Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif
File compression was an expediency whose time has past...
|
OMG!!! Do the guys at
rarlabs know that ??? (j.k.)
It is true that MP3 has served as well. Very well indeed. Remember, the MP3 is supposed to be the portable format - and as portable it was supposed to replace the Compact Cassete and all the tape "walkmans" - and it did it very well. And it lasts longer than cassetes.
It was not meant to be a direct replacement for someones vinyl LP collection. The fact that people compare it with their record player gives kudos to the mp3 format. The platform's intergration has grown to be much wider than anyone has ever imagined. My TV plays MP3 and except from my power amps, all of my hi-fi components play MP3, my digital frame plays MP3, even my digital alarm clock accepts MP3 as wake up music tones.
FLAC or some other prettier lossless compression technology is of course prefferable, but for the moment it is not that standardised, and not much supported from hardware makers. As MP3 was 12 years ago.
Now, the good stuff. CD ripping is almost never a 100% accurate rip (even when using accurate rip). A CD clone is never a 100% perfect clone (in fact Philips mentions a pretty serious "generation degradation" of audio quality when copying original CDs). How can FLAC, or WAV be as good as a CD? It can't. It is just that the difference is practically inaudible. Which for me, is exactly the same case with a properly encoded 320Kbps MP3.
On the other hand, some people claim they can hear differences in sound when reversing their speaker cables (directionally) - which is not the case for me.
So, it is true that 320Kbps MP3 is almost as good as the real thing, but it is not the real thing itself. Some of us can hear it, most of us cannot - and a few of us that can't think than can.