From: "itsplayed" <itsplayed@...> >> I Have stayed away from MP3 altogether after reading >> an article in EM Magazine about the shortcoming's of >> this compression format. Does anyone out there know >> exactly what information is lost when converting to >> MP3? From: "nefertiti" <nefertiti@...> >Basically the mp3-format is reducing the large amount of information in an >audio file, by cutting the parts of the frequence spectrum, which aren't >audible anyway, for example frequencies above 24000 hertz Depends on the bit-rate reduction. >mp3 is a real change and reduction in the audio data, but if you really >could hear the change is questionable, of course depending on the reduction >rate. You need an absolutely high end stereo equipement to be able to hear >anything of such a reduction, as long as you don't use a reduction rates >below 128kps I have to say this is simply not true, and depends very much on the type of music being compressed. A jazz trio of piano, bass and drums quickly shows the effects of mp3 compression when compared to the original 44.1 stereo wav file. >If you use higher ones (160 or 192kps), I would say that this is nothing, >what you really could hear. Oh yes there is, an A <-> B comparison on a good system makes it obvious. Again, if you're recording using lower res samples/loops and electronic instruments, mp3 may be acceptable but with acoustic instruments I would consider it as last resort. Mp3 may be a standard, so is mini-disk... that doesn't mean it's the best possible format to use on al occasions. howard