Originally Posted by DavidMahler
It's like the equator...a center line which isnt really there, theoretically with every vibration there is a center, but its not visible, but its there.
That's basic sinus vibrations. How could one symmetrical vibration tell us of so many instruments and sound signatures at the same time? (perhaps I understood you wrong. The center you mean of is probably simply 0 db.)
My dad taught me the basic theoretics about basic analog ->digital conversion.
Before you read this, I suggest you pay a quick visit to wikipedia... I'm just blurting things from memory, I might be wrong at times
I'll try to merely explain where you were wrong, but don't kill me if I'm wrong at some parts... I'm still under-age : D
The graph you showed us is a graph of a perfect SINGLE sinus. It DOES produce a certain sound, but only a single frequency, and textured/pronounced exactly the same, always.
Even single frequency sounds, are produced by many different harmonics of the same sound. Meaning, when you hear a single sound, you hear a certain range of harmonics (Sounds which are multiples of the original frequency). Many harmonics\at produce different sound colors\textures of sound. (harmonics meaning many many sinuses being played simultaneously, until the sinus sound is forgotten, and you hear a sound produced by many sinuses "data" in addition to one another.
As the different sinuses peak and tide at different times, and other instruments are added at time to time, what you eventually get is a "Randomly" Changing graph of all the hundreds and thousands of sinuses added to one another. So you can say the graph is basically a graph of thousands-perhaps millions (I have no idea actually)of different sinuses.
So the graph you showed us isn't merely but a single 440HZ frequency sinus sound, which sounds rather dull and lifeless on it's own.
Now to the subject...
I just tried different mp3 bitrates compared today for the first time. A 128kbps song, and the same one ripped at 192kbps mp3. Both through my zen microphoto+etymotic er-6i.
There was a definative and highly effective difference between the low bitrate version to the high bitrate one. The low, sounded muffled and un-present, while the 192KBPS sounded just, there, present, punchy, better!
I'm going to try some of my other CD's, I think I'm switching to 100% 320KBPS MP3...
What about WMA? Will 320KBPS WMA sound better then 320KBPS mp3? (I don't understand all that much about encoding.)