smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Josh Chasin" <jchasin@nyc.rr.com> |
| Subject | Re: wait a sec - iPod question |
| Date | Mon, 15 May 2006 12:32:52 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (1.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Michael, for me it isn't an argument, its just a public service
announcement. I know a lot of people don't notice or care. I just want to
make sure everyone has all the facts.
A lot of people here are sentimental about the way vinyl sounds. At the
time of the CD wave, I don't think too many people were opposed to the
fidelity issues involved in switching. I have a feeling that if everyone
goes from CD to MP3, some day we'll have the same misty nostalgia for the
"hard copy" CD as we now have for vinyl.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael vg" <govango@yahoo.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: wait a sec - iPod question
> --- Josh Chasin <jchasin@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> You can do this, but you pay a quality price. MP3s at 128k have about
>> 10%
>> of the data of a CD quality .wav file. MP3 compression is a "lossy"
>> format;
>> you lose data and fidelity. Burning an MP3 to disc and extracting it as
>> an
>> MP3 adds another quality loss; an MP3 of an MP3 is like a tape of a tape;
>> each generation sounds worse than the one before.
>
> I am a music lover, not an audiophile. I cannot really tell
> the difference, nor do I care about it when I am listening
> to it on a pair of headphones, while out walking or in my
> office.
> I understand what you are saying and respect your opinion,
> I just don't understand why an MP3 discussion can never be had
> without someone bringing up the lossy format argument.
>
> michael
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.