Your right that one was wrong, i did a little more homework after that than what was coming off the top of my head =). But who knows, if your hearing isn't the best then 128 is cd quality for you!
<< if your hearing isn't the best then 128 is cd quality for you! >>
And if you can't see too well then every painting is a DaVinci!
<< Workin your not too bright at figuring a little math out on your own so, i said i made the mistake of using KBs and not kbs so genious what is 172*8? That's right ~1380. >>
I'm not the genius who said 172 kilobits is the same as 172 kilobytes. My math is correct. Your reasoning is not. You're like a little kid who thinks they just figured out the world, but really you only know the little kid view of the world. It's not so simple as you think.
256kbps is reasonably close to CD quality. But there are some sounds that CAN NOT be accurately encoded at that bit rate, and ALWAYS yield artifacts (try a recording that has piano in one channel and cymbals in the other). Is that more than good enough for most people? Sure. But to say it is CD quaility is stretching it a bit.
<< I also think that Joe Stereophile with his Sumo front end and directional speaker wire would probably deny not being able to hear 256kbps Lame, but he'd fail a ABX. >>
Sound and Vision Magazine did an ABX test a while back (comparing Fraunhofer MP3 and WMA to CD), I mentioned it in an earlier post, and several listeners were able to pick out the 256kbps MP3 consistently - and their audio equipment used in the test was definitely not out of the ordinary, yes it was good, but not exotic.
When I wrote the Anadtech FAQ about MP3's I encoded several hundred different CD audio files at various bitrates with various encoders. Take a look at the FAQ for the results. Pretty much the same as at r3mix - which is an excellent resource, BTW. merlocka is on target with his 256kbps threshold.
Zlash, MP3 is a lossy compression, and by definition, a lossy compression is not of the same quality as the original.
How it sounds to you or me is entirely subjective and another discussion, but no matter how it sounds, the data is not of the same quality as the original CD data.
How it sounds to you or me is entirely subjective and another discussion, but no matter how it sounds, the data is not of the same quality as the original CD data.
Just had to throw this in:
Windows Media Audio offers:
Near-CD Quality now at 48kbps
CD Quality at 64kbps
Unmatched Fidelity at any Level
Integrated Digital Rights Management
Full Compatibility with Windows Media Player 7, Windows Media Player 6.4, and all consumer electronic devices supporting Windows Media Audio.
Windows Media 8 Audio
Of course this is a lossy and lossless format, similar to mp3, just a competing format that does pretty darn well.
It's compressed, just because it is a lossless method doesn't mean it's cutting out so much data that it matters...it all depends on the bitrate. Omg a file is smaller when zipped but it's the exact same!
Zlash, oops, it's not just lossless, mp3 is also lossy, don't you think that if the inventors didn't realize that it was "losing" some data they would not have named it Lossy? You're fighting a losing battle e.g. lossy...
Windows Media Audio offers:
Near-CD Quality now at 48kbps
CD Quality at 64kbps
Unmatched Fidelity at any Level
Integrated Digital Rights Management
Full Compatibility with Windows Media Player 7, Windows Media Player 6.4, and all consumer electronic devices supporting Windows Media Audio.
Windows Media 8 Audio
Of course this is a lossy and lossless format, similar to mp3, just a competing format that does pretty darn well.
It's compressed, just because it is a lossless method doesn't mean it's cutting out so much data that it matters...it all depends on the bitrate. Omg a file is smaller when zipped but it's the exact same!
Zlash, oops, it's not just lossless, mp3 is also lossy, don't you think that if the inventors didn't realize that it was "losing" some data they would not have named it Lossy? You're fighting a losing battle e.g. lossy...
Some of ya just need to go over and read this thread again to see what's going on here. Yes it's losing some data, but not important data that is diminishing the "quality" of it.
Look, fact is 256 is CD quality to nearly every audiophile out there, there may be the few anal ones here and there that insist they can hear things but whatever. To the regular joe 128-224 is just as good as a CD. Quality is subjective, get that in your heads for this...forget fidelity.
Workin, you need to stop nit picking out KBs and kbs, I already said i made the mistake. Do you not understand that i know this? Just shows you have nothing to stand on by stating the same arguements over and over.
Just forget what we were argueing about earlier in this thread because it's all wrong if we are talking about "quality".
Look, fact is 256 is CD quality to nearly every audiophile out there, there may be the few anal ones here and there that insist they can hear things but whatever. To the regular joe 128-224 is just as good as a CD. Quality is subjective, get that in your heads for this...forget fidelity.
