[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:48:18 -0700, Edmund wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 20:59:09 +0000, Audio Empire wrote:

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 10:17:37 -0700, Edmund wrote (in article
):
=20
"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.
=20
I want to propose to all of us to call these reduction scheme's what i=
t
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.
=20
There is nothing wrong with compression like ZIP; RAR or FLAC and
everything wrong with data/information reduction like MP3
=20
Edmund
=20
=20
=20
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 "dat=
a
reduced' formats). I have never heard any problems with FLAC, ALC, and
other 'data complete' compression schemes.

First I wanted to make clear for everybody that LOSSY COMPRESSION
is no compression at all. Compression is lossless per definition.
When I compress 10 litre air and I expand it, I again have 10 litre
air, not 5!

So please call information reduction, information reduction.

While you have a point, Edmund, the old saying "The beginning of wisdom is to
call all things by their proper name" applies here. The industry has decided
that MP3 is a compression format, and because it throws what "it" considers
superfluous information away (and that info is not retrieved) it is
considered lossy.

So now that is cleared up, I think it is pointless to use information
reduction for high end audio as long we don have an audio system that
can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances.

I also think it is pointless to say "one cannot here the difference "
as long we don't have a sound system as mentioned.
=20
In addition to that I don't need information reduction since the=20
data storage now days is very cheap a more then big enough to store
the best quality possible.=20

That was one of the the points George Massenburg was trying to make in his
AES Keynote, excerpts of which I posted here last week.