto:james.hoye@xxxxxxx However,
things are getting back to some
degree of normality so you can expect to hear some more from me.

>From the digests, it seems that there is something of a debate
regarding MP3
and audiophiles.

I think what Tim's trying to do is very useful.  It would be interesting to
know how the encoder settings (bit-rate etc) and even encoder affect the
quality of playback.

With a fairly transparent setup and good ears, Tim should be able to notice
the differences that these things make and provide feedback to the group.
Whilst he may not accept that MP3 could replace or even become a component
of his setup, it would be useful to the rest of us intending to encode our
collections for more convenient playback to learn from this exercise.

Playing back through a half decent AV system versus a set of computer
active
speakers highlights the benefits of using a higher bit-rate (say 160kbps
instead of 128 or 96), so this sort of test should give us some idea of
where the trade-off of file size v quality lies (point of diminishing
returns).

Each person has their budget on equipment - otherwise we'd all have 50K+ of
power amps, cables, CD transport and DACs in a dedicated room.  I've spent
800 on a DVD player, 900 on 5 speakers, 550 on an AV amp and 300 on a
secondhand REL sub - so I would consider my setup above average (no Amstrad
hi-fi here mate).

Tim - are you interested in the batteries?  Niko often ends up throwing
them
in the skip....

James H





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



_________________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com