Agreed. I was comparing higher grade lossless formats. Yes the law of diminishing returns applies generally to everything. However I have found 320k MP3 provides a more appropriate reproduction of the dynamic range (peaks and valleys) across the frequency range and better definition in the low and high ranges, better than 256k and enough for me and others to readily notice across multiple devices (portable, consumer, audiophile, pro gear). Not a hardware or firmware issue.
And then, of course, the lossless encode/decode formats provide even higher quality vs 320k MP3. If you can't hear the differences that's ok. Different strokes for different folks. It appears the market has concluded most folks are willing to put up with the lower quality audio or just don't know the diff. Myself I rather hear something closer to what the artist, producer and engineer wanted me to hear, and not the "choice" the distributors format (compressed stream) forces on me. If I have the PCM in hand (e.g. CD) I can manage convert to whichever format I desire. hydrogenaudio.org is a good resource ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 3/12/08, silver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At any rate isn't 256k MP3 going backwards? Compared to iTunes' 128k AAC, I'd think that's going forwards. For a song that I happened to want one day and was willing to spend 89 cents on, a 256k mp3 is fine for me. _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
