ralphpnj;278272 Wrote: > Could someone please explain just where all the voodoo science is in the > following statement (taken from the article in question): > > > > Seems to all be based on good sound reasoning and hard scientific facts > not voodoo or magic. The only issue is whether or not one believes that > these changes to the musical waveform are audible and if they are > indeed audible then under what conditions will they be audible. After > that is only a matter of determining whether or not those conditions > where the changes to the waveform are audible are important to one's > normal listening situation.
Where in the world did that come from? Who said anything about voodoo or magic? There are some problems with that passage, though. For example this: > > As a CD plays, the two channels of audio data (not including overhead) > are pulled off the disc at a rate of just over 1400 kilobits per > second. A typical MP3 plays at less than a tenth that rate, at 128kbps. > is misleading to the point of being just wrong. MP3 files "play" at exactly the same rate as CDs - for example you could simply decode one into a 16/44.1 WAV file and then play it, and that's actually what at least some (if not all) decoders/players do. That semantic quibble aside, the underlying logic is more seriously wrong, because by precisely the same reasoning you could say "a FLAC file plays at less than half the rate of a CD...", and yet FLAC and WAV playback are identical. It's also odd that he focuses on time-domain issues there, and yet all his plots are frequency domain. That's part of what I meant by my original comment about the graphs. -- 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
