[bordins]

"Most folk will say a 128Kbps AAC file can't possibly deliver the same audio quality as the 1411Kbps CD, but Nokia claimed that since an ISO survey, Report on the MPEG-2 AAC Stereo Verification Tests, found listeners largely unable to distinguish between the two, 128Kbps AAC could be said to be of CD quality - and a 160Kbps playable on the 5300 certainly would." More below:

Ads police say 128Kbps AAC is CD quality at The Register UK.

 

[bloodydoorknob]

I can tell when its 128 kbps vs. CD, but anything 192 kbps and up, I really can't distinguish from CD when listening from a portable player.

 

[splaz]

It's a phone, of course what it reproduces sounds the same.

Garbage In -> Garbage Out
Quality In -> Garbage Out

 

[Herandu]

If someone can't detect a 320 or lower sampling rate on a mp3 track then investing in expensive gear to get the best sound would be a waste of time. I listen to mp3 on my phone and in the car. But when I fire up my hi-fi system it's vinyl of original CD only. Otherwise the listening experience is well off the mark.
I have a NOKIA N95, but I sure can't accept Nokia's claims.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by splaz /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a phone, of course what it reproduces sounds the same. Garbage In -> Garbage Out Quality In -> Garbage Out

The Sony Ericsson Walkman phones (WM800/810) don't sound too sound too bad at all with decent sensitive headphones (eg Sony D-77's)

Amped there isn't too much in it between one of these and an Ipod. The Sony's sound slightly brighter and more in your face but are not at all unpleasant to listen to when your Ipod runs out of batteries ...

I'm half wondering if a phone which plays line out via usb will come along then you could just use it as a "transport" via the DAC in a PortaCorda

 

[Headphony]

I don't know what the big deal is with that claim. Anybody serious about good audio knows that it's not true for anybody serious about good audio. It might be "largely" the case, though, for a random sample of people. 128kbps MP3, for example, has widely wrong been called CD quality.

 

[Thelonious Monk]

who cares? of course people won't be able to tell without good headphones or out of a cellphone. common sense. studies like this don't apply to crazy audiophiles at all, and anyone that thinks they do should be slapped.

 

[regal]

These claims are dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. We already have the loudness race ruining audio quality, before long you won't even be able to buy RBCD lossless recordings with dumb companies like this.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif These claims are dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. We already have the loudness race ruining audio quality, before long you won't even be able to buy RBCD lossless recordings with dumb companies like this.

Thats right, you won't even have music stores, it'll all be online. What a joke, honestly. There are a lot of things (not only this) that really grate on my nerves when dealing with stupid society and more often, stupid commercialisation. It just disgusts me.

 

[bundee1]

Someone should sue anyone claiming "CD Quality" if it is used to describe anything other than a lossless audio codec.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herandu /img/forum/go_quote.gif If someone can't detect a 320 or lower sampling rate on a mp3 track then investing in expensive gear to get the best sound would be a waste of time.

Well, a sampling rate of 320 would indeed suck.

A bitrate of 320kbps, however, can be pretty damn good.

 

[KrooLism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thelonious Monk /img/forum/go_quote.gif who cares? of course people won't be able to tell without good headphones or out of a cellphone. common sense. studies like this don't apply to crazy audiophiles at all, and anyone that thinks they do should be slapped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thats right, you won't even have music stores, it'll all be online. What a joke, honestly. There are a lot of things (not only this) that really grate on my nerves when dealing with stupid society and more often, stupid commercialisation. It just disgusts me.

x2.

I can't imagine modern day teeny boppers who listen to top 40 and who buy an iPod simply because it's a fashion would even give a flying piss about the quality of the recording.

Especially with iBuds, I can't even tell the difference using that crap.

The world is heading towards things being cheap, mass produced and disposable. Kind of answers my questions as to why there aren't any ultra high end headphones around anymore. For 99.999999% of your average Joe's, $50 is EXPENSIVE for headphones, BOSE is the upmarket gear and if they had the likes of a 650 or k701, they would consider that "The best headphone in the world."

- That statement is true to some extent. I can definitely see arguments that they are "the best headphone in the world " currently in production.

When is SACD or DVD-A going to become standard?? All SACD's are hybrids now anyway so they are BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE!!!! There is no reason why all CD's can't be released as SACD's too. Sony is just too greedy about the format rights. The sole reason I completely boycott Sony. Though their product is good, I rate Sony on a corporate greed scale as low as Bose.

When is the next "Headphone" going to be released??? Something exquisite, something unique, something hand crafted, wooden or leather air chamber... Something with a bit of "Pride of Ownership".

-Rant over.