[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:17:37 -0700, Edmund wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
One thing that's consistent with the
"Everything-Sounds-The-Same" club is the
notion that the Redbook CD standard (16-bit/44.1 Khz sampling
rate) is so
good that going to 24-bits and either 96 KHz or 192 KHz
sampling rate (or
SACD) makes no audible difference in music recordings. The flip
side of this
rather incredible assertion (and just as incredible itself) is
the claim, by
many of these same people that MP3, AAC and other lossy
compression schemes
are, at the higher bit-rates, totally benign and invisible and
that one
cannot hear any compression artifacts.

I want to propose to all of us to call these reduction scheme's
what it is
"DATA/INFORMATION REDUCTION"
OTOH "compression" is lossless per definition! the weird name
like
lossless compression is forced to us by smart crooked sales
people.

There is nothing wrong with compression like ZIP; RAR or FLAC
and everything wrong with data/information reduction like MP3

Edmund



I don't know if "wrong" is the correct word or not, I mean most people seem
happy to listen to MP3s, AAC et al in spite of the lousy sound. I know that I
CAN and do hear the artifacts (especially on headphones - which I find
ironic, since that's how most people mostly listen to "data reduced'
formats). I have never heard any problems with FLAC, ALC, and other 'data
complete' compression schemes.