Good question. MP3 compression is built on a perceptual model of human hearing. That is the human auditory system can't (typically) detect some frequencies at given levels when other frequencies may be masking them... so the encode discards those frequencies we can't perceive.
At sufficient bitrates, many folks consider MP3 files to be reasonably high-fidelity... and can have frequency responses and S/N ratios exceeding that of cassette tape. However, given that computers don't have the perceptual limitations that humans do, it's likely that a sound file that might be considered high-fidelity to us (perhaps exhibiting less analog hiss from than a cassette tape for instance), would be considered inadequate by the computer... -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Crawford, Scott > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:51 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] I wonder if I should put this up on ebay... > > Could have been lossless MP3. > > Also, I'm curious what the fidelity requirements would have been for the > tapes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben Scott > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] I wonder if I should put this up on ebay... > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Steven M. Caesare > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I have .MP3's of Apple ][ cassettes that will work in an emu! > >> > >> Interesting. I actually would have expected the MP3 compression to > >> screw up the encoding. > > > > Right you are... I lied... they are .wav files: > > Hah! I have foiled your evil plot to get me to corrupt my recordings of Apple > ][ files! > > -- Ben > > >
