In Reply to: Good example, thanks... posted by Commuteman on November 3, 2005 at 12:15:11:
SEJ and PatD:I was simply responding to the given example. How that relates to my ability to search with Google, I'm not sure. As Ebiz Strategy VP with a $10Bn company, I feel reasonably comfortable that I understand how to use the web....
jj's bio and his obvious expertise are not an issue, as far as I'm concerned; the only question is whether that expertise has been applied to pushing the state of the art in faithful sound reproduction, or solving compression/encoding problems in data transmission to allow most efficient data transfer.
Yes, the 2 are indirectly realted...It's certainly possible to view MP3 from 2 perspectives:
1) How much data can I remove without significant damage? In other words, what's the minimum bandwidth I can use to nominally preserve sound quality. How much can I throw away before it's detectable?
2) What's the maximum amount of meaningful information I can transmit given a specific bandwidth? This could be a way to achieve maximum subjective fidelity given a limited transmission channel.
At it's root, lossy encoding is essentially a question of minimizng the damage caused by throwing away data. As such, it seems inherently at odds with the concept of maximizing fidelity. Obviously, the least damage is done by not losing anything. Has anyone ever suggested that things sound better after running through an MP3 encoder?
A friend once told me: "Good Enough is Best's worst enemy". Applies perfectly here.
Peter
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Now you guys are being deliberately obtuse... - Commuteman 17:39:04 11/03/05 (20)
- And y'all are ducking the issue - Silver Eared John 18:00:26 11/03/05 (19)
- Ok, so the PSR is very cool - Commuteman 21:09:48 11/03/05 (18)
- Compression, y'all say? - Silver Eared John 17:59:45 11/05/05 (17)
- Huh? - Commuteman 11:01:04 11/07/05 (16)
- Y'all got a point? - Silver Eared John 12:13:10 11/07/05 (15)
- Re: Y'all got a point? - Commuteman 13:36:06 11/07/05 (14)
- Yeah, I'm surprised... - Silver Eared John 15:39:54 11/07/05 (13)
- Now I'm Convinced..... - Todd Krieger 21:21:46 11/12/05 (0)
- Why do I think he's all about compression? - Commuteman 16:27:31 11/07/05 (11)
- Re: Why do I think he's all about compression? - Silver Eared John 10:43:42 11/08/05 (8)
- Ok, so 98% of his work was about compression and lower quality sound...(nt) - mkuller 12:17:05 11/08/05 (7)
- So, y'all, compression is lower quality sound? - Silver Eared John 13:24:47 11/10/05 (5)
- Not if it's lossless... - Commuteman 15:38:29 11/10/05 (2)
- It's not clear what you think, sorry... - Silver Eared John 13:17:59 11/11/05 (1)
- It's pretty simple, IMO - Commuteman 10:35:46 11/15/05 (0)
- Lower sound quality - try MPEG4...(nt) - mkuller 15:08:48 11/10/05 (1)
- What MPEG 4 sound stuff you mean? - Silver Eared John 13:18:32 11/11/05 (0)
- Stop jumping to such obvious conclusions! - Commuteman 13:50:10 11/08/05 (0)
- Re: Why do I think he's all about compression? - john curl 10:24:13 11/08/05 (1)
- Re: Why do I think he's all about compression? - john curl 10:32:40 11/08/05 (0)