Workin, you need to stop nit picking out KBs and kbs, I already said i made the mistake. Do you not understand that i know this? Just shows you have nothing to stand on by stating the same arguements over and over.
Just forget what we were argueing about earlier in this thread because it's all wrong if we are talking about "quality".
And workin' you should read your own FAQ, you even said you could get cd quality.
"With that said, let's assume you want what could be considered CD-quality sound from your mp3's - several encoders can give you that. These quality results were determined by extensive testing documented at www.r3mix.net, and verified by extensive listening tests I have conducted using high-quality audio equipment, not computer or multimedia speakers."
"With that said, let's assume you want what could be considered CD-quality sound from your mp3's - several encoders can give you that. These quality results were determined by extensive testing documented at www.r3mix.net, and verified by extensive listening tests I have conducted using high-quality audio equipment, not computer or multimedia speakers."
If you would have bothered to read my last post, you would have seen that I said 256kbps could be considered the threshold for most sources.
And my FAQ says "...could be considered CD-quality..." not IS CD-quality. Again because there are several cases where MP3 is most definitely NOT CD quality, and it never will be.
And I'm growing tired of debating this, by definition a lossy compression scheme can not be of the same quality as the original. Period. It can be close, but not the same. Arguments that because you can't hear the difference using $12 speakers the quality is the same are pointless. Either it is or it isn't. And it isn't.
And my FAQ says "...could be considered CD-quality..." not IS CD-quality. Again because there are several cases where MP3 is most definitely NOT CD quality, and it never will be.
And I'm growing tired of debating this, by definition a lossy compression scheme can not be of the same quality as the original. Period. It can be close, but not the same. Arguments that because you can't hear the difference using $12 speakers the quality is the same are pointless. Either it is or it isn't. And it isn't.
I just saw this thread...nice to see an "audio" related topic. Well I read the first 10 posts or so...maybe you guys have hit the nail on the head already....but I thought I'd just give you guys word of what floats around in the sound engineering industry I'm part of. First off, if you're going to use mp3 as your playback media, check into LAME's encoder. LAME, as well as some Fraunhoffer releases, do a pretty good job at nullifying undesired data via VBR (specifically in low volume and low complexity of data areas). 256 bitrate should be your minimum cut.
If you're serious about your audio, however, and have a decent system, you should be listening through wav/aiff format. Even though a good mp3 encoder will cut out frequencies that the human ear cannot detect (usually a good encoder starts at 20-25khz for highs/25-15hz for lows) those cut-out frequencies do alter frequencies in our hearing range (read up on your sonic properties). With the lower frequency it's even more of a issue, because even though humans theoretically can't hear below 25hz (this level is still not confirmed) we still can FEEL this movement of air...thus it adds to the sensation of the track. Sonic waves not only give us hearing sensation, but actual physical sensation. So it's important that the frequency range be as large as possible.
And to those who say people can't tell the difference between 160 and 256 and 320...well you're ignorant to the technology readily available (not a bad thing by any means). In my home studio, the base playback system I'm running is Genelec 1031A monitors/Apogee AD8000SE 8-channel A/D D/A converter/Yamaha 02R Digital mixer...and I'm quite easily able to tell difference between 160 and 256 and so on. 128kbs is simply terrible...dynamic range and sonic maximization is slaughtered. MP3 really doesnt exist in the pro audio world as we only accept wav or higher quality files when a client comes in to have a track mastered/mixed/etc. Even though the average joe does not need a system like engineers like myself run, it's vital for us to be able to work with the greatest dynamics and fidelity possible so we can make better mixes for you guys listening through Klipsh Promedias on your PC or Sony X-plodes in your cars... etc etc.
FYI, the recording standard in today's industry is 24bit/48khz...with 96khz starting to eek its way in (esp because of DVD). So you can see why audio engineers get so frustrated that they have to bounce their beautiful work at 24bit/48 & 96khz down to a measly 16bit/44khz for CD
Workin': 1380? The math is right, but that figure is not realistic. This spec varies because of a number of things: 1. CD dye 2. Laser accuracy of CD-R 3. Encode/Decode processes and a few more technical aspects that are really not worth getting into. BTW, you come across as a flaming as*hole...congrats.
Well that's my 2 cents.
