Re: Apple and EMI
- From: real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rowland McDonnell)
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:24:09 +0100
J. J. Lodder <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ekul Namsob <notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
" [...] EMI will be offered at higher quality 256 kbps AAC encoding,
resulting in audio quality indistinguishable from the original recording,
[...] "
And *THAT* is an outrageous lie. 320 kb/s AAC is easy to distinguish[1]
from a non-lossy-compressed version even with my (almost) 40 year old
years.
[snip]
Rowland.
[1] Admittedly, you need decent reproduction, but a 2GB iPod Nano with
Sennheiser PX100 headphones[2] is plenty good enough to hear the
difference clearly.
I'll wager you never tested it with a good double blind set-up,
Correct. The difference is too obvious to need it as far as I'm
concerned.
Thing is, I had in fact started out by assuming that 256 kbit/s AAC was
going to be as good as uncompressed, and I was pretty miffed to find out
that it wasn't, and nor was 320kbit/s. My built-in assumption
contradicted what my ears told me - so where's the need for a
double-blind?
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Apple and EMI
- From: Jerome O'Donohoe
- Re: Apple and EMI
- From: J. J. Lodder
- Re: Apple and EMI
- From: holland . chris
- Re: Apple and EMI
- References:
- Apple and EMI
- From: Ekul Namsob
- Re: Apple and EMI
- From: Rowland McDonnell
- Re: Apple and EMI
- From: J. J. Lodder
- Apple and EMI
- Prev by Date: Re: HD televisions
- Next by Date: Re: Personal apology from Steve Jobs!
- Previous by thread: Re: Apple and EMI
- Next by thread: Re: Apple and EMI
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|