[TriLUG] Re: TriLUG digest, Vol 1 #91 - 24 msgs

[Michael Czeiszperger]

> From: Chris Merrill <cmerrill at nc.rr.com>
> I must disagree...MP3 files have poor sound quality compared to .wav
> files.  But since most people listen to MP3s over computer speakers,
> which generally have even worse sound quality, they don't notice.
> 

Well, yes and no. 

The Microsoft WAVE format is built on top of their RIFF format, which is 
your classic "chunky" design that can store anything. A WAVE audio file 
can be uncompressed, in which it sounds as good as you can get, or it 
can be compressed with various algorithms, which vary in sound 
quality.

http://www.lightlink.com/tjweber/StripWav/WAVE.html#Compression
http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/CCRMA/Courses/422/projects/
WaveFormat/

By comparison, MP3s are all compressed using the  MP3 compression 
algorithm, which varies in quality depending on the bitrate. It would be 
difficult for most people (i.e. not audio professionals) to distinguish 
between an uncompressed recording and an MP3 compressed 
recording at the highest bitrate in my opinion. The problem is many of 
the MP3s on the net are compressed for easy storage and transfer, not 
audio quality, leading to the impression that the MP3 compression 
algorithm doesn't sound good which isn't the case.

I was going to link to the MSDN site to give more details, but you 
apparently need a .NET Passport to access it anymore :-(

Is anyone on the list planning on signing up for a "passport"? 

Michael Czeiszperger