If you're serious about your audio, however, and have a decent system, you should be listening through wav/aiff format. Even though a good mp3 encoder will cut out frequencies that the human ear cannot detect (usually a good encoder starts at 20-25khz for highs/25-15hz for lows) those cut-out frequencies do alter frequencies in our hearing range (read up on your sonic properties). With the lower frequency it's even more of a issue, because even though humans theoretically can't hear below 25hz (this level is still not confirmed) we still can FEEL this movement of air...thus it adds to the sensation of the track. Sonic waves not only give us hearing sensation, but actual physical sensation. So it's important that the frequency range be as large as possible.
And to those who say people can't tell the difference between 160 and 256 and 320...well you're ignorant to the technology readily available (not a bad thing by any means). In my home studio, the base playback system I'm running is Genelec 1031A monitors/Apogee AD8000SE 8-channel A/D D/A converter/Yamaha 02R Digital mixer...and I'm quite easily able to tell difference between 160 and 256 and so on. 128kbs is simply terrible...dynamic range and sonic maximization is slaughtered. MP3 really doesnt exist in the pro audio world as we only accept wav or higher quality files when a client comes in to have a track mastered/mixed/etc. Even though the average joe does not need a system like engineers like myself run, it's vital for us to be able to work with the greatest dynamics and fidelity possible so we can make better mixes for you guys listening through Klipsh Promedias on your PC or Sony X-plodes in your cars... etc etc.
FYI, the recording standard in today's industry is 24bit/48khz...with 96khz starting to eek its way in (esp because of DVD). So you can see why audio engineers get so frustrated that they have to bounce their beautiful work at 24bit/48 & 96khz down to a measly 16bit/44khz for CD
Workin': 1380? The math is right, but that figure is not realistic. This spec varies because of a number of things: 1. CD dye 2. Laser accuracy of CD-R 3. Encode/Decode processes and a few more technical aspects that are really not worth getting into. BTW, you come across as a flaming as*hole...congrats.
Well that's my 2 cents.
<< Workin': 1380? The math is right, but that figure is not realistic. This spec varies because of a number of things: 1. CD dye 2. Laser accuracy of CD-R 3. Encode/Decode processes and a few more technical aspects that are really not worth getting into. BTW, you come across as a flaming as*hole...congrats. >>
You admit you didn't even read the whole thread - who the hell are you to make any kind of personal judgement about me? I guess to you I come across as a flaming as*hole - but you ARE one! Besides that, you are an idiot - the data rate of CD audio doesn't have anything to do with the dye or CD-R or encoding or anything else you mentioned - you sound like a retard. You're mixing and matching your theories like there's no tomorrow. I also think you are a liar when you say you work in the audio business - unless you sell car stereos at Best Buy. Or mop the floors.
Crawl back into your hole, troll.
I stand corrected...a flaming as*hole you are. Yes, when perusing the thread, I came upon your name calling post...calling people idiots and morons. Real mature. Where does this get you? So I made a decision to call you on your idiocy. Just because you copy and pasted information into your "mp3 encoder" article from Fraunhoffer/r3mix, doesn't make you an authority.
Yes, you child...the rate flucates from those theoretical specs. I'll find the Marantz data release to show you what I'm talking about. Your superficial knowledge yet over-confident attitude is truly hilarious. I'm mixing and matching theories? Sure buddy.
Why don't you indulge yourself, and come play with us big boys over at www.musicplayer.com (Roger Nichols' Forum), www.pro-recording.com, www.digidesign.com (forums), Sound on Sound forums and pro-recording.org Google newsgroup...and see how you hold up with your all-mighty knowledge base. Perhaps you would be scared that you won't be able to ascert your attempted intimidation to a bunch of kids like here at anandtech?
I can't believe I just wasted 3 mins with a fool pissing on his own leg.
Yes, you child...the rate flucates from those theoretical specs. I'll find the Marantz data release to show you what I'm talking about. Your superficial knowledge yet over-confident attitude is truly hilarious. I'm mixing and matching theories? Sure buddy.
Why don't you indulge yourself, and come play with us big boys over at www.musicplayer.com (Roger Nichols' Forum), www.pro-recording.com, www.digidesign.com (forums), Sound on Sound forums and pro-recording.org Google newsgroup...and see how you hold up with your all-mighty knowledge base. Perhaps you would be scared that you won't be able to ascert your attempted intimidation to a bunch of kids like here at anandtech?
I can't believe I just wasted 3 mins with a fool pissing on his own leg.
