MOTM

Although I would never consider MP3s as a substitute for a lossless
medium such as a CD, (remembering of course that much recording is
done at 24 bits, so it's somewhat questionable in this day and age
to actually consider a CD as lossless,) MP3s are great in some
applications. They are great for listening in your car, where the
noise floor is often so high that the losses are unnoticeable. They
are also a great format for portability. I listen to my iPod often
while away on business trips, etc. I also often listen to CDs in
MP3 format at the office, where I'm too busy to listen critically
and really can't devote the attention to listen critically anyway.

MP3s are also a great promotional tool. I often listen to MP3 clips
online before deciding to purchase a given CD. When the music
available on radio is so limited and even XM doesn't provide that
much of the kind of music I like to listen to, previewing new groups
in MP3 format is definitely preferable to buying a CD without ever
hearing anything on it.

For instance I bought a CD from listmember Eric Frampton's group
Agent Cooper because I liked the MP3 sound clips online.

And, like it or not, most of the listening public cannot even tell
the difference between an MP3 and the lossless version it came from.

Any alternative to mass distribution by the few remaining record
companies is certainly welcome.

I have a Sony MD player I stick in my pocket that runs for 5 hours on one
disk. You know, despite about 50 watts of power and 4 speakers, I cannot
tell that the quality is bad plugged into the sound system on my Harley
Davidson. I certainly do not want to take my expensive CDs on the road.
And, the cassette player is OK for an hour. But, last time I ejected a
cassette, it ejected right out onto the road. I love my MP3 player. If
your pipes are loud enough, it really makes little difference how good it
is. :-0)

Yes, they are perfect for "some" applications.
Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: paulhaneberg [mailto:phaneber@...]
MP3s are great in some applications.

paulhaneberg wrote:

>
> Although I would never consider MP3s as a substitute for a lossless
> medium such as a CD, (remembering of course that much recording is
> done at 24 bits, so it's somewhat questionable in this day and age
> to actually consider a CD as lossless,)

It's more of an issue of what is "less lossy". If I have a CD source and an MP3
source of the same material, why would I ever want to hear the MP3 version?

> MP3s are great in some
> applications. They are great for listening in your car, where the
> noise floor is often so high that the losses are unnoticeable.

Yes, agreed.

> They
> are also a great format for portability. I listen to my iPod often
> while away on business trips, etc.

Yup, but in my case, I encode everything in lossless compressed format. Works
like a champ.

> I also often listen to CDs in
> MP3 format at the office, where I'm too busy to listen critically
> and really can't devote the attention to listen critically anyway.

It guess it's all in our backgrounds. I grew up listening to the cheap sounding
effects processors of the late 1980s and hating it, and I hear that same poor
quality in MP3 as well. At any bitrate.

> And, like it or not, most of the listening public cannot even tell
> the difference between an MP3 and the lossless version it came from.

Yeah, and I don't like that. That means those of us who do appreciate the better
quality are left out in the cold by the uneducated masses. It sucks!