Slashdot Mirror


Unintended Aural Consequences of MP3 Compression

zenst writes "A rather interesting read about possible damage to your hearing due to the way most audio compression techneques work. They mainly work by presenting a signal that the brain perceives to be the same as the original and it is this assumption that could effect our hearing and the way we hear."

5 of 621 comments (clear)

  1. Aural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Soon as I saw the story on the front page I knew what awaited inside. Hundreds of posts from zitty geeks trying to be punker-than-thou by coming up with ever-more-obscure namedropping to make up for their lack of real style (or to pretend that they are actually old enough to have been involved). Drop the pretension kiddos. We all know that your Blink 182 CD is older than your copy of Bollocks.

    I love how a whole new level of conformity has been created by the average bozo's efforts at individuality. It might almost work if your personal definition of individuality didn't depend so heavily on how you present yourself to others. I mean, what's the sense of being into bullshit like [insert pseudo-non-mainstream hobby here] if you can't talk about it to make yourself superior to your peers?

    Kinda sounds like the Linux crowd, huh? "I'm so ALTERNATIVE by patching my kernel every day while you brainwashed Windows sheep meander in unenlightened tedium." Funny to think that if you had back all the time you spent tweaking and patching (for no good reason other than to say you have the latest version), you wouldn't know what to do with the workstation on your desk.

    *sigh*

    excuse the rant. caffiene has yet to be digested.

  2. Racist by DonniKatz · · Score: 0, Troll

    "White science likes to call such methods gladly playing down "psychoacoustic", " black science is like, damn yo, i don't care 'bout none o dat shiot

  3. iF this wuR Tru than IRC and texhTing. . . by kfg · · Score: 1, Troll

    uazAge wUd bee RewenIng peep's abIlatY tw0 uZZ the LagNguaGGe as WeL aadN yU donut see TAHT! do yU????!!!!!!?????

    KFG

  4. Re:Oh thats what it is... by antistuff · · Score: 0, Troll

    danny
    49-40 167th st
    flushing ny 11365

    come by some day i fucking dare you

    i wont call the cops

    youll wish i had

  5. Re:Arrgh! My Eyes! by Per+Wigren · · Score: 0, Troll

    Thinking about it, a few years ago I'd say that most JPEG pictures with 50% quality had perfect picturequality.. That they had no glitches at all.. However, I've learned to see the artifacts caused by JPEG compression now, and I can tell if it is a JPEG or not, up to at least 75%.. Same goes for MP3.. Files that I thought had perfect CD-quality just a few years ago sound like crap now, using the same equipment to play it.. I guess my brain has learned to recognize MP3-artifacts, so I can hear them on 90% of all 128kbps-files..
    Today I can't tell a -q1.5 (~80kbps on average) OGG/Vorbis-file from the original CD most of the time, but I guess that a few years from now they will be almost unlistenable..
    Ok, this isn't really what the guy was talking about, but it's still pretty interesting..

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.