You admit you didn't even read the whole thread - who the hell are you to make any kind of personal judgement about me? I guess to you I come across as a flaming as*hole - but you ARE one! Besides that, you are an idiot - the data rate of CD audio doesn't have anything to do with the dye or CD-R or encoding or anything else you mentioned - you sound like a retard. You're mixing and matching your theories like there's no tomorrow. I also think you are a liar when you say you work in the audio business - unless you sell car stereos at Best Buy. Or mop the floors.
Crawl back into your hole, troll.
Ouch! That's not very nice.... come on buys and girls.... lets play nice together! Or you can go to your room without Dinner.
I can only say this one more time... Mp3 cannot duplicate CD quality! Full stop end of discussion!
My brother is a sound engineer and my Sister In-law is an Audiologist. We have done a fw home tests to see the difference in a wave pattern of Mp3's V's CD's, and CD's are of a far higher quality.
I love Mp3's though... so I am not bashing them. I just know that CD's are superior. Otherwise we would all be buying CD's with Mp3's recorded on them... It would be a faster burning prosses and I am sure record companies would save a packet by doing this if the quality was the same. They don't and it isn't. So there... stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Crawl back into your hole, troll.
Ouch! That's not very nice.... come on buys and girls.... lets play nice together! Or you can go to your room without Dinner.
I can only say this one more time... Mp3 cannot duplicate CD quality! Full stop end of discussion!
My brother is a sound engineer and my Sister In-law is an Audiologist. We have done a fw home tests to see the difference in a wave pattern of Mp3's V's CD's, and CD's are of a far higher quality.
I love Mp3's though... so I am not bashing them. I just know that CD's are superior. Otherwise we would all be buying CD's with Mp3's recorded on them... It would be a faster burning prosses and I am sure record companies would save a packet by doing this if the quality was the same. They don't and it isn't. So there... stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Workin': 1380? The math is right, but that figure is not realistic. This spec varies because of a number of things: 1. CD dye 2. Laser accuracy of CD-R 3. Encode/Decode processes and a few more technical aspects that are really not worth getting into. BTW, you come across as a flaming as*hole...congrats.
LOL at "the spec varies" part.
Did you also know that if you put your CD's in the freezer before listening it reduces jitter?
Even though a good mp3 encoder will cut out frequencies that the human ear cannot detect (usually a good encoder starts at 20-25khz for highs/25-15hz for lows) those cut-out frequencies do alter frequencies in our hearing range (read up on your sonic properties). With the lower frequency it's even more of a issue, because even though humans theoretically can't hear below 25hz (this level is still not confirmed) we still can FEEL this movement of air.
ummm, I'm not sure where to start. Basically, the stuff you said about feeling air moving is probably true, but the compression that a "good mp3 encoder" does has nothing to do with cutting out low and high frequencies. It uses masking thresholds based on psycho-acoustic statistical data to "guess" at what portion of the spectrum is no longer audible due to masking from other portions of the spectrum.
Basically, when you are bumping your Eminem CD at m4d SPL on your Sunfire amp, and Slim Shady's kicks in the Korg drum machine for some 40hz nonsense at truly annoying levels, your ear becomes de-sensed to other frequencies. In the frequency domanin these curves vary depending on the encoding. The levels which are masked are basically deleted from the track. How aggressive this masking curve is set will define how much compression is available. Or something like that, it's been a while since I've played with that stuff.
LOL at "the spec varies" part.
Did you also know that if you put your CD's in the freezer before listening it reduces jitter?
Even though a good mp3 encoder will cut out frequencies that the human ear cannot detect (usually a good encoder starts at 20-25khz for highs/25-15hz for lows) those cut-out frequencies do alter frequencies in our hearing range (read up on your sonic properties). With the lower frequency it's even more of a issue, because even though humans theoretically can't hear below 25hz (this level is still not confirmed) we still can FEEL this movement of air.
ummm, I'm not sure where to start. Basically, the stuff you said about feeling air moving is probably true, but the compression that a "good mp3 encoder" does has nothing to do with cutting out low and high frequencies. It uses masking thresholds based on psycho-acoustic statistical data to "guess" at what portion of the spectrum is no longer audible due to masking from other portions of the spectrum.
Basically, when you are bumping your Eminem CD at m4d SPL on your Sunfire amp, and Slim Shady's kicks in the Korg drum machine for some 40hz nonsense at truly annoying levels, your ear becomes de-sensed to other frequencies. In the frequency domanin these curves vary depending on the encoding. The levels which are masked are basically deleted from the track. How aggressive this masking curve is set will define how much compression is available. Or something like that, it's been a while since I've played with that stuff.
