Re: [ARSCLIST] Lossy compression losing quality (was Re: [ARSCLIST] Pristine Audio and the Milllennials . . .)

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Richter" <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
> Howard Friedman wrote:
> > If anyone would care to send me their Email address, i would be glad to send
you any number of MP3 files ripped from audio CDs, and then tell me if there's a
loss of quality!  Take your choice, Chaliapin, Galli-Curci, Ponselle, the list
goes on.
>
> In this sort of discussion, I believe we'd do well to keep track of the
> different meanings of "quality". There is the abstract sense in which
> MP3 and other lossy compressors always lose information, as shown by the
> inabiilty to reconstruct the original PCM signal from the compressed
> file. In that sense, Don is correct in suggesting staying with lossless
> formats if file size is unimportant. For example, if one is ripping
> tracks from multiple CDs to make a compilation CD, there is no reason to
> spend the time and accept the penalty in quality of using lossy compression.
>
> Then there is the sense in which the loss of quality does not
> significantly affect either the content or the esthetics of the
> recording. I believe that is the situation to which Howard refers.
>
> Finally, there is the sense in which the loss may be acceptable for the
> application. I use low bitrates at my WWW site so that those on dialup
> can still have the experience without inordinate effort. For many
> reasons, most of my CD-ROMs are also at low bitrate so that the subject
> can be covered efficiently. In both cases, the loss of audio quality is
> noticeable, but in context well worth tolerating.
>
> Note that I pay the penalty for that low bitrate. I wanted to post
> something in recognizing the death of Karlheinz Stockhausen, but it
> became apparent on first examining the candidates that 32 Kbps monaural
> would be worse than nothing at all and that a reasonable sample at a
> tolerable rate (say, 256 Kbps stereo) would exclude many visitors. So I
> will leave celebration of the life of that seminal composer to others.
>
There is also another situation, which I may (or may not?) share with
others on the list...! After 65 years of life...which involved a decade
or so of standing next to electric guitarists with their amps turned up
MUCH too high...as well as two severe head injuries, both of which
affected my ears...I have only 8% of my hearing left in my left ear
(the right is better, but FAR from perfect!), as well as a substantial
loss in both highs and midrange frequencies.

For that reason, if something sounds anything like the original,
I would personally be quite satisfied. Back in my younger days,
I had surprising hearing...I worked as a "cable guy," and we
had just started renting/selling our first cordless converters.
These used supposedly-inaudible high-frequency tones to enable
the remote and the converter to communicate...out of 12 buttons,
I could hear nine of the tones! But...that was then, and this
is now...eh?!

Steven C. Barr
(I recall one service call where the subscriber's complaint was
that every time she used her remote, her cat bit her...!)