RGibran;277928 Wrote: > > Thanks for the chuckles. > Glad to oblige.
ralphpnj;277930 Wrote: > As for the lack of comparison testing I can only guess that since JA > and Stereophile take the position that files made with lossy > compression are do not offer true high end sound quality, then why > bother to run all those tests. But then why bother with the graphs, or the article at all, for that matter? > And while I completely agree that in this day and age of cheap storage > there is no reason to use a lossy codec, it would still be nice to know > which lossy codec to use in the event that one has a need for it (think > iPod). Yeah, it would be nice. And this is one case where subjective assessments are all you need. No one doubts that 128 kbps MP3 is easily distinguishable from redbook, so the question becomes which codec and settings are the least objectionable. But the issue is fast become irrelevant in any case - the latest HD-based ipods have 160GB of memory, and the flash-based ones are getting up there fast. I suppose the next debate will be over the necessity of hi-res formats. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44532 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
