Re: File sizes incorrectly reported (and huge!)

• Previous message: Christian Fredrickson: "Driver diskette"
• Maybe in reply to: Rodolfo J. Paiz: "File sizes incorrectly reported (and huge!)"
• Next in thread: Rodolfo J. Paiz: "Re: File sizes incorrectly reported (and huge!)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

To: Goncalo <goncalo@mail.eunet.pt>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:26:30 -0600

At 8/22/2003 18:17 +0100, Goncalo wrote:
>Actually I was kidding with my reply and just trying to put a bit
>of humour.

No problem...

> > Think of an MP3 as a cassette of old times: portable, convenient,
> > wonderful, but of lower quality.
>
>I may be wrong but allow me to disagree with you.
>
>With a .wav you get an exact copy of a CD - so you get CD audio quality.
>A CD is recorded with 2 channels (stereo) with a sampling frequency of
>44.1 kHz giving you a max audible frequency of 22050 Hz.

Please note the "exact copy" part. This is a good thing, since I wasn't at
the Acropolis for the Yanni concert or in the recording studio with Kansas;
and thus the CD is the best possible audio quality to which I have access.

>The MP3 (MPEG2-Layer 3) audio format was designed carefully to discard
>non-audible sounds, i.e., sounds that the human hear can't hear.

Note the word "discard".

>Of course you may have to adjust your bitrate not to discard too much
>data, but statistically you'll get an (almost) exact recording of the
>sounds you can hear. (and MP3 design was real tested with many human
>listeners to know what to discard and to record).

Note the words "(almost) exact".

Bottom line: MP3 throws out data to get better compression. At that point,
the total quality of the data is reduced, and the lost data can _never_ be
recovered. An MP3 file derived from a WAV file thus has lower audio quality
than the original WAV file; period, end of story, mathematically provable
and non-negotiable.

The argument for MP3 boils down to:

         1. There is a small loss in audio quality, and most people, on
most stereos, can't hear the difference.

         2. There is a huge gain in compression, and everyone can see that.

         3. Therefore MP3 is better: lots of gain, little or no perceivable
cost.

When you want a reasonable level of audio quality at a low file size, MP3
is a fantastic solution. However, when you want the best long-term storage
for your music, or when you want the best possible level of audio quality,
MP3 is a terrible solution.

The argument above is categorically false: MP3 is not "better" in audio
quality, ever, in any way. On the other hand, MP3 is definitely more
_convenient_, and thus more _appropriate_, for certain situations. I listen
to MP3-encoded music in my car, for example, since having 60 songs on one
CD is great, and the road noise makes the (overall quite good) quality of
my very-high-bitrate MP3s perfectly acceptable anyway.

I listen to my WAV files at home, where a 500GB RAID-5 array and hardwired
Ethernet to every room make it wonderful (and where the $1,500 stereo
system I saved for ten years to buy would make my MP3 files sound
horrible), and I listen to MP3 when I'm out in the car, or on a weekend
trip, or to carry to the office on my notebook, etc. Each has its place in
the world.

So, my original point: destroy my WAV files? Heresy! Never!

>Please feel free to send your reply to the RedHat list, as I sent my
>reply to the list also, and you have the right to "defend" yourself by
>replying to the list (although this is a bit out of topic - my fault).

Done. <grin>

-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz@simpaticus.com
-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

• Previous message: Christian Fredrickson: "Driver diskette"
• Maybe in reply to: Rodolfo J. Paiz: "File sizes incorrectly reported (and huge!)"
• Next in thread: Rodolfo J. Paiz: "Re: File sizes incorrectly reported (and huge!)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]