Re: Re: Re: [Harp-L] Re: music and perception

[Garry Hodgson <garry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ken Deifik <kenneth.d@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So I will rewrite.  M4a at 160kbps sounds better than MP3 at 256.  To me. 
> This could hardly be more subjective.

interesting.  i've been putting off investigating other formats out of laziness.
my problem is that i need it to work on linux/windows/mac with minimal effort,
and mp3 is a least common denominator.  but it stands to reason that advances
should have been made over time.  i guess i'll have to look into now.  thanks 
a lot, pal.  :-)

>  > as long as your encoder is better than your ears, life is good.
> 
> A perspicacious observation.  But then one day your ears get better than 
> your encoder.  I have no doubt that you know this already.

at this stage in my life, i doubt my ears are going to get any better.  a friend was
touting the advantages of 24/96 flac recordings, so i got one, downsampled to
16/44 and archive-standard VBR Mp3.  doing an admittedly unscientific test, 
i bounced around between them on my computer, which plays out through my 
stereo.  not only couldn't i tell which was which, i couldn't even detect any differences.
so the incentive isn't real strong in my case.

----
Garry Hodgson, Senior Software Geek, AT&T CSO

nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something.
do something.