<< I'm mixing and matching theories? Sure buddy. >>
Yeah. You're a god. That's why the dye in a commercial pressed CD affects the data rate.
<< come play with us big boys >>
Don't flatter yourself. You aren't all that. Really.
<< I can't believe I just wasted 3 mins with a fool pissing on his own leg. >>
Sounds like something your date might say. On a good night.
Later, buddy.
Merlocka: I'm more than confident the spec varies...I've had this debate with a collegue of mine before. He's the one who convinced me it was so, especially after seeing a Marantz info release. It flucuates up to ~38 bitrate if I remember correctly. When I get into work tomorrow, I'll be happy to link this thread to it for all you "know it alls." Don't be so cocky in your judgements.
Also do you feel mp3 encoding does not remove information from a wav file? That it's compression is non-destructive? Just curious.
Also do you feel mp3 encoding does not remove information from a wav file? That it's compression is non-destructive? Just curious.
ummm, I'm not sure where to start. Basically, the stuff you said about feeling air moving is probably true, but the compression that a "good mp3 encoder" does has nothing to do with cutting out low and high frequencies. It uses masking thresholds based on psycho-acoustic statistical data to "guess" at what portion of the spectrum is no longer audible due to masking from other portions of the spectrum.
ah hum... that's what I said, but know one seems to be listening to me. So I will just sit here and ramble on.
Did you also know that if you put your CD's in the freezer before listening it reduces jitter?
This same trick can be applied to a HDD that gets a bit stuck, you put the sucker into the fridge for a few hours and she works again, most of the time only long enough for you to retreive the inportant data from it and then they bomb out again, although i have had one that kept working over a year ago and I am sure it is still working today. I took it out of the server and gave it to a friend of mine and he is still using it today. Nice little trick that. Can't remember who told me about it but I have known for a few years about that one. Never tried a CD in the fridge though... might give it a crack tonight.
-CSFM-
ah hum... that's what I said, but know one seems to be listening to me. So I will just sit here and ramble on.
Did you also know that if you put your CD's in the freezer before listening it reduces jitter?
This same trick can be applied to a HDD that gets a bit stuck, you put the sucker into the fridge for a few hours and she works again, most of the time only long enough for you to retreive the inportant data from it and then they bomb out again, although i have had one that kept working over a year ago and I am sure it is still working today. I took it out of the server and gave it to a friend of mine and he is still using it today. Nice little trick that. Can't remember who told me about it but I have known for a few years about that one. Never tried a CD in the fridge though... might give it a crack tonight.
-CSFM-
Also do you feel mp3 encoding does not remove information from a wav file? That it's compression is non-destructive? Just curious.
Umm, I don't understand the question. Are you asking if mp3 compression is lossy? Yes. Are you asking if decoding a mp3 from a wav and re-encoding it to wav will produce the same wav? No, because it's a lossy compression.
It flucuates up to ~38 bitrate if I remember correctly
Workin' calculated the data rate for a CD to be compared to mp3. The math is accurate and that's the average bitrate. I'm sure you have a link to a document which explains how errors can cumulate and cause a worst case difference in bitrate. What I think is that you are trying to toss stuff around to impress people. That's cool, have fun. I'm far from an audio expert, but I studied a bit in school. I was interested in the theory, and was trying to point out how I believe some of the common audio compression schemes work.
Umm, I don't understand the question. Are you asking if mp3 compression is lossy? Yes. Are you asking if decoding a mp3 from a wav and re-encoding it to wav will produce the same wav? No, because it's a lossy compression.
It flucuates up to ~38 bitrate if I remember correctly
Workin' calculated the data rate for a CD to be compared to mp3. The math is accurate and that's the average bitrate. I'm sure you have a link to a document which explains how errors can cumulate and cause a worst case difference in bitrate. What I think is that you are trying to toss stuff around to impress people. That's cool, have fun. I'm far from an audio expert, but I studied a bit in school. I was interested in the theory, and was trying to point out how I believe some of the common audio compression schemes work.
Except that we shouldn't compare the bit rate of a wav to a mp3 when comparing quality...
LOL, you said that already, like 4 times!!!
Define "quality"
LOL, you said that already, like 4 times!!!
Define "quality"
Because no one seems to be getting it =). Quality is subjective like i said, but if you don't think a mp3 can sound just as good as a CD there's lots of people to disagree with you. 192 sounds the same to me.
If they could be the same bit rate we wouldn't need both formats now would we?
