If it's so biased then how do you explain "Catwoman" and "Son of the Mask" having such low tomatometer ratings? Simple answer is that there are quite a few more people who liked Hitch and Spongebob than those movies and it's reflected in the rating. Just because you didn't like those movies doesn't mean the majority of people thought the same way. I think Rottentomatoes does a pretty good job of representing the general public.
That would work only if mp3 encoders worked the way you described ("loses the same frequencies"). They don't... See the discussion I linked to for a full explanation of why. There's a reason I posted that link.:)
Also, just to be clear, I'm just pointing out that no popular lossy codecs (MP3, WMA, AAC, etc.) allow you to do what you described. In theory it would be possible to make a lossy encoder that behaves predictably in such a way, but that's not likely to happen (it's not a good approach).
This is only true for lossless codecs. This won't work for any lossy codec. You can't go from MP3->WAV->MP3 for example without quality loss. Same with WMA, AAC, and pretty much all the popular lossy codecs. For more information, see this discussion on HydrogenAudio.
You're missing out on so much by not going to concerts. Find an band/musician you like and go see them. It's so much better than just listening to a CD (if the band/musician in question is actually good live).
Nick
First of all, for the best quality out of the LAME MP3 encoder, you shouldn't be using those CBR modes (160, 192, etc). Use either --alt-preset standard or --alt-preset extreme for best quality. Those presets are better in many ways than the CBR modes you mentioned.
Secondly, I understand that it is hard (and sometimes impossible) to hear the differences between a properly-encoded MP3 and the original, but that does not mean it will be true for all cases. Music varies greatly, and while you may not be able to hear a difference on certain songs, there may be others where it is quite apparent. I don't think anyone can debate (anymore) that a properly-encoded MP3 using --alt-preset standard with LAME is easy to pick out. Most of the time, to most people, it will be transparent. However, arguing that people should use MP3 over lossless is a whole different ballgame.
One nice thing about lossless is that you always have the choice of converting it back to the original WAV and using that as source data for further processing. Once you've converted something to MP3 (or any lossy format) you can't go back. There are applications for lossy and applications for lossless, but I think comparing the filesizes and claiming MP3 is the way to go isn't really appropriate. Just IMHO, of course. I am speaking from the point of view that your intent is to archive your audio or something similar.
>personally, i'm converting over from 256kbps mp3 to
> 128kbps vbr ogg and i'm saving TONS of space and
> not really sacrificing any quality...
Although OGG Vorbis is superior to MP3, transcoding from MP3 to OGG will generally lead to a noticable loss in quality. Transcoding in general is bad, but transcoding down to a lower bitrate and between two transform codecs (as is the case) isn't really a great idea... but to each their own. With hard drives so cheap these days I'd just leave the MP3s as is. Especially considering most MP3s out on the P2P networks are encoded using outdated/flawed encoders such as Blade or Xing and are bad enough as is!
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the URL: http://www.archive.org/audio/
If it's so biased then how do you explain "Catwoman" and "Son of the Mask" having such low tomatometer ratings? Simple answer is that there are quite a few more people who liked Hitch and Spongebob than those movies and it's reflected in the rating. Just because you didn't like those movies doesn't mean the majority of people thought the same way. I think Rottentomatoes does a pretty good job of representing the general public.
That would work only if mp3 encoders worked the way you described ("loses the same frequencies"). They don't... See the discussion I linked to for a full explanation of why. There's a reason I posted that link. :)
Also, just to be clear, I'm just pointing out that no popular lossy codecs (MP3, WMA, AAC, etc.) allow you to do what you described. In theory it would be possible to make a lossy encoder that behaves predictably in such a way, but that's not likely to happen (it's not a good approach).
This is only true for lossless codecs. This won't work for any lossy codec. You can't go from MP3->WAV->MP3 for example without quality loss. Same with WMA, AAC, and pretty much all the popular lossy codecs. For more information, see this discussion on HydrogenAudio.
You're missing out on so much by not going to concerts. Find an band/musician you like and go see them. It's so much better than just listening to a CD (if the band/musician in question is actually good live). Nick
StorageReview has a good review that compares it to it's parallel ATA brother.
check out The Ars article on .NET
First of all, for the best quality out of the LAME MP3 encoder, you shouldn't be using those CBR modes (160, 192, etc). Use either --alt-preset standard or --alt-preset extreme for best quality. Those presets are better in many ways than the CBR modes you mentioned.
Secondly, I understand that it is hard (and sometimes impossible) to hear the differences between a properly-encoded MP3 and the original, but that does not mean it will be true for all cases. Music varies greatly, and while you may not be able to hear a difference on certain songs, there may be others where it is quite apparent. I don't think anyone can debate (anymore) that a properly-encoded MP3 using --alt-preset standard with LAME is easy to pick out. Most of the time, to most people, it will be transparent. However, arguing that people should use MP3 over lossless is a whole different ballgame.
One nice thing about lossless is that you always have the choice of converting it back to the original WAV and using that as source data for further processing. Once you've converted something to MP3 (or any lossy format) you can't go back. There are applications for lossy and applications for lossless, but I think comparing the filesizes and claiming MP3 is the way to go isn't really appropriate. Just IMHO, of course. I am speaking from the point of view that your intent is to archive your audio or something similar.
>personally, i'm converting over from 256kbps mp3 to > 128kbps vbr ogg and i'm saving TONS of space and > not really sacrificing any quality... Although OGG Vorbis is superior to MP3, transcoding from MP3 to OGG will generally lead to a noticable loss in quality. Transcoding in general is bad, but transcoding down to a lower bitrate and between two transform codecs (as is the case) isn't really a great idea... but to each their own. With hard drives so cheap these days I'd just leave the MP3s as is. Especially considering most MP3s out on the P2P networks are encoded using outdated/flawed encoders such as Blade or Xing and are bad enough as is!