--- In wrote:
>
> > Robin, you're missing my point. I'm saying that the conversion to MP3
> > leaves a lot of information out. And I can't say I've ever heard an MP3=
> > version that sounds as good as a Wav version
>
>
> In all the A-B tests I did on mp3. I never heard anything left out. MP3
> always _adds_ artifacts, but with higher rates, these are low and perfect=
ly
> acceptable.
>
> There is no such thing as a perfect recording, and the problems I hear in=
> many recordings are not usually generated by mp3. A good stereo image is=
> often rare and this is much more important, as well as control of off-axi=
s
> sounds reproduced as out of phase content. We often hear phase stereo
> recordings offered up as volume stereo, and without defining the listenin=
g
> method, any stereo is liable to be all over the place.
>
> With the art of nature recording, mp3 artefacts at high sample rates are =
the
> least of our worries.
>
> David Brinicombe
>
David
The very definition of MP3 is 'lossy' compression, so I'm not sure how you =
can say you never heard anything left out. As for MP3 being 'perfectly acce=
ptable', beauty is in the eye of the beholder........
|