If they could be the same bit rate we wouldn't need both formats now would we?
Because no one seems to be getting it =). Quality is subjective like i said, but if you don't think a mp3 can sound just as good as a CD there's lots of people to disagree with you. 192 sounds the same to me
That's just my point! IN YOU OPINION it sounds the same. In real life though, no there is a difference.
Face the facts mate. This thead should have been over two pages ago.
-CSFM-
That's just my point! IN YOU OPINION it sounds the same. In real life though, no there is a difference.
Face the facts mate. This thead should have been over two pages ago.
-CSFM-
Merlocka:
In all due respect, I'm not trying to impress people...if you would notice I was directing that rather meaningless spec at "Workin'" because he was acting like quite the know-it-all jack-ass...just giving him some fun fire under his rear. No big deal...ok? Perhaps I was acting like a jerk myself by lowering myself to a silly debate like that...so I will take back what I've said. My apologies.
My position though still stands and the info can be confirmed from other sources. MP3 encoding is really not a specialization of mine since I never deal with this format ... I deal only with wav 44.1->96khz/16bit->24bit). It does come up in conversation a lot among engineers because the majority of our music is eventually played through mp3 on radio shack quality speakers... which is somewhat annoying because a lot of the hard mastering work we do can really only be appreciated on a hi-fi stereo system or in a studio. When DVD becomes standard, perhaps the appreciation will increase (that is if playback equipment keeps increasing in quality/spec).
And it looks now after taking the time read this thread that my input hasn't really provided much help...I was somewhat regurgitating...heh.
So if you want to do it right, LAME VBR @256 folks. GL.
In all due respect, I'm not trying to impress people...if you would notice I was directing that rather meaningless spec at "Workin'" because he was acting like quite the know-it-all jack-ass...just giving him some fun fire under his rear. No big deal...ok? Perhaps I was acting like a jerk myself by lowering myself to a silly debate like that...so I will take back what I've said. My apologies.
My position though still stands and the info can be confirmed from other sources. MP3 encoding is really not a specialization of mine since I never deal with this format ... I deal only with wav 44.1->96khz/16bit->24bit). It does come up in conversation a lot among engineers because the majority of our music is eventually played through mp3 on radio shack quality speakers... which is somewhat annoying because a lot of the hard mastering work we do can really only be appreciated on a hi-fi stereo system or in a studio. When DVD becomes standard, perhaps the appreciation will increase
(that is if playback equipment keeps increasing in quality/spec). And it looks now after taking the time read this thread that my input hasn't really provided much help...I was somewhat regurgitating...heh.
So if you want to do it right, LAME VBR @256 folks. GL.
Look here's the thing, Zlash and everyone else. Just because YOU can't hear a difference doesn't mean it's not there. It's very true, the compression algorithms used for mp3's at 192 kbps and 256 kbps are very very good; they reduce the size by 5-10X of the file, and the sound is very close to the original, basically identical. However, it is NOT EXACTLY EQUAL to the original. Again, lots of audiophiles can't tell the difference between 192 k/s mp3's and CD's (certainly not on computer speakers) but a difference, although minor, does exist. It's not like you can just compress the file 10 X and not expect any loss of quality. Using the example of .zip files, there is basically no data that can be zipped to 10X smaller (and just try zipping an already compressed file like a .jpeg, .mp3, etc).
Again, on a computer monitor or tv screen a very high quality VCD or MPEG-1 [and definately a large DIVX (mpeg-4) movie ] can look almost exactly the same as a DVD (mpeg-2) but the DVD is still a higher quality medium.
Again, on a computer monitor or tv screen a very high quality VCD or MPEG-1 [and definately a large DIVX (mpeg-4) movie ] can look almost exactly the same as a DVD (mpeg-2) but the DVD is still a higher quality medium.
"That's just my point! IN YOU OPINION it sounds the same. In real life though, no there is a difference.
Face the facts mate. This thead should have been over two pages ago."
In your opinion =).
Face the facts mate. This thead should have been over two pages ago."
In your opinion =).
Zlash You're a turkey. I never flame people (not often) but you my dear chap are a genuine turkey.
Nuf said, I'm outta here... so flame me all you like. I have explained it to you at least 6 times and you still wont listen. So away I go.
Nuf said, I'm outta here... so flame me all you like. I have explained it to you at least 6 times and you still wont listen. So away I go.
Let's stop the madness, there is no dye in a Commercial, pressed CD, hence the word pressed. It's an aluminum, and sometimes gold layer.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter