> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 04:58 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: iTunes for Windo$e > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Reggie Bautista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 3:06 PM > Subject: Re: iTunes for Windo$e > > > So I guess the simple answer to your question, Dan, would be that > > fidelity to the sound of the original does not always equal > having the > > waveforms look the same or similar, and the compression scheme that > > looks most like the original will not always be the one that best > > preserves the sonic impression of the original. When it comes to > > sound, I trust my ears much more than my eyes. > > Your explaination makes sense. While I know of good > compression techniques that throw away no information, there > is often a need for an amount of compression that requires > that information is thrown away. In that case, your argument > that visual checks of waveforms are not the best way to > compare what data is best thrown away makes sense.
I guess what it comes down to in the end is that since no one else makes an MP3/portable digital audio player that approaches the quality (audio, design, portability, battery life, UI, etc) of the iPod, I might as well use the software that is best integrated.. Man, when is a Linux hack of this baby coming out? ^_^ -j- _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
